Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Viscount in agreeing that the consultation needs to be ongoing, and I will come back to that theme in a second. It is important that the Government reduce the administrative burden as well as protecting consumers, and this legislation attempts to do so. The Government say that the purpose of the package travel framework is to give consumers appropriate protections while also supporting growth, innovation and collaboration in the travel sector.

Therefore, there are parts of this instrument that we support. The removal of the confusing linked travel arrangements category and the clarification of rights around redress from third parties respond to genuine problems. The Government say that the present framework creates confusion for consumers and unnecessary complexity for businesses, and that stronger, clearer rules can support confidence and demand. But the real question for the House is whether the Government have listened carefully enough to what businesses told them in the consultation—a point I will come back to.

The Government’s own consultation response says:

“Stakeholders consistently highlighted the disproportionate compensatory obligations the regulations place on travel operators … especially in relation to being the compensator of last resort”.


It also records concern about the interaction between ATOL and the package travel regulations for firms selling both flight and non-flight products.

First, on domestic packages, the Government found that 65% of respondents supported exempting UK-only packages without passenger transport from the regulations. Accommodation providers and leisure businesses said the current rules can discourage them from offering simple bundled products. Some said the legal and insurance responsibilities attached to packaging up a stay with an activity or voucher act as a deterrent, especially for smaller operators, but the Government have ultimately decided not to proceed.

My first question to the Minister is this: if the Government accept that many domestic tourism businesses are being discouraged from innovating, what practical alternative are they offering those firms today? If they will not legislate in this area, how exactly will they help smaller domestic operators to bring new products to market?

Secondly, on insolvency protection, the Government say that trust providers supported allowing organisers to combine trust protection with bonding and that 57% of respondents said that greater flexibility would help businesses meet their obligations, but the same response also makes it clear that industry fears piecemeal reform. Businesses warned that more flexibility without clearer trust account rules, stronger insurance obligations and better oversight could actually weaken protection and widen the gap between regulatory intent and industrial reality. My second question to the Minister is: what work is the department doing to address the broader structural problems that businesses have identified on insolvency protection, rather than leaving them unresolved, and what timetable is there for that work?

Thirdly, on redress and refunds from third parties, the move to create a 14-day period for refunds of cancelled services and clarify that there is a right to redress is welcome, as far as it goes. However, there are ongoing difficulties with enforceability, especially against overseas suppliers, so my third question is: what use is a strengthened right to redress if a small or medium-sized organiser still cannot enforce it effectively against a supplier overseas, and what support enforcement mechanisms will the Government put in place?

Fourthly, on other tourist services, the consultation exposed a real problem for many smaller businesses. The Government found that 55% of respondents wanted the “significant proportion” test removed. This test is used to decide whether an added tourist service, such as an excursion, spa treatment or event ticket, is valuable enough compared with the rest of the booking to make the whole arrangement a regulated package holiday. A modest add-on can become a significant proportion simply because the room rate is low, drawing smaller firms into regulation more easily than larger ones selling the same product. So my fourth question is: what further work will the department do with industry to produce a clearer and fairer test for other tourist services, particularly for smaller operators who say the present rules can work against them?

There is a further concern that we feel Ministers have not properly answered. Under the Government’s approach, firms may no longer be fully in control of when they are selling a package. The industry’s concern is that package status could be triggered not by a deliberate commercial decision of the operator but by the behaviour of the consumer during a single online journey. That matters because full package status brings with it major legal obligations including insolvency protection, organiser liability, refund obligations and, of course, wider compliance costs. The gateway concepts on which this reform depends—the “single visit” and “facilitates”—remain undefined in legislation. Businesses are being asked to accept materially greater liability, while the key terms determining when that liability arises are still unclear.

That lack of clarity creates a risk of unintended package organisers. Hotels offering add-ons, airlines selling accommodation or car hire through third-party plug-ins, and banks, supermarkets or white-label distributors that host travel products may all find themselves pulled into package organiser status without ever having consciously chosen to enter that market. The Government say that these reforms will make the rules clearer for consumers and support compliant businesses, but many in the industry fear the opposite: that it will mean more uncertainty for firms, more complexity in compliance systems and more scope for accidental liability. Can the Minister confirm that her department will publish statutory or regulatory guidance defining “single visit” and “facilitates” before any commencement date takes effect, so that operators at least have legal certainty about the scope of the new package definition?

There is one final question that I feel obliged to ask, because the Act under which this regulation is being made, namely the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, actually expires in June this year. What replaces it? That is a question which my noble friend Lord Moylan asked during a debate on a transport SI recently, and to which the Government have yet to provide a satisfactory answer. Could the Minister have another go now, please?

We will not oppose these regulations today. However, I hope that the Minister can answer the questions I have raised.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026, and for underlining the importance of the sector. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for welcoming the measures we are putting forward today to simplify the rules. We will keep a close eye on implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to talk to the industry more about these regulations, but can she commit to listening to what they have to say? The reason I mention that is that the option to absorb LTA(A) into the package definition was never presented to the industry as a specific, serious or preferred option—the closest it came was as one of four multiple-choice questions. It is very important that the industry be listened to when it is airing its concerns, particularly about single visit and facilitation. I ask that of the Minister, and I apologise for delaying her.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Yes, we will.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his question. As I mentioned last week, the context here is Bill specific and the changes that have been proposed and have been put in terms of this tripartite agreement were in response to issues that had been raised in your Lordships’ House. We went away and convened a particular mode of operating, and we have brought it back as a Bill-specific package. As I also mentioned last week, there are many discussions in the House about how we want to take business forward. The Leader of the House has set that out very clearly. That is the way we intend to proceed more generally.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this very brief debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is of course right—I did not quote that bit of the letter because the Minister did. The House generally does not like needless repetition, so I am following the rules.

I am very grateful to the Minister for those assurances, and I am somewhat reassured. I am grateful—correct me if I have any of this wrong—that the impact assessment will be published before commencement and will be public and transparent and include a dispute resolution mechanism, that the tripartite agreement will endure going forward in further discussions around the Bill, and that all stakeholders will be consulted widely. That is, in effect, what we were asking for. The simple fact of the matter, though, is that we on these Benches will continue to hold the Government to account on behalf of the wealth creators, the businesses, the employers and their workers in this country.

I have heard what has been said and will emphasise a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which I should have made in my speech: we are particularly concerned about the impact of the entire Bill on small businesses. We will return to that theme unless their interests are very carefully protected going forward.

As to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, regarding the strategic position, I am not entirely sure what the strategic position is. But I am grateful for his comments.

I am also enormously grateful to all those on His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s Benches and the many on the Cross Benches who stuck to their principles. We have achieved a great deal and made a bad Bill marginally more palatable. I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 62, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 62E in lieu of Lords Amendment 62.”

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The steel industry is incredibly important to the Government. As noble Lords know, the Government have taken action in respect of British Steel, and, as I outlined earlier, in respect of energy costs for the industry. My department has been engaging in discussions with EU counterparts on this to ensure that we properly understand what is going on. We will always take action to protect our industry.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, if no one else has another question, I will ask a very quick one. The Minister referred to £250 billion-worth of inward investment and 450,000 jobs that will be created. I do not expect her to have this information to hand, but would she be willing to commit to write to noble Lords who have participated in this debate with a list of the amounts dedicated, by whom, where and when, et cetera, particularly in reference to jobs? That is because, as we know, since the Government have taken power, 177,000 jobs have been lost.

Built Environment Sector

Debate between Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right on that point. We need to have the right standards, skills and funding. Among the programmes the Government have in front of them, the affordable homes programme, for example, commits £39 billion over 10 years to build social and affordable housing, which will include low-interest loans and rent settlement reforms to support housing providers to provide those decent standards of housing across the country.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the report argues that the built environment should form a core part of the Government’s industrial strategy. But, as we heard in our recent debate on steel, for Britain to have a strong industrial base, we must also foster a flexible, innovative and low-tax business environment if industrial policy is to thrive. Could the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will not impose further tax increases on British businesses in the forthcoming Budget?