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

Debate between Luke Taylor and Keir Mather

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

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

Debate between Luke Taylor and Keir Mather

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

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 We prefer amendment 21 and will hopefully persuade the Government to accept it, in which case amendment 20 will be superseded.

[Keir Mather]

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

[Luke Taylor]

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- 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?

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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.

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

Debate between Luke Taylor and Keir Mather

Tuesday 9th June 2026 General Committees

[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.

Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Luke Taylor and Keir Mather

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Taylor]

Q It is good to see Neil, my ward councillor and council colleague in Sutton. I want to focus on the seizure of motor vehicles, which relates to an issue we have on our high street in Sutton, but I want to take a slightly different angle and ask whether Neil and Sara think the powers might go too far. Would the ability to seize vehicles without warning, and without an initial pushback on the behaviour, potentially give too much power to the police? Is there a risk of—I will not say “misuse”—over-policing? Do you have thoughts on that? Sutton is a good example but, Neil, your London Assembly seat also covers Croydon, where there might be slightly more rural issues. Sara, do you have any examples from the LGA area that you represent?

Councillor Garratt: You are right to flag that. I spoke earlier about why I think it is potentially of benefit that the police would not have to catch the same person twice. I spoke to a police officer about this, and that is essentially how he described it to me: the way the law stands, you have to catch the same person twice. He gave the example of the Ace Cafe in London, where there is an issue with motorbikes, rather than cars. It is tricky to keep track of precisely who you have recently given a warning. Sometimes the behaviour is so egregious, and well beyond what would require a mere warning, but it does require a warning, and then they ride off and are gone.

You are right to flag up the possibility that the threshold moves such that what might have been a warning turns into a seizure. That is absolutely a concern. In a way, that relates to my point earlier about levels of disruption from protest. Parliament sends words into the world and they take on a life of their own when interpreted by the police or the courts. I would want to see provisions in the Bill to make sure that the power could not be abused. But, fundamentally, as a matter of practical policing, not having to catch the same person, in the same vehicle, in the same kind of act twice would be a benefit of the Bill.

Councillor Conway: We can certainly send in more information to give a range of experience from across the country. Speaking specifically about what I have observed locally, those powers would be very welcome. Often, cars are used for all sorts of things, and completely blight a local street, area, park or whatever. It is important really to have those powers and see how it goes. We are happy to follow up with some more detail.

Councillor Garratt: Councillor Conway’s point about persistence in the same place is very important. Some people do not see this problem from one year to the next; other people see it almost every week.

[Keir Mather (Selby) (Lab)]

Q Thank you both for your evidence. Councillor Garratt, you remarked earlier about public order measures, protests and the concerns you have, quite rightly, about some of the protests we have seen in London. Can you speak to some of the specific provisions in the Bill, particularly those that create new criminal offences of concealing your identity at a protest, of climbing on specified war memorials, and of wearing or displaying articles in support of prescribed organisations? How do you think the practical application of some of these measures in London will help to deal with the public order concerns you mentioned?

Councillor Garratt: I welcome all the provisions you just listed, which are all positive. I think I might have seen them somewhere before, in fact.

When we at the Assembly press the police on how they police protests, there are two sets of problems: one is the issue around powers—what they can or cannot do—which I spoke about earlier. The courts have decided that they cannot remove somebody for simply sitting in a road if it is a protest.

On the other hand, there is a practical problem in the sense that if you have a very large protest—for example, the ones we have seen on Saturday mornings—with a very large group of people and a limited number of police officers, the practical ability to carry out what you might think of as a snatch operation comes down to a risk-based decision that the senior officer on the site has to make. One of the ways in which the new provisions may not necessarily make much difference is if the police judge that it is difficult for them in practice. For example, if you have a crowd of a thousand people all wearing face masks, what exactly is the practical step that the police would be able to take?

I welcome the provisions. It is a good idea to have them for people who climb on wall memorials and wear face masks. In particular, although being unpleasant is not against the law, I am very on board with the provisions for those who appear to be supporting terrorist organisations, or inciting violence against groups of people. The question mark I have in my mind is whether the police have either the resources or, on balance, the willingness to go into a large crowd of people, who probably will not welcome their arrival, to actually enforce those provisions.

Councillor Conway: We think the measures are broadly welcome. We will obviously have to see how they go in practice, but something fundamental is needed, as has been shown over the past year or so, in respect of the way you balance the very legitimate right to protest, which we have to enshrine, and people feeling intimated. There is a wider discussion than just this Bill in terms of how it is possible to disagree agreeably—we had this conversation last week. Some of this, in respect of the face masks and so on, sets a basic code for how you engage in public life and public space.