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

Amanda Hack Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

If anything, the Elizabeth line has been a victim of its own success—that is why it was right to fight for Crossrail all those years ago. I will come back to the link between what airports should provide and the actuality.

Compared to our international competitors, our public transport to and from airports is woeful: it is non-existent at night or in the early morning, and too often what there is proves impossible for those with heavy luggage. I find it frustrating that the current airport expansion proposals—Gatwick has got all its approvals; Heathrow is in front of our Committee with its national policy statement—can proceed without the rail access that everyone agrees is needed. Those desperately needed train services are just not there. I also find that, compared with most other countries, access to taxis, private hire vehicles, buses and coaches is generally an afterthought or an inconvenience. Unless we address those wider issues, reviewing drop-off charges is just scratching the surface and passengers—rather, the person who is giving them the lift—will continue to feel that they are being fleeced.

Airspace modernisation is long overdue. It will cut carbon emissions and time in the air, which will be good for passengers and good for the climate. I was concerned about the potential for the creation of so-called noise sewers—corridors of noise across parts of the country. However, if the paths are sufficiently wide—NATS told me that they are 10 miles wide—the noise implications will be much less than was feared. The Transport Committee has not yet had a chance to look at that issue.

I want to cover what is not in the Bill but should be. One thing is staff safety. Unite, GMB and the other unions across our civil airports are calling for a clear, national, worker-led approach and response to the increase in abusive and disruptive passenger behaviour that staff face. A recent survey by Unite the union found that 90% of workers in one airport had faced abuse at work.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

A member of GMB, the union that operates at East Midlands airport, told me that it was unusual if she had not received her first abusive customer by 5 am. There is real merit in seeing how we can ensure that the workers in our airports are treated appropriately.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We have railway behaviour notices, so I wonder whether the Government could work with airlines, airports and the trade unions to consider a similar standard and process for the aviation sector.

On EU and UK standards, the UK risks being left behind by the failure to reach an agreement with the EU on a number of issues. For instance, a faulty emergency services helicopter that needed a spare part was unable to use the one stored at a local airport as it was from the EU; there are probably other examples.

On recruitment and retention, the UK has long been an attractive place for pilots and engineers to come and work. We want to continue that growth, but the industry is in need of a mutual recognition agreement with the EU, the lack of which is having an impact on training, the mobility of the workforce and recruitment.

I will move on to the question of noise. Those of my constituents who have lived locally around Heathrow for some time know the noise patterns. Two thirds of my constituents are under one or other of the approach paths used 70% of the time when the airport is operating on westerly operation and the flightpaths are from central London towards Heathrow. Planes are overhead every 60 to 90 seconds for half the day, because we have daily alternation, so to some extent residents can plan when to be in the garden or have friends around and so on, but newcomers to the area can struggle to find the information they need about where and when there will be aircraft noise. Of course, tens of thousands more residents in parts of Hillingdon, Ealing and Hounslow will be underneath the new approach path if the expansion goes ahead, and they do not even know it at the moment.

There is a noise insulation scheme at most airports, but as a constituency MP I find it difficult to know which of my constituents are eligible, how much spend on works they can get and by when. Due to the timing of schemes being approved for different airports as a condition of their planning permission, there is a lack of uniformity across the country in what these schemes include in terms of sound insulation, ventilation and so on. Constituents—and MPs, too—are very unsure about who or what is the appropriate body to regulate noise.

Noise insulation is only one example of the various mitigation measures that airports are required to implement, but for us MPs and our councils and councillors, there is not a body with teeth that can ensure that any mitigation measures are enforced, let alone determine whether or not they are adequate, particularly when it comes to expansion. Mitigation measures can include public transport, which I have touched on, various community benefit schemes, and environmental recovery and enhancement. This lack of teeth—this lack of ability to be clear on the delivery of the mitigation—has come up again and again in evidence to the Transport Committee in our current inquiry on Heathrow expansion. I ask the Transport Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for aviation, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Keir Mather), to examine whether the UK Civil Aviation Authority or another body can be given the powers and the teeth that I know are not there at the moment.

In conclusion, I hope that the Bill can be further improved beyond its safety and passenger rights measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; you will be pleased to know that I have a wide variety of bags for my air travel.

I receive a lot of correspondence on airport-related issues, as East Midlands airport is right at the top of my constituency, so the improvement of customer rights and protections will be key. Having an airport in my constituency also means that I have an intimate understanding of the issues created by having an airport for a neighbour. East Midlands airport has been good at engaging with me on complaints that arise from constituents, but there is always more to be done with the local community. While I appreciate that we are unable to legislate for all in this space, I strongly welcome the Bill’s measures on consultation. Airports should be encouraged to ensure that they are as friendly a neighbour as possible.

Economically, we cannot ignore the fact that East Midlands airport employs 8,000 people, or that 375,000 tonnes of small airport freight passes through it every year. It is the largest small-parcel freight operation in the UK, with DHL, UPS, FedEx and Royal Mail all choosing to operate out of East Midlands airport. As a result, how we modernise airspace will be just as key for freight as it is for passenger aircraft.

Some 91% of travellers get to East Midlands airport by car, leaving just 9% travelling by public transport, which is actually the lowest percentage in the country. Why? There is not a single train station in my constituency and the one closest to the airport, East Midlands Parkway, does not even offer a regular bus service. People have to rely on demand-responsive transport from the closest train station to the airport.

Understandably, airport parking is one of the top subjects of correspondence I receive from my constituents, and even people outside my constituency have emailed because of the work my office has been doing on this issue. Drop-off charges, in particular, are a regular feature of my casework. Parking at East Midlands airport has recently been made barrierless—a lot of other Members have referred to that today—meaning that people can pay only online, or by using an automated phone line by midnight the following day. It can be really easy to forget to pay.

[Alison Taylor]

Does my hon. Friend agree that excessive drop-off charges can lead to dangerous behaviour around airports? The other day, I observed a taxi dropping off passengers in one of the lanes on the one-way system around Glasgow international airport, and I know that passengers are being dropped off further afield; they then have to walk along the side of the one-way system. Has my hon. Friend experienced difficulties like that in her constituency?

[Amanda Hack]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. We have a double red line zone around East Midlands airport, which makes things incredibly dangerous, particularly for those who work at the airport, and whose family cannot afford the drop-off charges. They struggle to get their loved ones to work safely. Of course, most airports allow people to set up an automatic payment account, but that is simply not accessible for all. Some people use drop-off services only once or twice a year. Airports are essentially operating a system in which it is impossible to pay at the point of sale. I have repeatedly asked East Midlands airport to install a pay terminal inside the airport building, but that request has been repeatedly refused.

The drop-off parking system is unfair, and I wrote to the parking management company, APCOA, to request data about the number of parking charge notices issued prior to the installation of the barrierless system at East Midlands airport and following the installation of that system. APCOA did not want to share that data, which I think answers my question. We need to look at the infrastructure around airports. On consumer protection, making sure that people can get to and from the airport safely has to be part of the conversation, because travellers and those who work at the airport feel that they have no choice other than to drive there, or to get a family member to drop them off, which adds costs to a holiday, or to travelling for work. I have raised this point with the Department before, and I would welcome an update on it from the Minister in his closing speech.

It has to be said, though, that East Midlands airport has been doing some really valuable work on supporting and encouraging travel for people with disabilities. Last year, its assisted travel service won a national award for its initiatives to make travel more accessible and easier; the Minister experienced that at first hand when he visited my airport last week. It has also introduced the first UK WhatsApp-based live chat system for assisted travel customers, and has invested about £1.5 million in specialist vehicles, mobility aids and terminal accessibility features. I have travelled on one of those; as somebody who is frightened of heights, it did not really fill me with confidence, but not because it was not safe. East Midlands airport has also installed improved signage, refurbished toilets and provided quiet rooms, as well as a Changing Places toilet.

Accessibility should not be the subject of a big, long conversation; it just needs to be embedded, and I think it is shameful that we are still having this conversation nationally. I greatly welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthening the rights of passengers, particularly in the accessibility space, and to removing compensation limits for wheelchairs, mobility aids and other assistive devices that are lost, damaged or destroyed by UK domestic flights. One interesting thing that arises when dealing with casework is that although wheelchairs are incredibly expensive, the time away from the wheelchair is just as important to consider. Replacing something specially adapted for a person is not an overnight job. They cannot order it from Amazon; it takes weeks to be delivered. Of course, there is more to be done on this, and I ask the Minister to set out in his response the timetable for consultation on accessibility issues.

As a parent of a child who is multiple allergic, the conversation about how we treat those with allergies on flights is a really pressing issue for me. I am greatly pleased that the Government have committed to consulting on a range of accessibility issues, including allergies. With 3 million people in the UK alone affected by food allergies, it is essential that these concerns be addressed. Natasha’s Foundation, the UK food allergy charity, has put together a detailed briefing on the issues that people with food allergies face on planes, including some real-life stories. I do not think we can overestimate the dedicated work of Natasha’s family, and the personal impact on them of the tragic loss of Natasha on a plane. I encourage the Minister to read that report. It includes the fact that about 10% of travellers with food allergies report having had an allergic reaction during a flight. Allergies account for between 2% and 4% of all medical issues that arise on board commercial airlines. I can genuinely say, as the parent of a child with multiple allergies, that sending her on a plane is absolutely terrifying. She travelled alone for the first time earlier this year, for about five hours, and was not offered food on the flight because the crew could not manage her allergies. We need to consider those matters extremely seriously.

In the light of the overnight air traffic control issue, I think it is also pertinent to talk about passenger, pilot and crew wellbeing in the event of a delay on our runways, and how it could be better managed through legislation. In February last year, I attended a roundtable discussion organised by the all-party parliamentary group on occupational safety and health, which was hosting a group of pilots representing the British Airline Pilots’ Association. We heard from the delegation about the ongoing challenges facing pilots, from regulatory failures to significant welfare concerns, particularly when boarding has already taken place. One of the situations described was pilots’ access to toilets. Delegates told us that pilots were frequently unable to use the toilet, and that sanitary items were often not provided for pilots, crew or passengers in the event of a delay. A key factor in the lack of access to such facilities is the fact that rest breaks have been driven down to legal minimums, and that too is something that we need to consider.

I welcome the Bill’s commitment to strengthening passenger protection and ensuring that the industry maintains the highest standards of safety, but I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will tell us what actions will be taken to support pilots and aeroplane staff during delays such as the one that occurred overnight.

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

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for asking about how we can create a system by which those who may have responsibility for damaging mobility aids have the requisite responsibility for compensation and the process. It has been raised with me that, if a person’s mobility aid is damaged in transit when they fly, not only is the compensation not requisite—we will turn to that later in the Bill—but the process of claiming compensation and getting a new mobility aid is often torturous. It places too much pressure on the individual, and it is not done with requisite reflection on the fact that they have as much right to travel as anybody else and deserve not to have their means of accessibility damaged or broken by a private provider. Clause 1 will allow us to set out in more detail how we will deal with the kind of matters that my hon. Friend describes, but she raises an ancillary question about how the overall process should work. That was very well made. I will take that away, reflect on it and report back to her.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

I appreciate the contribution already made about the provision for individuals who require wheelchair accessibility. Could the Minister elaborate on how we will protect travellers with allergies? As someone with personal experience of travelling with a child with an allergy, I know how stressful that can be.

[Keir Mather]

I know about my hon. Friend’s experience, and she outlined to me some of the challenges that go beyond the health risk of travelling with people with allergies and the difficulties that they face. One of those is ensuring that the right food is provided on aeroplanes. If someone is on a long-haul flight and it suddenly becomes clear that the staff do not have allergy-friendly food for them, that can make a travelling experience, which might already have been stressful, all the more difficult.

Through the consultation, the clauses that I am currently addressing will allow people with allergies to directly feed into how the consumer rights system should be designed to most adequately address their concerns and give them equal access without fear of being denied the requisite food, safety or the ability to fly alongside their friends and family. Clause 2’s consultation requirements will allow that to happen, and clause 1 will empower the Secretary of State to make those changes in an agile and definitive way that will quickly provide change so that people can fly with confidence.

The Government must consult disabled passengers, persons with reduced mobility and the organisations that represent them, alongside airlines and airports—which, I must say, do a lot of good and pioneering work in this space, and this framework will allow them to go further. Clause 2 also provides that the Government may consult with others as appropriate. That may include the CAA, passenger rights advocates and groups, or wider industry stakeholders. This will enable a genuinely pan-disability approach grounded in lived experience and expert evidence.

The Government added clause 3 during the Bill’s passage through the other place following constructive engagement with peers on how the Bill could do more to strengthen air passenger rights and promote accessibility. Clause 3 will support the Government’s aim of using clause 1 to enhance and strengthen air passenger rights in the future. It requires the Secretary of State to “have due regard” to the desirability of strengthening air passenger rights when considering whether and how to make regulations under clause 1, particularly where those rights affect disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility.

Clause 3 also establishes a clear set of principles to guide future policy development. They include that passengers should be “treated with dignity”; that disabled passengers should have access to air travel that is “equal or comparable” to that enjoyed by other passengers; that any accessibility assistance provided should meet the individual’s need; and that independent travel should be “facilitated wherever possible.”

Taken together, clauses 2 and 3 help to ensure that accessibility is embedded in the future development of passenger rights policy and remains a central consideration when the powers in clause 1 are exercised. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

From travelling with a close family member with type 1 diabetes, I know about the pressure and the worry that can be caused by travelling with needles and insulin, so that should also factor into the conversations.

[Amanda Hack]

To add to that, travelling with an EpiPen is also incredibly problematic. Airlines often have different regulations setting out what a person should take and how they should prove that they need to carry an EpiPen. Families often need to get a receipt from their GP, which can cost up to £50, to prove that they are EpiPen carriers, so looking at this issue in the round is really important.

[Keir Mather]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will use that as a springboard to raise another piece of the puzzle: the guidance given to GPs about the advice they give patients when they are diagnosed with a particular condition.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)

Amanda Hack Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. On new clause 6, I note the Minister’s comments about the study to understand the level of public transport provision and charges at UK airports, which we obviously welcome. It is worth reflecting on the comments from a number of Government Members that a charge to encourage passengers to use public transport to access an airport, to reduce emissions, congestion and the impact on airport communities, is unfair when a public transport option does not exist for that airport. It is contradictory and confusing, and it undermines the case and the consensus that we must build that aviation is good but the impacts of aviation travel—be they emissions, disruption for nearby communities, or noise—must be mitigated and addressed.

As part of the review, I encourage the Minister and his officials, and those who are undertaking the study, to come up with a much more nuanced approach to the allowable limits for charges related to public transport provision to the airports in question. I believe we will push new clause 6 to a vote, primarily to make the point that a particular charge level cap is appropriate, but I implore the Minister to look into that nuance. It is absolutely right that we encourage modal share and push passengers to use sustainable methods of transport to get to the airport; however, where airports use a charge to increase their revenue that conflicts with the goals at alternative airports, where it is levied entirely to manage ground transportation demand and the impact on local residents.

Airport charges, it is worth noting, are not the norm across Europe. They are definitely not the norm across the world. It is our model of airport ownership that means that this has become an additional fee that, as in the two examples given by Government Members, is unavoidable. It becomes effectively an essential fee. There is an argument that suggests using public hire vehicles to travel to an airport reduces the impact on roadways because instead of dropping off and travelling home empty, or parking, that vehicle is then available for picking up passengers and returning them to another location. It should be considered that there is a possibility to have different charges for different vehicle types—public hire taxis, for example. It is not that we are against the principle; there just needs to be a much more considered approach to how it is structured.

Finally, as stated in the new clause, we believe that £5 is the right level for the charge to be set at, considering all the various cost of living challenges and the lack of alternatives in many places. We have to see that accompanied by investment in active travel and public transport infrastructure at airports, particularly those outside London, where there is lacking provision at present. Hopefully the Government are able to pull those two aspects together to balance that investment in alternatives with the nudge of that charge pushing passengers into alternative modes.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. My constituency is the home of East Midlands airport, where just a few weeks ago there was an increase for rapid drop off from £5 for 15 minutes to £8 for 10 minutes. One of the briefings that we received on the Bill identified an interesting rationale for the charges, and I am sure that will come out in the review.

I have some reflections on choice and fairness. When parking or getting a loved one to drop someone off there are a number of variables. In my constituency, just 9% of the public travel to East Midlands airport using public transport because the options are just not available. At East Midlands Parkway, the closest train station, passengers cannot get a public bus; instead there is a demand-responsive transport option. There is a free one-hour car park and the airport claims that people can get a free shuttle bus—which they can until early November, after which they will have to walk in the dark. I did that without any luggage and it took me about 14 minutes and I was quite speedy. I can imagine how inconvenient that would be for individuals who do not have the ability to pay.

The ability to pay at the point of use and simply forgetting to pay is also very much a part of my casework. When someone has dropped off a loved one at the rapid drop off, they are often doing so at unusual hours—early in the morning or late at night. By the time they get home, they have simply forgotten to pay. I have been asking the airport that a pay terminal be installed inside the airport for a person being dropped off and with the ability to pay, but it simply continues to refuse to do that. For me, it is about choice and fairness, and there does not seem to be much choice or much fairness there. The fear is that it is using the £100 penalty as a way of making up the cost.

There is also the question of whether the cost is proportionate. It is clearly too expensive. What is really frustrating is that Manchester Airports Group also operates Stansted and, as a direct comparison, 50% of people travelling to Stansted use public transport. We are talking about choice and fairness. People there can choose to use other methods, but at East Midlands airport that is simply not the case.

The other additional benefit of Stansted is that people who live within a 10-mile radius get an 85% discount on the rapid drop-off fee. There is no such discount at East Midlands airport—an airport with such poor transport links that only 9% can choose public transport as an option. Not to pre-empt the consultation, but I would welcome the Minister’s views on how we can start making sure that rapid drop off and the fairness to use it is equated with the use of public transport in the locality.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am absolutely delighted that the Government have finally decided to back our amendment and that Ministers now concur with our excellent Conservative colleagues in the other place that a review of airport drop-off charges is desperately needed. I particularly welcome the Government’s slight change to the timelines, giving Ministers even more time to pore over this issue and examine precisely why these charges are soaring.