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

Keir Mather Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Before I turn to the Bill, let me comment on the events of the last 24 hours, which have shown just how important effective oversight of our aviation sector is. The shocking failure at NATS has left hundreds of thousands of passengers in the lurch, and serious questions have been raised about the resilience of our air traffic control system and aviation infrastructure. As we consider legislation that gives further functions to the CAA, we must ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny and ministerial accountability are not lost. When something goes wrong this badly, the House must be able to demand answers.

Having spoken to Mr Speaker earlier today, it was my understanding that urgent questions requested by my party and by the Liberal Democrats were not accepted because the Government gave assurances that a statement will be made in the House tomorrow. The Government could have chosen to make a statement today, but they chose to prioritise other matters. If the Secretary of State would like to intervene to say that tomorrow there will be a statement in which all Members can ask proper questions about what has happened, I would welcome that. A Second Reading debate is not the right place for questions and answers, and only one hon. Member from the Labour Benches intervened on her. This is not an appropriate moment to have that discussion, so perhaps the Secretary of State would like to confirm that there will be a statement tomorrow. If not, I am afraid it looks like there has been a serious miscommunication between the Speaker’s Office and those on the Government Front Bench. [Interruption.] Sorry, does the Minister want to speak from a sedentary position, or does he want to come to the Dispatch Box and speak?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Holden]

Okay. If he does not want to answer the questions, we will have to drag him to the House tomorrow.

[Keir Mather]

I am in the House right now!

[Mr Holden]

If the Minister would like to speak, he can stand at the Dispatch Box. No, he does not want to do that—fine. We will have him here tomorrow, then, as we were told today that our urgent question would not be accepted because the Minister would be making a statement. We will have to see whether that actually happens.

Having said all that, I welcome the engagement from the Secretary of State and Ministers in the other House on this Bill, and the engagement that has taken place on this matter. I would like to see that engagement continue, and I hope that it can.

The Conservatives agree with the stated aims of the Bill—namely, to promote economic growth and infrastructure development, to strengthen consumer rights and protections, and to enhance aviation security. For that reason, we will not divide on Second Reading. I also agree with the Secretary of State’s observation in her letter to colleagues on 1 September, in which she said that the contributions of the Lords have helped strengthen the legislation before the House today. At its core, this is broadly an administrative Bill. We on the Conservative Benches recognise that certain measures must be taken following our exit from the European Union to ensure that regulatory gaps are filled and continuity is maintained in a way that ultimately keeps Britain’s aviation industry working safely, as the Secretary of State highlighted.

The Bill pays much attention to consumer rights and associated protections, and the Conservatives welcome parts of that agenda. Indeed, I appreciate the Department showing some flexibility on these issues, particularly with regard to safeguarding disabled passengers. However, given the violent agreement between the Secretary of State and me on these matters—I confess that it is not always this way across the Dispatch Box—I am slightly puzzled by one item. Why on earth did her party whip Members in the other place to vote against a review of airport drop-off charges? Why are passengers paying such exorbitant drop-off charges? It would appear that the Government do not want us to know that. Why is it, as The Times has reported, that charges at Gatwick have now reached £10 for 10 minutes, while Luton’s, under Labour-run Luton council, have increased from £2 to £7?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is great to be back at the Dispatch Box, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank all Members for their participation in today’s debate. Before I begin, I too would like to acknowledge the significant disruption caused by yesterday’s air traffic control fault, and apologise to all passengers whose travel plans were affected. As those events have shown, civil aviation is a cornerstone of our national prosperity, supporting jobs, investment and connectivity across the United Kingdom. This Bill is an important piece of legislation, and one that is rightly regarded as an opportunity to strengthen a critical sector for the United Kingdom.

The aviation sector has evolved significantly in recent years as a result of rapid technological developments, new aircraft capabilities and the emergence of new airspace users, including drones. The regulatory framework requires modernisation to adapt to these developments. At the same time, the UK’s departure from the European Union has limited our ability to update certain areas of aviation regulation. The sector has also had to respond to major external shocks, from the unprecedented disruption caused by covid-19 to, more recently, instability in the middle east. To meet these challenges, we need a framework that is flexible enough to adapt to change, support innovation and keep passengers at its heart. The Bill will help deliver that framework.

The Government have listened carefully to the scrutiny that the Bill received in the House of Lords. We made a number of significant changes during its passage through the other place, particularly to strengthen accessibility provisions, passenger protections, accountability and parliamentary oversight. I thank peers from across the political parties and the Minister, the noble Lord Hendy, for their efforts in achieving this. As a result, the Bill that is before the House today is stronger than the one first produced.

I have paid close attention to the points raised by Members across the House this evening, and I would like to address them in turn. I will start with the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), who I warmly welcome to her place—it is great to be working alongside her. They have made an impassioned defence of the aviation sector and aviation businesses; I only wish there were more Conservative Back Benchers in the Chamber to listen to their impassioned pleas. I will make two points, the first of which is on the shadow Secretary of State’s point about making a statement. From my experience as a Government Whip, it is never wise to question Mr Speaker’s decisions about what is allocated or not allocated in this House.

[Mr Holden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Keir Mather]

I will just finish my point. I am, however, more than happy to come and answer any questions the Secretary of State may have in this place.

The shadow Minister made an important point about the fact that the Secretary of State has asked the CAA to report within six months. When we had the major outage in 2023, it took two years for the CAA to make a similar report. In that report, it made 34 recommendations, of which 32 have been implemented, so a six-month timeframe is a much shorter, sharper window in which to get definitive answers to these questions. NATS is also required to provide a report to the CAA within a week of the incident taking place, to fully explain the implications of what has happened.

I will now give way to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr Holden]

I just wanted to make it very clear that I was in no way questioning what Mr Speaker decided. When he spoke to me, he made it very clear that his understanding was that the Government were going to make a statement. [Interruption.] Government Front Benchers may shake their heads, but that is what I was told by Mr Speaker.

[Mr Holden]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was making was that I was basically being accused by the Minister of saying something that I had not said. I just wanted to make clear what was said, because the real question here is one of parliamentary scrutiny.

[Keir Mather]

If the shadow Secretary of State is of the opinion that I have mischaracterised what he said, I will of course withdraw that statement, but I suppose we should let the usual channels take their course in figuring that out. I should add that I was slightly remiss in what I said earlier: not 32 but all 34 of the recommendations have been implemented.

Let me now turn to a serious point raised by the shadow Secretary of State about drop-off charges and the amendment that was made in the House of Lords. I can confirm that the Government have no objection to conducting a review of this matter, although we need to think carefully about the terms of such a review and about the time that it will take to ensure that we can engage with the range of issues that Back Benchers have raised today about transparency, charging, ability to pay and free drop-off points.

I understand people’s frustrations when public transport challenges prevent them from accessing airports. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) made that point very powerfully. I should also acknowledge, however, that airport drop-off charges operate as part of a wider framework. They are often used to manage congestion—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince)—to meet mode share targets, and to fund infrastructure improvements. However, all that could be part of the conversation that takes place through a review, and our approach will, of course, always be to protect passengers while supporting our airports as businesses.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Keir Mather]

I am being spoilt! I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern).

[Alistair Strathern]

My hon. Friend will probably have heard me speak at great length today—for purely good reasons—about the importance of the subsidised bus travel that Luton airport offered over the summer holidays, not just to my constituents but to anyone intending to travel from the airport in August. Might not such subsidies, as opposed to just increasing the cost of drop-offs, be a positive way to encourage people to make that modal shift and travel sustainably, and to take people out of cars and on to buses when they travel to Luton airport in the future?

[Keir Mather]

That is an intriguing idea, and I should be very glad to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further. Of course we want to promote the use of public transport to reach our airports by as many people as possible. Let me now give way to my hon. Friend from the Transport Committee.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Of course, none of us wants to see the roads approaching our airports become more congested than they already are, but I checked Gatwick airport’s website—we heard about Gatwick earlier—and it seems that for blue badge holders it is free to use the drop-off service. Irrespective of when the review takes place, or even if it takes place, I am sure the Minister agrees that no airport in the UK should apply drop-off charges to blue badge holders, and that it should be easy for those people to access airports.

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. He is, of course, right: people with disabilities are disproportionately more likely to use drop-off services at airports than other customers, so it is for airports to facilitate that whenever possible. I am pleased to say that, more often than not, robust procedures are in place to ensure that passengers with disabilities have free drop-offs at airports, but that needs to be adopted widely throughout the sector.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—he has been very generous. May I pursue the point about enabling more people to travel to airports on public transport? I have raised with him my fear that the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement is not strong enough to ensure that, if we are to have a third runway at Heathrow, we will also have improved rail links, including a southern rail link, which could well benefit my constituents. May I urge him, as the Government look at the responses to that consultation, to think again and strengthen the policy to ensure that we get not only the third runway, but the infrastructure that would be needed to support it?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend is right to say that that should be our focus. All four of the tests that we have set out on which a development consent order for Heathrow expansion would be granted are dependent on ensuring that we have adequate surface access to the airport, both for his constituents and people across the country and for the people who work at the airport. That relates to air quality and to carbon impacts. It must be a focus, and it will be considered, now that the consultation has closed.

I share the anger and frustration expressed by the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), on behalf of the passengers who have been affected over the past two days, but I also thank the staff and the aircrew aboard planes for the difficult work that they have undertaken to ensure that people are ultimately safe and their welfare is protected. I understand that many of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will be doing that important work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth asked whether passenger rights are fit for purpose at present. The Bill gives us the power to update passenger rights when we feel that they do not go far enough. Doing that through secondary legislation will ensure that all Members can feed their experiences into the process. Clause 3 also means that the Secretary of State must have particular regard to those who are most adversely affected when things go wrong and disruption occurs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth spoke powerfully about the need to have proper resilience and contingency planning for airports in relation to people with disabilities, but also to parents with baby food. All these considerations need to be part of the process, and I thank her for championing the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who speaks incredibly powerfully about his family’s experience of using a wheelchair to travel and fly. I hope he is reassured that the measure in the Bill that lifts the compensation cap for damage to wheelchairs on domestic flights goes far enough.

The Chair of the Transport Committee also made the point that there needs to be a single standard of treatment for everybody who uses our airports, building on the commitments in her Committee’s fantastic report, “Access Denied”. I can confirm that the Department is looking at this issue very closely through an accessible travel charter, spearheaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). It will have key expectations, pledges and commitments, and it will make sure that treatment is consistent for passengers with disabilities from the train that they board to get to the airport to the aeroplane door. That is incredibly important.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth made a broader point about public transport access in relation to airport drop-off charges, and her point about taxi access is something that I would be glad to discuss with her further. I know that it can cause unintended consequences and community disruption, particularly around unlicensed taxis, and I know that is also an issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales).

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth and other Members are right to point to the issue of staff safety. We should all be clear in this House that any form of abuse or intimidation of those who work at our airports is totally unacceptable. The Government will work with airports and airlines to stamp it out wherever we can, and work on this issue should be forthcoming shortly. I am very pleased to be meeting Unite the union to discuss this matter tomorrow, and I thank it for its consistent campaigning on this work.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) made a really important point about scrutiny and delegated powers being part of this Bill, and asked whether there has been overreach. I believe that the provisions in the Bill that relate to CAA rule making and the need to have safety rule-making powers within the CAA are necessary, because aviation safety rule making is highly technical. It is fast-moving, yet the current system forces every change through a process that is very duplicative and resource intensive. There are strong safeguards for that process, and Ministers will be able to set the CAA’s priorities through a published framework. During the Bill’s passage in the Lords, the Government introduced amendments to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of the new aviation rule-making framework and implemented all the associated recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which the hon. Member knows is assiduous in its efforts to ensure that Parliament is robustly consulted on these issues. More broadly, I am glad that he and his colleagues are supporting the Bill at Second Reading, and I look forward to engaging constructively with him on his amendments.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) spoke powerfully about his experiences at Manchester airport with regard to both the use of sunflower lanyards and the airport’s Sunflower room. This Bill is about giving the CAA the ability to ensure that consumer standards are upheld and to strengthen people’s rights, but we cannot omit the excellent work that is already happening at airports up and down the country. The staff make those places positive areas from which to travel for people across our country, and I think that needs to be recognised as part of this debate.

My hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip both expressed concern that when the compensation cap is lifted for damage to wheelchairs on domestic flights, airports and airlines might withdraw their willingness to take wheelchairs on to planes. I can assure my hon. Friends that I think airports and airlines will work hard to comply with these measures, but the Bill contains provisions for the CAA to enforce consumer rights, and I am sure that will be part of any process that takes place in this space. More broadly, although the Bill extends to domestic flights—there is an issue with extending it any further due to the Montreal convention—I was pleased to speak to the United Kingdom’s permanent representative to the International Civil Aviation Organisation this morning about this very issue and how we might raise it more robustly in international fora. 

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) raised our common obligation to think about all questions affecting aviation with a simultaneous consideration of their effects on the planet. I am glad that he thinks that we are engaging adequately on some of these questions, and I am always happy for him to push me further when he thinks we are not. We are developing a world-leading SAF mandate and revenue certainty mechanism. Changes to airspace modernisation can mean that flights are more efficient and burn less fuel. The jet zero strategy is pushing us much further in this direction.

More broadly, through the future of flight industry group, the Department for Transport is undertaking pioneering work on aviation sustainability, electric and hydrogen as forms of propulsion in aviation, and promoting higher standards through CORSIA—the carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation—at ICAO. So I hope that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam feels that we are moving in the right direction, although I am always happy for him to push me further.

The hon. Gentleman asked me a valid question about oversight of the CAA and NATS, and this was also asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam shares my view that we need to do everything possible to minimise the chance of what happened yesterday happening again. He will know that the CAA, as a regulator, can put mechanisms on NATS for delay-related targets, alongside penalties that reduce airline charges when targets are missed, but we know that we need to go further. We know that more needs to be done, and as the Secretary of State said, the CAA will undertake an independent investigation to understand what happened. By asking the CAA to review immediately, we as Ministers can ensure that there is strong oversight for passengers. If the hon. Gentleman believes that this should lead to further enhancements for air passenger rights, it is clause 1 of the Bill that will allow us to do so. His point was very well made.

Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), it was a pleasure to visit East Midlands airport the other week. She raised an opportunity, which presents itself in this Bill through its measures on slot regulation, to think about how we can help our air freight sector to perform in a more agile way, to move more goods through our airports and to boost growth for UK plc. She also raised questions about allergies and how we can protect passengers with allergies when they are travelling. That is incredibly important, which is why it is in the Bill and will form part of the consultation formed under clause 2. She asked me when the consultation on these issues will take place, and it will be within 12 months of the passage of the Bill. I thank her and my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) for making powerful arguments in defence of our regional airports.

I thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) for his offer to work on a cross-party basis to ensure that we learn the lessons from what happened yesterday and ensure effective oversight of NATS. I say to him that we are in the early stages of understanding what the impact is on consumers and the aviation sector, but I will of course do my very best to keep the House informed as we get more information. I will pass on to the Ministry of Defence the issues he raised to do with the MOD and RAF Lossiemouth about the regular training exercises, their noise impacts and how that intersects with civil aviation, and then I will write to him on the issue.

[Chris Vince]

The Minister is making an excellent speech—the take-off was fantastic and I am looking forward to seeing the landing. I want to ask him about the recent fire at an electricity substation at Heathrow airport—the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I am very aware that we are seeing increasingly extreme weather—we had the heat over the summer and I suspect we will have extreme cold during the winter—so has the Minister considered the challenges that our aviation sector will face and what does he think the Government can do to mitigate those issues?

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for saying my speech is fantastic, and it is certainly detailed. I know that we have been cruising at altitude for some time, so I will do my best to get on with it. He raises a broader point about climate resilience at our airports, and I can assure him that the DFT takes this matter incredibly seriously and is progressing work across the Government to think about how we can become more adaptive, in partnership with the private sector, to deal with these issues.

Turning to the matter of the legislative consent motion in relation to clause 7, I confirm to the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey that it does engage the legislative consent process for both Scotland and Northern Ireland. My officials are engaging with their counterparts on this matter, and I will be sure to keep him informed.

The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) asked me about the subject of his private Member’s Bill on creating an ombudsman for the CAA. My view is that the costs of setting up a potential ombudsman outweigh the benefits it would bring. Complex CAA decisions, such as changes to flight paths, are already subject to extensive consultation. I am of the view that the CAA has robust remedies for people dissatisfied with customer service issues, including consideration by the independent complaints assessor, while the work of the CAA is also subject to oversight by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, and that is before we get into a broader conversation about the CAP 1616 process. However, I am happy to discuss this with him after today’s debate and ahead of Committee consideration to think about what more we can do to address his concerns.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also raised a concern about the CAA reporting within six months and us not dealing with the situation with the immediacy it requires. I can assure him that a report will be coming through from NATS to the CAA within a week. That will provide its initial assessment of what has taken place. We will shortly have more to say on what the impacts are and I will endeavour to keep the House informed. He raised a point about whether there will be sufficient follow-up actions. That is a fair challenge, but I would just say that when the outage occurred in 2023, 34 recommendations were proposed to mitigate reoccurrences by the CAA, all of which were implemented.

On CAA oversight, I agree with my right hon. Friend that that is massively important. I would just say that we currently have a robust system for CAA oversight, although we can of course debate whether to take it further. There is an independent complaints assessor, the CAA’s work is subject to oversight by the PHSO, economic regulation decisions can be appealed to the CMA and there is of course the CAP 1616 process for airspace modernisation, but I would be glad to engage with him on where we can take those matters further.

I will draw my remarks to a close. The Bill is about modernising the UK’s aviation framework so that it remains fit for the future: supporting growth; strengthening passenger protections, particularly for those who find travelling through our airports most challenging; and maintaining the highest standards of aviation safety and the UK’s formidable reputation in this space. Our ambition is to build a competitive aviation system that delivers for passengers and keeps pace with technological and operational change. Today’s debate has been wide ranging and a useful opportunity to discuss important issues with hon. Members. I thank all those who have contributed and I look forward to continuing our discussions in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Civil aviation (Consumer protection and regulatory reform) bill [Lords]: programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 22 October 2026.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Shaun Davies.)

Question agreed to.

Civil aviation (Consumer protection and regulatory reform) bill [Lords]: money

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Shaun Davies.)

Question agreed to.

Civil aviation (Consumer protection and regulatory reform) bill [Lords]: Ways and means

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges for the exercise of functions under or by virtue of the Act.—(Shaun Davies.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members have not had the chance today to properly raise the NATS blackout, which has affected over 100,000 passengers and cost UK aviation tens of millions of pounds. The Secretary of State has not indicated that the Government will provide a statement today in the Chamber. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you tell me what those of us on the Opposition Benches, and all Members interested in raising issues that affect their constituents, can do to get answers from the Government?

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

Keir Mather Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to please switch electronic devices to silent and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I also remind all Members to speak slowly, loudly and clearly and, ideally, to look up while they speak. That is to support Members who are hard of hearing.

We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee. The motion can be debated for up to 30 minutes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

I beg to move,

That—

1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 20 October) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 October;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 October.

2. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 5; Schedule 1; Clauses 6 to 9; Schedule 2; Clauses 10 to 13; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 14 to 17; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

3. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 22 October.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank all hon. Members who are taking part in the proceedings of this Committee. I have nothing substantive to add to the debate that was had yesterday on this matter. Therefore, I commend the motion to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Keir Mather.)

[The Chair]

Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. Members are responsible for declaring any interests, in accordance with the code of conduct, at the start of proceedings and when speaking or tabling amendments. Do any Members wish to declare interests?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

Taken together, amendments 5 and 6 and new clause 2 address a single question: what is the Bill intended to achieve for British aviation? Amendment 5 would require Ministers to consider economic growth, competitiveness, investment and the regulatory burdens imposed on the sector. Amendment 6 would hold the Government to their own target for reducing the administrative cost of regulation. New clause 2 would place the Bill’s overarching purpose at its forefront: supporting a competitive, growing aviation sector while protecting consumers.

Economic growth, competitiveness and investment must be at the heart of this Bill. That is why amendment 5 is so important. It would ensure that, when Ministers exercise their considerable powers contained in this Bill, they are required to consider the consequences for growth, competitiveness and investment—I know that that is a rarity for them, but they may as well start today. How on earth can businesses be expected to make long-term investment decisions when the Government cannot even provide them with clear and consistent direction? Above all, the industry needs the confidence to expand and the certainty to invest, and a Government who are useful and whose policies are conducive to that goal, rather than being all over the place with myriad positions. Amendment 5 would clearly fulfil that goal, ensuring that Ministers consider the consequences for growth. I hope that the Minister will support it.

It is bizarre that we have to debate amendment 6 at all. The Opposition have not pulled the target in it out of thin air; it is the Government’s own target. They set it, not us. The Minister cannot ramble on in the usual way that his colleagues do about a poor inheritance; his Government made this commitment themselves. Yet bizarrely, when this matter was raised in the other place, the Minister there refused to back it—shameful, really. Do Ministers simply not care about the costs they are piling on to British businesses? Of course not. When we examine their record—regulation upon regulation; standard upon standard; requirement upon requirement—it is clear for all to see, especially the businesses that have suffered and been forced to curtail plans to grow, expand, hire and succeed. That is why we have tabled amendment 6: we are simply asking Ministers to stick to the target they set themselves.

Finally, new clause 2 would place an overarching purpose in the Bill. As we have argued throughout the consideration of this legislation, growth must be our north star in aviation policy. We want Britain to have a thriving and internationally competitive aviation sector, with airports and airlines able to invest, expand and succeed. That ambition is entirely compatible with protecting the rights and interests of passengers. Indeed, a successful aviation sector depends on passengers having confidence in the services they receive. New clause 2 would therefore make it clear that the purposes of the Bill are to promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector, to support economic growth and to protect consumers. I struggle to see why the Government would object to putting those balanced and reasonable aims in the Bill.

Amendments 5 and 6 and new clause 2 form a coherent package. They would establish a clear, pro-growth purpose, require Ministers to consider the effect of regulation on investment and competitiveness, and hold the Government to their own target for reducing administrative costs. I hope that the Minister will support them.

[Keir Mather]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, to her place. It will be a pleasure to work alongside her as the Bill makes it progress through the House.

The hon. Lady’s amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to promoting economic growth when making regulations under the clause. Let me be clear that economic growth remains a crucial priority for this Government. Sustained growth is essential to raising living standards, supporting good jobs and funding our public services. That is why the potential impact on growth is already firmly embedded in policy development. Growth assessments require Departments to consider how proposals can maximise positive impacts and minimise negative ones, and form an essential part of the collective agreement process before new policy is introduced.

Growth is therefore considered throughout the development of policy, rather than only at the point when regulations are made. That scrutiny is reinforced through the options and impact assessment process, which requires careful consideration of the effects on business, trade and investment, the ease of doing business in the UK, and wider economic growth. The substance of the amendment is therefore already addressed through established and rigorous processes. Putting a further duty in primary legislation would not strengthen that consideration; it would duplicate obligations and processes that already apply. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

Amendment 6, also tabled by the shadow Minister, returns to the question of how the Government should account for regulatory burdens when exercising the powers under the clause. The Government’s position remains clear: reducing the cost of regulation to business is a firm, cross-Government commitment. That work is already being pursued in a co-ordinated and systematic way, including through regular reporting on changes to administrative burdens, collated and published across Government. The issue is therefore not whether those costs should be controlled, but whether the amendment would add anything useful to the framework already in place.

The evidence for this Bill is also important. As the published impact assessment makes clear, its measures are expected to reduce costs to business over time. In particular, improvements to the safety rule-making framework will provide greater clarity, consistency and efficiency. The Bill therefore advances, rather than cuts across, the objective that amendment 6 seeks to promote. Nor would it be appropriate to place the Government’s 25% target in primary legislation. Doing so could bind Secretaries of State in future Parliaments to a target set for the present circumstances, even when subsequent policy or economic developments warrant a different approach. The Government are already acting on the amendment’s underlying objective, and the Bill itself is expected to deliver efficiencies for business. The proposed statutory provision would add rigidity, not stronger protection. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the hon. Lady not to press it to a Division.

Finally in this group, new clause 2 was also tabled by the shadow Minister. It would insert a purpose clause requiring the Secretary of State, when acting under the Bill, to have regard to competitiveness, growth and consumer protection. The Committee will be familiar with the Government’s position on Second Reading and in the Bill’s consideration in the other place. I will therefore focus briefly on why we remain unable to support the new clause.

The Government share the objective of supporting a competitive and growing aviation sector. Those aims already inform wider Government policy and decision making, and the Secretary of State sets out strategic priorities to the Civil Aviation Authority each year, including on the importance of supporting economic growth. The question is whether a purpose clause is the right way to secure those aims. We do not believe it is. New clause 2 would give particular prominence to a fixed and incomplete list of considerations governing every exercise of the Bill’s powers. Notably, that list does not include safety, despite its fundamental importance to aviation and the Bill.

Ministers must retain the flexibility to balance consumer protection, growth, competitiveness, safety and any other relevant factors in the light of the evidence. The explanatory statement for new clause 2 suggests that the duty would extend to the Civil Aviation Authority, but the drafting itself does not do so. In any event, the CAA is already subject to the statutory growth duty, requiring it to have regard to economic growth proportionately, so the new clause is unnecessary to growth and potentially restrictive in wider effect. The Government approach allows decisions to remain evidence-led, proportionate and responsive, without elevating an incomplete set of objectives above other vital considerations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause to a vote.

[The Chair]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the Minister expressed a concern that the amendments and proposed new clauses might unduly bind a future Government or Parliament. He might have only been here a few years, but he is an extremely experienced parliamentarian. He knows that no Parliament can bind its successors. It is very easy for Governments, particularly those with the majority that this Government have, to overturn and amend legislation, so the amendments would not bind a future Government, because such legislation can be changed. Even if he cannot accept the amendments today, my gentle ask of the Minister—for whom I have great respect, as he knows—is that he reflects on the intent behind them and perhaps considers how it might be better woven through the fabric of the legislation.

[Keir Mather]

Just to respond briefly to a few of the points raised, I agree with the shadow Minister and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston that economic growth and safety are not necessarily in conflict with each other. The question is, however, whether the amendments as drafted offer too prescriptive a lean towards economic growth while not duly factoring in the question of safety. When we exist in a system where economic growth is considered right through the gamut of policy development, it does not appear proportionate to me to include one to the exclusion of the other when it could be argued that the other is equally important and in some instances more important.

The right hon. Member raises a fair point about the costs to business of regulatory alignment. He is right to point to the impact assessment, and he is also correct in the sense that the initial compliance costs of adapting to new regulations create negative costs for business. I am still of the view, however, that over the long term the Government are abiding by a target to reduce administrative burdens for business. Overall, in the longer term, the Bill reduces costs. On that basis, I do not believe it is necessary to put a formal target to reduce burdens by 25% in the Bill, given the fact that, first, we might wish to go further in the future, and, secondly there are some instances in which, particularly in relation to aviation safety, we might want over a short period of time to increase the amount of regulatory compliance that is required to adapt to new and changing circumstances in the aviation sector more broadly.

Thirdly, the right hon. Member raised a point about binding successors. I might have been overly literal in my remarks. If so, forgive me. It is true that the measure does not formally bind the hands of a successive Government. The question, however, is whether setting out a purpose clause is unduly prescriptive in terms of what it does and does not lay out for future Governments. I have of course been encouraged by the Opposition Front Benchers to bear all those principles in mind. I have an overall pseudo-ideological position on how legislation of this kind should be developed, and think it is better not to fill Bills with things on their face that take away flexibility in future.

That said, the points around growth and reducing regulatory burden are significant. I thank Opposition Members for the way they have raised them; however, I do not feel the way that they are presented in the drafting of the amendments enhances the quality of the Bill, and I again ask for them to be withdrawn.

[Alison Griffiths]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I do not think he has sufficiently addressed the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I think a north star is critical for the Bill. It is all very well to have a Bill, but without a purpose, what is it there for? That is an important point that we need to take into account.

On the flexibility that the Minister referenced, my right hon. Friend has already made the point that he would not be removing any flexibility in agreeing to our amendments. I also point to our new clause 2. The Minister appears to think that it negates safety at the expense of competitiveness and growth. I reiterate that its purpose is to

“protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services.”

I cannot see how that could be construed as downplaying safety. With your permission, Mr Turner, I will press all three provisions to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are particular booking sizes, seating arrangements and issues relating to the geometry of aircraft in respect of which conflicting groups may well mean that the mathematical problem is not solvable. There would need to be redrafting to exclude those occasions, so that we do not subject airlines to fines for failure to achieve impossible requirements.

The goal of amendment 25, which relates to new clause 14, is to stop predatory charging for seat selection to avoid families and carers being split up and to give groups, families and carers confidence that they will be sitting together on the aircraft. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made the point that assigned seating is relevant to air travel and not to other modes of transport because it is different in an aircraft, where assigned seating is particularly important to ensure that passengers are in the right part of the cabin, to be able to identify passengers with allergies or meal preferences, or because of things like weight allowances. The amendment reflects the need to protect the passenger—the consumer—as the Bill has rightly been introduced to do, in a proportionate way.

New clause 14 relates to the fact that passengers can sometimes choose a particular seat, whether in an exit row, by a window, or at the front or back of the plane, perhaps because they want to make a connection and so be able to leg it off the flight at the very first opportunity when they land. Airlines may choose to offer that product, and that is okay. However, what they cannot do is make families and carers pay that premium fee to ensure that they are able to support loved ones and, potentially, to protect other passengers from their eight-year-old flicking his porridge or scrambled eggs across the aisle. Amendment 25, together with new clause 14, would prevent that.

It is entirely within an airline’s ability to issue automatic refunds when services are not delivered. The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston argued that airlines might not be able to deliver due to the geometry or combination of passenger preferences, which is okay, but on occasions when an equipment change or groups mean that passengers have to be moved and the product they paid for is not available, the refund should be automatic. I agree with the premise that a new clause or amendment must be proved to be necessary—this new clause is necessary because the systems are able to do that today, but it does not happen. It is down to the consumer to chase an airline for a refund. They have to go through the rigmarole of emailing and potentially deploying their AI refund bot to get that fee returned.

Depending on the Minister’s response to amendment 25 and new clause 14, we will choose whether to push them to a vote or withdraw them.

[Keir Mather]

Let me start by saying that I agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that we must maintain a high level of consumer protection in aviation. The intention of clause 1 is to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights through secondary legislation, which is why the Government added clause 3 in the other place following discussions with Baroness Grender.

Clause 3 provides an important safeguard that requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to the desirability of strengthening passenger rights when exercising the clause 1 power. However, requiring all future reforms to be equal or superior to current standards could have unintended consequences. A balanced package of reforms may strengthen protections in some areas while making proportionate adjustments in others.

Amendment 24 could prevent such a package from proceeding, even when it would improve outcomes for all passengers overall. Although I agree that the Bill should be used to strengthen passenger protections, rather than reduce them, clauses 1 and 3 already provide the right framework for balanced, evidence-based reform, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 24.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

I shall also speak to amendments 9 and 10, and I will finish by briefly addressing clauses 1 to 3 stand part. The amendments concern a very straightforward principle: that Parliament ought to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the regulations made under this legislation. The proposals would ensure that the relevant regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament, so they would preserve scrutiny, accountability and fair process for all concerned. Given the breadth of powers in the Bill, that is an entirely sensible safeguard. Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be?

The regulations will have important and wide-reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole. Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine such decisions before they take effect. It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the Government declined to accept that basic principle.

I turn briefly to clauses 1 to 3. We support the objective of strengthening passenger protections, particularly for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Clause 2 provides for consultation on several important issues, including assistance for disabled passengers, protections for those with allergies, complaints procedures and the provision of suitable wheelchairs. We welcome these practical steps, and look forward to the consultation producing timely and effective action.

Clause 3 places the welcome principles of dignity, equal access, appropriate assistance and independent travel at the heart of the new framework. The importance of those objectives makes proper parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations all the more necessary. That is precisely what amendments 8 to 10 seek to secure, and I hope the Minister will support them.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for her amendments 8 and 9. Taken together, they would require regulations made under clause 1 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. As such, I will address them together.

I agree that regulations made under the Bill’s powers must receive proper parliamentary scrutiny. The question is not whether Parliament should scrutinise them, but what level of scrutiny is proportionate to their nature and effect. Clause 1 deliberately provides for a split approach, ensuring that Parliament’s time is focused where the potential impact is greatest. Some regulations may make only minor or technical changes—for instance, updating the name of an organisation—and it would not be proportionate to require an affirmative debate in every such case.

By contrast, regulations creating criminal offences or financial penalties could have a significant effect on businesses and individuals, and the Bill rightly reserves the affirmative procedure for those measures. The amendments would therefore apply the highest levels of scrutiny, irrespective of the substance of the regulations, placing unnecessary demands on parliamentary time without improving oversight.

[Noah Law]

Does the Minister find it as curious as I do that the Conservative party tabled amendment 5? It is all about having a smaller state, more effective regulation and competition in the aviation industry, but requiring the affirmative procedure for such matters would put us out of whack with other markets.

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that a number of other amendments tabled by Conservative Members centre on creating an agile, dynamic aviation sector that is flexible in responding to the needs of consumers. There is an important consideration that relates to proportionality, but I do not believe that it is adequately applied in the amendments in this case.

We need to be able to enforce new consumer rights in aviation in a way that is proportionate but also effective and flexible. Creating the balance between reserving affirmative procedures for important matters that relate to things such as financial penalties or criminal sanctions is right to ensure that the oversight is there. However, the Secretary of State put in place by the Prime Minister and the majority party should be able to make regulations in an effective way that does not require Parliament to have an affirmative debate, so that we can keep an effective regulatory system that best serves the interests of the travelling public. That point was well made by my hon. Friend. The Bill’s approach is targeted and proportionate, so I ask the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to not to press amendments 8 and 9.

Amendment 10 would require regulations co-ordinating the concurrent exercise of direct enforcement powers by relevant authorities to be made, again, under the affirmative procedure. I recognise the importance of ensuring that Parliament applies the right level of scrutiny to delegated powers. The key point, however, is that these regulations will not create or extend enforcement powers. Instead, they will govern how existing powers are co-ordinated among authorities. The affirmative procedure would therefore not be proportionate to their limited function.

The regulations will be administrative in nature, providing a practical framework for cases in which more than one authority can act. They may, for example, cover information sharing, notification arrangements and the process for determining which direct enforcer should exercise its powers in a particular category of case. Those operational arrangements are important, but they do not warrant the highest level of parliamentary procedure. That approach is also consistent with established precedent: comparable powers to co-ordinate concurrent enforcement under competition legislation are already subject to the negative procedure. The Bill therefore provides a tested, proportionate and appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw it.

Having addressed the amendments, let me turn to clause 1, which is central to the Government’s aim of strengthening consumer protections. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to passenger rights. Existing passenger rights regulations sit within assimilated EU law, and primary legislation is required to update that. The clause creates a power to update and amend existing legislation via secondary means. It allows for regulations across a range of issues, including but not limited to delays and cancellations, denied boarding, price transparency, accessibility for disabled passengers and people with reduced mobility, and liabilities relating to injury, baggage and cargo.

Clause 1 also provides for effective enforcement to ensure that passenger rights are backed by meaningful remedies. It would enable the Government to introduce dispute resolution arrangements and powers for the Civil Aviation Authority to secure compliance, and, where appropriate, financial penalties and criminal offences. The power is subject to important safeguards; any regulations creating criminal offences or financial penalty regimes will require the approval of both Houses through the affirmative procedure. Clause 1 therefore establishes the framework needed to keep aviation consumer protections effective, proportionate and fit for the future, and I commend it to the Committee.

Alongside that, it is logical to discuss clause 2, which works in tandem with clause 1. Clause 2 will ensure that air passenger rights legislation provides appropriate protections for disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility.

[Daniel Francis]

Shortly after the election, the Government set up the aviation accessibility task and finish group. Clearly, a lot of work in the Bill builds on that. Disabled passenger groups want to see those measures introduced, so can the Minister confirm that clause 2 will require a consultation to be carried out within 12 months of the Bill being passed, and that he will then publish the outcome of that consultation so that we can continue to build on the work of the task and finish group?

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution not only here but across a range of accessibility issues in transport, particularly relating to aviation. He is right that a consultation will be undertaken as part of clause 2 within 12 months of Royal Assent. The purpose of that is to ensure that where consumer rights legislation is improved, it is done so with the unashamed ambition of making sure that people who travel with disabilities have equal access to the benefits of aviation and have a dignified and welcoming experience wherever they travel in the United Kingdom. That is exactly what this clause is designed to facilitate.

Clause 2 will place a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult on those accessibility issues, which will help to identify what changes to passenger rights legislation may be needed. The consultation must start within a year of Royal Assent, and any resulting reforms can be implemented through the regulation-making power in clause 1. The Government must consult on a non-exhaustive list of issues, including compensation for breaches of assistance requirements, protections for passengers with allergies, complaints handling and the provision of wheelchairs suitable for use on aircraft.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I strongly welcome the provision on wheelchairs. From personal experience, a damaged wheelchair can leave someone unable to work or get around their home, and that obviously affects personal care. Alongside compensation, can the Minister say how the Government will encourage prompt repairs and perhaps temporary replacements?

[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.

[Alison Griffiths]

I commend the Minister for his points about accessibility and disability, and as I mentioned, that is something that the Opposition support. However, I was somewhat flummoxed, nay dumbfounded, to hear Government Members and the Minister conflate parliamentary scrutiny with agility, growth and flexibility in an entirely negative way. They seem to think that this can go forward only without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of what will become an Act with considerable ministerial powers.

The Opposition’s position is absolutely that parliamentary scrutiny is the essence of our democracy. With a Bill with such significant powers, it is entirely appropriate that there should be much greater parliamentary scrutiny. We can demonstrate that that is not at the expense of agility and growth, so we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 13—Wheelchair passports for air travel—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a wheelchair passport scheme (a ‘wheelchair passport’) for disabled passengers travelling by air to, within or from the United Kingdom.

(2) A wheelchair passport issued under this section must record the passenger's mobility and assistance requirements, including the type, dimensions, and weight of any wheelchair or mobility aid used, and any other information relevant to the safe and dignified handling of the passenger and their equipment.

(3) Regulations under this section must make provision for—

(a) the form and content of a wheelchair passport, including requirements that it be available in accessible formats;

(b) the secure storage and transfer of data contained in a wheelchair passport; and

(c) the process by which a passenger may apply for, update, or appeal a decision relating to a wheelchair passport.

(4) The Secretary of State must ensure that the wheelchair passport scheme is interoperable, to the greatest extent practicable, with equivalent schemes operated by other countries or international bodies, including the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

(5) A carrier who fails to comply with a wheelchair passport issued under this section is to be treated as having committed an accessibility failure for the purposes of this section.

(6) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to promote the adoption of a common international wheelchair passport standard through engagement with the IATA by December 2028.

(7) Regulations in this section are to be made by statutory instrument.

(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a wheelchair passport scheme enabling disabled passengers to record their mobility and assistance needs in a single portable document accepted by all air carriers to, within or from the United Kingdom to facilitate their travel needs.

[Keir Mather]

I will begin by addressing clause 4, which was added during the Bill’s passage in the other place to strengthen rights for disabled passengers. It removes the existing cap on compensation for wheelchairs, mobility aids and other assistive devices that are lost, damaged or destroyed on domestic UK flights. For many disabled passengers, these devices are essential to their independence and daily lives, and the current compensation limits may not reflect the true cost of repair or replacement. The clause ensures that passengers travelling on domestic UK flights are able to recover compensation that more accurately reflects the value of the equipment lost or damaged. Ultimately, the clause is about making sure that disabled passengers can travel with greater confidence that, if something goes wrong, they will not be left without the equipment they rely on or forced to absorb an unfair financial loss.

On new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, I thank him for returning to the important issue of transporting wheelchairs during air travel. The Government agree that disabled passengers should be able to communicate their mobility and assistance requirements clearly, and that wheelchairs and mobility aids must be handled safely and with dignity. The question is how best to secure practical and long-lasting improvements, rather than placing a particular scheme in primary legislation before the work already under way has concluded.

The hon. Gentleman will know that the transport of mobility aids and wheelchairs was considered by the aviation accessibility task and finish group, and is now being taken forward through the aviation accessibility implementation group. This industry-led working group is examining mobility aid design and handling and has developed the electric mobility aids air travel pack, which gives passengers, airlines and ground handlers the information they need in advance of a journey. The group is promoting wider use of that tool and considering how passengers’ individual requirements can be captured more effectively to support a more tailored experience.

Since this proposal was debated in the other place, the Government have also acted through the Bill. We introduced clause 2 in the Lords, placing a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consult on accessibility matters. This issue could be considered as part of that consultation, ensuring that any future reforms are evidence based and take account of passengers’ and stakeholders’ experience. It would therefore be premature to prescribe a wheelchair passport scheme now. We should instead allow the implementation group’s work and statutory consultation to determine what measures are necessary, workable and proportionate. Should the evidence support the need for legislation, clause 1 provides a route to acting following full consultation. The new clause instead risks cutting across that work rather than strengthening it. On that basis, I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage and I ask him not to press his new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

I thank the Minister for his words, particularly on new clause 13. We very much welcome the Government’s movement in the other place to introduce greater protections for disabled airline passengers following pressure from a cross-party group of lords. The removal of the compensation cap for damaged wheelchairs on domestic flights is a great step forward for accessibility. For a disabled person, a wheelchair is not merely luggage; it is a vital extension of their body and their independence.

I am glad, though, to pick up the noble Baroness Brinton’s amendment on wheelchair passports. She has been a strong advocate for accessibility for many years, and we are glad to support her in her campaign. I invite all Members to read the exchanges in the Lords to see and understand the lived experience—I am sure that we will hear some of that here too—of disabled passengers struggling with complex, unwieldy and challenging circumstances at various airports around the country. I am glad that we are getting a focus on that here.

Over the past few years, the Department for Transport has discussed creating wheelchair passports, which would smooth the journey, with one brief check at check-in to ensure that the wheelchair—and, if relevant, the battery—and the passport match. Once someone had such a passport, the details could be in the airport’s system and the airline’s system forever. However, the new clause would make it clear that the Secretary of State has to work with the International Air Transport Association, and the other countries and the airlines that are part of that organisation, to make this happen, because it will not work if only the UK does it.

I note that IATA’s international guidance already provides for a mobility aid passport, but it is self-evident that that is not sufficiently well understood or implemented. The Minister talked about a mobility pack and an investigation that is being undertaken to design appropriate measures. I encourage him to refer back to the IATA mobility aid passport to understand how that can be incorporated, improved and strengthened, and to work with airlines and international organisations to make sure that the aims of the new clause are reflected in the lived experience of those who, time and again, when they approach an airline check-in desk, have to struggle through the same set of questions and the same arguments, and—again, I reflect on the experiences that were shared in the Lords—pull out the guidance that they have printed and explain it. That is just not acceptable. Whether it is through regulation, through the wording of customer protections or by making it incumbent on airlines and ground handlers to understand and implement these measures, we all need to make sure that the airline industry is implementing and improving things for those who rely on mobility aids, so that they are able to experience flying as miserably as the rest of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

I will speak briefly to clause 4. A wheelchair is clearly different from other pieces of luggage. For disabled passengers, it is what gives them their independence and allows them to travel with dignity. When an airline loses or damages someone’s wheelchair, the consequences can be serious and immediate. As such, it is only right that the passenger is properly compensated rather than being subject to the limits designed for ordinary baggage. We therefore welcome this clause’s inclusion in the Bill.

[Keir Mather]

I will pick up on a few points from the debate, although I do not feel I have much more to add, given the quality of the conversation between the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. It genuinely showed the Committee process at its best in terms of deliberative policymaking.

I turn first to the point raised about the Montreal convention, because my hon. Friend and the hon. Member were right to point out that the lifting of the compensation cap on damaged wheelchairs and mobility aids in the Bill applies only to domestic UK flights. That is because doing the same for international flights would require a change to the Montreal convention, which is an international treaty that the UK is party to through the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

Although my hon. Friend set out the limitations of how far the Bill can go, I reassure the Committee that I take this issue very seriously and want the UK to use its phenomenal reputation in international fora as a leader in aviation policy. I personally met the UK’s representative at the ICAO, William Gatward, and discussed its importance. We have agreed to explore ways to discuss compensation caps through the Montreal convention in the appropriate fora at the ICAO, and I would be glad to keep Members updated on that work.

I again thank my hon. Friend for his contributions. He is incredibly experienced in this field, and he is right to point out that many of the recommendations he put forward in his Aviation (Accessibility) Bill have found their way through to this piece of legislation. That is a credit to his perseverance and dogged determination to do right on behalf of the people he represents, and the people with disabilities who travel and their families across the United Kingdom.

I also thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for setting out so clearly his perspective on wheelchair passports. We have had a productive conversation about where some of the limitations are, including for return flights. We are also working with that limitation when it comes to the compensation cap through the Montreal convention. However, I think it is appropriate for such issues to form part of the consultation clause in the Bill, and I would be glad to have a conversation with the hon. Member about how we take that forward. We should certainly also consider working it into IATA processes.

I think that my point in my original comments still stands, in that the aviation accessibility implementation group is exploring a lot of these issues in detail. I would like to see the outcome of those considerations before we move forward, but the Bill provides us with a lot of tools to make purposeful progress in that space once we have got to grips with its conclusions.

However, the hon. Member raised a very important and more general point about aviation accessibility in the United Kingdom—about the training of airline staff and inconsistent treatment across the domestic aviation sector. He raised that in regard to those who travel with wheelchairs and who get inconsistent treatment in terms of storage and the facilitation of their independence in travel arrangements. I visited Bristol airport and had a really productive conversation about people who travel with stoma bags fitted. There is often not enough training and awareness when they go through baggage search about the implications that that can have, and about how searches can be carried out in ways that respect people’s dignity and privacy.

The hon. Member is right to point out that people who travel with accessibility requirements or disabilities should not have to read the rulebook to members of staff. However, to look at that through a positive lens, it produces an obligation on the Department for Transport and our private sector stakeholders to think collaboratively about how we can improve consumer standards and create a minimum baseline for their enforcement, which this Bill facilitates. There is also a broader conversation about how we facilitate better training, awareness and sensitivity for airport staff who, the vast majority of times, are trying to do the right thing.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Another group of people who need to be considered are those with diabetes—particularly type 1 diabetes—who have medical equipment on them that cannot go through the scanner. That sometimes creates a problem at airports and other terminals. It would be really helpful to hear about any awareness-raising the Government intend to do.

[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.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

May I kindly suggest that the guidance should also be extended to pharmacists, given that we will be supplying the medicine?

[Keir Mather]

My officials will be getting nervous, because we are creating lots of extra considerations. That said, I think hon. Members’ points are very well made. They speak to the fact that the provisions in the Bill—the consultation and the agility of the Secretary of State’s consumer protection-making powers—allow us to advance across a range of issues that affect not just those with disabilities or additional needs but everyone who uses our aviation sector, and to improve their rights in a meaningful and purposeful way.

I hope I have sufficiently answered the questions of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. I have little more to add on clause 4, other than that it will help us address an issue that desperately needs to be dealt with by ensuring that people who use wheelchairs and mobility aids can travel with confidence in the knowledge that, if their devices are damaged, they will get the compensation they deserve. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Direct enforcement of consumer protection legislation by CAA

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 29, line 16, at end insert—

“(30A) After section 202 (appeals), insert—

‘202A Independent review of notices given by the Civil Aviation Authority

(1) This section applies where the Civil Aviation Authority gives a relevant notice.

(2) A person to whom the notice is given may, before bringing an appeal under section 202, request a review of the notice by an independent reviewer.

(3) The Secretary of State must appoint or designate one or more independent reviewers for the purposes of this section.

(4) A person may not act as an independent reviewer in relation to a notice if that person was involved in the decision to give the notice.

(5) On a review under this section, the independent reviewer may recommend that the Civil Aviation Authority—

(a) confirms the notice,

(b) varies the notice, or

(c) withdraws the notice.

(6) The Civil Aviation Authority must consider the recommendation and publish its decision.

(7) Where a person requests a review under this section, the time for bringing an appeal under section 202 begins from the date on which the Civil Aviation Authority publishes its decision under subsection (6).’”

This amendment would create an independent review stage before an appeal to the High Court or Court of Session in respect of direct enforcement notices issued by the Civil Aviation Authority.

Schedule 1.

Clause 6 stand part.

[Keir Mather]

There is a lot of talking from me about this part of the Bill. I thank hon. Members for their contributions so far. Clause 5 is another part of the Government’s objective of strengthening consumer protection in the aviation sector. It will give the CAA the tools it needs to enforce consumer law effectively.

The CAA’s current powers are not strong enough, and court processes can be slow and resource-intensive. The clause brings the CAA into line with other regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, by allowing it to investigate breaches and take direct enforcement action where appropriate. That means that, when passenger rights are breached, the CAA will be able to act quicker and secure better outcomes for consumers.

The clause also includes mechanisms to ensure oversight of the CAA’s enforcement activity, which were strengthened in response to scrutiny in the other place. The Bill now requires the CAA to report on the use of the powers, and that information will be laid before Parliament, ensuing appropriate scrutiny and accountability. This measure will strengthen consumer protection in the aviation sector by enabling quicker and more effective enforcement, improving compliance with consumer law and giving passengers greater confidence that their rights are protected when travelling by air.

Amendment 11, tabled by the shadow Minister, would introduce an independent review of a CAA direct enforcement notice before the existing right of appeal to the courts is exercised. I agree with the underlying principle that organisations must have a clear and independent means of challenging the CAA’s decisions. That safeguard is important, but the statutory right of appeal already provides it. The amendment would instead add an administrative stage ending only in a non-binding recommendation. That could delay resolution and increase complexity, particularly where a party then proceeds to court in any event. It would also create an uneven framework by adding a review process for CAA notices, but not equivalent notices issued by other direct enforcers. There is no clear case for that distinction.

The CAA is best placed to assess compliance with air passenger rights in the first instance. Where its decision is challenged, the court offers independent scrutiny and a binding outcome. A further non-binding review would add process, not meaningful protection. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

Schedule 1 gives effect to clause 5, which provides the Civil Aviation Authority with direct consumer enforcement powers. The schedule provides the CAA with the detailed investigatory and enforcement powers needed to exercise those functions. It enables the CAA to investigate suspected breaches, take direct enforcement action and impose penalties where appropriate, while also providing for appeals and reporting requirements. The schedule is therefore an essential part of the new enforcement regime established by clause 5, setting out the detailed powers and procedures needed for it to operate effectively, and I commend it to the Committee.

Finally in this grouping, clause 6 ensures that the CAA can effectively enforce existing safety and consumer requirements relating to air carrier identity. It does so by bringing existing legislation relating to air carrier identity requirements within the CAA’s consumer enforcement framework. This legislation sets out requirements for passengers to be informed of the identity of the air carrier operating their flight and requires the Secretary of State to maintain a list of air carriers banned from operating in the United Kingdom. Clause 6 does not create new requirements for passengers or airlines; rather, it strengthens the enforcement of existing regulation, ensuring that passengers have the information they need and that measures designed to protect passengers and maintain safety standards can be effectively enforced.

[Olly Glover]

I want to say a bit about the Conservative amendment 11, which would introduce an independent review stage before an appeal went to the High Court or the Court of Session. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that it is a sensible amendment. We are somewhat perplexed by the logic of the Government’s not being keen on it, given that in the Railways Bill the Government put in an extremely high bar for any legal action against a decision taken by Great British Rail or the Office of Rail and Road.

Using the same principle, logic would suggest that the Government should welcome opportunities to avoid litigation and protracted court procedures—opportunities that, to us, would quite sensibly introduce an element of peer review to ensure that the enforcement action or notice taken by the CAA made sense before it got to the courts. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on why, given that context, he thinks this amendment does not make sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for their contributions. In the first instance, if redress to the courts is still available when somebody against whom there is an enforcement action is dissatisfied, that speaks to the fact that having these enforcement abilities does not quite result in an effective way of removing the need for the court process.

There is also the point about the arrangement that exists through the Railways Bill on how we make decisions between GBR and the ORR. This is direct enforcement of protections, which is important both for the aviation safety regime and for consumers who fly; it is not a determination on commercial matters. In a railway context, GBR needs to have a strong ability to be able to work in a holistic way to support track and train together.

The point still stands that this would create an uneven framework. It would add a review process for CAA notices, but no equivalent would be issued by other direct enforcers. The CAA is best placed to assess compliance with passenger rights, reflecting on the gravity of some of the issues we have already discussed, but there is a question around making sure that CAA action is not disproportionate.

Like the CMA, the CAA will need to make clear how it is going to use its powers. It will have to follow a set of rules to ensure that its actions are proportionate and correct. On that basis, I do not believe that the level of oversight set out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, in her amendment is proportionate. I urge her to withdraw it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Direct enforcement of consumer protection legislation by CAA

Amendment proposed: 10, in schedule 1, page 23, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.—(Alison Griffiths.)

This amendment ensures that regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will stop dead on 11.25 am. The learned Clerk has a form of words for me to read, which I expect will appear in front of me at the right time. We will start consideration of the sixth group of amendments.

Clause 7

Review of airport drop-off charges

[Keir Mather]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 7, page 6, line 31, leave out “six” and insert “12”.

This amendment would increase the amount of time available to complete the review of the impact of airport drop-off charges to 12 months.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 6—Airport drop-off charges: duty to publish proposals—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish proposals for a cap on airport drop-off charges on users of airport services in the United Kingdom.

(2) The cap contained in the proposals published under subsection (1) must be £5.

(3) In this section, ‘drop-off charge’ means any charge levied by an airport operator on a vehicle entering a terminal forecourt or designated kerbside area for the purpose of setting down one or more passengers.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a £5 airport drop-off cap at UK airports.

Government amendments 2 and 3.

[Keir Mather]

It is a shame that we are running out of time just as we hit such an exciting part of the Bill: the Government amendments relating to the review of airport drop-off charges. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill was amended in the other place to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services and to publish that review within six months of Royal Assent. Let me be clear at the outset that the Government are committed to undertaking that review. We recognise that airport drop-off charges are an issue of interest to passengers, parliamentarians and others, and we agree that it is important to establish a clear evidence base to inform any decision making.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the Minister for being typically generous in giving way. I suspect that all in the room will have received complaints from constituents about either very high charges for dropping off—I had one recently at East Midlands airport—or fines related to opaque regulations about dropping off at airports. Nothwithstanding the exact wording here, is the Minister open to reflecting on not just drop-off charges, but penalty notices associated with drop-off areas and charges at airports?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that challenge and for not encouraging me to pre-empt whatever the terms of any particular review might be. That being said, I believe that the general basket of issues requires close attention, one of them in the broader terms to which he speaks: transparency for those who pay airport drop-off charges. That could relate to penalties as much as to the process of paying, to signage at the airport or to other provision such as free public transport. I expect that matters of that kind would be of interest as part of the review.

We do not believe, however, that the six-month timetable attached would allow sufficient time to carry out a meaningful and robust piece of work. There is currently no single, comprehensive source of evidence for the impacts of airport drop-off charges across the United Kingdom. A credible review will require engagement with airports, passengers, accessibility groups and other stakeholders, alongside research and analysis of the available evidence. A rushed review would risk producing limited findings and would not do justice to the concerns that have been expressed.

The Government amendment therefore extends the period for completing the review from six months to 12 months after Royal Assent. That additional time will allow the Government to undertake a more thorough and evidence-based assessment. While the detailed scope of the review will be developed in due course, it could include, as I said, consideration of other issues such as affordability, accessibility, travel behaviour and the experiences of different groups of passengers. It could also examine the role that revenue from drop-off charges plays in supporting airport operations and infrastructure, and the extent to which such charges encourage modal shift so that customers use public transport and other sustainable transport options when travelling to the airport. In doing so, however, it is important that the wider context should be recognised.

Most UK airports are privately owned and operated businesses. Decisions about parking and drop-off arrangements are generally commercial matters for airport operators. We know that parking revenue is often used to support investment in airport infrastructure and services to the benefit of airport users. Parking and drop-off arrangements are also subject to consumer protection legislation. The Government amendment ensures that Parliament will receive the findings on the impact of the charges, based on a strong and credible evidence base.

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

Keir Mather Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Clause 7 stand part.

New clause 6—Airport drop-off charges: duty to publish proposals—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish proposals for a cap on airport drop-off charges on users of airport services in the United Kingdom.

(2) The cap contained in the proposals published under subsection (1) must be £5.

(3) In this section, ‘drop-off charge’ means any charge levied by an airport operator on a vehicle entering a terminal forecourt or designated kerbside area for the purpose of setting down one or more passengers.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a £5 airport drop-off cap at UK airports.

Government amendments 2 and 3.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I hope Members will agree that a planned and thorough review delivered within 12 months is preferable to a report that cannot engage substantively with the issues at hand but is delivered within six.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

May I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind and consider the impact on residents near airports in my constituency who are affected by airport drop-off charges? They also have hire vehicles that create a bit of a nuisance to public spaces, green spaces and gardens across my constituency.

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents, both those affected by drop-off charges and those—he has spoken to me about this—who live in Prestwick, Ponteland and Woolsington who are particularly affected by taxi drivers not being able to use the airport in the way they want to and who end up impacting local communities. I raised that with local residents when I did a series of roundtables at Heathrow in relation to expansion. We need to manage all those impacts very carefully. People do not deserve to have disruption and nuisance on their doorstep because we are not getting the systems functioning in the way that they need to.

Government amendments 2 and 3, tabled in my name, make a related change to the commencement provisions of the Bill. As currently drafted, the review duty would come into force two months after Royal Assent; however, as the period for completing the review is measured from Royal Assent, it is appropriate that the duty itself also commences at that point, which the amendments provide for. They are technical and consequential amendments that simply ensure that the Bill is tidied and operates as intended, with the commencement provisions aligning with the revised review timetable.

Clause 7, as we have discussed, requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the impact of airport drop-off charges on airport users. The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I do not have much to add to the remarks I made when discussing Government amendment 1, but for the avoidance of doubt, let me quickly reiterate that we recognise the considerable strength of feeling that exists on this issue among passengers and parliamentarians.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

My constituents have also raised issues around airport drop-off charges at Bournemouth airport, which have gone up to £8 this year. There are no public transport options to get to Bournemouth airport, so I hope that the Minister and the Government will take into account alternative routes to get to airports when looking at this issue in the consultation.

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the functions of airport drop-off charges, as presently constituted, is to facilitate mode share changes at airports and to encourage airport users to take public transport where possible, but it is true that across the airports in the United Kingdom there is not consistent public transport availability. Those questions around provision and whether free drop-off spaces are provided, and the transparency with which they can be accessed, is of major importance. I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

In North Somerset, we have Bristol airport, which I was very glad to welcome the Minister to visit, but we have exactly the same transport deficit for a very busy airport without a mass transit system. Will the Minister talk about how it might be possible to have conversations about wider mass transit systems and their integration with airports?

[Keir Mather]

It was a pleasure to visit Bristol airport to see its impressive and ambitious plans to facilitate new international routes and to modernise its terminals. It wants more people to use the airport, so it is incumbent on us all to think about how we can best facilitate that. With the new Prime Minister’s increased focus on pushing power out into every local community in the United Kingdom, local mayors and local authorities will also have an enormous role to play in ensuring that we have the right public transport connectivity to our airports so that more people can benefit from being able to travel cheaply and comfortably to airports in their local areas.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Similarly to my hon. Friends who have just spoken, we have serious issues at Newquay airport about connectivity, so I welcome the suggestion on local transport connectivity that promoting alternative modalities will be part of the review, but to what extent will the Minister join up that review with the other work he is doing more broadly to support smaller regional airports through, for example, the review of the public service obligation, which is so necessary for airports like Newquay to be able to bid in a more flexible way?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that PSOs serve as a lifeline for many regional airports, and provide important economic and business connectivity to the nation’s capital from many regions of the United Kingdom, including his own, which is serving as a catalyst for regional economic growth. We of course need to think about the intersection of these questions, and how we can work with local mayors to create robust public transport systems that can get people to the places they want to go, to facilitate economic growth across the entire United Kingdom. My hon. Friend makes the point well.

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 6, which seeks to require the Government to publish proposals for a cap on airport drop-off charges within six months of Royal Assent, and to specify that the cap must be £5. The Government have committed to reviewing the impact on airport users within 12 months of Royal Assent. The new clause would cut across that proposal by requiring the Government to bring forward proposals for a specific £5 cap before the review had completed, effectively predetermining the outcome before evidence had been adequately considered. For those reasons, I cannot support the new clause and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press it to a vote.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

Of course, the historical evidence is not in the hon. Gentleman’s favour. For example, universities charge education fees to the cap almost immediately, and the same is true of other things—market behaviour is such that that will happen. May I also correct his suggestion of the Conservative position on 20 mph limits? We do not want to get rid of all of them, only the blanket 20 mph limits. They need to be used precisely in order to meet their objective. That is why a blanket cap or ban makes no sense, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have already secured a review of these changes, and it makes sense to allow that work to take place before introducing further legislation .

[Keir Mather]

I will begin by responding to the shadow Minister. I am no physicist, but I know that a plane must fly on both its left and its right wing. I am very pleased therefore to see the consensus across the room today on the principle of a review of airport drop-off changes.

On a serious note, Members have raised a number of key themes which go to the heart of why a review has been deemed necessary by the Government. That is to ensure that when consumers travel through our airports and use the drop-off facilities, they can be assured that fairness, transparency and ultimately choice about their transport mode is at the heart of their travelling experience.

The shadow Minister was right to point to the special impact that drop-off charges can have on people with disabilities who travel. I would also focus on people who travel from rural communities to airports, who might not have the public transport access that they require. It is of course worth noting that airports provide bespoke drop-off locations for people with disabilities, but that brings us to another question about signage and access to those spaces. Those points were very well made, and those sorts of issues should form part of the discussion about how this system evolves.

Speaking to new clause 6, I have a particular question about freezing a cap in aspic, at around £5. Is it proportionate and is it enough? There was a point about disparity around the country, which is worthy of further discussion. Ultimately, I identify with the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about ensuring fairness and compliance with mode shift targets where public transport access to airports is poor. It is also worth reflecting on the shadow Minister’s contribution that actually a lot of planning requirements on airports need management of mode shift targets in a way that impacts directly on how those drop-off systems work. That is worthy of consideration.

Though we can have conversations about fairness, transparency and choice, drop-off charges are often used by airports to make very necessary improvements to their facilities and access. That is also worthy of consideration. The shadow Minister perhaps did not point to the work we have done more recently to facilitate airport expansion and modernisation, which helps the airport sector to grow. That being said, she is right to point to the fact that the cost stack faced by airports is of material concern, and therefore we have to be cognisant of what we do in terms of reviewing airport drop-off charges and think of them in the round when we consider how best to support the sector.

On that basis, there have been some great contributions by both Government and Opposition MPs speaking to the constituency impact of drop-off charges. The review will be designed to address some of those questions. I do have concerns about new clause 6, which mean that I cannot support it.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Directions about implementation

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 8, page 7, line 16, at end insert—

“(aa) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first—

(a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected,

(b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and

(c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.’”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The Committee will be familiar with the Government’s position in relation to amendment 27 and I do not seek to disguise the fact that it remains unchanged. The amendment addresses safeguards that, in our view, are already firmly imbedded in the airspace change process. Environmental assessment and meaningful consultation are, and will remain, fundamental to that process. Nothing in the Bill removes, bypasses or weakens the requirements to consult thoroughly or to assess noise and wider environmental impacts robustly.

Clause 8 supports the Government’s objectives of delivering airspace modernisation and ensuring that approved airspace changes can be implemented efficiently. The clause extends the Secretary of State’s existing powers to direct relevant parties to prepare, develop or review airspace change proposals.

Clause 8 adds a power to direct the implementation of airspace change proposals, once they have been approved by the CAA. That reflects the practical reality that delivering airspace modernisation requires action from a number of different organisations. While we expect industry to work collaboratively to implement approved changes, there is a risk that a single party could delay or frustrate delivery. The new power provides a proportionate last-resort mechanism to ensure that approved airspace changes are implemented. That is particularly important as the UK Airspace Design Service has begun work redesigning the complex airspace over London and the south-east. Modernising our airspace will help maintain high safety standards, improve efficiency and resilience across the network, and support reductions in emissions and noise.

Importantly, clause 8 retains the existing statutory safeguards. It only applies to an airspace change that has been through the CAA’s robust regulatory process—including consultation of those affected by it—and has then been approved by the CAA. Before issuing a direction, the Secretary of State must consult the party being directed, which also has a right of appeal. The clause therefore strengthens the framework for delivering approved airspace changes while preserving appropriate protections and oversight.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 2.

Clause 10 stand part.

[Keir Mather]

Clause 9 supports the reforms to the charging for air services contained in clause 10. Clause 10 allows air service charges to be imposed on a broader range of persons than under the current framework. Clause 9 therefore makes corresponding changes to the licence modifications process to ensure that existing safeguards remain effective and apply equally to all relevant parties. The clause requires the Secretary of State or the CAA to identify and consult anyone who would be materially affected by a proposed licence modification. It also introduces schedule 2, which makes additional corresponding changes to the air services licencing regime and the appeal process.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I support updating the framework for funding air navigation services. Will the Minister explain how the changes will ensure that costs are shared fairly among those who benefit, with proper scrutiny on charges and a clear expectation that the money supports a reliable service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend is right to say that where there is a broadening of who is charged, there must be a broadening of the principles that should underly a fair and transparent process by which those charges take place, and that any decisions in relation to it should be made through the lens of who benefits. I will turn to some of that later in my remarks. Together, these changes will ensure that the regulatory framework can evolve while maintaining the established rights of stakeholders affected by licensing conditions.

Schedule 2 will update the appeals framework for changes to air services licences to reflect the broader charging regime introduced by clause 10. As the Bill broadens the categories of persons who may be liable for charges for air services, the schedule will ensure that appeal rights continue to apply appropriately to those affected by licence modifications and that those affected are notified of the stages of the appeal process, providing the transparency and fairness to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston refers. The schedule will extend appeal rights to reflect the wider range of stakeholders who may be affected by regulatory decisions, and I commend it to the Committee.

Finally, clause 10 will update the charging framework for air services to ensure that it remains fit for the future. Existing legislation allows charges to be imposed only on operators and owners of aircraft. This clause will broaden the framework so that charges may be imposed on a wider range of persons in the future. Anyone charged must still be a user or beneficiary of a service and must be consulted before charges are set. That will provide flexibility to accommodate future developments in aviation and enable charges to be imposed efficiently on new users of licensed air services, such as providers of services to uncrewed aircraft, where appropriate.

While the Government move forward very purposefully on things such as the future of flight industry group, and as we focus on beyond visual line of sight drone operations and electric vehicle take-off and landing, those benefits will be accrued. It is right that the charging regime is adapted to focus on it, but those two things must work in tandem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston encourages me to consider. This will provide flexibility to accommodate future developments.

The clause will also make consequential amendments to ensure that the relevant provisions of the Transport Act 2000 and the appeal process operate consistently following these changes. Overall, this will provide greater flexibility to ensure that the costs of providing air services can continue to be recovered fairly as the management and use of airspace evolves, including with the emergence of new users such as drones.

[Alison Griffiths]

I will briefly address clauses 9 and 10 and schedule 2. Clause 9 and schedule 2 will update the licensing arrangements for air traffic services, including who should be consulted when licence conditions are changed and who should have the right to appeal. We support those provisions.

I have concerns, however, about the drafting of clause 10. As my noble friend Lord Moylan pointed out in the other place, the clause says that a person may be charged where a service is

“available for their use or benefit”,

while also saying that

“it is immaterial whether…the services…could be used by them.”

How can a service be available for someone’s use if it could not be used by them? The Government amended part of the provision in the other place, but that basic question remains unanswered. The Minister must explain clearly who may be charged under this clause and how the Government will ensure that the new arrangements do not lead to unfair or disproportionate charges, particularly for general aviation. Subject to the Minister’s response, we will not oppose clause 10, but we do expect that ambiguity to be properly addressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly agreed to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Allocation of slots and co-ordination and facilitation of schedules

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

These amendments concern a very straightforward principle: that Parliament ought to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the regulations made under this legislation. The amendments would ensure that the relevant regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament and thus preserving scrutiny, accountability and fair process for all concerned. Given the breadth of powers in this Bill, that is an entirely reasonable safeguard. Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be?

Regulations under the clause will have important and wide-reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole. Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine those decisions before they take effect. It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the Government declined to accept that basic principle. I hope that the Government can recognise today the importance of affording this House that ability to scrutinise and do its job.

Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State broad powers to amend or restate the airport slot allocation regime. We recognise that the system may need to respond quickly in genuine emergencies, but these powers must be exercised carefully and must not undermine the independence of the slot allocation process. That is precisely why the parliamentary scrutiny provided by amendments 12 and 13 is so important.

[Keir Mather]

With your indulgence, Chair, may I just very briefly respond to a comment that the Shadow Minister made?

[The Chair]

The floor is yours.

[Keir Mather]

I appreciate it, Ms McVey. To the shadow Minister’s point about materiality and the effectiveness of use, it is my understanding that this provision was changed in the Lords to ensure that those who can be charged is restricted only to those who use or benefit from the services that are outlined in the charging regime. This balances the necessary flexibility for the future with safeguarding the internationally established user pays principle. However, I will consult with my officials after our proceedings today and if there is anything remaining that still needs to be clarified, I will put it to the shadow Minister in writing or update her at the start of the next Committee session, if that is to her liking.

I thank the shadow Minister for giving the Committee the opportunity to consider the appropriate level of scrutiny for regulations relating to airport slots. The Government’s position remains that the approach in the Bill is both proportionate and appropriately safeguarded. The power is limited to exceptional circumstances where there is either a significant threat to public health or another substantial reason, and can be used only to make temporary changes to slot usage requirements. Applying the affirmative procedure in every case would reduce the Government’s ability to respond quickly and decisively to major disruption. Experience during the pandemic and this past summer has shown that timely intervention can be critical to protecting the operation and resilience of the aviation sector. On that basis, I cannot support the amendment.

Clause 11 ensures that the Government can continue to maintain and update the UK’s airport slot framework now that temporary powers put in place following EU exit have expired. Airport slots are a vital mechanism for managing access to capacity-constrained airports. They help to ensure that scarce airport capacity is allocated in a fair, transparent and efficient way, supporting both connectivity and competition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

It feels like we are back in the Railways Bill with such a chunky group of amendments to work through—[Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] My Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, would be very pleased to be back in the Railways Bill, given his penchant for that particular mode.

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling her amendments. The Committee will recognise that amendment 14, the lead amendment, returns to an issue considered during the Bill’s passage in the other place: whether aviation safety rules should ultimately be made by the Secretary of State rather than the CAA. The Government’s position on this matter remains clear. The amendment would prevent the delegation of technical rule making to the CAA, which is a central purpose of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

Amendments 21 and 20 are alternative approaches to a safeguard, as the shadow Minister observed. Our preferred amendment is 21 because it gives the oversight back to the Secretary of State to confirm that that minor classification is appropriate. We prefer amendment 21 and will hopefully persuade the Government to accept it, in which case amendment 20 will be superseded.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. On that basis, I will turn to a substantive challenge that we have with amendment 21. The decision about whether a proposed rule change is sufficiently minor to justify the use of the fast-track procedure is, we believe, primarily a technical regulatory judgment. The CAA is the independent aviation safety regulator and is therefore best placed to assess the significance of proposed changes within the wider aviation safety framework. We feel that requiring ministerial agreement for every minor technical amendment risks introducing additional administrative steps that could delay routine updates without materially improving scrutiny or outcomes.

[Luke Taylor]

It is worth clearly defining the CAA’s role in delivering safety and process improvements. Obviously, it is down to the Minister and the Government to drive the direction they want to take. Is there a risk that the regulator, which is operating within the status quo, may consider something minor without being able to consider the direction the Government might want to take—for example, in prioritising the impact on drone operators, new technologies and innovation? Should it not therefore be for the Minister to agree whether a particular innovation or approach can be fast-tracked, or whether it requires full consultation? I think it just gives the Government and the Minister himself more opportunity to direct, which is why this would seem to be a logical process.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. He also notes that, as our aviation sector evolves—especially in relation to drone and beyond visual line of sight technology—we may want a more hands-on approach to determining what constitutes significant change. When a lot of these technologies first appear, it might seem as though they will not reach fruition and maturity for some time, and then they quickly become very consequential to how our airspace develops. Ministers are ultimately responsible for setting the CAA’s strategic priorities. The Secretary of State of course has the power to direct the CAA and can reserve particular functions. On that basis, the amendments are not necessary at present, given the suite of ministerial powers available when those more nuanced circumstances might arise. However, I will happily pick that conversation up with the hon. Gentleman outside the Committee to consider it further.

Amendment 22 seeks to make it explicit that guidance on the publication of CAA rules may provide for signposting to related requirements in air navigation orders and other legislation. I understand the intention behind the amendment. It is important that those who are subject to aviation safety requirements can understand how CAA rules interact with requirements elsewhere in the legislative framework. However, I feel that the amendment is unnecessary. Proposed new section 61G already gives the Secretary of State the ability to issue guidance about the publication of CAA rules.

In my view, it is unnecessary to be more specific, but perhaps we ought to have a conversation about what more routine processes we can build in to make sure that guidance is provided in a more timely way, so that the smaller operators the shadow Minister spoke of have access to the guidance they need. As the provision stands, the guidance that can be issued can address, should Ministers choose, how rules are presented and published, including appropriate signposting to related legislative requirements, without prescribing that particular approach in the Bill. We therefore consider that those matters are better addressed in that flexible way, through the guidance under proposed new section 61G.

Amendment 16, which was tabled by the shadow Minister, returns to the question of whether the CAA should have to agree the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives. The Government’s position on that matter remains clear. The CAA is the UK’s independent aviation safety regulator, and its technical experts will be responsible for turning the priorities issued by the Secretary of State into a deliverable rule-making programme. Requiring its agreement ensures that the programme is feasible, appropriately targeted and compatible with its statutory responsibilities.

In our view, removing that safeguard would not improve accountability. Instead, it could require the CAA to pursue priorities it considers undeliverable or inconsistent with its responsibilities, undermining both its independence and the effective operation of the new framework. The requirement for its agreement does not, however, give the CAA a veto over Government policy. The Secretary of State has the power to direct the CAA in its rule making, and retains powers to reserve matters from the CAA’s rule-making functions and to legislate directly where appropriate. For those reasons, we believe that the amendment would remove the necessary safeguards without necessarily strengthening ministerial authority. On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister not to press it.

Amendment 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, would require the CAA to maintain on its website an up-to-date and consolidated version of the whole text of the CAA rules. I agree that aviation rules must be clear and accessible—all CAA rules will be published and remain available and accessible—but the question is whether the CAA should be under a legal duty to keep the entire rulebook continuously consolidated. We do not consider such a duty to be necessary.

The CAA rulebook will contain many thousands of provisions, and it is important for the authority to have flexibility in how it develops, prepares and maintains a consolidated version of the rules, which it then publishes. If the CAA is required to consolidate fully the rulebook after every change, no matter how minor, it would be required to ensure that the whole consolidated rulebook is updated even when a change affects only a small number of provisions. That would also prevent, for example, the CAA from undertaking consolidation exercises at more appropriate and proportionate intervals than in every instance that would be required under the proposed provisions. That could impose disproportionate cost and delay, frustrating the Bill’s purpose of enabling the CAA to maintain a more agile rule-making framework.

I promise, Ms McVey, that I am making good progress through my response to this group of amendments. Amendment 17 returns to the provision that enables consequential amendments to be made in connection with CAA rules. In our view, the need for that power is practical and unavoidable. As responsibility for safety rule making moves to the CAA, the Government must be able to make facilitating regulations and update related legislation so that the statute book remains coherent and the new framework can operate as intended. Without that, the provisions may become unworkable and result in significant legal uncertainty.

The power is not broad or unconstrained; it may be used only to make the secondary legislation needed to facilitate or give effect to the CAA’s rule-making function. Such powers are a well-established feature of primary legislation where necessary to manage an orderly transition to a new statutory regime. Removing the provision would therefore not provide an additional safeguard; it would risk leaving gaps in the legislative framework and prevent the transition to CAA rule making from operating effectively.

The clause itself delegates powers to the CAA to make legally binding aviation safety rules using a process that is quicker and simpler than the existing process of making secondary legislation. That will allow detailed and technical aviation safety requirements to be updated more quickly and efficiently, helping the UK to keep pace with technological developments and evolving international standards. The Secretary of State’s existing powers to legislate remain unaffected. The Bill allows the Government to reserve matters that should not be delegated to the CAA, including where issues of national security or the wider public interest arise.

Importantly, the framework includes robust safeguards. That includes a power for the Secretary of State to direct the CAA with regard to rule making. The CAA will in most situations be required to consult before making rules, to publish them transparently and to report annually on the use of its powers. The Secretary of State will also set strategic priorities for the CAA’s rule making and may direct how those functions are exercised, while not being able to dictate the content of individual rules. That gives Parliament a clearer and more joined-up view of safety rule making, replacing today’s fragmented approach. Together, the provisions create a more agile system for updating aviation safety requirements, while maintaining clear accountability and oversight. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Alison Griffiths]

We have reached the conclusion that the Minister and I are probably not going to agree on the need for parliamentary scrutiny or for the holding back of Henry VIII powers in the Bill, so I will press the amendments to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 14 to 16 stand part.

Government amendment 4.

Clause 17 stand part.

[Keir Mather]

With apologies to the Committee for continuing my grand oration, I will speak to these clauses and Government amendment 4, in my name.

Clause 13 restores powers lost following EU exit to create and amend criminal offences relating to aviation safety requirements in assimilated law. It closes a gap in the current framework by allowing air navigation orders to provide for offences relating to breaches of those requirements in assimilated law, helping to ensure that they can be enforced effectively. The clause also updates the power in respect of endangerment offences to ensure that the most serious aviation safety risks are treated appropriately. Importantly, it does not create any new offences itself, and any future use of the power would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Clause 14 provides a standard consequential amendment power to ensure that legislation operates effectively following the changes made by this Bill. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to update, amend or remove references and provisions elsewhere in the statute book where it is necessary as a consequence of the Bill. The power is limited to consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving changes and cannot be used to make policy changes. Any regulations made under this power must be made by statutory instrument, and where such regulations amend or repeal provisions in primary legislation, they will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. In all other cases, the regulations will be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament. The clause provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that the legislative framework remains clear and consistent, while maintaining appropriate parliamentary oversight.

Clause 15 is a standard provision that sets out the extent of the Bill’s measures. Clause 16 contains provisions relating to the commencement of Bill measures, including a standard power for the Secretary of State to bring provisions of the Bill into force by commencement regulations. Leaving provisions in the Bill to be brought into force by regulations will afford the necessary flexibility to commence the provisions at the appropriate time, having regard to the need to make any necessary secondary legislation, issue guidance, undertake appropriate training and put the necessary systems and procedures in place, as the case may be.

Government amendment 4 covers a procedural matter. It removes

“the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords”,

which is currently in clause 17(2) of the Bill. The privilege amendment and its removal is standard procedure for all Bills that originate in the other place. Clause 17 sets out the short title—the name by which an Act of Parliament is commonly known and cited. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Alison Griffiths]

I will briefly address clauses 13 and 14. Clauses 15 and 16 are technical, and even by the exacting standards of Opposition scrutiny it would be a little harsh to take issue with clause 17, which simply gives the Bill its name. I shall leave those clauses alone.

Clause 13 widens the circumstances in which air navigation orders may create, amend or appeal criminal offences connected with aviation safety requirements. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how those powers are expected to be used and what parliamentary scrutiny will apply.

Clause 14 gives the Secretary of State the power to make consequential provision arising from the Bill, including the power to amend or appeal primary legislation. The Government’s own memorandum says:

“We have identified all the changes to primary legislation that we believe are necessary…and have included them in the Bill.”

They also say that the power is being retained in case something important has been missed. I would therefore be interested to hear in what circumstances the Minister expects that power to be used?

[Keir Mather]

In relation to when I would expect the power to be used, I will not be drawn into commenting on hypothetical situations in which that might be appropriate. However, I can reassure the shadow Minister that it is designed to allow the Bill to operate effectively. It is limited and consequential and affects only legislation that does not have a primary application. In that sense, it is both proportionate and technical in ensuring the application of the Bill.

Clause 13 pertains only to restoring powers that have been lost following our exit from the EU to both create and amend the relevant criminal offences. It closes the gap in the current framework that relates to offences that breach those requirements in assimilated law. It does not create any new offences, and any future use of the power would be subject to robust parliamentary scrutiny. There are appropriate safeguards, and that addresses a powers gap issue that has only been caused by our exit from the European Union. I would be happy to provide the shadow Minister with any other information she might require. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Independent Aviation Ombudsman

“(1) The Civil Aviation Act 1982 is amended as follows.

(2) After Section 1 insert—

‘1A Independent Aviation Ombudsman

(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Aviation Ombudsman (“the Ombudsman”).

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment, funding, and operation of the Ombudsman, and such regulations must include provision for—

(a) the appointment of the Ombudsman by the Secretary of State, following consultation with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;

(b) the term of office, terms of appointment, and removal of the Ombudsman;

(c) funding of the Ombudsman’s functions by a levy on operators or owners of aircraft registered with the Civil Aviation Authority and on airport operators.

(3) The Ombudsman may investigate a complaint made by—

(a) a passenger, or a person acting on a passenger’s behalf;

(b) a resident, or a representative body of residents, in an area materially affected by a decision on airspace change, flight path, or air navigation services; against a regulated person, in relation to a matter within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under subsection (4).

(4) The matters within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction include—

(a) complaints about the service provided by an airline, airport operator, or air navigation service provider, including delay, cancellation, denied boarding, baggage, and accessibility for disabled passengers;

(b) complaints about the conduct of the Civil Aviation Authority in exercising its regulatory functions, including airspace change decisions made under the process set out in the Civil Aviation Authority’s Airspace Change Process;

(c) such other matters as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.

(5) Before investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman must be satisfied that the complainant has first exhausted the internal complaints procedure of the regulated person, unless the Ombudsman considers it would be unreasonable to require this.

(6) Following an investigation, the Ombudsman may—

(a) make a determination in favour of the complainant, including a direction that the regulated person pay compensation, take remedial action, or both;

(b) publish the determination and the reasons for it.

(7) A determination made under subsection (6)(a) is binding on the regulated person and enforceable, on the application of the Ombudsman, as if it were an order of the county court in England and Wales and Northern Ireland or of the Sheriff Court in Scotland.

(8) The Ombudsman must, at least once a year, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the Ombudsman’s functions, including the number and nature of complaints received, upheld, and resolved.

(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.

(10) In this section—

“regulated person” means a person holding an operating licence, an airport operator, or a licensed air navigation service provider;

“the Civil Aviation Authority” has the meaning given in the Civil Aviation Act 1982.’”—(Luke Taylor.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Taylor]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I thank the Minister for the meetings he has held with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) to discuss his new clause. However, there are still some concerns and issues that we would like to address on behalf of his constituents.

To be clear, the Liberal Democrats, including my hon. Friend, do support airspace modernisation. Communities across the country support it too, but modernisation works only if people trust the process that delivered it. At the moment, there is a risk that that trust is missing and that consent is not necessarily fully collected at the beginning of the process. Communities are asked for their views only once a draft design exists and, unfortunately, by that point—I have spent time in the aviation industry and know this full well—although choices have not necessarily been made, the direction and likely outcomes have been narrowed down to what is feasible, and there is often not a huge amount between many of the options.

The new CAP 1616 update, in force since 1 October, makes that feedback and collection of consultation and input more difficult still. Residents affected by proposed changes are not included in the earlier stakeholder reference groups, and locally agreed design principles have been replaced by national priorities. The sponsor decides who is consulted and how, and the gateways in the process have fallen from three to one, with post-implementation reviews removed. Although we understand the need to speed up the process, we feel that this has tilted too far towards expediting the process rather than allowing communities to meaningfully feed back. Before, during and after a proposal, there is no accessible independent route for a community to be heard. The only challenge available after a decision is made is judicial review, and that is not a realistic option for a village, residents’ association or group of residents wanting to bring its points forward.

Some will say that an independent review function existed, but was barely used and the CAA scrapped it. However, new clause 1 proposes something different. Low use of an old process is not an argument against producing a better one. Nor is this about slowing change: the purpose is to let communities feed in early so that problems are caught before decisions are made, rather than having to be fought afterwards. The Government have given conflicting signals on whether the Public Service Ombudsman can deal with regulatory decisions. A written answer in the other place said that it cannot, but on Second Reading, the Minister suggested that it could.

I have three questions to ask the Minister, which I hope he can respond to today. Were the PSO route and the first-tier tribunal route examined, and if not, why not? Why is aviation excluded from that tribunal? How do the Government plan to ensure in practice that communities are included throughout the process and that their voices can truly be heard?

[Luke Taylor]

That is a good question, and I think the principle there would be to shift it on to the Government to say what the assessment of the cost would be. The cost was used as a reason to push back on this, but it did not appear to have been calculated. If the cost is unknown, I would suggest that that slightly weakens the argument that it is excessive.

There will obviously be a trade-off between the cost, the delay and the additional time taken to deliver these changes with the ability of communities to meaningfully feed back. Ultimately, this is about taking communities with us, because as we have said a number of times today—and different colleagues have made this point at different stages—we have to take communities with us in the changes that we are making to airspace, flightpaths, and approach and departure routes so that everybody can feel like their input is being considered. In that way, we do not lose that public consent and engagement with the process, and people are still encouraged to apply and feed back in future consultations. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s responses to my three questions.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for tabling new clause 1. The Government agree that passengers and communities should have access to effective complaints and redress, but I do not believe that the case for a new aviation ombudsman has been fully made. I have had productive conversations with the hon. Member, and I understand that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is raising this issue in order for us to tease out some of those difficulties, so I hope I can address those to some extent in this debate. Whatever I cannot address now, I can set out to the hon. Members in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 3 would call on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ban the practice of surveillance pricing when purchasing airline tickets. Many people have been in this situation: they look at the details of the journey they wish to take via plane, but when they go to book it a few hours later, the price has skyrocketed. It can often seem that flight prices change constantly, with no real rhyme or reason. Information on the extent of surveillance pricing is limited, but there have been some recent suggestions that airlines are using such methods.

Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in New York against JetBlue, claiming that it uses customers’ personal data to set ticket prices. That is an example of the phenomenon of surveillance pricing: the strategy of a seller using personally identifiable online information to set prices. It is nearly impossible to know exactly when that is occurring and how widespread it is, but there is evidence that the airline industry is quite widely using those methods. Using a different device or incognito mode on a browser to book flights are well known methods to get around this, but they are not particularly customer-friendly, and not everybody will have the tech savviness to do that.

The advance of artificial intelligence means that these types of systems are only set to become more advanced, likely in ways that we cannot currently imagine and without the necessary transparency for consumers to make an informed decision about what platform they buy from. We are not the only ones voicing concerns: as well as the lawsuit in New York, Colorado passed a Bill in May banning surveillance pricing and surveillance wages. We have concerns about the privacy of customers whose data is being scraped to price in this way. Tickets should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger, although of course we understand the need for demand-based pricing. We believe that the Government need to look into this issue more, to establish how widely it is occurring and bring in measures to ban the practice, which runs counter to consumer interests. This is a matter of fairness, transparency and privacy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for this new clause on surveillance pricing. Airline pricing should be transparent and fair, and consumers should have the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions.

Airlines operating in the United Kingdom are responsible for setting their own fares in a competitive market, but they must comply with consumer protection law and requirements on price transparency. Where pricing practices use consumers’ personal data, businesses must do so in accordance with data protection requirements.

The hon. Member is right to point to concerns that many Members and members of the public have about surveillance pricing. He is also right to say, however, that the evidence on its application is not complete. It is a fair challenge that perhaps we need to do more work to discuss this matter. Clause 1 allows for reforms to price transparency, should they be required on the basis of that work. For that reason, I do not believe that implementing this new clause at this moment is appropriate. I hope that this provides reassurance that this is a matter that we can take forward through discussion with colleagues across the House in the future, and that the hon. Member feels able to withdraw the clause.

[Olly Glover]

I am partially reassured by the Minister’s answer. I do not think the vote would be an enormous nail-biter, so I am content to withdraw on this occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Automatic Compensation

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce a scheme to establish automatic compensation for delays under Regulation (EC) 2004/261 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004.

(2) The scheme must ensure that compensation for delays is automatically refunded to the original payment method, unless otherwise agreed by the passenger and airline, within 30 days of the flights’ planned departure date.”.—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would introduce automatic delay repay for UK flights.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for the new clause, which seeks to implement an automatic compensation scheme for eligible flights within six months of Royal Assent. We do share the objective of ensuring that passengers receive the compensation to which they are entitled. However, the consultation that took place in 2022 demonstrated that reform of the aviation compensation regime is complex and involves a range of competing considerations. Further work is needed assess the merits, costs and practical implications of different approaches.

The new clause would require the Government to implement a specific solution within six months, before that work has been completed and the evidence properly evaluated. Any changes should be considered as part of the wider air passenger rights and compensation framework, to ensure that it remains robust and strikes the right balance. Clause 1 will allow the Government to make reforms in this area where the evidence supports them. I therefore believe the conversation is best had in the context of that clause, once we have achieved Royal Assent. The new clause is therefore unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw it.

Chair, am I now turning to new clause 9? Should I take both new clauses together?

[The Chair]

They are together.

[Olly Glover]

My mistake.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 9, which seeks to establish a duty to provide information about flight delays. Passengers should receive timely, accurate and accessible information when their flight is delayed or disrupted. However, many of the matters addressed by this new clause are already covered by existing legislation and regulatory oversight. Airlines are already required to provide passengers with information about disruption and, where applicable, in accessible formats. The CAA monitors compliance with those requirements and recently conducted research on airline communications with passengers during disruption. The report looked at passengers’ preferences and made recommendations to airlines, and the CAA will work closely with industry to take those forward to improve passenger communications.

While the intention of this new clause is clear, it would create a new and highly prescriptive statutory regime, including requirements for updates every 30 minutes, regardless of operational circumstances. We do not believe that duplicating existing obligations is the most effective way to improve the passenger experience. Instead, our focus should be on ensuring compliance with, and effective enforcement of, the framework already in place, while retaining the flexibility under the Bill to introduce targeted requirements in future where evidence demonstrates they are needed.

[Alison Griffiths]

I will speak to new clause 9. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is seeking to achieve, and the principle behind this new clause is very sensible. Passengers deserve timely, accurate information when their flights are delayed and the industry should absolutely be doing everything possible to improve communication. However, I do have some concerns about the practical implications of requiring airlines to provide updated departure estimates every 30 minutes, particularly when delays are caused by circumstances outside their control, as we have seen with the recent National Air Traffic Services incidents. We must be careful not to impose additional costs and administrative burdens on airlines without being satisfied that those requirements are proportionate and deliver a genuine benefit to passengers. While the Conservatives strongly support its direction of travel, we have some reservations about the precise requirements in this new clause and will therefore abstain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling the new clause, which seeks to require proposals for a national disruptive passenger database to be published within six months of Royal Assent. I must say, it brings me absolutely no pleasure to rain on the hon. Member’s parade in the way that I have done for the previous few new clauses that we have debated. However, there may be some rays of light in relation to this one, when it comes to action that the Government are taking in this space.

Disruptive passenger behaviour is completely unacceptable, and airline staff and passengers must be protected from those who engage in such conduct. That is precisely why the Government have announced work with airlines and trade unions to develop a new system for sharing information on persistently disruptive passengers that does not require primary legislation. That work is under way, and we are considering practical arrangements to improve information sharing while properly addressing data protection, fairness and operational effectiveness. Requiring the publication of statutory proposals within six months and prescribing specific features that they must contain risks pre-empting the ongoing work and limiting our ability to develop the most effective solution in partnership with industry.

I cannot express enough my agreement about how much of a significant problem this is. I recently met representatives from Unite the Union and GMB from Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport. They described the appalling abuse that they get as members of staff from disruptive passengers, including being hit and spat at and having people screaming in their face. Because information sharing does not take place in the existing system, a disruptive person can just walk out of the airport, book a new ticket, walk back in and board a different carrier’s flight.

I am pleased to say that airlines and airports have been constructive and helpful in engaging with us on the work to develop this system and create a shared list of passengers, so that airlines can determine whether to allow them to board. We are making meaningful progress in this space. For those reasons, although we share the objective of the new clause, the Government’s existing work provides the right route to develop a proportionate and workable approach. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clause.

[Alison Griffiths]

I am delighted to hear the Minister’s comments. This is such an important topic. It is quite extraordinary; anyone who flies regularly will know how disruptive such behaviour is, and this has become an increasingly concerning issue in recent years. It is a serious matter for passengers, cabin crew and airlines, and I am delighted to hear from the Minister that the Government are now giving this proper attention. I look forward to a timeline from him on when he will bring forward this system. The Liberal Democrats have suggested a timeline in their new clause, which has been rejected, so I look forward to hearing an alternative proposal from the Minister.

[Keir Mather]

I completely understand the hon. Lady’s encouragement for us to set out a timeline. This is being developed in consultation with private sector operators who are working through the data requirements and legal strictures that relate to information sharing of this kind. It is obviously a complicated process. That being said, I am happy to take this away and write to both her and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage and share whatever detail I can on how the scheme is likely to unfold.

[Alison Griffiths]

I thank the Minister for his response. To conclude, although we welcome the debate that the new clause has prompted, and we recognise the importance of the issue that it raises, we will be abstaining, pending more information from the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that checking the website could protect the passenger, but the problem is that these are arbitrary sizing decisions so they can be changed at any moment. Should Ryanair need to prop up its bottom line this season by taking another 5 cm off its baggage sizing, there is nothing to restrict it from doing so. The Bill offers the opportunity to set minimum standards for passenger service and to give passengers power and protection from predatory practices. I think we should grasp that opportunity, and that is why the new clause is so necessary.

To begin to conclude, the race to the bottom that Lord Hendy described is not the worst-case scenario; it is what is actually happening today. We live today under the tyranny of the gate agent’s sizing frame. The new clause would throw off that yoke and release us into a free market of airlines competing on passenger experience, service and price, rather than on their fear at sea level before they even board that terrible, fragile, flammable metal fart tube of misery. Please support new clause 8 today—not just because it is right, but maybe so I do not have to subject Members to this rant all over again during the Bill’s remaining stages.

[Keir Mather]

When I recently visited the Bayeux tapestry, I learned that the British Museum was the first institution to ever have “British” applied to its name, and I am now reflecting on the fact that we have an entire classification of luggage named after our beautiful country. It is hard not to be filled with a flood of patriotism at the prospect, and it is hard not to be moved by the reflections of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.

In my youth—some say it has not yet ended—I also experienced just the thing that the hon. Gentleman described. When I was on the way back from a rowdy holiday in Portugal, I flew on a carrier that will remain nameless, and I also felt the trepidation of looking down the line and thinking, “Oh no, I’m not sure my bag is going to fit.” Having to put on two hoodies and two pairs of jeans is not something that anyone should be subjected to, and in that respect, I feel his pain.

However, although the Government support clear information for passengers, and we expect airlines to communicate baggage allowances transparently, I feel that the new clause would impose what is a highly prescriptive statutory regime governing baggage sizes, weight limits and charging practices across the sector as a whole. Such matters are closely linked to airlines’ operating models and their commercial offerings, and any intervention of this scale would require careful consideration of its impacts on competition, consumer choice, operational efficiency and fares.

[Luke Taylor]

I sympathise with the Minister’s experience on holiday—and the experience of his rapidly decreasing youth. This point was potentially buried at the beginning of my speech, but the introduction of asymmetric EU regulations could present a challenge. Our passengers departing from the UK might not be protected by—I do see this as being “protected”—the same mandatory minimum standards that would support our European brethren on their journeys here. It really is a challenge to remove that disparity and ensure that there are not different rules at either end, which could then be exploited by carriers imposing charges and different conditions in each direction of a trip.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Regulatory alignment does not have to catch consumers out, and it can also provide regulatory certainty for business. Of course, the Government keep developments in the European Union under close watch and advisement, and I saw the ones made in relation to both baggage sizes and family seating. The beauty of this legislation is that it allows us, where appropriate, to align with European rules when it is in the best interests of both British business and consumers. He pre-empts a point that I was just about to make on clause 1, which, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage rightly reflected, has done a great deal of the heavy lifting: it allows us to make these changes once we have had time to consider matters carefully.

I have absolutely no doubt that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will continue to make a full contribution to those discussions. I do have sympathy with what he says, but I do not believe that now is the right moment to put what is quite a prescriptive regime on the face of this legislation. I thank him for what has been a very thought-provoking debate.

[Olly Glover]

How do I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam?

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

First, I apologise: there was an error in my notes as to the groupings and I had new clause 11 in the previous one. That is entirely my error, and I apologise to the Committee for the confusion. The good news is that the speech on new clause 11 has already been done, and the one for new clause 10 is significantly more concise—good news all round, I would suggest. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, marvellous.

New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report two years after the passage of the Act reviewing its impact on passenger protections and standards. Given the somewhat concise nature of the Bill, for which we might be grateful in the Committee but may regret in future, we feel that Parliament needs a formal mechanism by which to judge whether the Government’s promises of strengthened rights, for instance at the baggage carousel, havematerialised. The new clause would help to ensure that passenger protections and standards are not weakened as a result of the Bill. If the Minister is not minded to agree, perhaps he will say how else this legislation can be reviewed and he and his Department held to account, so that the many high expectations of clause 1 are fulfilled and delivered in.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 10, which would require a report on this legislation’s impact on passenger protections and standards two years after Royal Assent. I agree that it is important to ensure that legislation and regulation have the intended impact, but it is not necessary to include in primary legislation a requirement for a post-implementation review.

In practice, the inclusion of such review requirements must already be considered when developing secondary legislation and included where appropriate. Given that the much talked about clause 1 will give the Secretary of State the power to amend air passenger rights legislation through regulations, that would be the most suitable point at which to decide whether such a review was needed for a specific regulation and to determine its scope. In addition, a Government amendment made in the other place—clause 5(2)—requires the CAA to report annually on its use of the direct enforcement powers introduced by the Bill. Parliament will therefore receive regular, ongoing information on how the new enforcement regime is operating. As such, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw new clause 10.

I also thank him for tabling new clause 11, which would require the Government to introduce a statutory passengers’ charter for air travel. I recognise the ambition behind this new clause, but as was made clear when this proposal was considered in the other place, a statutory charter is not the right or most effective mechanism for delivering on that objective. The fundamental difficulty is how such a charter would operate in practice: if drafted broadly, it would create expectations that could not meaningfully be enforced; if drafted prescriptively, it would quickly become inflexible. Where reform is justified, targeted and evidence-based, regulation under clause 1 will offer a clearer and more effective route, allowing requirements to be introduced where there is evidence of consumer detriment, without prescribing broad service standards in primary legislation.

The new clause brings together matters that are already addressed through existing legislation and regulatory frameworks, while others are commercial decisions properly left to airlines. Established requirements cover safety, accessibility and passenger rights, and those protections can be strengthened through statutory instruments where the evidence demonstrates that change is needed. In contrast, catering, wi-fi, seat configuration, charging points and baggage allowances are ultimately commercial matters that properly sit with airlines.

Different operating models give passengers a choice between price and service. Low-cost carriers, for instance, can offer lower fares because they use higher-density seating and unbundle optional services. Imposing uniform statutory standards in these areas could reduce choice, increase costs and make affordable air travel less widely available. Nor are all the proposed commitments suitable for statutory targets. Concepts such as “value for money” and “adequate seating” are subjective, while punctuality and reliability can be affected by weather, air traffic restrictions and other factors outside an airline’s control.

The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Department is already developing a non-statutory accessible travel charter. That work will set clear, shared expectations for transport operators and local authorities to improve accessibility for disabled people across all modes. It is a more focused and practical response than the wide-ranging statutory charter proposed here.

In short, the new clause would duplicate existing frameworks, constrain legitimate commercial flexibility and create a risk of unintended consequences. For those reasons, I cannot support it and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 11.

[Alison Griffiths]

New clause 10 is a very sensible amendment and one that is clearly in the interests of passengers. Given the significant changes being introduced through the Bill, it seems entirely reasonable to review their impacts after two years, particularly on passenger protections and accessibility. It is a fair point; providing greater clarity and accountability over whether the measures are working can only be a good thing. We are therefore happy to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I know that you, Ms McVeigh, and the Committee will be delighted to know that this will be my final speech in this Bill Committee, because the last new clause will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The end is in sight.

New clause 12 would prohibit any powers in the Bill from being used for the purposes of airport expansion. Airport expansion is an entirely valid debate to be had and, indeed, the Transport Committee is spending innumerable hours at the moment scrutinising the Heathrow expansion national policy statement. I know everyone here who is also on the Transport Committee is very much enjoying that task. The new clause would ensure that the efforts to advance airport expansion are handled appropriately, transparently and not through the back door. We have received reassurances from Ministers in the Lords that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion and we take those assurances in good faith, but the time when British politics and our constitution, if that term can be used, can be relied upon in good faith has long gone and there is no substitute for legal guarantees.

While we are glad that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Aviation Minister are still with us and hope to continue the stewardship of their Department for a long time, none of us knows the future and we do not know who will be in charge going forward. Without clear instructions written into the Bill, the public and local communities do not have reassurance that powers included here will not be used for airport expansion via the back door. For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against vast, unscrutinised delegated powers that are potentially contained in this legislation.

While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition of a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments. The Minister in the Lords, the noble Lord Hendy, pointed to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement as the proper avenue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in a Bill.

While we recognise that this new clause is something of a blunt tool, if the Government truly have no intention of using the powers in this Bill to facilitate airport expansion we see no reason why such a clear safeguard cannot be written into it. It is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad—we come back to the marvellous clause 1. The Bill touches everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making function. Local residents deserve the certainty that can only come from primary statute. We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of a regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause, which seeks to prevent the powers in the Bill from being used “in connection with” airport expansion. The reasons I cannot support this new clause are clear and the central point is straightforward: this Bill is about aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. Its measures are needed irrespective of whether an expansion proposal comes forward and irrespective of the outcome of any such proposal.

The Government have been clear that they support airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements, but such proposals must be considered through the established planning system. They are not authorised, facilitated or decided through this Bill.

That distinction is reflected in the scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, including my appearance tomorrow before the Transport Select Committee, which I very much look forward to. Airport expansion is considered through dedicated processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and Parliamentary oversight. Nothing in this Bill displaces those processes or prejudges their outcomes. The new clause would therefore not provide a meaningful safeguard against airport expansion. Instead, its broad reference to powers used “in connection with” facilitating expansion could create uncertainty well beyond any individual proposal. It could cast doubt on routine regulatory activity that neither approves nor promotes expansion, potentially constraining the effective operation of the aviation framework to no clear benefit. Put simply, in my view this new clause seeks to guard against something the Bill does not do, while risking unintended consequences for what the Bill must do. It is therefore unnecessary and could inhibit legitimate regulatory functions. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

[Alison Griffiths]

I find new clause 12 quite extraordinary. We have been clear throughout these proceedings that we want to see economic growth, greater investment and a thriving, internationally competitive aviation sector. Airport expansion has an important role to play in achieving these ambitions, subject to sensible, local, proportionate mitigations. I simply cannot understand why we would want to insert a provision into the Bill that deliberately seeks to restrict our ability to deliver that growth.

We want Britain to succeed and we will not be signing up to measures that deliberately seek to curtail the economic growth our country so desperately needs.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is intended to ensure that the economic regulation of NATS contains effective incentives to prevent avoidable disruption and strengthen operational resilience, as we recognise the impact that major system failures have on airlines, passengers and the wider economy. It would establish the principle that NATS’s regulatory framework should incentivise the prevention of major disruption events, particularly those arising from operational and technology failures. It should not simply focus on the recovery of costs. Recent NATS outages have demonstrated that the consequence of operational failures are borne overwhelmingly by airlines and passengers through cancellations, delays and the loss of economic activity, but the existing regulatory incentives are primarily focused on delay metrics and do not adequately address resilience, software assurance and major cancellation events.

The new clause would not alter NATS’s role as the UK’s air navigation service provider or undermine resilience. Instead, it would ensure that the regulator considers the economic consequence of major failures and whether the existing incentives are sufficient to drive operational performance. It would place those principles on a firm statutory footing and enhance the role of the CAA regarding the role of NATS in mitigating the impact of major cancellation events.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new clause, which seeks to ensure that the economic regulatory framework incentivises resilient and reliable air traffic services and efficient and cost-effective operations. Although we fully agree that resilient air navigation services are critical, particularly in the light of recent disruptions, I cannot support the new clause for reasons that I will outline.

In the first instance, safety must remain the overriding priority for air traffic controllers. Air traffic control decisions must be taken solely on safety grounds; they should not be based on other considerations, such as financial penalties. The CAA already regulates NATS with an existing regime that provides accountability, with delay-related targets and a penalty mechanism that reduces airline charges.

In addition, the new clause risks prejudging the results of ongoing work. The Secretary of State for Transport has commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to lead an independent investigation into the air traffic control disruptive events in September. It will examine the cause of the incidents and broader questions relating to NATS’s resilience, capital investment and modernisation plans, and will help to identify any lessons needed to strengthen the resilience of the UK air traffic management system. It will also review the findings, recommendations and actions arising from previous significant UK disruption, such as in August 2023. It will assess the extent to which they have been effectively implemented and whether they remain adequate for addressing system resilience, and the consequences of major disruption for airlines and passengers in the wider aviation sector.

The new clause assumes that the appropriate response to recent disruptions is to alter the statutory framework for economic regulation. However, it is not yet clear that the underlying issues relate to deficiencies in the CAA’s economic regulatory duties. The CAA’s investigation is intended to establish precisely what caused the incidents and what lessons should be learned. It would be premature to conclude that legislative changes to economic regulation are required before that evidence is available. If the CAA’s investigation identifies a case for changes to the economic regulatory framework, those proposals should be considered through the normal policymaking process so that any reforms are carefully developed, properly tested and coherent, rather than pre-empting the outcome of that work now. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that work is ongoing on this important issue and gives him leave to withdraw the new clause.

[Alison Griffiths]

I am delighted to hear from the Minister that work is ongoing on this important subject. New clause 15 makes a valuable contribution and we are happy to support it. Given the multiple serious failures at NATS in recent years, including two in September alone, it is absolutely right that the regulatory framework places greater emphasis on operational resilience and reliability, and preventing major disruption. We have seen the enormous consequences of these failures for airlines, passengers and the wider aviation industry, with thousands of flights disrupted through absolutely no fault of their own. What message does that send to potential investors—those wishing to expand and grow?

Frankly, I question whether the Government have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to ensuring that our air traffic control system is fit for purpose. They could not even be bothered to come to the House to make a statement, and had to be dragged to the Chamber to answer the urgent question asked by the shadow Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). We must do everything possible to safeguard passengers and airlines from further disruption and ensure that the regulatory framework properly incentivises NATS to prevent these failures in the first place. I therefore welcome the new clause, and the Opposition will support it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Keir Mather]

May I thank the shadow Minister? It has been a pleasure to work with her in the Committee room for the first time, and I look forward to many such interactions in the future. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, and all right hon. and hon. Members who made such fantastic contributions from their lived experience and from their constituency experiences—some more vivid than others, it must be said. Nevertheless, it has been a pleasure; the Bill Committee has been filled with constructive debate and good humour. I also thank the Whips, my fantastic Bill team, all the Clerks and staff who have made today’s proceedings possible, and you, Chair.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.