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

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Earl Russell

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My noble friend is a mind-reader; I was going to refer to Network Rail in about 40 seconds. As I said, as far as NERL’s ownership is concerned, it is different, but that should not preclude it having to pay up for claims.

The review then produced another pretext, which, again, does not stand up to scrutiny. This is what it said:

“Such a liability would probably lead to a substantial increase in the annual costs of the ATC”—


air traffic control—

“service, which could in turn lead to increased costs to airlines and passengers”.

What happens at the moment? The compensation liability rests with the airlines and, as such, it has already caused increased costs to passengers. If the airlines did not have the liability their costs would go down, but if NATS then passed back all the increased costs we would be back where we started. Crucially, that assumes that the regulator, the CAA, would allow the costs to be passed on by NATS to customers, instead of taking it out of profits. If, as happens with the water companies, costs were not passed on to consumers but funded out of profits then costs to the airlines and passengers would actually go down, not up—the opposite of what the review suggested.

I come to my noble friend’s intervention. The Minister will understand and, I hope, sympathise with the case I am making because of his previous responsibility for Network Rail. If, as my noble friend said, a passenger is delayed, the train operator pays the compensation. If Network Rail was responsible for the delay, it then reimburses the train operator. That is as it should be, and it is exactly what should happen in air transport. A failure in traffic control is paid for by the traffic controller. My amendment is supported by IATA, which actually wants to go further. It would like the amendment to be extended to airports and other parties that provide air services that can cause disruption yet are not liable for passenger compensation. Airlines currently pay all passenger compensation regardless of who is at fault—for example, the power failure at Heathrow last year.

To sum up and use management jargon, we need shared accountability across the value chain. I hope the Minister can respond positively to the case I have made and put right this manifest injustice.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 9, which seeks to strengthen the consumer protection provisions at the heart of the Bill. This amendment would insert two paragraphs into Clause 1. We believe that both are desirable and necessary if this legislation is to deliver meaningful change for the travelling public. The first would add the requirement for

“standardised, comparable information at the point of sale”.

Anyone who has purchased an airline ticket recently will be familiar with the booking experience. I will not go through all the painful detail but suffice to say that, by the time you come to the payment page, the fee you are charged bears little resemblance to the one that first encouraged you to make the booking.

That is not an accident; it is intentional. It is a business model that has moved, frankly, from the sublime to the ridiculous. For example, at the moment, the CMA is investigating Ryanair’s mandatory charge of £8 each way for the privilege of sitting with your own children. It is a business model that harms consumers, distorts competition and corrodes trust in the aviation sector. Airlines that compete fairly on total price are undercut by those which strip out every possible cost, just to put them back in. We do not tolerate these practices in other markets—imagine for one moment that the same situation was in place when you were doing your online grocery shopping. It means that consumers cannot make rational or informed choices. Again, that is the intention. Families on modest budgets find themselves paying significantly more than they had intended to.

My amendment would address this directly by requiring airlines and all ticket sellers—I emphasise all ticket sellers, whether the airlines themselves, online travel agents or price comparison websites—to display the total price up front, including all fees, taxes and unavoidable charges. We believe this is not a radical proposition. It is not difficult for the airlines, if they are selling direct to consumers, or their agents to comply with. Most consumers reasonably believe that this is the case already, so this amendment aims to make it so.

The second element of the amendment concerns passenger rights. When a flight is delayed or cancelled, or a passenger is denied boarding, they are entitled to certain protections, and rightly so. But the evidence consistently shows that a significant portion of affected passengers do not know what those rights are and that airlines do not always volunteer that information. My amendment would require this information about passenger rights in disruption scenarios to be provided clearly at the point of sale, not buried deep in terms and conditions in the small print, and accessible only to those who know how to look for it.

Thirdly, the information element concerns environmental impact. Consumers are increasingly seeking to make informed choices consistent with their values. Aviation, as we know, is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. While the sector as a whole must decarbonise, individuals, too, wish to understand the environmental impact of their individual journeys. Standardised carbon footprint information at the point of sale would enable informed choices. It would also in time, we hope, drive competition on environmental performance, an outcome that we argue would drive consumer-led carbon-reduction measures.

The second part of the amendment includes mandatory minimum compensation standards and, critically, automated payment mechanisms for flight delays, cancellations and denied boarding. The right to compensation for significant disruption already exists in law. Yet, year after year, consumer bodies and passengers find that it is not happening. They are waiting long times and often having to go to court and take legal action. That is an unacceptable situation.

The solution that I have proposed is an automation system to make sure that, where delays happen, there is an automatic payment so that you do not have to go through a complicated process to do it. The airlines have all this information. They know who is on their planes, they know who is not, they know when they are delayed and they know when compensation needs to be paid. We do not believe that this requirement would be too onerous on the airlines. It would simply make it a more efficient, fair and effective system.

We welcome this Bill. We recognise the consumer protections, but we feel that they need to have real bite. That is what my amendments seek to do. Our worry is that, if we do not put stronger protections in the Bill, we will simply have gestures towards consumer rights without actually putting them in statute. With the inclusion of these amendments, we would take concrete steps to make sure that we are acting in the passengers’ best interests in making these systems fairer and more efficient.

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Debate between Lord Young of Cookham and Earl Russell

Committee stage
Thursday 30th October 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with Amendment 12 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, but I want to speak to Amendment 192, which proposes the introduction of a levy on tobacco manufacturers.

When products cause harm, the polluter should pay. That principle was introduced by previous Conservative Governments; the landfill levy was introduced in 1996 and the soft drinks levy in 2018. After the Grenfell tragedy, we introduced the Building Safety Act to make the construction industry pay for the remediation of high-rise blocks. We should apply the same principle to tobacco.

In a report commissioned by the last Government, Javed Khan looked at three options to raise funds to implement his conclusions. He wrote:

“Introduce a ‘polluter pays’ industry levy on profits from cigarette sales, which can directly fund the full range of comprehensive measures to help us reach smokefree 2030 and make smoking obsolete. This is my preferred option … A tobacco ‘polluter pays’ levy could be introduced in the form of a charge applied as a percentage of these profits”.


It would not impact on the CPI or the cost to the consumer, and it would raise hundreds of millions of pounds.

We debated exactly that proposition on 16 March 2022, Amendment 158 to the Health and Care Bill, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I am delighted to see in his place. He said about that amendment:

“This new Clause … would require the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to carry out a consultation about a statutory scheme for the regulation of prices and profits of tobacco manufacturers and importers. Funds raised by the scheme would be used to pay for the cost of tobacco control measures”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; cols. 287-88.]


That is precisely what Amendment 192 proposes.

Responding to the amendment, the Minister, speaking then from the Opposition Front Bench on behalf of her party, said:

“This strikes me as wholly pragmatic; a wide-ranging consultation would undoubtedly help to strike the right balance between all the parties involved … The scheme proposed in this group of amendments would provide a well-funded and much-needed boost, and a consultation would allow this proposal to be tested, refined and shaped. I hope that the Minister will accept the opportunity of a consultation but if the will of the House is tested, these Benches will support the amendments”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]


She was as good as her word: she supported the amendment, along with the Leader of her party and the Chief Whip, and the amendment was carried, later to be overturned in another place. I was therefore surprised that the noble Baroness did not add her name to this amendment when I tabled it, and I look forward to her compelling speech in its favour.

Amendment 192 would require the Government to consult on the introduction of a “polluter pays” levy. Tobacco is a uniquely addictive and lethal consumer product, and this creates a perfect storm for consumers. The tobacco industry in this country continues to be in good health, unlike its customers, and companies continue to make significant profits: an estimated £900 million per year in the UK alone, with average profit margins of around 50% compared to 10% for manufacturing margins.

There are various estimated costs to society of smoking. That from ASH is £43.7 billion a year—perhaps the Government could share their own estimate—and it is the taxpayer who picks up the tab: costs to the NHS, costs to social care, lost productivity to our economy, and higher welfare bills. A “polluter pays” levy ensures that those who can and should pay, do, and implementing it would raise up to £700 million a year.

So how would it work? The Treasury consulted on a levy in 2014 and did not proceed, but what is proposed now is quite different and, crucially, it would not allow the industry to pass costs on to the consumer and would have no impact on the RPI.

The levy model proposed by the APPG on Smoking and Health would introduce a price cap on tobacco similar to what we do with utilities. That would limit the prices to manufacturing costs plus, say, a 10% profit margin. This would be in line with other consumer products and more than generous for an industry responsible for such high levels of harm. The Government would then introduce a new levy on the industry, to be paid for from its profits.

A consultation would allow this model to be “tested and shaped”, providing a much-needed boost to public finances. The public too share our support for this proposal, with 76% of adults in England in favour of a “polluter pays” levy.

I note that the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this same subject proposes to put the proceeds into

“a dedicated fund held by the Department of Health and Social Care”.

I have not included such hypothecation in my own amendment, but I fully support what he seeks to do. Some £700 million a year could be used to support 2 million more smokers to quit just in this Parliament and accelerate progress towards a smoke-free future. It is likely that funds would be left over, which could be used for other public health activities, helping the Government achieve their mission of reducing the gap in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest.

This is a measured, fair and practical proposal. It would protect the consumer, prevent industry manipulation, provide much-needed funding for the Treasury, and ensure that those who profit from an addictive and lethal product made a proper contribution to repairing the damage it causes. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 194, on a tobacco industry levy and new industry obligations, offers a vital and practical mechanism to make the Bill stronger, fairer and more effective in public health and social justice terms. I am sure there is not a Member present whose family has not been impacted by nicotine addiction, and my family is no exception. The Bill presents an important opportunity to redress the balance between corporate profits gained from selling products that by their very nature kill two-thirds of their users and the burdens placed on wider society that are felt by our health and care systems. Other amendments in this group are based on similar ways of addressing these wider problems and I welcome them. These are problems that, if not addressed, will persist long after the Bill is passed.

My amendment would quite simply make those who profit from harm contribute directly towards repairing it. The tobacco industry continues to generate vast profits from the products it sells and it has huge economic and human suffering costs. I acknowledge that accurate statistical data in these areas is complex, but it has been estimated that the four largest tobacco manufacturers made approximately £900 million in profits annually in the UK, according to one 2023 estimate. I well recognise that tobacco duties are a significant source of government revenue, raising an estimated £8.1 billion in 2025-26, which represents 0.7% of all government receipts and is equivalent to 0.3% of national income. However, this revenue goes towards general taxation.

The health impacts of smoking and nicotine are estimated to cost the UK economy billions of pounds annually, with estimates for England alone reaching up to £43.7 billion if the total societal costs are included and some £2.5 billion in direct service costs for the NHS. These figures are significant and productivity loss and health impacts have big societal impacts. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce by regulation a levy on companies’ profits derived from income from the manufacture or sale of tobacco products in the United Kingdom. The levy would apply annually and would be based on profits attributable to tobacco sales here. The funds raised would be paid to a dedicated ring-fenced account held by the Department of Health and Social Care. As has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, every penny collected would be used solely for the purposes of either smoking cessation services, public health campaigns focused on reducing tobacco harm or healthcare services to treat people living with smoking-related diseases.

It is worth stressing what this amendment would not do. It would not set the rate or the structure of the levy. I have left these details entirely for the Government to determine. The measure is not prescriptive; it would simply establish the legislative framework and would allow Ministers to design and introduce a fair and proportionate levy. It would give the Government flexibility to decide, for example, whether the levy should be assessed by company profits, by market share or by a combination of the two approaches. It would equally be left to the Treasury to investigate and decide, with Ministers, the best way to implement it. The principle of the amendment is the important point, and it is clear. The principle is that the tobacco companies, and not the general taxpayer, should contribute directly the greatest proportion of the cost of the harm that their products cause. It would align, as has been said on other amendments today, with the “polluter pays” model, which is endorsed by health experts across the field. The estimate is that £700 million could be generated annually to help transform smoking cessation services and public awareness campaigns, services that have been hit by cuts.

Although the level of smoking is reducing, some 13% of the UK population still smokes. This has significant impacts. For example, Imperial tobacco holds 40% of the UK market; that market is worth £30 billion annually. Meanwhile, on the other side, the NHS and the Treasury have to deal with the societal consequences of what tobacco does.