E-scooters and E-bikes: Regulation

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for bringing this important debate to the House. It is worth making it clear that I am a huge fan of e-bikes. I rode my e-cargo bike to the station this morning, and in term time I would have dropped my two boys off at school using the bike. I have covered more than 18,000 km in the last six years.

Our discussion today should focus on illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, but we need to be clear that we support the contribution that e-bikes make to active travel, taking cars off our roads, and reducing emissions, congestion and road danger. I differ slightly from my hon. Friend, however, as I believe that e-scooters are far too dangerous to be considered for regulation and legislation. They do not in any way qualify as active travel. They should be banned or removed from our streets entirely.

I have spoken repeatedly about the need for tougher regulation of illegally modified e-bikes. These vehicles plague the high street in Sutton, and sadly deter many local residents from visiting the shops that my town centre has to offer. Delivery drivers on e-bikes treat the stretch of Sutton high street like a racetrack. They rampage along pavements at speed, with no consideration for pedestrians around them. The nights are getting darker, but many ride without lights, endangering pedestrians and the riders themselves. My constituents should not have to spend their weekly shop looking over their shoulder, worried they might be mown down by a vehicle that should never have been on the road or the pavement in the first place.

The dangers do not end when the bikes stop moving. E-bikes are causing fires across the capital. We saw that recently in Mitcham, where a fire ripped through homes, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned. The increase in illegal e-bike conversions, fires and accidents on our streets is driven by two main causes: the sale of high-powered e-bikes like Sur-Rons, and the multimillion-pound delivery companies that incentivise riders to use faster vehicles but take no responsibility for ensuring that they are legal and being ridden legally.

We Liberal Democrats want delivery platforms to be required to verify that bikes being used by riders are road legal. Regular checks should be made to ensure that illegally modified vehicles are not being used to complete food orders for pay. There must be clear consequences for companies that repeatedly fail to act to protect the public. Corporate giants of the gig economy world cannot continue to hide behind the self-employed status of their riders to seek impunity from responsibility. They already have the technology to track their drivers, identify them and verify that they are using the right accounts. They must be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that vehicles being used to make deliveries are legal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I said I would give way only once more. I fully appreciate that this is a debate—I give way a lot in debates—but I need to make the rest of my comments.

It is almost as if my speech had been pre-written for the first intervention I took: we need to support the police with the resources they need to tackle both the illegal use of these vehicles and their use as enablers of other offences. I appreciate that, last year, the Government introduced legislative changes to make it easier to seize some of these vehicles, but the changes can be effective only if the relevant authorities have the resources to enforce them. Furthermore, I hope the Minister will ask his colleagues to consider policies that enable the police to intervene whenever they witness dangerous behaviour involving e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as ways to impose tougher penalties. Illegal behaviour must be appropriately punished. There must be consequences.

That must be combined with increased police recruitment to ensure that officers are available to tackle this reckless behaviour, including targeted enforcement in locations where crime is most prevalent. However, under this Government we have unfortunately seen a reduction in overall police officer numbers. We should therefore commend the police forces that are using existing regulations to tackle the illegal use of these vehicles and finding innovative ways to discourage illegal behaviour. One recent example is the City of London police’s use of its so-called sin bin, which is designed specifically for cyclists who ride through red lights or across zebra crossings. Those caught are required to watch a safety video, which takes considerably longer than it would to have simply waited for the light to change. Of course, that can apply to any bike, but we regularly see users of e-bike schemes engaging in that kind of behaviour. By removing the perceived benefit of jumping a red light or riding illegally across a crossing, these measures could help to deter such behaviour.

At the same time, many of us have seen the increasing use of private e-scooters alongside the illegal use of e-bikes. Figures released by the Metropolitan police in July show that it had confiscated more e-scooters in the first seven months of the year than it had in the previous whole calendar year. Some people may ask whom this behaviour harms, but the answer is clear. If we cannot enforce the rules we already have in place, we risk endangering the public, particularly disabled people, who rely on our road safety infrastructure to protect them.

That brings us to the increasingly prevalent dockless e-bike and e-scooter rental schemes. Disability charities, particularly those representing people with visual impairment, have highlighted the significant challenges posed by these schemes. Research by the Royal National Institute of Blind People shows that 81% of survey respondents said that bikes or e-scooters left on pavements make their journeys more difficult. I therefore understand the desire to call for appropriate regulation of these businesses. In fact, a number of these organisations have called on local government, and particularly the Mayor of London, to show leadership on the issue and to be clear about what local government wants to achieve from the schemes.

I hope we follow the approach set out by the leadership of Westminster city council. Dockless bikes are here to stay, but poorly parked bikes have become a major headache—indeed, a danger—for pedestrian and businesses. It is worth noting that at a meeting with the major operators in August, Westminster city council agreed to share data that would give the authority a much more accurate picture of the thousands of vehicles operating in the borough. The council also stated that dockless bike operators were considering removing or relocating parking bays that are near taxi ranks and disabled parking bays, to help to keep pavements clear.

Working with the companies in a way that allows them to operate safely and legally is the principal way we should approach the problem.

[Luke Taylor]

rose—

[Neil Coyle]

rose—

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

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 20, also tabled by the hon. Member, seeks to remove one of the circumstances in which the CAA is not required to consult when making rules. The Bill currently allows the CAA to skip consultation where it considers that a proposed provision is sufficiently minor that consultation would be unnecessary.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)]

I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are seeking to do in new clause 1, but what assessment have they made of the financial implications of setting up this new route on a per annum basis?

[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]

We have heard enough. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Passenger Luggage Minimum Sizing: Duty to produce regulations

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament regulations providing for ‘British Standard’ luggage for Air Travel.

(2) The regulations specified in subsection (1) must set out the following definitions—

(a) ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’, namely a hand bag or personal item form of carry-on luggage; and

(b) ‘British Standard Suitcase’, namely a form of large carry-on bag.

(3) Regulations made under this section must provide for a minimum size, both in terms of dimensions and weight, for both the British Standard Hand Luggage and the British Standard Suitcase, and require airlines to allow luggage which meets the definition of a British Standard Hand Luggage to be taken on board by passengers without charge.

(4) The regulations made under subsection (1) may permit airlines to charge passengers who wish to carry a British Standard Suitcase aboard, however airlines may not impose a restriction on ‘carry-on luggage’ which would be smaller than the definitions of a ‘British Standard Suitcase’.

(5) Regulations made under this section must establish a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet the definitions of either ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’ or ‘British Standard Suitcase’.”—(Luke Taylor.)

This new clause makes provision for a minimum standard for hand luggage and carry-on bags and establishes a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet those standards.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Taylor]

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

The new clause returns to my overarching theme, and that of all of us, which is how to make flying slightly less horrible for all involved—for families, the disabled, those who need to drive to the airport. The new clause would take a huge step towards making flying marginally less stressful and, importantly, less expensive for anyone who brings hand luggage aboard a flight.

To explain the new clause as clearly as possible, I will start by defining the difference between the British standard hand luggage in subsection (2)(a) and the British standard suitcase in subsection (2)(b). Those admittedly somewhat overly theatrical terms simply act as minimum standards and not, sadly for any aspiring baggage entrepreneurs among us, as required suitcase models or dimensions.

Regulation EU261 has recently been agreed for passengers departing from inside the EU. That regulation will entitle passengers to carry a personal item that fits under the seat in front of them, which corresponds roughly to my British standard hand luggage item. Under EU261, that has a maximum dimension defined as 40 cm by 30 cm by 15 cm, adding up to 85 cm combined. EU261 also defines one piece of hand luggage, which corresponds roughly in concept to my British standard suitcase, as weighing up to 7 kg and requiring a maximum of 100 cm in combined dimensions.

We are all very aware that the UK is no longer part of the EU. Opinions on the wisdom of that may vary, but it means that British passengers may be entitled to a free cabin bag only when returning home on a carrier covered by the new EU regulation. For example, easyJet has confirmed that the changes will apply to flights returning from EU countries and not to departures from the UK. Passengers flying out of the UK will therefore not benefit from a free item of hand luggage, despite the new rules in Europe. The airline easyJet said that the rules will apply to UK passengers only on return flights.

That demonstrates the need for the new clause. It would avoid streams and streams of passengers potentially being fined by airlines on their way home to Europe, because of different rules on one leg of the trip from another. If we do not address the issue, we risk tourists being put off visiting our country due to the lack of parity, costing our fragile economy and hospitality industry huge amounts of revenue.

Today, we have already heard about how passengers run a gauntlet of fees, charges, fines and mistakes: as they travel from home, through the drop-off curve where they are forced to pay a charge or are fined; at check-in, where they may be forced to pay a fee to guarantee that they can sit near their children or to check a bag; and then at security, where they might have their perfume or purchased drink taken away if slightly over the limit. Having navigated our way to the gate, we can see the fragile aluminium or carbon-fibre tube, mere millimetres thick, which, together with the wings full of extremely flammable jet fuel, will convey us at 600 mph at 40,000 feet through storms and turbulence, lightning and rain, to a far-off land while we stew in 200 strangers’ halitosis and flatulence, surrounded by other people’s screaming children—while ours sit at the far corner of the plane, because we did not pay the fee to guarantee we would all sit together.

Before boarding, however, we must face the most terrifying hurdle of all: the gate agent and the handbag sizing frame. We look down and suddenly realise that we have packed our hand luggage in our easyJet bag, instead of the Ryanair bag—easyJet, alongside British Airways and Jet2, allow the most generously sized bag for large airlines, at 56 cm by 45 cm by 25 cm, which compares with 55 cm by 40 cm by 20 cm for Ryanair. The 1 cm-height, 5 cm-width and 5 cm-depth exceedance of that bag clearly means that it cannot fit on the 40-metre long aircraft I longingly gaze at through the terminal window. I shuffle forward with my bag. I am now past the point of no return, because I could have dealt with my error at check-in by paying £45-ish to check the bag into the hold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s flow of rhetoric highlighting the golden age of air travel, as he may or may not characterise it. I do not disagree with the challenges that can be faced and the fact that people make ordinary mistakes, but is there not a simple way of doing this? Before going to the airport and getting on a plane, people should check the requirements on the website and make sure that the bag fits them.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[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.

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

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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?

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

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace. I have met many stakeholders through the process of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, new clause 14 is very sensible. If passengers have paid for a particular seat on a flight, they should reasonably expect to receive the service they have paid for. If an airline is unable to honour that booking, it seems entirely fair that the passenger should receive an automatic refund without having to go through an unnecessarily cumbersome claims process. This is a straightforward matter of consumer protection and ensuring that people get what they have paid for. We are therefore happy to support the new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

It is a pleasure to serve in your presence, Mr Turner. As a vocal advocate of flying, it falls to me to acknowledge that, currently, flying is horrible, uncomfortable and stressful. On most occasions we arrive late, in a condition such that our initial reaction is to strip off all our clothes, shower and rid ourselves of the filth that we have been stewing in for hours in an aircraft. The fact that we all aspire to fly regularly shows that it is necessary, but there is an opportunity in the Bill to remove some of the stress, worry and discomfort in as minor a way as possible, to make the experience slightly less horrible. I will speak on amendment 25 and new clause 14, which I think are fair and proportionate attempts to reduce the stress and worry of the flying and airport experience in minor and sensible ways.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, I hope the Government see the wisdom of protecting parents and everybody else on an aircraft from the risk of an unaccompanied minor being seated next to a stranger. It is a reasonable expectation that someone should make a flight booking that covers themselves and their children, and that they should not be split to the four corners of the aircraft, forced to worry about persuading people to change seats to have the child under some level of control. For some parents that may be a blessing, and the thought of their seven-year-old sitting next to some poor soul at the back of the plane is attractive, but I think most of us agree that we should not subject random members of the public to that.

Amendment 25 takes a reasonable and proportionate approach to address the issue. I am interested to hear from the Minister on the Government’s approach as, unless I have missed it, it does not currently appear in the Bill. We would be minded to withdraw the amendment if the reassurance from the Minister were sufficient, particularly regarding how an adult is a person aged 16 and over, and how an adult requiring care should also be covered.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Member has painted a vivid picture of the realities of air travel, and he is eloquently explaining the thinking behind the amendment. I understand the intent—it is a worthy and sensible aim—but is he not concerned that the drafting of the amendment is quite tight? There may be times when an airline, because of circumstances beyond its control—the number of passengers, seating arrangements or whatever—would fall foul of the legislation because it does not allow the necessary degree of discretion.

[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 ---

[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.

[Daniel Francis]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Shortly after my election the year before last, I was delighted to introduce my private Member’s Bill, the Aviation (Accessibility) Bill, and I welcome the fact that this Bill—and, in particular, the clauses that we have been debating—encompasses a number of its measures. Accessibility in air travel is not just a matter of convenience; it is a matter of rights, dignity and equality. It is about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their mobility or physical condition, can enjoy the freedom to travel.

I pay tribute to my fellow chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users, Baroness Grey-Thompson, for the work that she has done on the Bill in the Lords, and for her work as chair of the aviation accessibility task and finish group, which this Government set up shortly after our election to ensure that the work on these safeguards started, and which reported back last year. As Members know, as well as being chair of the APPG I am the parent of a wheelchair user, so I live and see that lived experience on a daily basis. If you will allow me, Mr Turner, I want to place on the record my thanks to Sophie Morgan, Christopher Wood, who is with us in the Gallery, and their colleagues at the Rights On Flights campaign for their work to raise awareness of the issues that have led us to this place.

The clauses that we have already discussed will require Ministers to give due regard to strengthening passenger rights, but clause 4 will, vitally, remove the compensation limit for wheelchairs, mobility aids and other assistive devices. At present, the limit can be around £1,500, and someone can be required to battle for several months through the courts, with no real understanding of their legal rights. Many wheelchairs—even my 13-year-old’s—are worth more than £1,500 and, as I have said to the Minister, I am aware of a Member in the other place whose wheelchair is worth six times the current limit, so there really is a need to remove it.

As well as causing complexity, the current arrangements do put people off flying. Unlike the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, my daughter has not flown for 12 years, because I dread the thought of going through the process, quite frankly. Strengthening these rights will not only help people during their journeys, but encourage people to undertake them again. I welcome the measures on compensation rights for lost, damaged or destroyed wheelchairs or mobility aids.

Currently, airlines are not required to cover the full cost of repairs, and the limit for international flights will continue to be set in the Montreal convention; the limit in the Bill will be only for internal flights. There remains work to be done with regard to the Montreal and Warsaw conventions. Those longer flights fall outside the Bill, and there will continue to be some pressures for passengers travelling on them. The Minister knows I will continue to press the Government on working with international partners to press for compensation. We cannot, of course, encompass that in the Bill, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on what we can do on that matter. The CAA is responsible for the regulation of aviation safety in the UK, but it has been inhibited by not having the power to take proper action against airlines. Taking businesses to court has been a lengthy process, so I strongly welcome the measures in clause 4.

I concur with the Minister on new clause 13 from the Liberal Democrats. We have themes 3 and 4 of the report from the aviation task and finish group on mobility aids design and handling. We continue, through consultation and the Bill, to look at how those could be incorporated. I will not name airlines, but there are good examples of airlines that are following that guidance and that are ahead of the curve. Of course, there are also airlines that frankly need to step up to the plate.

New clause 13 is well intentioned, but there is good practice out there. There is work stemming from theme 4 in the report submitted by the task and finish group. As the Minister said, there will be the consultation, as we saw in clause 2.

[Luke Taylor]

We accept that huge steps have been taken. As somebody who has particular experience, does the hon. Member see the challenge around training airline check-in staff and ground handlers? What does he see as the way to achieve the aims and goals that we have? We can talk about regulation and legislation until the cows come home, as we are paid to do, but how does he see implementation on the ground, as someone who lives in this world and struggles with different airlines, some of which implement measures well, while others do not? I am interested to hear how he suggests we break through that and feed that back to the working groups so that it can really understand the trick to this.

[Daniel Francis]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. There are themes within the aviation task and finish group report on that matter. Training is in theme 1, and passenger information is in theme 2. So there are recommendations there. There will be the consultation. We need to look at the good examples—as I said, I will not mention individual airlines, but I will tell the Minister later. We can feed that in and look at it.

However, as the hon. Gentleman referred to, there is also complexity. Under the current arrangements, we would end up with that passport being used for internal flights and for flights leaving the United Kingdom, but it would not apply to people returning on a flight from overseas to the United Kingdom. As a user, I think that that would cause some confusion. As a London MP, I know my rights on a Transport for London bus, and I quote the big red book to bus drivers if they are not upholding the rights of a wheelchair user. I know my rights on the railway. I think it would be hugely confusing to have one set of rights for a flight leaving the UK and not the same set of rights for returning.

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Gentleman has invited me on to the point we raise in the new clause, about the need to work with IATA to ensure that this is part of either the mobility aid passport or a separate wheelchair passport structure, so that it protects passengers when they fly both from and to UK and EU airports. A theme to pick up on later is that it is common for aviation to be asymmetrical and that covering flights between different jurisdictions is difficult. Therefore, working with international organisations, and being rule makers and influencers rather than sitting back and being rule takers, is the right way to proceed.

[Daniel Francis]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. It is the same as the issues within the Montreal convention. We cannot put those or the issues with IATA in the Bill. We need to leave it to Government and Ministers to consult and work to strengthen those rights. That is why I would not support them being in the Bill. I support the measures in clause 4, but I ask Ministers to go away, look at the Montreal convention, have conversations with IATA and continue to strengthen rights in this area.

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

Luke Taylor Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I hope to continue the excitement of that result in the Chamber.

As an engineer, former aviation consultant and now chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I know that hon. Members will have become accustomed to me calling for stronger growth in the aviation space, and to my belief that technology and innovation can enable us to do that while achieving our obligations to reach net zero and stop the climate crisis.

Aviation is the bedrock of our trade agreements. It enables high-value cargo to move along supply chains in a way that no other form of transport can. It makes it feasible for businesses to operate across borders and make connections with other businesses that drive economic growth forward. It has meant that the last three generations of Brits have been able to take advantage of affordable foreign holidays, with massive benefits for them, their mental health and their ability to expand their horizons and make enriching memories in unfamiliar settings. It has been so transformational for Governments, businesses and individuals that it can be safely hailed as one of the most influential technologies in history.

But aviation has come at a cost. Consumer and commercial aviation has, without a doubt, contributed to the climate crisis we face. Estimates suggest that annually aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO₂ emissions. However, it has contributed around 4% to global warming to date.

As the MP for a constituency halfway between Heathrow and Gatwick, and given my former life in the aviation industry, I know that the politics of airports is fraught with complications. The impact on communities, if not handled properly, can be deeply challenging. It is my hope that the Government will listen and engage with the points I make about how we upgrade and improve civil aviation in this country for consumers, communities and the planet, and that they will have understood that events like those we saw yesterday serve only to underline how crucial this mission is, and how, following the third major failure of our airspace management in the past three years, it is imperative that this Bill is amended to include measures to stop that happening again. NATS is quite clearly not fit for purpose. We cannot suffer a major air traffic outage once a year. Following the outage yesterday, I am told by industry contacts that, again, communications with airlines were poor. I gently suggest to the Minister that whoever briefed the media that the disruption was akin to

“a day with bad weather”

should be found another position far away from the media team rather sharply.

In the Lords, amendment 65—submitted by Lord Young—would have required NATS to hold responsibility for compensation for disruption caused by its failure, rather than airlines that were not at fault for these delays. The Government declined to accept the amendment, and Lord Hendy responded in a letter to Lord Young in July that he was satisfied that, following the 2023 outage,

“the Government was able to place considerable pressure on”

NATS

“and appointed the person who led the review into the outage. This helped ensure that NATS took the necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of those particular circumstances.”

For the benefit of Hansard, I raise my eyebrow and glance at the Minister knowingly. I invite him to address this issue directly in his response and seriously consider the merits of that amendment—a change supported by the International Air Transport Association and airlines.

That specific challenge aside, the Bill needs to address three broader challenges, and I hope to work with the Government to ensure that it does. The first challenge is the generational risk of decarbonising aviation, which will require short, medium and long-term solutions as we work with researchers and companies to develop the breakthrough fuels that could reshape the industry. That is how we enable sustainable growth to drive our economy. The second challenge is the more procedural, but equally important, task of updating and upgrading our aerospace infrastructure to keep it competitive, while keeping communities impacted by these changes informed, engaged and fundamentally in control over what happens to them. Here we must secure our infrastructure at the same time as empowering communities. The third challenge is rebalancing the power mismatch between airlines and passengers, giving power to people and not the big airlines, so that the passenger experience can be as positive as possible, and not continue to allow airlines on some occasions to scam passengers like cheap fairground hucksters.

We need serious measures that will allow the airline industry to decarbonise. That will require the same collaborative work across the public and private sectors that informed the passage of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026, on which I was grateful for the chance to work with the Government in passing. Such enormous industrial transitions take a very long time, and moving existing fleets and fuel infrastructure to green alternatives while they are still in use is outrageously difficult. Contrary to what some would like us to believe, however, it is not impossible. The interchangeability of sustainable aviation fuels and fossil-based aviation fuels, mixed and fed into the same pipelines and engines, makes this a transition that is unusually straightforward compared with other decarbonisation challenges.

However, the sheer scale of the challenge and the existing infrastructure is the real difficulty. That, as well as the laws of physics and Breguet’s range equations, which I have mentioned in the Chamber before, mean that by sheer necessity the industry may be among the last to transition away from fossil fuels fully. We should not be afraid of that—it is the reality of achieving the growth we need—but we cannot ground aerospace or regulate it into submission, because to do so would have a catastrophic impact on our economy.

We hear from neo-Luddites that we should effectively do that anyway—that we must constrain our horizons, put up with constraints and self-enforced recession, and tell families and businesses that they must put up with penalties and restrictions that their peers and competitors around the world do not put up with. The intention of protecting our world from catastrophic climate change is absolutely right, but these solutions are utterly wrong. Aviation is a Pandora’s box technology—once invented and tasted, it cannot be put back into the box. Like the internet or artificial intelligence, the only valid pessimistic question ought to be about how we transform it to regulate the externalities and make sure it continues to serve people, communities and the planet.

The positive question concerns how we grasp the opportunities it offers to keep pushing progress forward. That means backing decarbonisation technology, which is the only way to achieve the future we need. There are great examples of this being done in practice: I spoke about Operation Blue Skies as merely a concept in the SAF Bill debate almost a year ago, but it is now funded and ready to be trialled this winter. That is concrete proof of the progress being made. However, there are things that we are failing to do as a state to remove roadblocks to this progress and there is a need for real leadership from the Government to continue to drive these opportunities forward.

Yesterday, I chaired a roundtable discussion about sustainable aviation fuel to allow MPs to hear from the industry about the progress being made and what roadblocks remain. We heard how the pipeline of SAF production is not progressing at the rate needed to achieve the SAF mandate targets over the next few years, and that further Government action is needed to ensure that we do not plateau and then fall behind the target of 10% SAF by 2030 and of 22% by 2040.

At the Farnborough international airshow earlier this summer, I was fortunate to witness the first flying demonstration by a fully electric aircraft, and the exhibition halls showed the huge progress on hydrogen and electric aviation that will be the future of travel. Last week, the Hydrogen in Aviation Alliance released its report, “Hydrogen-powered aviation: a pathway to delivery and growth”, which set out a clear set of steps towards harnessing that exciting new technology. Particularly interesting was news of trials led by the Cryogenic Hydrogen Optimised Systems for Aviation—CHOSAN—consortium to be based at Bristol airport, which hopes for the first hydrogen-powered flight from a UK commercial airport by 2028. That is hugely ambitious and gives hope that solutions are available, but it also reminds us that the Government need to play their part in speeding up development and roll-out even more.

Whether aviation decarbonisation ends up being achieved by SAF, hydrogen, electricity, methane or some other pathway not yet discovered, it is a huge opportunity for us to grasp in order to continue our great British global leadership in aviation technology. The Bill does not bring forward specific measures on these decarbonisation goals, other than through improvements in efficiencies delivered by airspace modernisation. I see that as a huge missed opportunity, and I will look for chances to bring forward such measures in Committee.

Turning to the second task on infrastructure, I greatly welcome the elements of the Bill that will help to deliver the airspace modernisation that will improve the efficiency of the UK’s airspace, reduce nuisance noise pollution around airports and facilitate the decarbonisation I have just spoken about. Far from being change for change’s sake, airspace modernisation is a vital step forward in upgrading our essential infrastructure, which has not been maintained and developed to keep up with changing and growing demands, and is at risk of periodic and then more consistent failure, as we all witnessed yesterday. Airspace modernisation should be done as part of a wider project of renewal across our transport and otherwise critical infrastructure. The lack of modernisation is visible in the chronic and consistent mismanagement of our roads and bridges, in certain aspects of public services and even in the political infrastructure that sits beneath everything else in this country. That is why, to unlock safe and sustainable growth and drag our infrastructure not just into the 2020s, but into a state of readiness for the future, airspace modernisation is utterly essential.

However, my support for this Bill is not without reservations. In particular, I am disappointed that, in its current form, it does not guarantee communities a meaningful say over the impact of these changes on them. Progress and improvements in route efficiency will inevitably have negative impacts on many, with new flight paths and concentrations of disturbance taking shape over communities previously not impacted by noise. Those impacts must be considered carefully, and the communities impacted must have a genuine and meaningful say in the changes that will be delivered.

As I have said before, my approach is a desire to get to yes on delivering these changes, but doing so requires buy-in from the communities that will live with the decisions for decades, so my response to this Bill has to be yes, if: yes, if we build meaningful community involvement that actually changes options; yes, if we can ensure that the scheme is able to benefit from public scrutiny; and yes, if it can be done in a way that is sustainable and not likely to be unpicked years later because it did not achieve some level of consensus. While the moving parts in aviation are aluminium, steel and carbon, these are ultimately human systems. It cannot be that changes are made that deliver what might look good on a spreadsheet or on the maps that I used to draw in the aviation industry; this must be about how the human situation is impacted by those changes.

On Monday, I attended a meeting of the APPG on airport communities. We heard how the airport night noise effects study has shown the huge impact of aviation noise on families living near airports. While aircraft types have become considerably quieter over the years, the more we learn of the health and psychological impacts of noise disruption, the more it is clear that the science is consistent and the impact is real. As such, we must demand that programmes to mitigate those impacts are made available to all those affected. It is also true that as airline traffic approaches capacity and demand continues to grow, airlines are likely to upgauge their aircraft fleets, which typically leads to higher noise signatures from larger, heavier aircraft. We should also remember that the very constraints we put on air traffic are creating an increase in those disruptions.

The parts of this Bill that will make airspace modernisation easy to deliver must not be allowed to cut scrutiny of the impact of that modernisation on residents or limit their voices over the options considered and how final flight routes are designed. I am particularly concerned about the impact on communities in my neck of the woods in south-west London, at Heathrow and further afield at Gatwick, which have already been sounding the alarm about the impact of night flights, particularly on their wellbeing. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) have worked on this issue for many years on behalf of their constituents, and this Bill needs to do more to protect the interest of their residents. I expect to hear shortly from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) on a similar issue.

The Civil Aviation Authority and The BMJ have both demonstrated that living under night flights not just harms mental health, but will inevitably damage a person’s productivity the next day. In extreme cases, it can increase the risk of stroke. If it is done properly, airspace modernisation can improve many of these issues, but, where it cannot, we must insist on mitigations through soundproofing programmes or respite periods. Airspace modernisation has the potential to shift flight paths to less densely populated areas and lower the noise impact on take-off and landing with more efficient, steeper approach and departure paths that balance emissions with noise reduction, but there is no guarantee that it will do any of those things if those living in the communities affected are denied a seat at the table, either through badly designed consultations or top-down diktat.

Let me turn to my third and final challenge—I am sure Members will be glad to hear that. It is important to remember that the first two challenges will affect the planet and communities near airports, but the third challenge—passenger rights—is the one that will hit passengers most directly. In the Lords, the Liberal Democrats tabled amendment 36 to implement a passengers’ charter for air travel, with various targets for minimum service levels that an airline can deliver. Lords amendments 10 and 11 would have prohibited airlines from separating passengers on the same booking to force them to pay for assigned seating, or from forcing other passengers to sit next to an unaccompanied minor. Lords amendments 2 and 20 would have stopped the UK from implementing lower standards and diverging away from existing international standards. All of those are good things, and I hope to convince the Government of their wisdom in Committee.

However, my favourite amendment, which I hope to push for and convince the Government of the merits of in Committee, is Lords amendment 13, which would have required airlines to standardise the maximum dimensions for permitted cabin baggage across all air carriers in alignment with recognised industry standards. Who here has a Ryanair bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 20 cm; a Wizz Air bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 23 cm; an EasyJet and British Airways bag, 56 cm by 45 cm by 25 cm; and an Aer Lingus bag, 55 cm by 40 cm by 24 cm? Each one is subtly different in size, and each one is liable to set someone back a hefty penalty if the check-in agent does not like the look of them. No, I did not think so; we do not have that number of bags—or we do not have all four.

It is absolute madness. This is 2026; we have universal phone chargers and universal electric car chargers, and we have had standardised shipping containers for nearly half a century. There are also universally sized overhead lockers on aircraft, so Lord Hendy was not correct when he asserted:

“Aircraft have different overhead and under-seat storage capacities. Setting a standard size would necessitate using the smallest aircraft capacity, resulting in many passengers needing to use a smaller case or bag.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 2026; Vol. 857, c. GC71.]

That is incorrect and frankly insulting to the intelligence of the passenger who has just been stung for £75 by an over-zealous Ryanair boarding agent due to having an oversized bag, because they picked up the wrong one that morning, and that 5 cm difference cannot possibly fit into the overhead bin of a Boeing 737 but could slip smoothly into that of an A320. Passengers need protection from predatory practices; we need the BSS—the British standard suitcase. That is the well-regulated market that the Liberal Democrats believe in, and I hope I am able to make the Government see the benefit of that during the Bill Committee.

In summary, the Bill really is a huge opportunity to take meaningful action to improve our airspace infrastructure to reduce emissions, to improve safety and reduce noise and to improve passenger experience and make flying less expensive and stressful. Those are good aims, but they can only be achieved with careful and clear leadership that listens to the voices of industry, communities and those of us who believe that they must be delivered in the context of a wider rethink about how we maintain and upgrade our systems in this country. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, and I congratulate him on making a strong, if incomplete, start. I look forward to helping him fix the Bill in Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

As we now all reflect on the size of our baggage, I call Amanda Hack.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

First, I want to mention the events of yesterday. I will usually get letters from constituents all over the country about such experiences, because Heathrow is located in my constituency and they therefore think I am responsible for it—I usually send apologetic replies back. Behind the suffering that people went through will be a large number of staff who were working incredibly hard at all levels of the organisation to put it right. This happens on every occasion.

Nevertheless, NATS management needs to be held to account. The Secretary of State has said that she will expect a report within six months, so it would be helpful to have statements during that period to reassure people about exactly what did happen, as well as covering the actions that need to be taken.

[Luke Taylor]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that particular reference should be given to the previous failures and to the 37 actions, I believe, that should have been completed to resolve the previous incident, as well as explaining quite how this was allowed to occur again? As he says, it is critical that we get to the bottom of what happened, but also that we are able to hold it to account.

[John McDonnell]

I think that goes to the heart of the debate that we are having, which is about levels of accountability within our structures themselves. NATS is accountable to the CAA, but who is the CAA accountable to?

I have raised with the Secretary of State proposed new section 61G of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, on the priorities and objectives of the Secretary of State in relation to aviation, which sets out that they must issue a document that is a directive to the CAA. The reason I asked about the proposed new clause is that, given the way it is drafted, I thought we were eventually going to move towards a more expansive document that would set out in detail some of the issues, particularly on the environment, for my interest, but also service delivery and so on. In fact, the document is currently simply a letter, a couple of pages long, that will be sent on a regular basis, usually annually, and laid before Parliament.

I thought that this legislation would be useful in giving us something more substantial; something that would be consulted on in more detail; and something that would set out a more detailed direction to the CAA as to how it should implement its responsibilities and role, as a result of which the CAA would then become more accountable to the Secretary of State and therefore to this House. The point is that when things go wrong, actions are agreed, but we never really get the substance of the follow-up on those actions. That is the problem.

I will just raise another example that people might remember taking place at Heathrow, which is when the substation went up in flames, and we then discovered that the fall-back operations were not working effectively either. There is a real vulnerability for the future. I think we need a bit more of an authoritative role for this House, in terms of how the Secretary of State can influence the CAA and make it more accountable. That is the main point I wanted to make.

I do not think that people realise the massive power that the CAA has and the implications that has for the lives and health of literally millions of people when it determines flight paths and standards of performance. The legislation needs further debate on other aspects as well, but I do not think we have got much further in establishing an effective structure for airspace decision making. There is very little independent monitoring in the decision making, and it becomes impossible to challenge, as the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) said, because local communities do not have the resources for judicial review—they are just on their own.

There does not seem to be the basic accountability mechanism that we would expect of other bodies performing similar public duties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her opening remarks and for the measures in this Bill, which are broadly very welcome for passengers and for many in airport communities such as mine. To share the Secretary of State’s comments, my thoughts are also with those individuals and families who face significant disruption this week through the failure of NATS. It shows just how vital air travel is to people right across this country for business and for leisure, and the impact when it goes wrong. Although it is not directly related to the Bill, there has been lots of discussion in this debate about the incident and about the lessons that we can and should learn.

At Heathrow, the major airport in my borough, we have now unfortunately got somewhat used to quite significant incidents. There was recently a grid power outage, which caused significant disruption, and there have been a number of other incidents. We clearly need to look at the resilience of our air travel system and at planning for such incidents, which are increasingly common and can cause significant and harmful disruption to businesses and individuals. I hope that there will be a thorough consideration of the issue, as the Secretary of State said there would be. The sector could learn lessons more broadly than from this instance and better resilience planning could be put into place.

The Bill is welcome news for my constituents and the travellers who come through my home borough of Hillingdon. The borough has not just one airport but two: we are home to Heathrow and RAF Northolt, which has a significant and increasing civilian operation involving private flights that come under civil aviation. We are not shy of or ignorant of issues arising from civil aviation—flights, disruption and balancing some of the trade-offs and challenges that come with air travel.

My constituency neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is no longer in his place, has already talked about some of the concerns about potential Heathrow expansion and the third runway; I am sure that the House will rightly turn its attention to those very soon. Those of us who believe in a better but not necessarily bigger Heathrow need to see measures to address the current challenges that Heathrow presents, regardless of expansion. That is why the Bill is particularly welcome.

There will be much better consumer protections when things go wrong, as they sometimes inevitably will. The Bill also takes action to tackle some of the wild west behaviours and differences between the approaches of airlines and contractors; that has been mentioned when it comes to hand luggage, but there are also different, hard-to-navigate approaches when it comes to compensation and delay payments. Those who have experienced disruption will often remember having to hunt down air staff at 10 or 11 at night when the desk is closed. They have tried to find anyone who works for the airline concerned to find out what is going on and what compensation they may be able to get—only to get a £5 paper voucher for refreshments, which will buy about half a sandwich in an airport concession.

I support comments from Members about looking at best practice and upping and standardising the quality of provision, as well as learning from other sectors such as rail; the automatic “delay repay” system has been mentioned. For my sins, I have recently travelled on Avanti and have had to use that quite frequently. It is a helpful tool, and there is a quick compensation turnaround. Notably, the compensation is a payment for the cash that the customer paid for the travel that they did not get. Unfortunately, far too often the disruption payments from airlines are an invitation to travel on the airline again. A voucher to travel again on easyJet when someone has not been able to travel the first time seems perverse.

[Luke Taylor]

To add grist to the mill of all our travel experiences, I had a case in which a customer chose to pay for a seat allocation so that they could sit with their children. They got on the flight and were then moved, and had to claim compensation on the extra service they had paid for—otherwise they would not have got a refund. Does the hon. Member agree that these sorts of things need to be automated and quickened up to improve passenger experience and customer protection?

[Danny Beales]

I wholeheartedly agree, and this Bill is a fantastic opportunity to address some of the issues that have lingered for too long in the sector. Boosting enforcement powers at the Civil Aviation Authority would enable faster enforcement when those rights are not applied. That is also welcome.

Members have rightly mentioned the need for a much tighter definition of “extraordinary events”, and the need to ensure that it is properly applied. It cannot be a catch-all opt-out for airlines, allowing them to get around the requirements. I strongly welcome the removal of the cap on baggage, specialist equipment and wheelchairs. In the Health and Social Care Committee, and in other debates, we talk a lot about the challenge of getting specialist adaptive equipment. It can take a long time to get bespoke equipment. It is incredibly damaging and destructive if it is lost or damaged when a person travels, and they are not able to reclaim the full cost, so I strongly welcome that provision. I encourage the Minister to ensure that when the cap is removed and the provision is applied, there are no unintended consequences—that airlines do not become unwilling to allow such equipment to be stowed and boarded, and do not refuse to fly individuals because of the insurance risk around their equipment. I hope that we will ensure that there are no unintended consequences of applying the right policy.

I strongly support the provisions around modernising our airspace. We have to modernise outdated routes, now that we have modern flights, and now that technology is emerging that has a much lesser noise impact. There are options and flexibilities that remove the significant impact on heavily trafficked flight paths. How we do this is just as important as if we do it; it must be done with proper assessment and consultation of residents. It cannot be right to have just a few heavily trafficked routes, leading to the piling up and circling of flights and an unnecessary additional burden on communities.

I support the comments made about the value of the Bill looking at abusive travellers and their impact on staff, both at the airport and cabin-side. Air workers face unacceptable amounts of abuse in all forms, physical and verbal, and it is increasing. The stats from a recent Unite survey of just 300 workers in Scottish airports showed that 90% had experienced verbal abuse on a regular basis, 75% had experienced intimidation and aggression, and almost a third had experienced some form of physical assault. We are becoming a bit numb to the abuse and regular intimidation that public sector workers and those in customer-facing roles experience; it happens to hospital, rail and shop workers. We have to take action; we have done, for shop workers. I hope that we can explore the issue and use clause 13, which gives a power to create offences to properly deal with airline and airport abuse. Crucially—Unite the union is right about this—this has to apply not just to abuse in the cabin; it has to apply to the whole journey, from entering the airport to sitting on the plane. Any abuse and intimidation has to be dealt with properly. We need a comprehensive system that ensures that when a person is banned from one airline, that carries across the whole airport system; the ban cannot put the staff at other providers at risk.

Finally, I turn to drop-off charges, which have been much discussed. We had a significantly busy Westminster Hall debate on this, which the Minister attended and responded to. This is an issue of great concern to my constituents. Charges have gone up significantly at Heathrow and at the other airports we have heard of today. Frustratingly for people locally, airports do not disclose what the revenue is used for. It is not clear whether it goes towards improving the situation, or is invested in community transport so that people can avoid having to drive to the airport. There are no direct public transport routes to Heathrow for staff and airport visitors from the north or Ruislip parts of my borough. It is incredibly difficult, particularly for evening and night workers, to get there on public transport.

I hope that the provisions added to the Bill will increase the transparency of information about drop-off charges, ensuring that they are adequately advertised, there are easy ways to pay them, and they are fairly implemented, and will ensure that the revenue they generate genuinely goes towards improving community transport. As has been said, the charges mean that people do not drive to the airport, but instead drive to the area around the drop-off zone. Local councils are made to pick up the enforcement costs relating to that parking, and to the illegal commercial car parks opened without permission. Through the review, I hope that we can properly address those issues, which are of significant concern to many of my constituents and my communities. Overall, I strongly welcome the provisions of the Bill, and I hope that it makes swift progress through this place.

Railways Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Monica Harding]

I rise in support of new clause 1, on the passengers’ charter, new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), and my own new clause 60, which addresses reliability, accessibility and refurbishment.

All seven of my railway stations in Esher and Walton are under the stewardship of South Western Railway, making our constituency one of the first to experience the transition to public ownership, and there are significant reliability challenges. The latest performance figures show that, in March, 3% of all services were cancelled and only 65% of services arrived on time, meaning more than one in three trains fail to arrive when passengers expected them to.

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

I have statistics for Worcester Park station, which is also served by South Western Railway, and in the very last period before nationalisation—period 2 for 2025-26—punctuality was 89.3%, which is still not good enough, and cancellations was 1%. In all the periods since then, performance has been worse. Under nationalisation, Worcester Park has seen a worse service in every single period. Does my hon. Friend agree that our residents, particularly those of Worcester Park, do not care if a train turns up wrapped in a Union flag, but about whether that train is on time and not cancelled?

[Monica Harding]

They 100% do care and that is why we should support new clause 1.

It would also help if constituents could access the railway in the first place. Investment in making our stations accessible for all need to be at the very heart of the programme of rail reform. Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations are completely without step-free access, while Walton, Claygate, Esher and Thames Ditton only have partial step-free access. That is why I tabled new clause 60, requiring Great British Railways to undertake and publish an assessment of the accessibility barriers at Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations. I am also pleased to support new clause 2, which does the same, requiring the Secretary of State to publish an accessibility strategy for the railway network.

That brings me to Hersham station, because accessibility failures there sit alongside something much more fundamental, which new clause 3 would address. Hersham supports around 700,000 passengers every year in one of the busiest rail corridors in the country, in a constituency that contributes more to the Exchequer than any other constituency outside London. Thousands of people pass through the station every week to run businesses, create jobs and drive economic growth. The state of that station is an affront to every single one of them. It is an eyesore: ramshackle and neglected, mould climbs the fence lines, the paintwork is peeling and the station sits under exposed corrugated iron roofing. More seriously, both platforms were built in the 1960s using materials that were only ever intended to be temporary. More than half a century later, they are still there. Groups of schoolchildren step off the train and put their feet through the platform. Constituents have repeatedly raised safety concerns. The stairs visibly move beneath their feet. These passengers are not asking for luxury; they are asking for a station that is safe.

There is nothing in the Bill that will give my residents in Hersham a station that they can be proud of. I therefore urge the Minister to look seriously at new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would establish a tomorrow’s railway fund, enabling local authorities to bid for funding for new stations, infrastructure and feasibility studies. This is exactly the kind of mechanism that stations and wealth creators in Hersham need.

All my constituents are asking for are trains that run on time, stations they can actually get into and infrastructure that is safe to use. Performance, accessibility and condition are not separate issues. They are three sides of the same failure and the Bill must address all three. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments and show that Great British Railways will finally deliver a railway worthy of the people who depend on it every day.

Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 General Committees

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

I think it is helpful to look at the consultation responses from airlines and airports when changes were announced. Only two out of 38 airlines opposed the changes, whereas airports were unanimously opposed to the measures. Airlines argued that, without a hand-back mechanism, they would not be able to adjust their schedules early enough to provide passengers with meaningful notice, even where known risks to operations existed. Airlines also considered the 10% limit on hand-backs too low and pushed to increase that to 20%-plus; generally speaking, we support the restriction to 10%, to reduce the potential impact on consumers.

Airport respondents opposed the proposal; they were not against alleviation in principle but against the hand-back mechanism specifically. They argued that the existing justified non-utilisation of slots provisions are sufficient to enable cancellations where operational constraints, including fuel shortages, arise. For instance, JNUS has already come into effect, providing slot alleviation to operators because of airport and airspace closures from the disruption in the middle east.

It is worth noting that, given that there is no fuel shortage now and none is expected according to Government data and airline bosses, this approach risks appearing to be unjustified, disproportionate and not entirely required, given that the measures in place are already helping with those issues. There is a risk that, instead of ensuring reliable services as stated, it could undermine consumer confidence and growth and investment opportunities.

The Liberal Democrats recognise that flexibility during this tumultuous period is important; as we have seen, events can move very quickly in the middle east. We want to protect the long-term financial sustainability of the airline sector. We do not want airlines using slots for empty or near-empty ghost flights, where demand is insufficient, in order to maintain the historical rights to slots, but these changes would result in flight cancellations with little notice, with huge disruption to consumers.

The proposal to allow hand-backs with as little as 14 days’ notice is contrary to the stated aim of preventing disruptive late cancellations, and it is unnecessary given that JNUS can be used at this late stage if a genuine fuel shortage occurs. In a cost of living crisis, with flight prices already through the roof, customers will be forced to spend more money on replacement flights at the last minute or lose money on hotels or onward travel.

It is also the case that 14 days’ notice is too short a period for airports and other users to make effective use of the vacated slots, as airports typically need six weeks’ notice to reallocate slots commercially. This means that we would likely have unused slots, which reduces income to airports and reduces investment in passenger and freight infrastructure.

Slot alleviation on its own cannot be considered the solution to fuel resilience issues; other action is needed. The Government must outline what other steps they will take to ensure the continued, resilient supply and availability of jet fuel in the UK. That includes going further and faster on the adoption and scaling up of sustainable aviation fuel projects, so that the UK is able to secure supplies of SAF and both ensure the lack of disruption to flights and enable further decarbonisation of aviation.

Will the Government commit to formally monitoring hand-backs under the flexibility offered by this legislation in order to ensure that they are the result of genuine fuel shortages, are undertaken in a timely manner and are not being abused? I also echo the concerns of the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, about the impact on consumers. I will be voting against the draft regulations.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, for their remarks. I will deal with each point they raised in turn.

First, on the question about timing asked by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I confirm that the slot alleviation measures will be extended to winter 2026. I find his link to broader questions on the refining sector admirably creative, but I am not sure that they have a direct bearing on the measures that we are considering. Our domestic refineries are still able to produce kerosene and jet fuel to a solid and viable extent. I remind him that we are not passing these measures directly in response to a shortage of jet fuel, but to pre-empt any future shortages that may arise, even though we believe that the supply is currently as it should be.

I also remind the hon. Member that we implemented a similar pre-emptive framework during the covid-19 pandemic to deal with similar disruption. This is a measured approach to be able to manage any potential fluctuations in supply as they occur.

The hon. Members for Broadland and Fakenham and for Sutton and Cheam are right to point to the concerns raised by airports through the consultation and to consumer protections for the travelling public. I will address both of those points together. We very much recognise airports’ concerns about the potential impacts. That is why these measures are strictly temporary, limited in scope and affect only a small proportion of slots—up to 10%.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed to the fact that a lot of airlines thought that the figure should be higher. The Government took a different view to make sure that the impact on the airports sector is contained.

Allowing these regulations to reallocate slots that are handed back ensures that airport capacity is not wasted. That provides flexibility for airlines while ensuring that we have efficient use of airport infrastructure. We believe that 10% strikes the right balance.

On passenger protections, airlines are required to provide passengers with at least 14 days’ notice of any flight cancellations, but that is not the intention of this policy. It is designed so that airlines have a longer lead-in time to be able to see where potential disruption might lie, and to be able to reallocate those slots efficiently to protect the travelling public and ultimately give them more security and better forewarning about disruption, where it may occur.

Where UK law applies, if a flight is cancelled by the airline, passengers are entitled to a choice between a full refund or being re-routed under comparable transport conditions to their final destination at no extra cost.

The shadow Minister asked why winter, and why the measures do not extend just to the summer. There is an important point about using the retained EU law functions that we have now to ensure that we have a long-term approach to managing disruption across the rest of the year. As he pointed out, measures in the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill will provide us with greater flexibility on slot reform, which we can use going forward.

On the Lib Dem spokesperson’s points on JNUS—I have never said JNUS out loud before—the justified non-utilisation of slots is triggered when a fuel shortage is materially occurring. The regulations give us a forward look that allows us to build in contingencies well in advance, and not just when a fuel shortage reaches its bite point. That is why a longer-term approach is necessary, but he is right to hold my feet to the fire.

[Luke Taylor]

There is an interesting dynamic between the impact of a fuel crisis, which is likely to have quite a short lead time, and these regulations, which give almost a six-month warning. Does the Minister recognise the need for oversight of how the rules are used to ensure that this happens in response to a fuel crisis and not for business reasons, or to expand the flexibility given by the existing JNUS rules?

[Keir Mather]

The Lib Dem spokesperson makes a valid point. The data shows that a lot of the cancellations we have seen, which so far have not been above average for UK aviation, have arisen to a large extent from people re-routing away from the middle east. We would expect these measures to be used only when disruption occurs directly in relation to fuel, but he is right to say that the Government need a proactive approach to monitoring hand-backs and how they are used. We will of course do that through consultation with industry stakeholders, such as airlines and AirportsUK. We will certainly keep a close watch on the implementation of the measures and make sure that that is done in the interests of the travelling public.

The regulations represent a practical and proportionate response to a period of uncertainty for the aviation sector. They protect passengers by enabling greater certainty and earlier communication. They will support airlines in maintaining viable and realistic schedules and will help to ensure that scarce airport capacity is used efficiently and responsibly. Above all, they demonstrate a forward-looking approach, acting early to prevent disruption rather than responding reactively. I hope that the Committee has found my answers informative and that it will join me in supporting this instrument.

Question put.

Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate.

Transport links are essential to our economy, tourism, trade and everyday life, but all too often they have been neglected. Up and down the country, people in businesses have been plagued by an inefficient, unreliable and unaffordable public transport system, which was completely neglected by the former Conservative Government. Now, as with many other areas of our creaking infrastructure, the public find themselves wondering when the change promised by the Labour Government will finally arrive, as if it were another heavily delayed train.

As we have heard at length today, too many rural communities remain effectively cut off from public transport. I grew up in Market Rasen in Lincolnshire, and I distinctly remember the frustration of simply trying to get to Lincoln—or beyond, to Newark or Nottingham—given the unpredictable and unreliable single-carriage trains that filled the air with thick, black diesel smoke.

Those challenges impacted the job opportunities of the people I grew up with and left our local economy—though beautiful and traditional in its own way—hanging off the edge of the rest of the east of England like a loose thread. It is startling that now, more years later than I care to admit, very little has changed. I am going to channel the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and join his calls for improved services to Market Rasen, including a direct link to King’s Cross, which may well improve my home town’s connection to the rest of humanity.

We have already heard how suburban communities such as Smethwick and Solihull, Loughborough and Long Eaton have suffered for years with poor train and bus services. In fact, it could be said that suburban towns do not get the attention that they deserve in the wider debate about this issue. As someone who represents a suburban town on the outer bounds of London, I reassure Members present that the problems discussed today are not completely alien to those faced by commuters in Sutton. Having lived in rural Lincolnshire, lived and worked in Lichfield, Ilkeston and Nottingham, and travelled to Broughton in north Wales for years on the train and bus services, I have personally suffered the impacts of that lack of connectivity.

Improving people’s lives, however, is not just about grand plans for infrastructure—even though as an engineer and recovering transport planner, I do wish that all problems could be solved by it—it is also about delivery and real funding for those projects, coupled with good leadership and real results. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s announcement last week that they are backing the long-standing Lib Dem calls to finally deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail—a clear Lib Dem win if ever I saw one. The plan, following the completion of Northern Powerhouse Rail, to build a new rail link through the midlands from Birmingham to Manchester is also welcome.

[Dave Robertson]

It is always great to see the Liberal Democrats finding a south-east MP to come and talk about transport in the midlands and north Wales. The hon. Member mentioned the well-overdue news that the Government will be following through on the rail improvement projects and building north to south, rather than south to north—as they always should have done. I wonder if he would like to reflect on the fact that the areas that returned massive Labour majorities are now seeing the investment from a Labour Government, so is he absolutely certain that he wants to claim that as a Liberal Democrat win?

[Luke Taylor]

When we see the investment going in, the tracks being laid and the services turning up to stations, I think we will agree that that is a win for any Government. For too long, we have seen empty promises that have not been funded and have not arrived, so perhaps we should all pause our congratulations and backslapping until those projects finally materialise.

With just over £1 billion of funding allocated for those projects so far, however, we had hoped for something more concrete. Indeed, beyond the headline that up to £45 billion can be spent, the mere £1.1 billion commitment to spend another five years making a plan to make a plan to consult on a consultation is cold comfort to those whose dreams of a truly joined-up economy rest on the delivery of this project—those are the dreams of not just businesses and councils, but ordinary people and community groups. The Government have not yet done enough to convince us that, following a decade of broken promises and distant dreams for transport in the north, we are actually on the cusp of real change.

For communities that have been waiting for rail upgrades for years—like a young boy waiting for the train to Lincoln on the platform at Market Rasen station—there will be another long wait before we see spades in the ground. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to go further and faster, like the trains that we so badly need, to improve transport links in the midlands and north Wales.

The economy of our entire country will benefit from reversing years of overlooked investment in transport systems. The statistics make that clear, with my home region of the east midlands receiving the lowest transport spending per head in 2023-24 at just £368 per person—a quarter of that in London and half of the average for England. Wales received just £566 per head, compared with an average of £693 in England and £763 in Scotland. Passengers and businesses across the midlands and north Wales deserve better, and the Liberal Democrats will continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire in delivering improvements for them.

To reiterate, we do not pretend that the challenges that the Government inherited are easily fixable. The British railways were left in a terrible state by the previous Conservative Government, but nearly two years on from the general election, many Brits remain fed up with the state of the British railways—with a network still plagued with delays, high ticket prices and overcrowding.

The Government would do well to remember that most passengers just want the strong delivery and good leadership that I mentioned, regardless of who owns the railways. People want better, more reliable and more affordable services—full stop. If nationalisation fails to make the impact that it promised, as the early warning signs indicate may be the outcome of the Government’s intervention, nothing will have changed.

In the spirit of constructive opposition, I invite the Minister to consider how the Government might align their plans more closely with the Liberal Democrat plans for our railways. Namely, I invite the Minister to meet my Liberal Democrat colleagues to discuss introducing a passengers’ charter like that laid before the House yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). It would go a long way towards offering passenger protections on reliability, accessibility, affordability, amenities such as wi-fi and toilets, and seat guarantees. It could be folded into the ongoing development of the Railways Bill. Similarly, will the Minister outline how the Government plan to significantly extend the electrification of Britain’s rail network without committing, as we have done, to a 10-year plan for more electric trains, greater investment in batteries, and ensuring that all new lines are electrified as standard? Such measures could make a huge difference to the carbon impact of our train network, including by creating new capacity for freight to be carried by rail rather than road, while delivering real results for passengers at the same time.

Finally, I invite the Minister to outline why the Government are not working with local authorities, not just in the midlands and north Wales but across the nation, to unleash the pent-up capability of transport-led economic growth in our towns and cities. The repeatedly delayed Leeds tram would be a great start, as would—if you will indulge me, Ms Furniss—extending the Transport for London tram to Sutton. However, I imagine that the Minister will be able to discuss some of these matters with the Mayor of Greater Manchester face to face much sooner than he had anticipated when he woke up this morning.

Draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 General Committees

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

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I offer broad support for the draft regulations. It is welcome that the CAA has lengthened the transition period in response to the consultation—the consultation seems to have been fairly well responded to. This is an example of the positive impact that hobbyists and private users can make on Government regulation. I encourage the Government to maintain that approach.

I echo the concerns about convergence or divergence with European regulations, but I sound a note of caution: there should not be divergence for divergence’s sake. Let us look at where there are advantages, compatibility or competitiveness with what is likely to be a larger market for products close by, and make sure that we approach that in a reasonable manner.

Can the Minister give some detail on how the CAA will engage with operating companies, particularly software manufacturers, to ensure that users are aware of the regulations? That is often done via apps and subscriptions. We must make sure that compliance is built in, especially with the geofencing altitude regulations and the night light operating rules. I thank the Minister for introducing the draft regulations and wish him the best of luck in boosting our competitiveness and the quality of the products we produce in the United Kingdom.

Heathrow: National Airports Review

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

There were probably three questions in one there. I say to my hon. Friend that I am not prepared to stand in the way of the public’s aspiration to fly. We are not looking at demand management at the moment; our approach to aviation decarbonisation is based on the analysis suggesting that the sector can make a significant contribution to our economy-wide net zero target by 2050 by focusing on new fuels and new technologies.

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

I have mentioned that the naming of Heathrow as critical national priority infrastructure is vital to ending the disruption to power and systems we have seen over the summer, so I encourage the Government to go forward with that. On the plans for transport to and from the airport and associated road schemes, can the Secretary of State confirm that the costs of the southern and western rail access, the new southern access tunnel that will ease congestion on existing roads and lower emissions, and the rail access to provide reliable public transport links for passengers and staff are included in the estimates we have already seen? I implore her, as others have done, to ensure that those plans are covered as part of the project, and that it is not left to the taxpayer to pick up the bill?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am clear that the project will need to be privately financed. That includes both the core project and the associated infrastructure improvements. It will be for the promoter submitting a planning application to set out in that application how it is consistent with the reviewed ANPS. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks I made earlier; I am clear that we must ensure that the M4 and the M25 do not turn into a car park, because that will not result in the successful operation of the airport.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Aviation is central to our economy and our way of life, whether it is delivering well over 300,000 jobs here in the UK, contributing over £22 billion to our economy, driving inbound tourism, or connecting communities, businesses and families the world over. I am proud of our world-leading aviation sector in Derby and many other places across the UK, and while aviation is an integral part of our economy, it is also one of the most challenging to decarbonise. Despite the scale of the challenge, though, we must keep pushing forward, because—as I have said before, and as I will say again now—without net zero in aviation, there is no net zero, full stop.

To ensure that future generations are able to access the opportunities that air travel can provide, we need to make sure that flying is greener. This Bill does exactly that. It will unlock the potential of UK SAF by delivering the confidence and stability that SAF producers need to continue to turbocharge growth as they drive forward green innovation. I welcome the Bill as a clear statement of intent that this country is absolutely serious about decarbonising the future and future-proofing our world-leading aviation sector. It is the right thing to do, and we must do it.

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

I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, and the debate on SAF has been a focus of many of our meetings. As a cover-all, I should declare my interests, having met with AirportsUK, Airlines UK, ADS Group, LanzaJet, Back British SAF, Valero, alfanar and others over the past six months. I also worked in the aviation industry for 16 years prior to being elected. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1 to 5, tabled by my colleagues, and new clause 7. I also encourage the Government to support amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the Conservatives, which would strengthen and improve the Bill and give us the best chance to achieve its targets. I will tell the House why.

In 2023, aviation accounted for 2.5% of global energy-related CO2 emissions; however, when non-CO2 effects are included, its contribution to climate warming increases to approximately 4%. Although that is a small fraction of global emissions, it is not insignificant. However, in my experience, few sectors take their role in bringing down emissions and tackling climate change as seriously as aviation, primarily because fuel burnt and emissions released is money spent.

As other Members have already made clear, decarbonising aviation and achieving net zero carbon UK aviation will require a huge range of different measures. Measures such as Operation Blue Skies, a global contrail avoidance system, will reduce the density of the heat-trapping contrails produced by aircraft, which creates nearly half the overall climate-warming impacts. Continuing improvements in aircraft engine and airframe efficiency are also critical, and that too has been mentioned by others.