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

Keir Mather Excerpts

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.