Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill ExcerptsMonday 20th July 2026
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40–I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (17 Jul 2026)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I will now make a short statement on the position regarding legislative consent on the Bill. The Government accept that legislative consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly would be required for Clauses 1, 5 and 11. These clauses cover areas that aim to modernise air passenger rights, strengthen consumer protection enforcement and enable updates to airport slot allocation. The Government have written to the Northern Ireland Executive on this matter, and my expectation is that these issues will be fully addressed during the Bill’s passage in the other place. We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved Governments for the remainder of the Bill’s passage. I beg to move.
Schedule 1: Direct enforcement of consumer protection legislation by CAA
Amendment 1
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision that is unnecessary because the statement of policy prepared by the CMA under paragraph 16F of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 will apply to all direct enforcement authorities.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have brought forward a minor and technical amendment. Schedule 1 to the Bill currently amends Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to refer us to a statement of enforcement policy prepared by a direct enforcement authority. However, under paragraph 16F of Schedule 5, the statement will always be prepared by the Competition and Markets Authority and not a direct enforcement authority. The amendment therefore removes this provision to correct the drafting accordingly. I assure noble Lords that this is a very minor technical amendment that tidies the Bill without changing policy intent.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we are reaching the departure gate for this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I know—sorry. There is only one more like that. The Bill is focused on strengthening consumer rights and protections, reforming aviation regulation and enhancing aviation safety. Your Lordships’ contributions have ensured that the Bill leaves this place in a stronger shape. This is particularly true with regard to improving the experience of disabled people and those with reduced mobility while flying. I hope that in turn the Government have shown that we are willing to listen to and work with your Lordships.
Moving to thanks, I first give my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Katz, who supported me on the Front Bench. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan; throughout the Bill’s passage, he has consistently assured the House that he supports its objectives. Indeed, he was so supportive that he felt obliged to test, challenge and interrogate almost every mechanism for achieving them. His contributions have, however, been thoughtful and constructive, and I thank him for that.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the prudent and measured perspective they brought to our debates—particularly on consumer rights and the importance of ensuring that the Bill commands public confidence. Although we have not agreed on every point, their contributions have been consistently informed, probing and constructive. I am grateful for the spirit in which they have engaged with both me and my officials during our consideration of the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Blencathra, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley all campaigned effectively to improve accessibility and highlight the importance of inclusive transport, for which I give my thanks. This has resulted in the Government tabling a package of amendments that I believe will really improve the experience of flying for those with disabilities or reduced mobility.
There have been other contributions. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, the noble Lords, Lord Harper, Lord Grayling, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Empey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster of Oxton and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, have provided wise words and, as ever, I am grateful for their contributions. I have enjoyed discussing the merits of general aviation with the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Davies of Gower, and my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Tunnicliffe, who raised issues of importance. Finally, I extend my personal thanks to all the officials who supported me, especially the Bill team, policy and legal colleagues, the drafting team, parliamentary counsel and others.
In conclusion, the Bill has completed its passage through your Lordships’ House. It now takes off for the other place, and I would expect any return journey to involve only limited turbulence. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at Third Reading. I begin by thanking the Minister for the constructive way in which he and his officials have engaged with this House throughout its passage. I also record my gratitude to noble Lords across the House for the contributions they have made to the Bill at every stage. The scrutiny that this House has brought to bear, often from very different perspectives, has strengthened this legislation. I do not think that improvement would have happened without it.
I particularly welcome the Government’s agreement to bring forward a consultation on the experiences of disabled passengers—an addition to the Bill that I hope will make a real and lasting difference. For too long, disabled passengers have been left without the convenience or dignity that ought to be a basic expectation of air travel. I am glad that this House has secured a firm commitment embedded in the legislation to examine and address that failure properly.
I also welcome the corrective amendment the Minister has tabled for Third Reading, which addresses a technical deficiency identified by the Minister since Report. That kind of responsiveness does not always attend legislation of this kind, and it should be acknowledged.
I return to the principle that has guided my and my colleagues’ contributions throughout the passage of the Bill: that reform of aviation regulations should be directed first and foremost towards improving the passenger experience. The protections we have secured for disabled passengers and the standards the Bill now sets are what I will be watching for closely as it is implemented. Passengers do not experience aviation policy as clauses and statutes. They experience it as to whether they are treated with courtesy when a flight is delayed, whether they can travel with the support they need and whether the system as a whole is built around their interests rather than around convenience for everyone but them.
Too often in the past, passengers have been an afterthought in regulatory design. The Bill is an opportunity to correct that imbalance. I hope the Government will treat this not as the end of that work but as a foundation on which future improvements can and should be built. I close by expressing my thanks in particular to my Liberal Democrat Peer colleagues who have contributed to the Bill. My particular thanks, above all, go to Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office, for his diligence and unwavering support throughout its passage, for which I remain deeply grateful.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this was a pretty dreadful Bill when it was introduced to your Lordships’ House, in terms of its conception but also its drafting. It leaves it in somewhat better shape, which is very considerably due to the fact that the Minister paid attention in Committee to the many amendments and proposals that were made, and came forward on Report with an astonishingly large number of amendments to change the Bill—all of which, it is fair to say, noble Lords felt responded to their concerns, and which they were willing to support. I thank him for that.
Also, as was just referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, a large part of Committee was taken up with discussions of the treatment of disabled people in the course of flying. Amendments brought forward by the Minister characteristically represent an improvement in the approach that government will take to those issues in the future, for which I thank him.
I also thank his officials for their engagement and the Public Bill Office for its support in drafting the amendments we put forward. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her important contribution to the debate. I am sure I will have forgotten some, but I also thank my noble friends Lady Bray of Coln, Lord Grayling, Lady Foster of Oxton, Lord Harper, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Reay, Lord Redwood, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Goschen and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate for the experience and scrutiny they brought to our proceedings.
This is fundamentally an administrative Bill. As I say, it changes decision-making processes in the wake of our departure from the European Union. But we remain concerned that the Government have chosen to use the legislation to transfer not only those European Union powers but also powers that the Government themselves possessed to the Civil Aviation Authority, to be carried out in many cases—fewer now, as a result of the Minister’s amendments—with no external scrutiny, certainly no scrutiny from Parliament, that would indeed have occurred under the previous system. This is a retrograde step in terms of parliamentary scrutiny.
We are also concerned that the Government have said, quite explicitly, that they want to use their new freedoms in order to align more closely with the European Union. It is a very strange conception of Brexit that the Government seem to have developed. British aviation is a world-leading industry, and it succeeds because of innovation and competitiveness. It needs to have regulations made for it that are suitable for the success of British aviation.
There was also one amendment passed by your Lordships’ House on Report that did not have the Government’s favour. Naturally, one suspects, the Government will use the passage of the Bill through the other place to try to remove it, but I hope very much that they will not. I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, in this regard. Although it was my amendment that passed, that was as a consequence of the numerical placement on the Marshalled List. He had an amendment achieving a similar effect, which related to the drop-off charges made at airports that have now become scandalously excessive. Families and other travellers are charged simply for trying to pick up or drop off somebody, very often with no feasible alternative for doing so. There may be a lack of public transport or it may be unsuitable for somebody to seek to travel to an airport other than by car, for example, because they are wheelchair-bound or have some other mobility impairment that prevents them travelling on ordinary public transport, even where it exists. The amendment that was passed calls on the Government to conduct a thorough review of airport drop-off charges. It is as simple as that; it requires nothing more legally. We will look at that at ping-pong—or perhaps we will never get to ping-pong because the Government will take the advice of your Lordships’ House and accept the amendment that was passed.
With that, I am sad to bring an end to my involvement with this Bill. I hope that it becomes a route—I will not make a silly pun—or path to better regulation of aviation. If it does, it will be very much because of the efforts of Members of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, no more puns. I have two brief points. First, the noble Lord just referred to the new Clause 7; we will see what happens in the other place on that.
I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, spoke this afternoon. I am quite clear that what I said to him when he raised the point about the Secretary of State taking action to support regional connectivity was not in fact correct. I am very happy to correct the record on that and am pleased to confirm that the Bill’s powers on airport slots and schedules would enable the Secretary of State to take action to support regional connectivity if that were considered necessary. The Government’s current assessment is that such intervention is not required, but I am happy to put the record straight for the noble Lord. I thank all noble Lords.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill ExcerptsMonday 13th July 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1–R–I(b) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (13 Jul 2026)
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the noble Lord. We think that driving for this principle cuts across the stronger consumer rights that we have been talking about all through Committee.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, before addressing these amendments, I thank all noble Lords for their continued contributions to the Bill. It is clear that we share the common goal of improving the aviation sector. The Government have carefully reflected on the arguments that have been put forward during the Bill’s passage. The amendments in my name respond to that constructive engagement and I hope that they will be welcomed by your Lordships.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing Amendment 1 forward. We discussed in Committee how the Bill will promote economic growth. Having considered the arguments made then and, indeed, the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, just now, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, and others, the Government’s position remains unchanged. I fully recognise the intention behind the amendment, which is to ensure that, alongside consumer protection, we would continue to support a competitive and growing aviation sector. Those are objectives that the Government strongly support. As I set out in Committee, growth and competitiveness are already central to the Government’s aviation agenda. Beyond this Bill, we are also taking forward airspace modernisation, supporting innovation through the Future of Flight programme, embedding a pro-growth approach across regulation and backing airport expansion where it can deliver economic benefits and meet planning and environmental requirements.
The amendment also seeks to protect the rights and interests of air passengers. On that point, the Government have listened carefully to concerns raised during the Bill’s passage and have brought forward amendments requiring the Secretary of State, while exercising the powers in Clause 1, to have due regard to strengthening air passenger rights and to principles relating to dignity, accessibility and support for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. We have done so because these considerations are directly relevant to the exercise of those powers.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that this issue is important and relevant to economic growth. However, I do not consider Amendment 1 necessary. Economic growth, investment and competitiveness are already important considerations in aviation policy and regulation, and these priorities are reflected in the Secretary of State’s engagement with the Civil Aviation Authority. On the authority, I note the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, from her extensive experience, that the CAA is an excellent regulator. The noble Baroness will, I hope, note my later amendments on the proposed delegations and controls when we get to that section of the Bill.
More fundamentally, Amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to give statutory regard to a specific set of objectives when exercising powers under the Bill. Although those objectives are important, they are not the only relevant consideration. As I noted in Committee, this list does not include safety, which is fundamental to aviation and underpins the measures in the Bill. Nor does it capture the full range of factors that may need to be taken into account in particular circumstances. The Government’s view remains that it is better to preserve the flexibility to balance all relevant considerations rather than elevating a limited set of factors in legislation. I think that is also what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, referred to, and I also note, as she did, that the Civil Aviation Authority is already subject to a statutory growth duty, which requires it to have regard to economic growth in the exercise of its regulatory functions.
Turning to Amendment 3, the Government agree that economic growth is a priority. However, consideration of growth is already embedded across government decision-making. Policy proposals are assessed for their impact on growth and departments are required through options, appraisal and impact assessment processes to demonstrate those effects before decisions are taken. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, carefully and he referred to the call for evidence about the valuation methodology, which will involve constructive engagement with the aviation industry ahead of the 2029 revaluation. I note his view that airports should not be considered as out-of-town warehouses, and we will see what happens with government in the future about that. For all those reasons, I am unable to support the amendments, and I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press them.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed to hear the noble Lord’s response; I would largely be repeating myself if I were to explain in any detail why. I think the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has been responded to by my noble friend Lord Harper. I will be second to none in admiring the valiance of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in this debate—I am with her entirely in that regard. None the less, I have no embarrassment in saying, even if we are the only party in your Lordships’ House saying it, that we are the party of economic growth. It is about time those words meant something. This amendment seeks to make sure that they do. I will test the opinion of the House at an appropriate moment. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will comment very briefly on my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 4. There are two parts to it. The first part, as he explained very carefully to the House, is the 25% reduction in administrative costs, which is the Government’s own target. We discussed this in Committee and I asked the Minister if he would set out the progress that the Government have made in achieving that 25% cost reduction in the areas that are the responsibility of his department. Clearly, we are two years into a five-year Parliament, so if the Government were on track, other things being equal, one would expect a 10% reduction in cost or an explanation as to why it was going to be loaded towards the back end of the Parliament. We did not get a lot of information, so I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House what work is going on in the Department for Transport to track progress in reaching that 25% reduction in administrative costs. What information is currently available and published by the department about hitting that target? As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, if we received a lot of that information it would make the amendment unnecessary.
My second and final point is just to reflect on the point that I made on the earlier group. The wording of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s proposed new subsection (1B) is very sensible. It does not rule out the imposition of costs, but it challenge the Government to make a judgment as to whether the cost increase is disproportionate to the consumer benefit. It absolutely would allow some regulations to be introduced that had a cost but it would require the Government to look at the benefit that those regulations delivered to passengers and assess whether that balance was correct—in other words, whether the benefit to passengers outweighed the costs that were levied on the airlines. That is a good test for the Government. We do not want to have costly regulations which have a big economic burden but do not result in significant benefits to passengers. That is a perfectly sensible point and one which I think addresses the perfectly sensible point that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made about making sure that the focus on economics does not lead to a reduction in passenger support.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, before I address these amendments, I thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement with the Government on passenger rights and accessibility in Committee, in meetings since and in the debate today. In particular, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Foster of Oxton, my noble friends Lady Kennedy of Cradley, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath and Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, and the noble Lords, Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lord Blencathra. Their contributions have greatly strengthened the Government’s approach to accessibility in the Bill, including the government amendments on this topic.
First, I turn to government Amendments 18, 19, 71 and 72 in my name. These amendments are intended to ensure that the Bill fulfils its potential to strengthen air passenger rights, with particular emphasis on improving protections for disabled and less mobile passengers. Amendment 19 will place a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult on accessibility issues and identify what changes may be needed to existing law. Any necessary reforms could then be made through Clause 1. The consultation will cover issues raised in your Lordships’ House, such as compensation for breaches of assistance duties, protections for passengers with allergies and complaints handling, but it will not be limited to those matters.
The Government will consult disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility and their representative organisations, alongside airlines, airports, the Civil Aviation Authority, passenger rights advocates and wider stakeholders, as appropriate. This will support a genuinely pan-disability approach grounded in lived experience and expert evidence. We will begin the consultation as soon as possible after Royal Assent, while allowing sufficient time to consider the full range of accessibility issues. It will focus on legislative reform and sit alongside the non-legislative work already undertaken through the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to whom the Government are grateful. Amendment 18 is a technical amendment enabling government amendments on accessibility, and Amendments 71 and 72 deal with commencement.
I turn now to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. The intention of Clause 1 is to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights, and this aligns with our obligations under the trade and co-operation agreement to achieve a high level of consumer protections. I recognise the noble Baroness’s intention to ensure that this clause is used only to make things better for air passengers. However, such a requirement could limit what the clause is used for, which may ultimately work against passengers’ interests. The Government share her objective of strengthening passenger rights and have tabled amendments to support that aim, including some which will be discussed in the next group.
I turn to Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The Government are committed to reducing administrative burdens. The Bill is expected to reduce business costs over time, as set out in the published impact assessment. In Committee, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I gave some examples of changes made within the department towards this target. However, it would not be appropriate to place a fixed numerical target in primary legislation, as targets may change over time. It is the Government’s overall target; it is not split by department. But, to be clear, aviation is included. I also reject any notion that these amendments adversely affect efficiency, because they will facilitate disabled people playing a full part in economic life and making their contribution.
I turn to Amendment 6, tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton. The Government are clear that aviation must be accessible to all who wish to travel. Clause 1 has been drafted deliberately broadly to support a pan-impairment approach. It relies on existing legislative definitions that would already capture all the conditions and impairments specified in the noble Baronesses’ amendment. By contrast, a more detailed statutory list risks unintentionally excluding passengers whose impairment or condition is not specifically mentioned.
The Government recognise the importance of adequate protections for passengers with allergies travelling by air. Allergies and wider accessibility issues can be considered through the consultation required by government Amendment 19, which I have already outlined. Persons with allergies must be consulted as part of that process. Any reform shown to be necessary will then be made using Clause 1. I will ensure that noble Lords continue to be engaged as that consultation develops. This consultation will sit alongside the excellent work of the Aviation Accessibility Implementation Group, which is focused on non-legislative work with the industry to improve accessibility across the sector. In answer to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, I will be happy to arrange a meeting with the co-chairs of the group to discuss what more could be done in a non-legislative capacity.
Lord Harper (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can I press him on his point about the Government’s plan to reduce the administrative burden on business by 25%? In Committee, he said that the Department for Transport was working closely with the Department for Business and Trade, which I presume owns this target across government—the Minister is nodding assent. What expectations for delivery has the Department for Business and Trade set out for the Department for Transport? Unless each department is going to deliver something, the Government have no hope of hitting this target. If the Minister is not able to tell me that now, he committed in Committee to write to me with further information, which has not yet happened; I would be perfectly happy if he were to furnish me with that information in writing.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right: I am pretty sure I did commit to write to him, I am pretty sure I have not yet and I am pretty sure I will do shortly.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief because a whole load of people have arrived for a particular purpose. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for mentioning the ICAO and some of the international progress we need to make. I also thank the Minister for giving us a hint that we will hear a bit more about that in the next group, so I am excited to get on to the next bit of business. We have made quite a bit of progress in this group, especially on the government amendments, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute briefly to the Minister who, over the last 15 years or so that I have known him, has taken issues about disabled access on transport systems very seriously and made a personal commitment to them. I am delighted to say that the efforts made by noble Lords who suffer disabilities and the arguments that they made in Committee have found a resonance with him and, therefore, he has been able to come forward with amendments. They do not necessarily give everybody what they want—I suppose that is the nature of the way the legislative process works—but, generally speaking, they take this issue forward in practical terms. We support those amendments, as we indeed support the case that has been made by various noble Lords in the course of this debate.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with the government amendments in this group and start with Amendment 24, tabled in my name, which establishes duties and principles to guide the future use of Clause 1. It is intended to ensure that the power is used, wherever possible, to strengthen air passenger rights and to address barriers faced by disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their time and expertise to strengthen broader air passenger rights, which has helped lead to this amendment.
The amendment seeks to ensure that all air passengers are treated with dignity and have their individual physical and mental health needs respected, and that those with disabilities or reduced mobility are afforded access to air transport services equal or comparable to that afforded to other passengers. The examples that we have heard, in particular the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, set out exactly why we need to do better. I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and I am sure that noble Lords agree that there are many individual members of staff who are good. However, we have also continuously heard that there is terrible, and unacceptable, inconsistency. That is clearly too frequent an experience.
I turn next to Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which would amend government Amendment 24. I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I reassure her that the use of the word “desirability” does not allow the Secretary of State to shy away from their obligation to have due regard. I want it to be clear that Clause 1 is intended to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights, and that this duty reinforces that. It requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to improving passenger rights every time the power is used. However, the impact of policy changes must always be considered holistically—for example, safety, cost, deliverability and wider impacts. The word “desirability” ensures that the regard to strengthening air passenger rights is properly weighed alongside those other factors, so that the Government can act on the full picture.
The second government amendment in this group removes the compensation cap for damaged or lost mobility aids on domestic UK flights. Many wheelchairs and mobility aids are highly customised, specialist pieces of equipment that can cost many thousands of pounds, well in excess of the current Montreal convention liability limit. Removing the cap for domestic UK flights allows passengers to recover the full cost of repair or replacement. That reduces a barrier to travel, gives passengers confidence and gives carriers a far stronger incentive for careful handling.
I turn to the amendments tabled by noble Lords and begin with the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, seeking minimum standards for passengers who need assistance. I recognise the intention behind the amendment and the important issues identified by the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. The Government greatly value that work and will ensure that it informs the next stage of policy development. As I noted previously, government Amendment 19 requires a statutory consultation on accessibility issues following Royal Assent. That consultation will consider all the matters raised in this amendment, alongside wider issues affecting disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, with any necessary reforms capable of being taken forward under Clause 1.
On the amendment on complaints procedures, the Government agree that passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility, should have clear and effective mechanisms for raising concerns when standards fall short. However, the detail needs careful consideration. Legislating now risks creating a provision that is either too vague to enforce or too rigid to work well. Government Amendment 19 therefore identifies complaints procedures as a specific area for consultation, with Clause 1 providing powers for any resulting reforms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has also tabled an amendment seeking clarity on the timing of the consultation under government Amendment 19. As I said on the last group, we will begin that consultation as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The wording is designed not to delay the process but to ensure that the Secretary of State has sufficient time to consider the full range of accessibility issues properly before reporting on the outcome. As I said on the previous group, we will meet interested noble Lords two months after Royal Assent to show what has been done, what is being done and what will be done under my amendments.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for Amendment 23, which concerns who should be consulted. She is right that the consultation must be informed by those with relevant expertise and lived experience. This Government are committed to the principle of “nothing about us without us”. The clause uses a non-exhaustive list so that the right people can be consulted on the right issues without requiring every listed group to be consulted on every matter. We will draw on expertise—including from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—to identify who should be engaged at each stage.
In tabling the government amendments in this and the previous group, we recognise that aviation operates within an international framework of conventions, agreements and regulatory arrangements. There are limits to what any one country can achieve through domestic legislation alone. However, as we have heard, that is not an argument for inaction. Rather, it is an argument for leadership. These amendments are a significant step forward for United Kingdom passengers. We have long been a leader on accessibility and the Government will use their influence internationally to press the higher standards for disabled passengers. Specifically, through our work at the International Civil Aviation Organization and the European Civil Aviation Conference, we will use appropriate fora to champion the UK’s approach to accessibility, promote improvement of standards and seek international alignment.
We will take every opportunity available to raise these important issues at all relevant meetings, starting with those following Royal Assent, such as, but not limited to, the ECAC sub-group on the transport of persons with reduced mobility and the ICAO working group on accessibility in international civil aviation. By strengthening passenger rights at home and placing accessibility at the centre of our approach, the United Kingdom can continue to use its influence internationally and in its engagement with partners across the sector to advocate for higher standards of accessibility worldwide. I note the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to convene an international meeting. I will discuss with the Aviation Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place when we might do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about standards and enforcement. Both are needed—hence the powers in the Bill for enforcement by the Civil Aviation Authority, which cannot currently impose penalties. That is the reason for Clause 2.
Taken together, the government amendments relating to air passenger rights provide a significant and practical step forward for passengers, in particular disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility. I therefore hope that the House will support the government amendments in this group and that noble Lords are reassured that the issues raised in their amendments will be addressed through the consultation process and the powers provided by the Bill. On my own position, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that I wish for everybody else only the experience that I have myself when I travel by air.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I make two very brief points. First, it was neglectful of me—in fact, rude of me—not to thank the Minister for the government amendments, particularly government Amendment 24, which will deliver nearly everything that we have been asking for. I echo the wise words of my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Holmes of Richmond in thanking the Minister for all the work that he has been doing to help disabled passengers over the past 10 or 15 years. I am grateful for that.
Secondly, on delays at check-in, what annoys me most is not just the delay I suffer but the delay that the people behind me suffer, and the grumbles, muttering and hateful looks that I get. An able person checking in may take three or four minutes. If I am held up for 15, 20 or 30 minutes, there are 10 people behind me who have formed a hostile opinion of everybody a wheelchair. It is also a horrible feeling that I have held them up. The top priority for me is to speed up that check-in process through training so that we do not hold up the disabled people and antagonise a dozen people behind us.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his noble thoughts on both points.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I am a little hesitant to start the Front Bench responses before I triple-check that nobody else wants to speak.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Grayling and Lord Young, for raising these important issues. On the theme of parliamentary scrutiny, we on these Benches support the spirit of Amendments 16, 17 and 29 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. They seek to mandate the affirmative procedure for regulations, and we attempted to suggest similar amendments in Committee. The Bill delegates vast, unscrutinised powers to the Secretary of State to redefine passenger rights, so it is only right that Parliament retains the ability to debate and approve these changes before they take effect. I have previously mentioned signing a blank cheque that allows for the fundamental alteration of consumer standards via the negative procedure. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I also acknowledge that the Minister has changed his position on that and signed one of the amendments from the noble Lord on this issue.
I will not revisit or rehearse my comments in Committee about the need to deliver on the threat of a fatal Motion, which we have got into in the past. Sometimes, the muscular possibility of delivering on that threat is the only way of dealing with these procedures. I fully recognise that both the Conservative Benches and the Labour Benches have a long-standing tradition of not doing that.
We welcome government Amendment 28, which requires the CAA to report annually on its enforcement functions. We see this as a necessary step towards the transparency that we called for in Committee. However, while we welcome the technical corrections in government Amendments 30 and 31 regarding the concurrency arrangements, we remain concerned by the potential for regulatory fragmentation. Probing Amendments 7 and 12 rightly ask why both the CAA and the CMA require overlapping powers. We believe the regulator must have teeth, but those teeth need to be clearly seen and defined. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on that.
On Amendment 13 from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, while we support proportionality, we feel that confining financial penalties only to “systemic failure” risks leaving individual passengers in the lurch. We worry that it might defang the regulator in a way that prioritises industry margins over individual dignity—a common theme that I have already pursued on previous groups.
On Amendment 65 from the noble Lord, Lord Young, I read more on this issue this weekend than on almost anything else to do with the Bill. The only thing I can say is that we on these Benches still have an open mind on this issue. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. Normally we would follow the noble Lord through hell-fire, but I have had discussions with Commons colleagues and have read everything I can on this issue. We wait to hear the Minister’s response.
Finally, Amendment 15 would require a statement on international alignment. As we have previously argued, any divergence from EU standards must be used as a lever for enhancement, not a race to the bottom. If we are to move away from established protections, the public deserve a clear technical explanation of why that divergence is in their interest. I look forward to the debates that this has thrown up and to the Minister’s response to these amendments.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I will begin with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, on financial penalties and powers of entry. Clause 1 does not create financial penalties or powers of entry; it simply enables such powers to be conferred by future regulations if evidence shows that they are needed. Their scope should be determined when those regulations are made, on the basis of the evidence available at that time. It would not be appropriate to fix a systematic failure test in primary legislation now, particularly as the CAA already addresses breaches causing collective harm, rather than individual disputes.
Powers of entry would require reasonable grounds to suspect a breach and would be used only where less intrusive methods had proved insufficient. Similar powers already exist for other regulators, including the Financial Conduct Authority and the Information Commissioner’s Office but not the Civil Aviation Authority. Appropriate safeguards are essential but are best considered when any regulations are laid.
To help the noble Lord, I was assured, having asked a former chief executive of the Civil Aviation Authority, whom the noble Lord knows well, that these powers will be essential to allow the CAA to effectively use the powers it is being given through the Bill to enforce consumer regulation. It has faced some difficulties with that in the past.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would apply the definitions in clause 1 to my new clauses (Consultation) and (Matters to which Secretary of State must have regard).
“Consultation(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, begin the process of consultation under subsection (3) (but the Secretary of State need not complete the process within that period).(2) After completing the process the Secretary of State must publish the Secretary of State’s response to the consultation.(3) Consultation under this subsection is consultation with the persons mentioned in subsection (4) about the provision that should be made by regulations under section 1 concerning—(a) the compensation that should be paid for breaches of requirements to provide assistance to disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility;(b) the measures that should be put in place to protect persons with allergies when using air transport services;(c) the procedures that should be put in place by air transport service providers and airport operators for dealing with complaints;(d) the provision by air transport service providers and airport operators of wheelchairs suitable for use in aircraft;(e) any other matters that appear to the Secretary of State to be of particular importance (4) The persons mentioned in this subsection are—(a) air transport service providers,(b) airport operators,(c) such disabled persons, persons with reduced mobility and persons with allergies who are users or prospective users of air transport services, or such organisations appearing to the Secretary of State to represent such persons, as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult on the provision that should be made by regulations under clause 1.
“Matters to which Secretary of State must have regard(1) When considering whether and how to exercise the power to make regulations under section 1, the Secretary of State must have due regard to—(a) the desirability of strengthening the rights of persons who purchase or use air transport services, in particular where the persons whose rights would be affected are or include disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility, and(b) the principles set out in subsection (2).(2) The principles are—(a) that all persons travelling by means of air transport services should be treated with dignity and that their individual physical and mental health needs should be respected;(b) that disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility should be afforded access to air transport services that is equal or comparable to that afforded to other persons;(c) that where assistance is required by disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility the assistance provided should meet their needs;(d) that independent journeys by disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility should be facilitated wherever possible.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce (i) a duty concerning strengthening air passenger rights, and (ii) principles where the Secretary of State is to make consumer protection regulations under clause 1
“Non-international flights: compensation for damage to wheelchairs etc(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage by air is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).(2) In Article 3, after paragraph 1 insert—“1A Article 22 of the Montreal Convention applies in relation to carriage by air performed by a UK air carrier within the United Kingdom as if—(a) at the beginning of paragraph 2 there were inserted “Subject to paragraph 2A of this Article”, and(b) after paragraph 2 there were inserted—“2A In the carriage of wheelchairs or other mobility equipment or assistive devices, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss or damage is unlimited.””(3) In the Annex, in the entry relating to destruction, loss or damage to baggage, after “at fault” insert—“In the case of carriage within the United Kingdom of wheelchairs or other mobility equipment or assistive devices, the liability of the air carrier for destruction, loss or damage is unlimited.”(4) Schedule 1 to The Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/1899) (application of the Montreal Convention: non-international carriage) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) and (6).(5) In Part 1, after paragraph (4), insert—“(4A) In Article 22.2, at the beginning, there shall be inserted “Subject to paragraph 2A of this Article,”.(4B) After Article 22.2, there shall be inserted—“2A In the carriage of wheelchairs or other mobility equipment or assistive devices, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss or damage is unlimited.””(6) In Part 2, under the heading “Article 22—Limits of Liability in Relation to Delay, Baggage and Cargo”—(a) at the beginning of paragraph 2 insert “Subject to paragraph 2A of this Article”;(b) after paragraph 2 insert—“2A In the carriage of wheelchairs or other mobility equipment or assistive devices, the liability of the carrier in the case of destruction, loss or damage is unlimited.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the current compensation cap in relation to destroyed, lost or damaged wheelchairs or other aids for non-international flights.
“(2) In section 21 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (CAA’s annual report), in subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert— “(ba) must include a summary of what the CAA has done during that year in the performance of its functions under—(i) Part 3 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (enforcement of consumer protection law), and(ii) Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (investigatory powers etc);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the CAA to report each year to the Secretary of State on the performance of its enforcement functions.
(b) another direct enforcement authority (“the relevant direct enforcement authority”) is also capable of exercising its direct enforcement functions in respect of that commercial practice.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would correct the position on concurrency arrangements between the CMA and other direct enforcement authorities, to ensure that those arrangements operate as intended.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, airport drop-off charges are a constant source of frustration to the travelling public. Although neither amendment is in my name, these Benches will support whichever amendment is taken forward.
These measures are a common-sense attempt to bring transparency to what often feels like a stealth tax at the terminal door. So far on Report, we have not talked about how people are often captured the minute they enter the door of an airport. This is not a choice; people are captured and are given these charges. They cannot instantly withdraw their custom and go to a different airport, because they are pretty much locked in both to the airline and to the airport that they have gone for. They cannot shop around, because all of them are doing it.
It seems to us that it is right to support the amendment. For too long, the rules of the game around these levies have been opaque. It feels similar to the bundling and poor practice that we have seen in ticketing, and it is only right that we shine a light on it. I see it as quite useful that we should at least look at this and try to create a bit more transparency.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Empey, for re-tabling their amendments on airport drop-off charges. I will address them together.
I understand the concerns behind these amendments. Passengers should have clear, accessible information about travel options to and from airports, including drop-off, short-stay parking and free alternatives. The Government expect airports to act transparently and fairly, and reinforces this through regular engagement with the sector. However, these amendments are neither necessary nor proportionate. Most UK airports are privately owned and responsible for managing their roads and parking. Their arrangements are already subject to consumer protection law, competition law and industry standards, with enforcement and redress where practices are misleading, unfair or non-compliant. There are also established mechanisms to review airport drop-off charges where concerns arise.
The CAA has already examined airport surface access, including competition, consumer issues and the transparency of information on options and charges, and found insufficient evidence to justify a competition or consumer law investigation. Private parking operators are expected to comply with the sector’s code of practice, including requirements on clear signage, accessibility, penalty charge notices and appeals. The Government will continue to expect airports and operators to provide clear, accurate and accessible information before passengers travel. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that if the information at Belfast City Airport is as unclear as she describes, she has a valid complaint.
Drop-off and parking charges support airports’ wider commercial and operational management. They can reduce congestion, improve traffic flow, support surface access strategies and fund passenger facilities, including cleaner transport options. Restricting them in primary legislation risks shifting other costs to passengers and undermining airports’ ability to manage congestion effectively. Almost all airports that charge for terminal drop-off provide free alternatives, such as shuttles. Airports should ensure that these options are clearly communicated in advance so that passengers can make informed choices. For those reasons, while I understand the noble Lords’ concerns, I ask them not to press their amendments.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Before the Minister sits down, he used the phrase competition, but is it not the case that, in the vast majority of cases, we are talking about monopolies? There is nobody to compete with because you have no choice. If you want to go to Heathrow, yes you have Gatwick as an alternative but it is miles away. There is really no competition here.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am referring to choices in the method of access to the airports, rather than the choice of airport itself.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thought that was a deeply unsatisfactory answer that failed to address the amendment. The Minister said there was no case for restricting these charges in primary legislation. Who has proposed that? Nobody has proposed that. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and I have asked for a survey, an examination or a report to be done on the effect of these drop-off charges. There is no proposal to restrict them. That was a deeply unsatisfactory answer, so I fear I will insist on testing the opinion of the House on my Amendment 33.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with Amendments 34 and 37, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. The department takes cabin air quality seriously. Commercial aircraft must already meet certification requirements for ventilation and cabin airflow, and operators must report and investigate suspected toxic cabin air incidents. The CAA’s medical experts review such incidents and can take action where necessary.
The committee on toxicity’s most recent review, in 2024, concluded that reported concentrations of chemical contamination in aircraft cabin air are unlikely to cause adverse health effects in air crew following either acute or long-term exposure. However, I understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and she made a strong case when we met. Nevertheless, if necessary, the Civil Aviation Authority could use the new powers in Clause 8 to make further regulations relating to cabin air quality. As discussed with the noble Baroness, I am happy to facilitate a meeting as soon as possible between noble Lords and the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss this matter and existing evidence. Depending on the outcome, I am prepared to meet them myself if that were needed. I hope that this reassures noble Lords and that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will withdraw Amendment 34.
I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which would require aviation safety regulations to be made by the Secretary of State rather than the Civil Aviation Authority. This would undermine a core purpose of the Bill and maintain the status quo. As drafted, the Bill will enable the Civil Aviation Authority to make aviation rules more quickly and more efficiently, reducing the current backlog, which has been an issue since we left the European Union and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency.
Previously, that agency’s regulatory changes became law via implementing regulations, and although the existing body of EU law was transcribed into UK law, any additional changes must be made by statutory instrument, which has caused the backlog. Any Government would have run into these problems without the reforms being brought forward in the Bill. It also preserves the Secretary of State’s power to make rules by statutory instrument and to intervene through backstop powers where appropriate.
I turn to amendments giving effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the Government have accepted in full. I am grateful to the committee for its scrutiny and recommendations, which have strengthened the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling amendments to give effect to this. We support his Amendment 62—he got to that subject first—which would make the reserving power in new Section 61A(7) subject to the affirmative procedure. I hope noble Lords will support it, too.
Government Amendment 56 in my name gives effect to the committee’s recommendation to clarify the principles underlying the exceptions to delegated rule-making. This sets out these principles in the Bill. It would require the Secretary of State to consider matters such as national security, the wider public interest and passengers’ interests, including accessibility, when deciding what should remain reserved to the department. I hope that noble Lords will support this.
Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would remove the requirement for the Civil Aviation Authority to agree the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives. The Civil Aviation Authority is the UK’s independent aviation safety regulator, and I place real emphasis on that independence from government. As the CAA’s experts will deliver the rule-making programme, the CAA must be satisfied that it is deliverable. Requiring it to implement priorities with which it disagrees would undermine that independence. Where disagreement arises, the Secretary of State can still reserve matters and make regulations herself. I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment.
Indeed, were there to be a disagreement, Amendment 58 in my name requires any directions issued by the Secretary of State to the CAA under Clause 8 to be laid before Parliament, as well as published. This responds to concerns raised in Grand Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Barber of Ainsdale, and it will support Parliament’s scrutiny of these powers. I trust that noble Lords will support it.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 59 and 60 would require the Civil Aviation Authority to republish the entire rulebook after every change, however minor. The Civil Aviation Authority already publishes its rulebook online and will keep it updated. Republishing the full, approximately 12,000-page, rulebook for minor changes would be disproportionate and costly. Instead, the Civil Aviation Authority will update individual rules as they change and publish consolidations where appropriate.
The noble Lord’s next amendment would remove the power to make consequential amendments relating to the CAA rules. As safety rule-making moves to the CAA, the Government need a mechanism to keep related legislation consistent with the new framework. This standard power will be used only to enable and facilitate the CAA’s rule-making function. Secondary legislation made under this power will be subject to normal parliamentary scrutiny, including the affirmative procedure where primary legislation is amended.
Finally, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, seeks a review of flight time limitations. The CAA already ensures that cabin crew and pilots comply with legal flight time limitations and has enforcement powers to support that role. The CAA is reviewing flight time limitations with stakeholders, so it would be premature to create new provisions before that work concludes. Flight time limitations are in DfT-owned secondary legislation and, if changes were needed, the CAA could propose amendments, or my department could act directly. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord that the matter is already under active review.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, on flight time limitations and who takes charge of this, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, may remember that prior to 2012 when the flight time limitations were dealt with by the European Union, we came under what was called CAP 371, so the Civil Aviation Authority was always responsible for the flight time limitations for pilots and cabin crew. EU flight time limitations came through the European Parliament and those limitations then were enforced EU-wide. But we are now reverting. In my view, the CAA would take back control of flight time limitations under the normal civil aviation procedures.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I defer absolutely to the noble Baroness’s far superior knowledge. I think what she is referring to is the review that is currently being undertaken.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting with the CAA. I see from her head, which is about to nod off her shoulders, that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, agrees that this is a good idea, so I thank the Minister for that. It is a helpful contribution.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, I say that I would not wish at any point to frighten people away from aircraft. I feel I almost live in one as it is, and we all use them. However, we must remember that, as well as being a conveyance for passengers, an aircraft a workplace, which is the big difference. We have learned all about minute contamination. If we look back at the regulations that were enforced on what was supposed to come out of the nuclear power plant in the north-west of England and the levels of contamination that was allowed initially, which people said did no harm to anybody, we see that that is now down to about a thousandth of that. These things evolve with time, knowledge and so on. Nevertheless, the Minister has made a fair and reasonable offer and that is most helpful. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 34.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, some very important points have been made about consultation. I just want to be clear that I understand what points are being made. I believe these amendments are not about airport expansion. On airport expansion, I would say that, especially as it is subject to a process under planning law—namely, the development consent order—there will not be a shortage of consultation as a result of that development consultation order. Certainly, in the case of Heathrow, if it expands, the consultation will take place.
I think that the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, put forward is not about expansion but about airspace modernisation. Although I would not want to commit myself to the wording of her amendment in particular, she has a point which the Government need to be quite clear about and they need to reckon what the difficulties are; that is, the reorganisation of flight paths will have winners and losers. It is not simply that flight paths might be moved from one corner, one area or one approach to another; part of the purpose of airspace modernisation is to concentrate flights, so there could be quite a lot of winners but some very bad losers as a result of this. The Government need to take people with them as they do this. There is a strong case for doing it, and we support modernisation, but the Government cannot leave their successor in a position where people have not been given a chance to be brought along.
My Amendment 39A in this group is about charges for air traffic and air navigation services in Clause 6. I drew attention in Committee to the sheer incoherence of the drafting of this clause. The Government have come forward with an amendment which improves it somewhat, but it slightly misses the point—it still leaves it saying something quite incoherent. I offer this only because I like to see properly drafted legislation. There is no politics in this; the Government should be doing their job properly in the first place. Clause 6(3)(c) says:
“Persons may be specified … if the services concerned are available for their use”—
note that phrase—
“or benefit, and it is immaterial whether or not the services are actually used or could be used by … them”.
I understand the part about it being immaterial whether they are used: “It is available for your use, but you did not use it; we’re still going to charge you”. That may be right or wrong, but that is what the law says. That is the situation. How can the services be available for their use, but they could not be used by them? You could still be charged for them even if they could not be used by you. How is that consistent with them being “available”? I do not understand it. I just think it is very poor drafting.
Anyway, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I am glad he has corrected the other part of it that was incoherent; we are getting somewhere slowly. Maybe he will come forward with some sensible amendments at Third Reading so that the Bill makes sense in some key areas.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the next group concerns airspace modernisation, consultation and charging. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for retabling her amendment, and I have also heard the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, on this matter.
I have considered this carefully, but the Government’s position remains unchanged. The environmental assessment and consultation are, and will remain, fundamental parts of the airspace change process. Nothing in these powers removes or weakens existing requirements for thorough consultation or robust assessment of environmental and noise impacts.
Any procedure or policy the Civil Aviation Authority puts in place, or any decision it makes to change airspace, must be exercised in accordance with the duties set out under Section 70 of the Transport Act 2000. These require the Civil Aviation Authority to take account of the Secretary of State’s guidance on environmental objectives, as well as the interests of any person in relation to the use of airspace.
In practice, sponsors of an airspace change must undertake detailed assessments of potential impacts, including noise exposure and greenhouse gas emissions, and consult meaningfully the affected communities, airspace users and other relevant stakeholders. The CAA then scrutinises these assessments before any proposal can be approved. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, my understanding is that the CAA will bring forward only one proposal at a time.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, he has again misconceived the point. It is not that you can be charged for something that you do not use. He says that this is a well-established principle. I have already said that it might be rough justice, but if it is what the law says then it is what the law says. What he has to explain is how something can be available—it has to be available before there can be any charge at all—yet be something which the person being charged could not use. What does he understand by “available” in that case, bearing in mind that, unless it is available, there is no charge at all, as that is the first condition?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think I have explained that to the noble Lord. I certainly feel that I have.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for participating in this debate. I am sure that we are all keen to move on to the next group. The Minister has been very patient in our meetings and recognises that we will not let go of this issue lightly. We will keep on referencing what we see as this critical need. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the amended section 75(7) of the Transport Act 2000 accurately reflects the intended operation of charging arrangements for air traffic and air navigation services.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, any debate on aviation is enriched by a contribution from my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I am grateful to him for what he said.
The House benefited too from the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale. I have some slight concerns about his amendment. I appreciate that there may be a crisis in the supply of pilots, but I would be very anxious if the Government were to become involved in workforce planning in this sector. I understand entirely that his amendment does not quite call for that, but the last part of it points in the general direction that the CAA should be taking an active role in this, and that would be a very bad thing. Aviation is a very successful part of our private economy, and it should be for the industry itself to take responsibility for recruiting and training the people it needs in order to operate. That is the first principle.
However, the noble Lord does an important service in bringing to the House’s attention the cliff edge that is allegedly being faced. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with Amendment 41. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, for this and for his kind remarks. I also heard the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and other noble Lords clearly on this subject.
General aviation is an important part of the UK’s aviation industry, covering a wide range of public service, commercial and recreational activities. As the noble Lord remarked, it plays an important role in introducing people to aviation and helping to develop the skills pipeline for future aviation careers.
Clause 6 seeks to provide the CAA with greater flexibility as to who can be charged for air traffic services provided under a licence. This will ensure that, as the UK’s airspace evolves, the costs of providing those services can continue to be recovered fairly and proportionately, in line with the well-established “user pays” principle.
As the noble Lord will be aware, these costs are currently recovered primarily from commercial airlines, while general aviation is largely exempt. Any future changes would be subject to the CAA’s statutory consultation process, with affected parties retaining rights of appeal. The Civil Aviation Authority also has an obligation under the Transport Act 2000 to further the interests of operators and owners of aircraft, including in relation to the availability and cost of licensed air traffic services. This would and does naturally include considering impacts on the sustainability and growth of general aviation. Given those existing safeguards, the established charging process, and the fact that there are currently no plans to introduce new charges for general aviation users, I do not believe the amendment is necessary.
I turn to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, which would require the CAA to report on anonymised demographic trends among commercial pilot licence-holders. Demographic trends among skilled aviation personnel are a matter of interest to the industry, the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Civil Aviation Authority already collects demographic information on commercial pilots and other skilled personnel. This supports robust regulatory decision-making, enables the CAA to identify relevant trends and allows it to publish data on licence-holders where it considers that useful. Indeed, the CAA has published annual data on different categories of licensed pilots, including commercial pilots, broken down by age and sex, since 1994.
The proposed requirement to publish such statistics and analysis with a particular frequency could impose additional costs on the CAA. These would have to be met from the CAA’s scheme of charges and thus would be a burden on the aviation sector. For those reasons, I consider the amendment unnecessary and ask my noble friend not to press it.
More broadly, I reassure the noble Lord, as well as my noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Tunnicliffe, of the importance that the Government place on maintaining a robust pipeline of flight crew, particularly pilots. The department is addressing workforce challenges through targeted programmes, such as Generation Aviation, and through evidence-based assessments of skills needs. The department will shortly commission a skills gap analysis across all aviation professions as a follow-up to analysis that was conducted in 2023. This will consider factors including retirements and sector growth, helping to identify emerging workforce pressures at an early stage.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, the Government recognise and value the important role aerodromes play in their local communities. That is why the National Planning Policy Framework ensures that planning authorities consider their economic, leisure, training and emergency service roles when making planning decisions about them.
I thank noble Lords for their engagement on this matter and I trust that, as a result, they feel reassured. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I feel that the matter that I brought through this amendment has been well aired. I am grateful for the contributions of my noble friends Lord Goschen, Lord Grayling and Lady Foster. I am particularly happy that my noble friend Lord Moylan, our spokesman, is satisfied with a very slight chastisement of me. I go away humble, of course, but not humiliated. I am delighted that the Minister has responded in the way he has. I am pleased that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, has been discussed, because it is also important in this group. As a result of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for saying that she would support them. Both would change the making of regulations from the use of the negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. I shall not say anything more about them.
Both my noble friend Lord Grayling and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have made very important points. I have great sympathy with my noble friend, who is trying to ensure that the Government interfere as little as possible with the allocation of slots. I equally understand, and I do not think there is a tension with, what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, says about the importance of maintaining regional connectivity. In fact, as I recall, not that long ago the Minister was the tsar of regional connectivity and wrote a very important report about it for the Government, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say, drawing on his experience and knowledge of the subject.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for these amendments and for the thoughtful debate we have had on the slots regime. I will deal with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, before turning to those from the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Moylan.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seek to limit intervention on slot allocation to specified circumstances. I certainly understand the intention behind the amendments but we believe that they would unduly constrain the flexibility that the Bill is designed to provide. The airport slots regime operates in a complex and rapidly changing environment, and future circumstances cannot be anticipated. Limiting intervention to a prescribed set of scenarios could impede timely and effective action in the public interest, particularly in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. The Government therefore consider it preferable to retain a sufficiently flexible regulation-making power, subject to the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations made under it.
Amendment 47 would require statutory consultation before any regulations on slots are made. The Government recognise the importance of proper engagement before changes are made to the slots regime. I commit that, where new policy is developed under this power, there will be appropriate consultation, including with industry and, where relevant, communities. However, it would not be appropriate to place an inflexible statutory consultation requirement in the Bill. This power may need to be used in response to urgent disruption in the aviation sector, as we saw during the pandemic. In those circumstances, the Government must be able to act swiftly and proportionately.
Amendment 48 seeks to require consultation, transparency and regard to commercial allocation for the slots regime. The Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary. A core principle of the slot allocation regime is that slots are allocated by an independent co-ordinator. In the UK, this role is carried out by Airport Coordination Ltd. This principle is reflected in global guidelines, which require co-ordinators to act independently so that scarce airport capacity is allocated fairly, neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or government. That independence helps prevent conflicts of interest, protects new entrants and maintains confidence in a transparent global system.
Amendment 50 questions whether criminal offences are needed under the slot allocation regime. I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, as the Government have tabled an amendment to remove the power for any amended slots regime to include provision for new criminal offences. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for prompting a debate on this matter.
I turn to Amendments 45 and 49, tabled in my name. These amendments provide greater clarity and place a clear limit on the regulation-making power. In particular, they remove any ability for future regulations to create new criminal offences. At the same time, they preserve the effective operation of the existing slot allocation regime and make it clear that, where the existing regulations are restated, any offence already contained in those regulations may also be restated. This strikes an appropriate balance. It avoids conferring an unnecessarily broad power to create new criminal offences, while ensuring that restatement of the current regime does not inadvertently remove or undermine existing enforcement mechanisms. The amendments therefore support legal certainty, maintain continuity in the regulation of airport slot allocation and respond proportionately to concerns about the scope of the delegated powers on slots. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, will not press his amendments, and that he and other noble Lords will support my amendments.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, seeks to require that
“adequate slots at hub airports are allocated to flights from regional airports in the United Kingdom”.
The Government recognise the importance of strong regional connectivity and are committed to ensuring that people and businesses across the country benefit from effective air links, including access to major hub airports. However, the slot allocation regime gives airlines rights to equivalent slots in future seasons where usage requirements are met. This amendment could therefore require the reallocation of slots currently held by incumbent operators, raising legal and practical concerns. Of course, the slot regime applies only where capacity is constrained.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Can I get some clarification on the Minister’s point about Amendment 46? Let us assume that, at this point in time, regional connectivity is adequate, which I believe it is. Therefore, I am not suggesting that existing slots be removed from an existing airline. What I am concerned about is this: if an airline decides to reallocate its slots for international flights, say, to the detriment of the regions, does the Secretary of State have any power to intervene to ensure that regional connectivity is maintained? I am not talking about new capacity or limiting capacity in existing slots. But, in the event that those slots might be reallocated to the detriment of a region, does the Secretary of State have any power to intervene, or are the Government merely a spectator?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer to that is that the Secretary of State does not have any power to intervene because, as I said, the core principle of the slot allocation regime is that slots are allocated by an independent co-ordinator. There are suggestions from noble Lords opposite that in fact the Government should have less power here, so I am not sure that I see that the Secretary of State can easily intervene in something that is already allocated fairly neutrally and without bias towards any airline, airport or Government.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I will pick up that latter point. The Minister has perhaps misunderstood my points. I set out the four areas where I felt the Government did have a role, and I said that the legislation goes much further than that. I cited the example of proposed new subsection (4), which appears to give the Government the power to do absolutely anything they want in this field. The issue is a Government who want to be able to control everything, and we are saying that there are only a certain number of things they should be involved in.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that regional connectivity is one example. I mentioned the easyJet situation to the Minister. A lot of the commentary has been around the value of that business being much higher by breaking it up, stripping out new plane orders and the rest. As we know, slots at Heathrow have huge value, and you could well imagine a situation where slots that were important within the United Kingdom were auctioned off for another purpose. So, yes, I believe in a more constrained slot regime, or more constrained government involvement in the slot regime, but I am not arguing and I have not argued that the Government should have no involvement in that regime. Regional connectivity is one area where the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has made some good and important points.
However, I can see that the Government are not going to concede on this point tonight. I simply ask the Minister to reflect further ahead of Third Reading, particularly on the regional connectivity point. In the interests of progress this evening, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 42.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would clarify that the power to restate the Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006 includes power to restate the offences created by the regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would remove the power for regulations under section 34A of the Airports Act 1986 to include provision for criminal offences.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes some important points, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for their amendments on airport expansion. I addressed the relationship between the Bill and airport expansion in Grand Committee. Having considered the arguments put forward then, the Government’s position remains unchanged.
This Bill is concerned with aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. The measures in the Bill are needed regardless of whether any airport expansion proposal comes forward and regardless of the outcome of any such proposal. The Government are supportive of airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements. However, decisions on airport expansion are taken through separate planning processes, not through this Bill.
Indeed, during Committee, the Government published the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement for consultation. This underlines the fact that airport expansion proposals are considered through dedicated planning processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. The Bill does not alter those processes or predetermine their outcome.
The Government are concerned about the practical effect of Amendment 63. Its scope is not limited to Heathrow or to any specific airport expansion proposal. By preventing powers being used “in connection with” the facilitation of expansion, it could create uncertainty around routine regulatory functions that are not themselves about approving airport expansion. For example, slots regulation does not create airport capacity; it manages capacity once it has been approved through the planning process. However, the amendment could potentially call into question the use of such powers where they relate to approved airport expansion.
Regarding the consultation requirements on slots regulations put forward in Amendment 51, the Government are committed to meaningful community consultation and robust environmental and noise assessment before any airport expansion proceeds. These requirements are already addressed through the statutory planning process.
As I have said, slot regulations do not determine whether airport expansion takes place. The Bill simply ensures that, where necessary, slot regulations can be updated to make effective use of new capacity at co-ordinated airports. The amendment would therefore add little, as consultation and assessment on airport expansion already take place through the planning system before slot allocation becomes relevant. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his infinite patience on this issue and for being accessible at all times for discussions on it. I wish to associate myself with all the other comments that we have heard this evening, and I thank the Minister for some of the movement that we have had, particularly in other areas and in earlier parts of the debate. My reason for saying this now is that I do not intend to speak on the next couple of groups, so this is an opportunity for me to say thank you to the Minister and his officials for having been so accessible throughout the process.
I understand the Minister’s objections to this. It will not astonish him to hear that, as with Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, it is possible that we will return to this. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“61EA Considerations for exercise of power under section 61A(7)(1) When considering whether and how to exercise the power to make regulations under section 61A(7) the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider whether the Secretary of State should retain responsibility for the following—(a) anything that would significantly affect the public interest, including in particular the public interest in protecting national security, promoting economic growth, protecting the environment and ensuring the efficient operation of the civil air transport industry of the United Kingdom;(b) anything that would involve matters of public policy, or legal issues, of general importance;(c) anything that would involve the imposition of requirements on the CAA in relation to the exercise of its functions;(d) anything that would involve the imposition of significant and unexpected financial burdens on any person;(e) anything that would directly affect the interests of passengers using air transport services, in particular where the passengers whose interests would be affected are or include disabled persons or persons with reduced mobility; (f) anything that would involve changes to other legislation that cannot be made by regulations under section 61J.(2) In this section “disabled persons” means persons with a disability within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would set out matters to consider when making regulations under section 61A(7) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, addressing a concern raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in their report on the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require directions under section 61G, and variations or revocations of them, to be laid before Parliament as well as being published.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the debate. We do not support the amendment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for this amendment. The Government are actively reviewing the case for access to the European geostationary navigation overlay service, or EGNOS. This includes engagement with organisations that have been affected by the loss of the service, as well as those who could benefit from it in the future. I noted in Committee the importance of the service to connectivity; for example, for outlying islands and throughout all seasons of the year.
The output of the current work is expected later this year, but any move to rejoin EGNOS would in any case require agreement with the European Union. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt that review by accepting this amendment. For these reasons, I am unable to accept it. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for that short debate and for my noble friend’s response. I did not expect anything else, but he will get a copy of this paper and I hope—indeed, I am sure—that he will be true to his word and follow it through and that we will have one or two more debates on it in the future.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, very briefly, or perhaps at length, Amendment 70 would remove a Henry VIII power that allows the Government to rewrite primary legislation. It would do so on the grounds that the Government—or the department—have said in their memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that they have identified all the legislation that is affected by this Bill. Therefore, they do not need a Henry VIII power to make amendments to Bills that may yet appear, because they have already identified all the Bills. Indeed, I must say, they have not just identified them but made the corresponding adjustments to ensure that this Bill is in conformity with existing legislation, or that amendments are made to it through this process.
The power is entirely redundant. It is also offensive in general to your Lordships’ House that Henry VIII powers should exist. The Minister has been so good about accepting, at least in part, many of my suggestions in Committee and today on Report. However, it would be the cherry on the cake and would seal his reputation with all Benches in this House if just at this last minute, before we conclude, he were to rise to his feet and simply say that he accepts the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
How disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is going to be. Without Clause 10, any amendment to existing legislation which is consequential to this Bill, however minor or technical, would require further primary legislation. That would be an unnecessary and disproportionate use of parliamentary time and that of your Lordships’ House. This clause is needed to ensure that the statute book appropriately reflects the changes made by this Bill and to avoid any potential inconsistencies following the Bill’s enactment.
Powers of this nature are a well-established feature of legislation. They ensure that the statute book continues to operate coherently once Parliament has enacted new legislation. This clause is drafted no more broadly than is necessary. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that the clause is both necessary and appropriately limited. It cannot be used to make substantive policy changes or revisit decisions taken by Parliament in the Bill. Where it is used to amend or repeal primary legislation, regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring scrutiny by both Houses. For those reasons, the Government remain satisfied that Clause 10 strikes the right balance between ensuring a functioning statute book and providing appropriate parliamentary oversight where primary legislation is affected. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, you can always tell whether the Minister is speaking in his own voice or merely as a tool of departmental officials. I will leave it to noble Lords to decide which category that speech fell into. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for the consultation requirement, duty and principles relating to regulations under clause 1 to come into force on Royal Assent.
Railways Bill
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Railways 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 to 11, Schedule 1, Clause 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 to 91, Schedule 3, Clauses 92 to 96, Schedule 4, Clauses 97 to 102, Title.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, perhaps we could have a bit more of an explanation from the Government as to why this Bill is being taken not on the Floor of the House but in Grand Committee. This is a major piece of legislation which affects every rail user up and down the country. It was first announced in the first King’s Speech of this Session and, unusually, repeated in the second King’s Speech, so it is not as if it is something new. This was supposed to be a priority. It is a priority which is taking a long time to deliver. It has incredibly important consequences and should be discussed not in Committee but on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the Government want to take this Bill into Committee rather than deal with it on the Floor of the House, as we usually do with most of the controversial pieces of legislation before your Lordships’ House.
Lord Sentamu
What I want to say is that the numbers towards the end of that Bill were not as big as people suggest. Look in Hansard; the numbers were less.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, what a joy it is to hear from three former Transport Secretaries whom I have worked for. I predict hearing from a former deputy chair of Transport for London whom I have worked for shortly as well.
I know, as many do in this Chamber, that passengers and taxpayers have had enough of the current failed system. Change to our railways cannot come soon enough. I want to get on with fixing the railways by starting the scrutiny of this Bill as soon as possible. Divisions such as this simply delay the job that we are all here to do. It is perfectly normal for Bills to be committed to Grand Committee. A significant number of Bills, many of which propose significant legislative change, are committed to Grand Committee each Session. In the last Session of the previous Government, much important legislation was scrutinised in that way.
As my noble friends have confirmed, Grand Committee is not a lower standard of scrutiny. Any noble Lord can participate and proceedings are broadcast, as my noble friend just said. Its use means that the House’s time can be managed more effectively. It does not hinder, curtail or prevent detailed scrutiny of legislation. The Bill will return to the Chamber on Report.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect on recruitment and retention of Coastguard Rescue Officers of the decision of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to cease on-call payments.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, in the light of a Westminster Hall debate last week, representations from coastguard rescue officers and unions, and other information, the Maritime Minister in the other place has been clear on the need to listen and to reflect on the way forward, which he is doing. That is why further scheduled engagement by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency this week has been paused.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble kinsman for that Answer.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I have waited a long time to use that expression, and it is a pleasure to do so. The judgment of the Court of Appeal on 14 January was entirely predictable: that coastguards are what lawyers call limb (b) workers. However, the decision of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, in response to that, was not predictable. It has degraded that status to nothing at all and removed the protections that Parliament bestowed on limb (b) workers for our heroic coastguards. Those coastguards are no longer entitled to the national minimum wage for the hours they work—indeed, to any payment at all. They are not entitled to paid holiday, to apply for protection from unlawful deductions from wages, to the protection of whistleblowing or to seek recognition for collective bargaining. Following the Court of Appeal case, which turned on this issue, they are not entitled to a trade union representative in a disciplinary hearing. Can my noble kinsman say whether he will use all the weight he can bring to bear to lean on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to get it to reverse this awful decision?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not sure that I am as grateful to my noble kinsman as he is to me—but, as usual, I will answer his questions. This change has not taken place yet; it is due to take place in September. There is time for my colleague, the Maritime Minister in the other place, to listen and reflect. I have talked to him three times today and I will talk to him again after this Question. He will reflect deeply on what he has heard and what needs to be done.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the staff survey on which the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has relied in making its case has been reported in the press as having been misrepresented by the agency to Ministers and, consequently, by Ministers to Parliament. In that light, do the Government still have confidence in the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? Do they continue to rely on that staff survey?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have two things to say. First, in the course of the Maritime Minister reflecting on what he has heard, he will reflect on the accuracy and veracity of the information he has been given. Therefore, it is far too early to say what the consequence of that might be. Secondly, he has asked his officials to tell him the data that can be legitimately released so that Members of Parliament in the other place and Peers in this Chamber can hold the Government to account.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that making it so much harder for working people on low incomes to serve as coastguard rescue officers may jeopardise this life-saving service? Therefore, in this period of reflection that he has described, will he ensure that assessment is made of the impact on the diversity of workforce in this context?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will say two things. First, the Government recognise and are fully grateful for the extraordinary service of brave and selfless volunteer coastguards. Secondly, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that, in the course of this contemplation, we need to reflect on the diversity of those volunteers. Decisions should not be made that adversely affect that.
Baroness Bull (CB)
Can the Minister say what discussions might have taken place with other government departments to compare the approach that could be taken to the coastguard with the retained firefighter model? There is a risk that, from September, both will provide on-call emergency services, often at great personal risk, but one will be recognised as a worker and remunerated while the other will not be.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am grateful for that question. I am not currently aware of those discussions, but clearly there are similarities between some of the things that we ask selfless people in our society to do. I am sure that the Maritime Minister and the department will reflect on that with other appropriate government departments.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the cuts proposed by the MCA have been resisted by the GMB union, as well as by coastguard rescue officers themselves. Is the Minister certain, at a time when we see more people around the coast of Britain using the sea for leisure, that the potential reduction in staff that could come from this will not put people at risk?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The course of action that needs to be taken needs to recognise that the volunteer coastguards have attended over 14,000 incidents each year for the past three years and rescued over 4,000 people annually. The Government have no intention of putting any of those people in danger. That is why my colleague in the other place is thinking so carefully about what to do next.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, it was a delightful surprise to find that there are two Lords Hendy in this House. Who knew? We are very familiar with the Minister’s skills. He will be aware that more than half of our coastguard rescue officers will leave this vital service if the Government continue on their present course. The Minister mentioned the magic word “September”. I ask him to reconsider that. We are now entering the peak risk period on our coasts, when our coastal waters are full of swimmers and sailors, and when the work of the coastguard rescue service is in peak demand. Do the Government plan to overturn the court decision on which all this stands? Given the risk, how soon should they do so? September is too late. The risk is now.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There are at least two of us in here who knew that there were two Hendys in the House. Maybe that is common knowledge now.
The noble Baroness is right: September is not far away. I put in the present tense the fact that the Maritime Minister is considering this because it needs to be considered right now and for the reasons that the noble Baroness said. Whatever course of action he decides to take needs to be taken very quickly to avoid the service being in anyway affected and to ensure the safety of people on the coast and in the sea.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s total budget last year was £450 million, of which coastguard volunteer allowances cost under £6 million—around 1%—for which we, as a public, get a 24/7, 365-day emergency response network covering 11,000 miles of our coastline by 3,500 volunteers, who get a call-out allowance of £11 an hour, which is a tiny fraction of the 1,200 paid staff in the agency? This is a petty, punitive and pernicious cut, which I urge Ministers to reverse.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is entirely right about all the statistics he quoted. That is why I said that the Maritime Minister is currently considering what needs to be done as a result of what he has heard, what I have heard in this House this afternoon and the other information available in order to make the right judgment about how to proceed.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s opening Answer, when he noted that the Maritime Minister was reflecting. This sounds like a case where it would be better to embrace the court decision, recognise the worker status and take the steps necessary to properly reward people who do incredibly valuable work. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, it is very good value for the taxpayer. The MCA is an executive agency of the department; the Minister should take the right decision and direct the agency to carry out its instructions. That is what we expect Ministers to do, and I am sure that the Minister will impress that course upon his Commons colleague.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I do not need to do that, because the course of action that he will take, after having listened and reflected, may well be the course of action that the noble Lord suggested.
Railways Bill
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill ExcerptsTuesday 7th July 2026
(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June - large print - (10 Jun 2026)
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to present the Railways Bill for Second Reading today. Before turning to the substance of the Bill, I would like to acknowledge that today marks the 21st anniversary of the 2005 attacks on London's transport network. As a former commissioner of Transport for London, my thoughts are with those who were, and continue to be, affected by that day. I also pay tribute to the extraordinary courage and resilience of Londoners, including those in emergency services, transport staff and members of the public who responded in the face of events which were completely shocking.
This Bill has been a long time coming and it is my absolute privilege to speak to it today. I look forward to the debates to come on the detail but, for now, I will speak to the Bill in general terms. The need for reform of our railways is clear. Parliament, including noble Lords in this Chamber, regularly draws attention to service shortfalls, poor and inconsistent customer service and very substantial costs for the taxpayer—all realities that I and this Government accept and which stem from the fragmented system that has been in place for decades which leaves no one but the Secretary of State ultimately responsible. No one takes responsibility when things go wrong. Indeed, it was the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, who first commissioned the independent review by Keith Williams that would lead to the recommendation to create GBR—Great British Railways —after the timetable fiasco in 2018.
The issues are myriad. Passengers are consistently faced with a confusing ticketing system, where seeking the fairest price and a valid ticket are often a trial. The timetable, and performance against it, is also a source of disagreement and chaos, meaning that disruption and cancellations are far more frequent than they should be. Thanks to reforms that this Government have already made via the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, which your Lordships’ House passed in 2024, we are already beginning to see progress.
Nine passenger train operators are now in public hands and performance among public operators is outstripping those still in private hands. More operators are continuing to move into public ownership regularly. Once all these services are in house, the taxpayer will save up to £150 million a year in fees that would otherwise have been paid to private franchise owners. Passengers will also find more money in their pockets, due to the first rail fares freeze in 30 years. But these measures are not enough; much more work still needs to be done. There is only one solution to fix these problems—fix the railways, put the customer first and restore the industry to a place of national pride—and it is this Bill.
The Bill builds on and replaces the public ownership Act. That Act was a vital step that allowed us to bring passenger services into public ownership and proceed with some degree of integration. This Bill goes further and will give the Secretary of State the powers to create Great British Railways, one public body that will act as the directing mind for the railway. GBR will bring together 17 different organisations involved in the day-to-day running of the railway, harmonising track and train and seizing opportunities that would not be possible under the current system.
The Bill does far more than just establish GBR. One essential element is a powerful voice for passengers, in the form of the passenger watchdog. The watchdog will set consumer standards for the railways, investigate poor service and provide an independent ombudsman service to resolve disputes between passengers and operators, including GBR and its subsidiaries. It will have a specific duty to consider the interests of disabled passengers, and it will have tools to act where there are repeated issues affecting passenger experience. The watchdog will be a champion for passenger interests, ensuring that the reformed railways deliver on the promises to passengers that we make here today.
I would like to speak about accessibility, and I underline that it will be at the heart of what GBR is and does. I know that passengers with accessibility needs often find railway travel challenging, frustrating and distressing. I know that, all too frequently, facilities and assistance do not meet expectations, so accessibility will be part of GBR’s DNA. For the first time, an accessibility duty will apply directly to a body responsible for both the operation of passenger services and the management of railway infrastructure.
Information, fares and ticketing have in many ways become the face of the industry’s problems, with many different websites offering conflicting information and fares. The Bill enables GBR to simplify the customer offer. A new GBR ticketing app and website will make it easier to plan journeys, purchase tickets and access a range of support consistently in one place. GBR’s online retailer will charge no booking fees and will enable disabled passengers to book passenger assist in the same place as their ticket. This means that, in the future, passengers can better understand the fares system and be confident that what they are getting is correct and good value.
The railway has not had the ability to plan ahead for many years, leading to much less than optimal spend on railway enhancements and higher project costs. That is why the Bill also requires the Secretary of State to publish a long-term railway strategy. The strategy will be the first of its kind. It will give GBR clear direction on the Government’s priorities for the railway over the next 30 years. It will guide the long-term choices that GBR makes, ensuring that the railway is aligned with wider government goals, such as economic growth, jobs and homes, and the environment. The railway undoubtedly faces challenges, ranging from climate change to technological change, and from demographic shifts to financial sustainability. That is exactly what the long-term strategy will examine and consider. The Bill gives GBR and its stakeholders the tools to solve these challenges, placing them on the front foot from the very beginning, and obliges GBR to consult on and publish a business plan setting out how it will meet the strategy.
I turn to network access. The existing process of allowing access to the track—the valuable infrastructure owned by the nation—does not work. Currently, Network Rail designs the timetable but the Office of Rail and Road takes access decisions, and both organisations suffer from not having sight of the wider context of the network. Applications to run trains on the network are, in effect, considered on a first come, first served basis, rather than by reference to any long-term plan for how to make the best overall use of the network, and no one is considering which services are best for the public. That is bad for passengers, bad for freight users, bad for taxpayers and bad for the economy. A single directing mind is the only answer to this problem.
In future, GBR will be able to strategically plan access to the network and implement a reliable, achievable timetable to make best use of our limited capacity. This improved co-ordination will reduce delays and costs and improve reliability. It will stop nonsenses such as the ORR prohibiting the 0700 Manchester Piccadilly to Euston from carrying passengers, and me, as rail Minister, having to authorise the east coast main line timetable. Crucially, the ORR will hold GBR to account for taking fair and even-handed decisions on access, ensuring that it acts lawfully, fairly and reasonably. I am sure we will discuss this at length during the debates on the Bill.
On devolution, the Bill is not about centralising power; in fact, quite the opposite. It brings a whole host of benefits to the devolved nations and regional governments across the country. In Scotland and Wales, the Bill enables further collaboration with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, through Transport Scotland and Transport for Wales, and includes further potential for the integration of both operations and infrastructure, which could lead to improved services and co-ordination within and across our shared borders.
In England, the Bill empowers GBR to work locally in a more integrated and accountable way, and to address the place-making and economic and spatial development plans of strategic authority mayors. This means a statutory basis for structured partnerships with mayoral strategic authorities, and a duty for GBR to have regard to their local plans. The approach enables a full range of partnership options, ensuring that GBR can reach agreements that are suitable for the ambitions of mayors. This includes the ability for mayoral strategic authorities to directly fund GBR activity. There will be clear expectations for GBR to meaningfully engage with all local authorities, including those with and without mayors. In any case, GBR will be more locally focused, with its local business units directly involved with the areas they serve, and with local management engaged with local people and their elected representatives, meaning that the needs of the community are never ignored.
I highlight and underline the benefits the Bill will bring to rail freight, which is, and will remain, a commercial activity critical to improving economic growth and meeting our net-zero targets. GBR will have two statutory duties regarding freight. The first is to promote rail freight, and the second is to have regard to the statutory rail freight target set by the Secretary of State and any freight target set by Scottish Ministers. As the single strategic body, GBR will be well placed to fulfil our ambitions for freight, and it will have the levers to drive progress towards our targets. Before I close, I would like to say that I am looking forward to hearing the valedictory words of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, later. He has dedicated his life to public service, and I am pleased that the Bill’s Second Reading provides the opportunity to hear his remarks.
The Bill is a major step forward. While a detailed scrutiny of its contents—something I am looking forward to taking on—will undoubtedly be required, I know I have the support of the general public in sponsoring it. Public ownership of our railway continues to be popular, with over three-quarters of the public consistently supporting public ownership since this Government were elected. As I open the debate to the Floor, I will leave noble Lords with a final thought. The fragmented nature of the railway industry is plain to see and needs to change. That fragmentation began with the last major railway legislation in 1993, which resulted in over 100 companies being formed. This Bill establishes just one: a single directing mind that can get to grips with the mess, mismanagement and misery that so many rail users have experienced for years. Together, we can rebuild the railway so that the public can finally have a railway they can be proud of. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this thorough and thoughtful debate. I would like to start by paying tribute to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. His distinguished record of service in this place and the Civil Service is a beacon of dedication and commitment to public good. He has brought to our proceedings a deep experience in the heart of government and his contributions are always thoughtful, measured and influential. As always, he is well informed about the railways. Gladstone made provision for the nationalisation of railways in the 1844 Railway Regulation Act. It was not pursued, but it was an early indication that running the railway as one system might be a good idea. I know that the House will join me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, for everything he has done and wishing him all the best for the future after he retires in September.
Turning to the debate at hand, we have heard that everyone across the House can agree that the railways require reform. The current system is clearly no longer working for passengers, operators or taxpayers. Services have been unreliable, customers have been unhappy and the system has provided poor value for money. We have begun taking services into public ownership, but that was never a long-term solution. The Railways Bill is the answer to the issues that have plagued our railways for far too long, providing new leadership, accountability and long-term thinking to the sector and better meeting the needs and expectations of those who rely on it. The Bill continues the great work of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, enabling us to finally reform the wider railway and provide a better service to taxpayers.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have expressed support, with one exception, in my doing this job in the future. I am sure everything they have said will have no effect whatever on the new Prime Minister. I also will not tell my wife. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Guisborough, referred to me as the “guiding mind”. I just say to him that the one thing that the Bill is designed to produce is to stop Ministers being the guiding mind of the railway. The purpose of the Bill is to have a body of people that can run the railway and who are professional and committed to it.
This has been a varied debate. I am going to do my best to cover as many as possible of the topics that were raised. As ever, it is subject to my handwriting and the vagaries of my notes, and I may write to noble Lords in some cases.
I want to start with access reform because the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said that the infrastructure was not used efficiently. He is right, actually. He talked about digital signalling, as did the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and they are both right. One of the issues that we have had is that we have not had a long-term plan for the railway. We have not had a long-term strategy in which to decide where to put those investments and where the capacity that they would give would be best utilised. That is one of the reasons for the provisions in the Bill.
On open access, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Moylan, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and others, the truth is that open access has been severely constrained recently. Most of the applications that have been made to the ORR have been declined simply because the view of the ORR is that there is insufficient capacity on the main lines in Britain to accept more trains. I would contend that one of the reasons for that is that, without a whole system look at the use of the infrastructure, we will never create more paths.
Interestingly, that whole system view of the infrastructure on the east coast main line, which took place several years ago but was not implemented—it could not be implemented because there was nobody to authorise it until I did—did create more capacity. The chances are that, if GBR looks at the job that the Bill will give it, to correctly look at capacity across the railway, I think it is far more likely that there will be capacity on the main lines and that therefore open access will in fact have more chance in the future than it has had in the recent past.
On freight, I thank all those who have said that the freight target is welcome. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, it will drive the Government’s net-zero policies. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, was looking for clarity that there was no intention to interfere in private sector infrastructure. I am happy to give her that clarity: there is no intention to interfere in that. The private sector has invested in rail connections to warehouses and so forth, so I am happy to give that assurance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, referred to fares and in particular to Delay Repay. There is great inconsistency in the way that that is done currently. I welcome her support for some consistency, as we will talk about elsewhere in the Bill, because that is one of the things that is simply lacking in all the retail arrangements of the railway. It is one of the reasons to move forward with the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, talked about ticket retailing, as did the noble Lords, Lord Dixon of Jericho, Lord Harper and Lord Moylan. We have asked the Office of Rail and Road to provide an industry code of practice, which will also have a clear enforcement regime. We remain in discussion with independent ticket retailers, including the one dominant player, and there will be separation of decision-making between GBR’s retail and other functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is right: I am keen on open data. It is important that GBR will share open data. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho, said, open data is vital. I am very sympathetic to the development of alternative websites, but it is equally important that we rationalise the 14 that we already have, which either are in or will come into public ownership. If noble Lords listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, they will have heard about the inconsistency in approaches to ticketing, particularly for people who need help and are disabled. That is one of the things that we propose to remedy.
That subject of accessibility, as I said when I introduced the Bill, is a major issue. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Brinton and Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Holmes of Richmond, all remarked on the need to make this better and to do more. I completely agree. It is really important. Again, the fragmentation of the railway has led to great inconsistency. It is one of the things that badly needs to be sorted out. We had several debates during the passage of the public ownership Act and I am sure we will have some more this time. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, that getting the passenger experience right will also get accessibility right. I know that we will come back to that subject; it is one on which the Government place great importance.
As for a passenger target, the implication that there is somehow no incentive to do that if it is not written in the Bill is wrong. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, all raised this. There will be a great incentive to grow passengers for GBR, as well as to reduce costs, because GBR will need growth and will need to treat passengers properly in order to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of running the railway. I think there are sufficient incentives in here, but I am sure that we will discuss them further.
Several noble Lords referred to the possibility of the Secretary of State micromanaging the railways. The first thing to say is that that is already the case. The present circumstances leave civil servants, reporting to me and the Secretary of State, deciding how long trains are, where they stop and what the timetable looks like at every station in Britain. You cannot get more micromanagement than that. The intention of the Bill is to turn that round; we do not want the Secretary of State to be deciding those sorts of things, we do not want the Rail Minister to decide them, and we do not want civil servants to decide them. We need a body that will take an overall view of the value of the provision of passenger services and freight on the railway and derive the best timetables with the best train service to achieve it. I am very clear that one of the intentions of this Bill is to stop that.
The Secretary of State will, of course, have significant powers, as one would expect, bearing in mind the amount of public money that goes into the railways, but these powers exist in other places in government. They are not commonly used. The Oil and Gas Authority has received only one ministerial direction in its 10-year history. That contrasts with the situation for several years now where the Secretary of State or the Rail Minister has been invited to approve detailed business plans every year, which more or less go down to the trains stopping at every station. That is something that we need to stop.
There are clearly different views about the powers of the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road. The noble Baroness, Lady May, deprecated the apparent reduction in its powers, as did other noble Lords. I always listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has long experience in this. He has said to me, both outwith the discussions today and in the course of this debate, that the regulator should not be in charge; of course there is a role for regulation, but the regulator should not be in charge of the railway. The sad history of the fragmentation of decision-making on the timetable is good evidence that having the regulator deciding how the system is used is not the best way of doing it.
I turn to a long-term railway strategy, which we have not had for 30 years. My noble friend Lady Alexander of Cleveden is right that a long-term railway strategy makes it possible for GBR to drive economic growth in regional and local communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, raised the question of enhancements. I agree with him about the challenges to standards. I do not think the fragmentation of the railway between operations and infrastructure led to any significant challenge on standards—it was certainly difficult to achieve it in a railway infrastructure organisation. There is more likelihood of this challenge in the future where operators will be challenging the cost of running and enhancing the railway, and there is also far more chance of the right schemes being authorised because a long-term plan will set out the best things to do with the best returns on the railway, the best capacity increases, in a way that we have not seen for a very long time. We can discuss the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—
Lord Grayling (Con)
I hate to disagree with the Minister, but he will know that the programme of enhancement set aside for CP6 was carefully discussed with him and the executive of Network Rail and represented a significant plan to do precisely the things that the industry said would make the most difference. The tragedy is that it did not happen, and even now under this Government, it is still not happening.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Recollections are a great thing. I recollect that not one of the of schemes that I was invited to by the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, had a business case attached to it. It was a list of schemes that was just a list of schemes. I think that we can do a lot better than that. A long-term railway strategy that invites the railway to list and make business cases for the right schemes is entirely right.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester made the most important point, which is that if you do not have a list of schemes prioritised by business case, you have no chance of getting private sector contributions to railway enhancements which create growth and wealth. That is an important point and something that a long-term railway strategy and the resulting GBR business plan will deal with.
On private sector involvement, the first thing to say is that this Government are not fundamentally opposed to it at all. At the end of this process, when this Bill becomes an Act, 60% of the expenditure by GBR, once established, will be spent in the private sector.
On the balance sheet implications raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I say that the Railways Bill will not impact the way that the rolling stock leases will be classified by the ONS. I have previously discussed with him the confidence of the rolling stock leasing companies that this will not be the case. The story that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, told about how Network Rail crept back into the public sector in 2014 is absolutely right. It did go back on the balance sheet. No fuss was made about it at all. It turned out to be—all the time—a nationalised industry.
The experience of the franchises in recent times is interesting. A number of noble Lords said that concessions could have been adopted. Of course, the last Government had the chance to do that. They already had four private sector operations in their control, but they did not choose to do anything with any of them; that is an interesting feature. One noble Lord—I am afraid I omitted to note the name—said that, in fact, the private sector operators before the last election were not enamoured at all of that model and, therefore, they were not very keen on it. The truth of it is that the railway had stagnated, and this Bill is the way of retrieving the situation.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, Platform4, which is a successful amalgamation of the Network Rail property function and London and Continental Railways, will undoubtedly continue. The railway has an important role in developing land on and around stations, and the rest of the railway land. It is very important that the railway plays its part in the economic development of the places that it serves.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the question of funding certainty. Of course, the Bill continues the infrastructure funding in five-year periods, and it is shown through the provisions of the Bill to continue. The Bill also gives the opportunity to Ministers in due course to give longer funding periods for the operations, but I think that most Ministers would want to see GBR making a success of its job to do so.
As to passenger safety, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, rightly draws the attention of noble Lords to the importance of passenger safety. GBR will have to face this subject directly; I think it will be more equipped to do so than the current railways. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the safety of women and girls is crucial. This is true in relation to personal safety but also, frankly, for encouraging more travel by half the population.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred to staff safety. I am happy to confirm to her that the Office of Rail and Road will continue its function of managing safety on the railway and, indeed, prosecuting where that is the appropriate thing to do.
A number of noble Lords raised questions about the passenger watchdog and I know we will have a lot of discussion about this. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, raised the question of a passenger charter and the importance of passengers, which is of course right. I am sure that we will have some discussion about how much power the passenger watchdog should have. I disagree, as I generally do, sadly, with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I think that enforcement of what the passenger watchdog wants to do in relation to the Office of Rail and Road is quite sufficient, and I do not see any problem in doing it.
On devolution issues, which the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, raised first, the limitations of some of this are the limitations of railway geography as opposed to political boundaries. As the still current Mayor of Greater Manchester has discovered, very few train services within mayoral boundaries are wholly within the boundary. The other point is that they run on lines which are part of a national network. That does not at all mean that devolution cannot be done with success, and it does not at all mean that mayors cannot have the passenger services they want. Look at the growth of the Overground network in London. In some cases, those services go outside the London boundary, as several noble Lords will recall from their history in London government.
The way that we achieve that is through intelligent discussion about the balance between the network and its local influence and the network and its national influence. The provisions in the Bill are currently quite sufficient and will allow for a discussion between mayors who have an aspiration for economic development in their part of the country and on the connections that their cities and towns need to have with other parts of the country. The Bill is drafted in precisely the way it is for that reason. My current belief is that the Bill allows that to happen and gives sufficient powers for them to influence how the railway is structured.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised several points about Wales. He will know, of course, that the Barnett formula and how it is applied are matters for His Majesty’s Treasury and the Chancellor. I am sure that the new First Minister of Wales will be asking any new Prime Minister shortly about not only that but fiscal devolution in general. All I can say is that the £445 million that this Government have provided for rail enhancements in Wales is far in excess of that of any previous Government. It includes the north Wales coast and Wrexham, and it is a very good start to the Transport for Wales investment plan, which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, referred to. I am sure it will continue like that. I have already met the new Transport Minister for Wales and I am sure we will have some powerful discussions.
As to the design of GBR, I hope noble Lords will know that the Government’s firm intention is to devolve GBR to a route and regional basis. It is quite clear that it should not be some grand, centralised and distant organisation. There will have to be functions that are centralised—the access and use policies are one such example—but, in general, this Government want the railway run by people who are identifiable to elected politicians and the local communities they serve. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is right that it is about leadership—not mine, but the leadership of people who can be appointed to run both operations and infrastructure and produce a better service.
One thing that was lost in the previous 30 years is that franchisees changed quite regularly and so did their managements. Local communities and elected Members could never quite get used to who was in charge because it changed quite regularly. That is not right. I have told the people we are appointing now to integrated business units that they should behave as though they are there for the rest of their careers and that they should get on with it.
I am told my time is up, so there is a limit to what I can answer, other than—
Lord Grayling (Con)
It is a procedural point. There has been a discussion about whether the Bill is going to be committed to the Moses Room or to the Chamber, and there is no Motion before us tonight. Could the Minister reassure us that the discussion now is with a view to having Committee stage in the Chamber?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sorry I gave way because I cannot answer that question—it is not for me to answer.
A large number of noble Lords talked about the history of the railway, whether good or bad—I meant to say more about this, and I am sorry I did not. It is part of British society and we need to run it properly. I will talk separately to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, about heritage railways. The railway has a glorious past and it could be better in future. The Bill is designed to make it better. It puts forward the tools with which we can shape the railway of the future, and I encourage all noble Lords to support it.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 6 to 13, Title.
West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 May be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 June.
Drink-Driving
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential role of innovation and technology in reducing drink-driving, particularly repeat offending.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the role that innovation and technology can play in reducing drink-driving and repeat offending, alongside effective enforcement, education and penalties. Through the road safety strategy, we consulted on measures to tackle drink-driving and drug-driving, including the potential use of alcohol interlocks for offenders. Responses are now being analysed. Our approach will remain evidence-led, proportionate and focused on reducing deaths and serious injuries on Britain’s roads.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his response. He will know that unless an alcolock—which is, in effect, a breathalyser in a car—gets a negative response, the engine will not start. Alcolocks have been introduced in many counties, where they have halved repeat offending and therefore reduced deaths. Might the Government move just a little bit faster than awaiting the outcome of the consultation and take action to either introduce or pilot these as a potential sanction for a drink-drive conviction? Might the Government follow the EU in requiring all new cars to be fitted with a basic kit so that, if this was introduced, it would be very simple to implement?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is a great advocate for better policing of drink-driving. I understand the sad reasons why, and our hearts go out to everybody who has suffered bereavement or injury through drink-driving. Alcolocks are widely used internationally, and the evidence shows that they reduce reoffending while installed, but reoffending returns to a similar level once they are removed. That is not a reason for not doing it, but it is a reason for being careful. The Government have published the first comprehensive road safety strategy for many years, and it is right that we consult on that and that, when we have consulted, what we do about it is proportionate and thought-through, so that the measures actually work.
My noble friend also mentioned installation facilitation, and we are thinking about that carefully. Meanwhile, we are carrying on with a package of advanced safety technologies that are ready now.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, the number of drink-driving convictions is falling, which is very welcome news. But the number of drug-related driving offences is on the increase, which is very concerning indeed. In 2015, the law was changed to make it easier to get prosecutions. I think there is still a lack of understanding in the general public of the danger of drug-driving. Will the Government look at whether they are doing sufficient to highlight this as a very serious crime?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: drug-driving is, as he said, on the increase. We are consulting on better detection of drug-driving, because it is a complex issue: there are many different sorts of drugs and not all the methods of testing will currently stand up in court. But he is absolutely right and we are on the case for this. We publicise the huge dangers of doing it, but we need to get through the operational and forensic challenges of detecting different sorts of drugs through alternative forensic testing procedures, including oral fluids, saliva and sweat.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, given that somebody with a blood level of 50 to 80 milligrams of alcohol has a six times greater chance of dying in a road accident and, on top of that, of killing other people, when will the Government finally implement a lowering of the limit? They are aiming to have an overall decrease in road deaths of 35%, and this would significantly contribute to it.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The first comprehensive road safety strategy for some time was published a few months ago, and part of the consultation is indeed to look at lowering the limits for drink-driving. All the statistics the noble Baroness quoted are of course correct. We need to do something about it, and one of the reasons for the publication of the road safety strategy was that the number of deaths and serious injuries on the road has plateaued and it should be going down.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, UK courts can disqualify drink-drivers, but they cannot currently require an alcolock as a condition of returning to the road. Will the Government consider giving courts this option, in particular for repeat and high-risk drink-driving offenders?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
That is precisely one of the things that the Government have consulted about, because it is important that the maximum range of penalties and actions is available to deal with drink-driving and, even worse, repeat drink-driving. That is why we have consulted. This is one of the items in the consultation and why I anticipate that we will take action when we have analysed the results of it.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, when I was 18, my parents’ car was hit head-on by a drunk driver. Both my parents survived, but my mother was left with life-changing injuries. I therefore warmly welcome the Government’s road safety strategy, especially the consultation under way on lowering the drink-drive limit and expanding the use of alcohol interlock technology. Can my noble friend the Minister give assurances to the House that any new enforcement powers, particularly immediate licence suspensions and alcolock technologies, will be applied consistently by the courts and consistently across all police forces, so that public confidence in the drink-drive reduction measures we are seeking to introduce are strengthened rather than undermined?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sure that our hearts go out to my noble friend and to many other people like him who have suffered this sort of terrible family or close relationship catastrophe. Of course, the enforcement of the law is a matter for chief police officers. However, I have no doubt that, if we improve both the techniques that can be used to detect drink-driving and drug-driving and the range of penalties that are available for enforcement, chief police officers will treat this seriously, as will the courts.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I too welcome the fact that the Government are consulting on how to improve road safety, and I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that any response to that consultation needs to be evidence-based. In that light, how does he take account of the fact that it appears from Scotland, where the limit has been reduced, that there has been no discernible effect on accidents as a result of that measure?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we should respect the evidence. Scotland’s experience is relevant, but it is not the only evidence. The Government recognise that Scotland did not see a significant casualty reduction, but we also cite wider evidence that alcohol impairs driving ability below the current England and Wales limit. Evidence cited in the consultation found that drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 20 milligrams to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres have at least a three-times greater risk of dying, and we will certainly take that into account when we decide what to do as a result of the consultation.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, alcolocks take an hour to fit, they cost £200 to fit, paid for by the user and, as the noble Lord said, they work while they are being used. Why are we not using them to save lives?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I said that we are consulting on the first comprehensive road safety strategy for many years. It is right to consult, because a number of things in the road safety strategy—not just this one—affect many people, we need to hear from everybody, and we have heard from many people what they think of the proposals in the road safety strategy. I would say to him that it is worth waiting for, because it is not right to legislate before you understand what all the evidence is.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might ask the Minister, given that there have been questions both about reducing the threshold for drink driving but also about enforcement from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, what is the Government’s assessment, because it was not clear from the road safety plan, of the biggest contributor to deaths and injuries on the roads? Is it people who do not obey the existing limit, or is it people who obey the existing limit but are none the less not safe to drive?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I have to say there is a whole range of factors that go into it. The reason for the road safety strategy is that the death and serious injury rate has plateaued, rather than going down. The strategy has made it clear that there are a number of reasons for that. If there were only one issue in the strategy, with one consultation, that would be different, but there is a wide range in there intended to make all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, safer. I think it is right, if the noble Lord reads the whole thing, to look at a number of solutions to this.
West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the West Midlands Combined Authority (Key Route Network) (Amendment) Order 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to say that this draft order was considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee without any concerns raised. It relates to the key route network of the West Midlands Combined Authority, which, sadly, I will hereafter refer to as the KRN and the WMCA.
It might help noble Lords if I explain what a KRN is. It is a set of the most important locally managed roads in a strategic authority’s area. Under the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, mayors are required to designate a KRN, but most strategic authorities, including the WMCA, already have one. It allows the most important local roads to be managed in a strategic way across the whole strategic authority area.
Statutory guidance on how to decide the composition of a KRN was published by the Government in April this year, as part of wider guidance on producing local transport plans. In short, the KRN roads should be those that are the most important locally for the delivery of policies in the local transport plan. Authorities should consider things such as traffic levels, public transport use, active travel and freight movement. In mayoral strategic authorities such as the WMCA, the KRN is agreed by a resolution of the authority following a proposal by the mayor. The KRN in the WMCA area constitutes 605 kilometres of roads, accounting for 7% of the total road network and carrying 50% of its traffic.
The constituent councils of the WMCA are Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The WMCA is responsible for the strategic oversight, but the councils are the local highways authorities and remain responsible for the management, maintenance and safety of the roads in the KRN. The WMCA does, however, have some powers over these roads, which it shares with its constituent councils. These include powers relating to making agreements with National Highways, promoting road safety and street works permit schemes.
In addition, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 gave all mayors of strategic authorities a power of direction over the roads in the key route network. The power of direction allows the mayor to direct the local highway authority to exercise its powers over a KRN road that it manages. The power of direction is a limited power, designed to be used only when necessary for the delivery of a measure that has been set out in at least one agreed plan or strategy of the strategic authority, such as a local transport plan.
In summary, the KRN allows for roads to be managed in a strategic way across an area. It enables improved traffic flow and reduces congestion. It also allows for the introduction of traffic management measures to improve infrastructure and bus journey times. I hope that I have set out clearly why a KRN is a useful tool. I am sure that it will have occurred to noble Lords that, due to the changing nature of travel patterns, in particular during the years following the pandemic, it would be prudent for a strategic authority such as the WMCA to keep its KRN under review and update it when it no longer reflects the most important locally managed roads.
For most strategic authorities, updating the KRN is logistically straightforward. It usually requires simply updating the list of roads on its website following a resolution of the authority. For the WMCA, however, making changes is not as straightforward because the roads in that key route network are set out in legislation, in the West Midlands Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017, where they are described as “combined authority roads”.
The WMCA was an early adopter of a key route network. In 2017, under the previous Government, listing the roads in the KRN in legislation provided certainty at a time when the combined authority was new and the key route network had not yet been used. Nine years have now passed and the WMCA would like to update its KRN as part of its work to publish a new local transport plan. The inflexibility of having the KRN roads set out in legislation is a barrier to this. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a process whereby the combined authority must write to the Department for Transport to ask us to legislate every time it wants to amend its KRN is far from optimal. This is especially true when we consider that other authorities simply need to update their website to do the same thing.
After discussions with officials in my department, the combined authority has therefore written to the Secretary of State to ask that we draft and lay this instrument. This follows a public consultation in which 69% of respondents supported the proposal. Subject to its approval by Parliament, this instrument will remove the KRN roads from the 2017 order. Following this, the combined authority will be able to update its KRN roads in the same way as other strategic authorities, allowing it to respond as flexibly as possible to changing travel patterns and deliver better outcomes for road users in the area. I beg to move.
DVLA: Staffing Levels
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of staffing levels at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency regularly monitors staffing levels against demand for its services and changes staffing levels where necessary within agreed limits. For example, the DVLA has recently taken on more staff to meet increased demand for its drivers, medical and contact centre services. Improvements are already taking effect: the average decision times fell from 68 working days in February to 56 at the end of May.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
The fact that it is taking 66 days to answer would explain my problem, as I met all the DVLA’s criteria when I replied in an email on 27 March. If my Question were to have come up next month, we would have been commemorating three months of me waiting to get a driving licence. Does the Minister accept that the DVLA is in a crisis? It is desperately short of manpower and it is not fit for purpose for what it is supposed to do: issuing driving licences to the public of this country, who pay its wages. Is the Minister considering technology to meet this problem, such as putting in place a computer programme to get on with issuing licences, thereby reducing the problem of DVLA not having enough manpower to meet the difficulties it has today?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I hope that the noble Lord received my letter of 12 June, in reply to his email to me on 14 May. If he took the simple action outlined in my letter, he should now have his licence and be driving again. There are 53 million driving licence holders in Great Britain. In 2024-25, the DVLA received 837,591 medical licence notifications, a figure which increased to 922,123 in 2025-26. As I said, the average decision time fell from 68 to 56 working days. It recently recruited 60 extra full-time equivalent caseworkers and 100 additional FTE contact centre staff, to cut call waiting times. The noble Lord is right that, if he were to apply now, he would be able to use the newly launched digital medical services platform, which enables far more customers with medical conditions to notify, apply for and renew their driving licences online.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, it was recently stated in the House of Commons that 34,000 suppliers of number plates are registered with the DVLA. Given the widespread problems with illegal number plates helping people dodge the law, can the Minister tell us how many DVLA staff are allocated to policing compliance by those 34,000 suppliers and whether that number is sufficient?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that this is a serious problem on a significant scale. The Government acknowledge that more needs to be done. A recent consultation closed on 11 May and the actions that we propose to take following the review of the consultation will include legislative change, if needed. I cannot tell him how many people currently do that job but I will write to him with the figure.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will back up what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said and ask the Minister to consider the following. It is one thing to get a driving licence when you pass your test, because you know that you have passed your test. However, when you apply for a renewal at 70, you do not know what will happen. Therefore, you are left in limbo. My wife is a leap year baby, so I believe she is 17 and a half, but the cruel public authorities say that she is 70. Naturally, she sent in her application in January—because 29 February was the cut-off point in question—but she still has not heard a single thing. She has no idea what has happened with the process. That has knock-on effects in practical terms and is a considerable source of anxiety. I believe this to be a widespread problem.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
If the noble Lord drops me a line with a few more details, I will look into that case. The rules demand more attention to medical conditions from the age of 70 onwards, and rightly so. There have been some terrible examples of older drivers who are unfit to drive but have still driven and have caused serious accidents, including death, so we are right to worry about this. The process ought to be efficient. I know better than most that I have to renew my vocational licence annually, and I start it on the first day that I can. I am pleased to say that it always comes back, but that may be because my name is on the licence.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I just thought I should say that so that nobody thought it was in somebody else’s name. It is important that, as people get older, they consider whether they are capable to continue driving and have the right medical history to do so. I realise that it is a real issue for their mobility, particularly in rural areas. That is why the digital medical services platform, to which I referred, enables much more of this to be done online. If the noble Lord would like to give me some further details of his very young wife’s licence application, I will look into it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I imagine that my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom put his name on his licence application as well, though with slightly different results. The DVLA used to be, not so long ago, one of the more highly regarded agencies, rather like the Passport Office. It was pretty efficient and reliable, but it seems to have gone downhill. Taking another example, the Government committed last year to reduce the wait for driving tests to seven weeks by summer 2026. Here we are in the height of summer 2026 and the waiting time is still 23 weeks. What are the Government going to do about this? What date can they now give for saying that they will bring these waiting lists within bounds?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Some issues of government are more intractable than others. Given the statistics I quoted earlier about a 10% rise in medical licence notifications yet a reduction in the timescale dealing with them, I think that the DVLA is not an example of an organisation in crisis but one that is seeking, together with technology, to address the issues it faces on a real-time basis. However, the noble Lord is right that the Government anticipated reducing the waiting time for a driving test to seven weeks; the Secretary of State recently said that it was taking a long time to sort it out and that it will not be sorted out until autumn next year.
That is not to say that nothing has been done. The number of examiners has gone up by 147. In the period between June 2025 and May 2026, the DVSA conducted 242,000 more tests than in the same period. Pass rates are going up, which is very satisfactory. The noble Lord ought to know the effects that the actions to make the booking system fairer—limiting learners to two changes to their driving tests, restricting bookings so that only learners can book and amend tests, and limiting the area a learner driver can move a test to once booked—are already producing. Those actions were taken at the end of March, in the middle of May and in early June, and they are already clearly increasing the availability of test slots. He is right that it is taking longer but we will solve it.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I will take the Minister back to the question about cloning plates, which is increasingly facilitating a whole range of crime, including, with the increase in petrol prices, drive-off from petrol stations. From my experience of 30-odd years being a Member of Parliament in the other place, the DVLA and the police were remarkably uncurious and unwilling to look at genuine grievances from individuals whose plates had been cloned and who were regularly getting traffic violation notices and parking fines. Would it not be for the good of those individuals, and for law and order and the reputation of the authorities, if the police and the DVLA work together to crack down and start to eliminate this menace?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right: it is not acceptable. There are clearly more number plates that cannot be read by ANPR and more cloned number plates on the road these days than there ought to be. I believe that actions are being taken, because it is a particularly unpleasant experience to discover that you are the victim of fines and other costs generated by somebody pretending to have your index number. The Government are concerned about it. As I say, the consultation about eradicating vehicle plate cloning closed on 11 May. If legislative change is necessary then we are committed to making those changes.