Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill
Tuesday 20th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 5 days, 12 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I'd like to remind members to please switch off electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. I'd also like to remind all members to speak slowly, loudly , and clearly, and ideally to look up while you speak. This is to support members who are hard of hearing. Today we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. Our first call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Subcommittee.
The motion can be debated for up to 30 minutes. Minister.
The motion can be debated for up to 30 minutes. Minister.
09:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Turner. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and thank all the honourable members who are taking part in the proceedings of this Bill Committee. I have nothing further substantive to add to the debate that was had yesterday on this matter, and therefore I beg to move the motion in my name.
09:26
09:26
09:26
09:26
09:26
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
On the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Copies of written evidence which 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? Thank you.
09:27
09:27
09:27
09:27
09:27
09:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much indeed. We now begin. Line by line consideration of the bill. The selection list for today's sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clauses schedules are selected and amendments have been grouped together for debate. The member who has put the name to the amendment in a group is called first for debates on clause stand part. The Minister will be called first. Other members are then free to indicate their wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing. Please, Bob. On each occasion on which you wish to speak during the proceedings.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again before they sit down. They will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause, or seek a decision. If any member wishes to press any other amendment, and this includes grouped new clauses in a group to a vote, this is at the chair's discretion. My fellow chairs and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments.
I remind members that decisions take place in order in which they appear on the bill. This means that some amendments may be divided on considerably later than the point at which they are debated. I hope that explanation is helpful. We'll begin with Group one, an amendment to clause one, with which it will be convenient to consider amendment six and New clause two. I call Alison Griffiths to move amendment five.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call the member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again before they sit down. They will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause, or seek a decision. If any member wishes to press any other amendment, and this includes grouped new clauses in a group to a vote, this is at the chair's discretion. My fellow chairs and I will use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses following the debates on relevant amendments.
I remind members that decisions take place in order in which they appear on the bill. This means that some amendments may be divided on considerably later than the point at which they are debated. I hope that explanation is helpful. We'll begin with Group one, an amendment to clause one, with which it will be convenient to consider amendment six and New clause two. I call Alison Griffiths to move amendment five.
09:29
09:29
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Turner. And I beg to move amendment five. I'll also speak to amendment six and clause two, which have been grouped with it. Together, these proposals address a simple question what is the bill intended to achieve for British aviation? Amendment five would require ministers to consider economic growth, competitiveness, investment and the regulatory burdens imposed on the sector. Amendment six would hold the government to its own target for reducing the administrative cost of regulation. New clause two would place the bill's overarching purpose supporting a competitive, growing aviation sector whilst protecting consumers at its forefront.
Economic growth, competitiveness and investment must be at the heart of this bill, and that's why amendment five is so important. It would ensure that when ministers exercise their considerable powers contained in this Bill, they are required to consider the consequences for growth, competitiveness and investment. I know that's a rarity for them, but they may as well start today. How on earth can businesses be expected to make long term investment decisions when the government cannot even provide them with a clear and consistent direction? Above all, the industry needs the confidence to expand and the certainty to invest with the government that is useful and conducive to that goal, rather than one that is all over the place with myriad positions.
Amendment five clearly fulfills that goal. Ensures ministers will consider the consequences for growth, and I hope he will support it. Moving on. It is bizarre that we are actually having to debate amendment six at all. After all, the target that we are discussing is not something the opposition have pulled out of thin air, but the government's own target. They set it, not us. The minister can't ramble on in the usual way of his colleagues about a poor inheritance. This is a commitment his government have made themselves. Yet, bizarrely, when this matter was raised in the other place, the Minister refused to back it.
Shameful. Really. The ministers simply not care about the costs. They are piling on to British businesses. Of course not. Because when we examine their records, regulation upon regulation, standard upon standard requirements, upon requirement is clear for all to see, and especially those businesses who have suffered and been forced to curtail plans to grow, expand, hire and succeed. And that is why, in the case of aviation regulation, we have tabled this amendment. We are simply asking ministers to stick to the target they set themselves. Finally, New Clause two would place an overarching purpose on the face of the bill.
As we have argued throughout consideration of this legislation. Growth must be our North Star when it comes to aviation policy. We want Britain to have a thriving and internationally competitive aviation sector, with airports and airlines able to invest, expand and succeed. That ambition is entirely compatible with protecting the rights and interests of passengers. Indeed, a successful aviation sector depends upon passengers having confidence in the services they receive. New clause two would therefore make clear that the purposes of the Bill are to promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector, support economic growth and protect consumers.
I struggle to see why the government wouldn't object to putting those balanced and reasonable objectives on the face of the bill. Amendment five, amendment six and new clause two form a coherent package. They would establish a clear, pro-growth purpose, require ministers to consider the effect of regulation on investment and competitiveness, and hold the government to its own targets for reducing administrative costs. I hope the minister will support them.
Economic growth, competitiveness and investment must be at the heart of this bill, and that's why amendment five is so important. It would ensure that when ministers exercise their considerable powers contained in this Bill, they are required to consider the consequences for growth, competitiveness and investment. I know that's a rarity for them, but they may as well start today. How on earth can businesses be expected to make long term investment decisions when the government cannot even provide them with a clear and consistent direction? Above all, the industry needs the confidence to expand and the certainty to invest with the government that is useful and conducive to that goal, rather than one that is all over the place with myriad positions.
Amendment five clearly fulfills that goal. Ensures ministers will consider the consequences for growth, and I hope he will support it. Moving on. It is bizarre that we are actually having to debate amendment six at all. After all, the target that we are discussing is not something the opposition have pulled out of thin air, but the government's own target. They set it, not us. The minister can't ramble on in the usual way of his colleagues about a poor inheritance. This is a commitment his government have made themselves. Yet, bizarrely, when this matter was raised in the other place, the Minister refused to back it.
Shameful. Really. The ministers simply not care about the costs. They are piling on to British businesses. Of course not. Because when we examine their records, regulation upon regulation, standard upon standard requirements, upon requirement is clear for all to see, and especially those businesses who have suffered and been forced to curtail plans to grow, expand, hire and succeed. And that is why, in the case of aviation regulation, we have tabled this amendment. We are simply asking ministers to stick to the target they set themselves. Finally, New Clause two would place an overarching purpose on the face of the bill.
As we have argued throughout consideration of this legislation. Growth must be our North Star when it comes to aviation policy. We want Britain to have a thriving and internationally competitive aviation sector, with airports and airlines able to invest, expand and succeed. That ambition is entirely compatible with protecting the rights and interests of passengers. Indeed, a successful aviation sector depends upon passengers having confidence in the services they receive. New clause two would therefore make clear that the purposes of the Bill are to promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector, support economic growth and protect consumers.
I struggle to see why the government wouldn't object to putting those balanced and reasonable objectives on the face of the bill. Amendment five, amendment six and new clause two form a coherent package. They would establish a clear, pro-growth purpose, require ministers to consider the effect of regulation on investment and competitiveness, and hold the government to its own targets for reducing administrative costs. I hope the minister will support them.
09:34
09:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Turner, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And also may I welcome the Shadow Minister to her place. It'll be a pleasure to work alongside her as this bill makes progress through this House. I'd like to begin with her amendment five, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to promoting economic growth when making regulations under clause one. Let me be clear that economic growth remains a crucial priority for this government. Sustained growth is essential to raising living standards, supporting good jobs and funding our public services. That is why the potential impact on growth is already embedded firmly within policy development.
Growth assessments require departments to consider how proposals can maximise positive impacts and minimise negative ones, and form an essential part of the collective agreement process before new policy is introduced. Growth is therefore considered throughout the development of policy, rather than only at the points where regulations are made. That scrutiny is reinforced through the Options and Impacts assessment process, which requires careful considerations of the effects on business, trade and investments. The ease of doing business in the United Kingdom and wider economic growth. The substance of the amendment is therefore, in my view, already addressed through established and rigorous processes.
Putting a further duty in primary legislation would not strengthen that consideration. It would duplicate obligations and processes that already apply. And for that reason, I'm afraid I cannot support the amendment and would ask the honourable lady to withdraw it. Turning to amendment six, also tabled by the Shadow Minister, it returns to the question of how the government should account for regulatory burdens when exercising the powers in clause one. The government's position remains clear that reducing the cost of regulation to business is a firm cross-government commitment. That work is already being pursued in a coordinated and systematic way, including through regular reporting on changes to administrative burdens collated and published across government.
The issue is therefore, not whether those costs should be controlled, but whether this amendment would add anything useful to the framework which is already in place. The evidence for this bill is also important, as the published impact assessment makes clear, its measures are expected to reduce costs to businesses over time. In particular, improvements to the safety rule making framework will provide greater clarity, consistency and efficiency. The bill for the bill therefore advances rather than cuts across the objective that the amendment seeks to promote. Nor would it be appropriate, in my view, to place the government's 25% targets in primary legislation.
Doing so could bind future secretaries of state and future parliaments to a target set for the present circumstances, even where subsequent policy or economic developments meant that a different approach was warranted. The government is already acting on the amendments underlying objective, and the bill itself is expected to deliver efficiencies for business. The proposed statutory provision would add rigidity, not stronger protection. And for those reasons, I cannot support this amendment and I would ask the honourable lady to withdraw it. The final amendment in this group chair, new clause two also has been tabled by the Shadow minister.
Her amendment would insert a purpose clause requiring the Secretary of State, when acting under the Bill, to have regard to competitiveness, growth and consumer protection. The committee will be familiar with the government's position from second reading and the bill's consideration in the other place, and I will therefore focus briefly on why we remain unable to support the amendment. Now, the government shares the objective of supporting a competitive and growing aviation sector. Those aims already inform wider government policy and decision making, and the Secretary of State sets out strategic priorities to the Civil Aviation Authority each year, including the importance of supporting economic growth.
The question is whether this purpose clause is the right way to secure those aims, and we do not believe it is. It would give particular prominence to a fixed and incomplete list of considerations governing every exercise of the bill's powers. Notably, that list does not include safety. Despite its fundamental importance to both aviation and the bill, ministers must retain the flexibility to balance consumer protection, growth, competitiveness, safety and any other relevant factors in light of the relevant evidence. Forgive me, chair, still very early in the morning, the explanatory statement also suggests that the duty would extend to the Civil Aviation Authority, but the drafting itself does not do so.
In any event, the CAA is already subject to the statutory growth duty, requiring it to have regard to economic growth proportionately. The amendment is therefore unnecessary in relation to growth and potentially restrictive in its wider effects. The government's approach allows decisions to remain evidence led, proportionate and responses responsive without elevating an incomplete set of objectives above other vital considerations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.
Growth assessments require departments to consider how proposals can maximise positive impacts and minimise negative ones, and form an essential part of the collective agreement process before new policy is introduced. Growth is therefore considered throughout the development of policy, rather than only at the points where regulations are made. That scrutiny is reinforced through the Options and Impacts assessment process, which requires careful considerations of the effects on business, trade and investments. The ease of doing business in the United Kingdom and wider economic growth. The substance of the amendment is therefore, in my view, already addressed through established and rigorous processes.
Putting a further duty in primary legislation would not strengthen that consideration. It would duplicate obligations and processes that already apply. And for that reason, I'm afraid I cannot support the amendment and would ask the honourable lady to withdraw it. Turning to amendment six, also tabled by the Shadow Minister, it returns to the question of how the government should account for regulatory burdens when exercising the powers in clause one. The government's position remains clear that reducing the cost of regulation to business is a firm cross-government commitment. That work is already being pursued in a coordinated and systematic way, including through regular reporting on changes to administrative burdens collated and published across government.
The issue is therefore, not whether those costs should be controlled, but whether this amendment would add anything useful to the framework which is already in place. The evidence for this bill is also important, as the published impact assessment makes clear, its measures are expected to reduce costs to businesses over time. In particular, improvements to the safety rule making framework will provide greater clarity, consistency and efficiency. The bill for the bill therefore advances rather than cuts across the objective that the amendment seeks to promote. Nor would it be appropriate, in my view, to place the government's 25% targets in primary legislation.
Doing so could bind future secretaries of state and future parliaments to a target set for the present circumstances, even where subsequent policy or economic developments meant that a different approach was warranted. The government is already acting on the amendments underlying objective, and the bill itself is expected to deliver efficiencies for business. The proposed statutory provision would add rigidity, not stronger protection. And for those reasons, I cannot support this amendment and I would ask the honourable lady to withdraw it. The final amendment in this group chair, new clause two also has been tabled by the Shadow minister.
Her amendment would insert a purpose clause requiring the Secretary of State, when acting under the Bill, to have regard to competitiveness, growth and consumer protection. The committee will be familiar with the government's position from second reading and the bill's consideration in the other place, and I will therefore focus briefly on why we remain unable to support the amendment. Now, the government shares the objective of supporting a competitive and growing aviation sector. Those aims already inform wider government policy and decision making, and the Secretary of State sets out strategic priorities to the Civil Aviation Authority each year, including the importance of supporting economic growth.
The question is whether this purpose clause is the right way to secure those aims, and we do not believe it is. It would give particular prominence to a fixed and incomplete list of considerations governing every exercise of the bill's powers. Notably, that list does not include safety. Despite its fundamental importance to both aviation and the bill, ministers must retain the flexibility to balance consumer protection, growth, competitiveness, safety and any other relevant factors in light of the relevant evidence. Forgive me, chair, still very early in the morning, the explanatory statement also suggests that the duty would extend to the Civil Aviation Authority, but the drafting itself does not do so.
In any event, the CAA is already subject to the statutory growth duty, requiring it to have regard to economic growth proportionately. The amendment is therefore unnecessary in relation to growth and potentially restrictive in its wider effects. The government's approach allows decisions to remain evidence led, proportionate and responses responsive without elevating an incomplete set of objectives above other vital considerations. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.
09:39
09:39
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm not yet shared by the government benches, but perhaps that will come in time. Yes. Good morning, Mr. Turner. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairship. And here we are with yet another transport Bill committee. I mean, people often say that transport is a boring, unsexy topic. And yet the government is. Well, indeed. And yet the government is demonstrating, dedicating so much legislative time to it. So thus rather undermining that thesis. And indeed, I note a number of honourable members on the benches opposite who have have already served their time in transport Bill, committee, jail and and now you're here again.
So, you know, I hope well, I mean, I hope it's I hope it's a sign of, of, of investment in your futures and, and your contribution rather than a punishment because, you know, some, some would argue that sometimes it does feel like a punishing but necessary duty being on the being on a bill committee. But I'm sure the minister would not endorse such seditious sentiments. Turning to the substance of this grouping, I'm going to defer to my honourable friend the member for Sutton and Cheam, who will talk about those. I just want to just say a little bit about the bill as a whole and how this I hope this bill committee will operate.
We you know, we broadly support a large amount of what is in this bill, but there are some aspects about which we have concerns, which is perhaps a little bit too much faith in the CAA cars abilities without without too much oversight. And we would like to see some consumer protections and some protections for the communities that are affected by aviation expansion. And of course, those communities include everybody on this planet because of the very significant environmental impact that aviation has. But more on that as we as we go along in terms of this bill committee, of course, the normal arrangement is is for the government to reject all ideas that are not their own.
But I suppose at this stage I perhaps lay down a challenge to the government benches. Could it be different this time? The new Prime Minister has indicated his willingness to embrace Liberal Democrat ideas on occasion. For example, yesterday his very warm embrace of our policies on on banning people listening to things on their phone without their headphones. So I suppose I hope that the that new culture initiated by the Prime Minister will be embraced by the minister, and maybe they will accept at least one of our ideas on this bill committee. That is my hope.
We shall see if that happens.
So, you know, I hope well, I mean, I hope it's I hope it's a sign of, of, of investment in your futures and, and your contribution rather than a punishment because, you know, some, some would argue that sometimes it does feel like a punishing but necessary duty being on the being on a bill committee. But I'm sure the minister would not endorse such seditious sentiments. Turning to the substance of this grouping, I'm going to defer to my honourable friend the member for Sutton and Cheam, who will talk about those. I just want to just say a little bit about the bill as a whole and how this I hope this bill committee will operate.
We you know, we broadly support a large amount of what is in this bill, but there are some aspects about which we have concerns, which is perhaps a little bit too much faith in the CAA cars abilities without without too much oversight. And we would like to see some consumer protections and some protections for the communities that are affected by aviation expansion. And of course, those communities include everybody on this planet because of the very significant environmental impact that aviation has. But more on that as we as we go along in terms of this bill committee, of course, the normal arrangement is is for the government to reject all ideas that are not their own.
But I suppose at this stage I perhaps lay down a challenge to the government benches. Could it be different this time? The new Prime Minister has indicated his willingness to embrace Liberal Democrat ideas on occasion. For example, yesterday his very warm embrace of our policies on on banning people listening to things on their phone without their headphones. So I suppose I hope that the that new culture initiated by the Prime Minister will be embraced by the minister, and maybe they will accept at least one of our ideas on this bill committee. That is my hope.
We shall see if that happens.
09:42
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, Mr. Turner. Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. And I rise to support amendments five, six and new clause two tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. And may I say at the outset, it is a pleasure to once again be serving on a Bill committee relating to transport and opposite the honourable gentleman, the Minister, who is an extremely decent and able Minister, and my experience in previous Bill committees. Even when he was saying no, he managed to say no in a very nice and gentle way.
Suggestions the opposition. Let's see how he does this time. Always a pleasure to be serving once again opposite the honourable member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who we serve on the railway Bill Committee and of course, the honourable gentleman for Wantage. And may I take the opportunity, Mr. Turner, to congratulate the member for Birmingham Northfield on his elevation since last we sat in a Bill Committee. It's well deserved, and I wish him all the very best in his new role. The Minister set out suddenly his opposition to accepting these amendments at this stage and this new clause, and I entirely, while I do entirely agree with him about the importance of retaining a focus on safety and on consumer protection and consumer rights, which is what this bill is about, I do think that that doesn't necessarily sit in contradiction to what my hon.
Friend is saying about economic growth, and I do think it's important that we keep that very much in mind and in terms of the costs. And he may, on a future occasion, wish to come back on this. I'd just ask him, though, to reflect on the impact assessment, pages 25 and pages 32, which show in terms of the monetized benefits, those are the two aspects of that impact assessment, which are rated red because of the cost. They're both negative because of the costs on business and more broadly. Now I hear what he says about, in the longer term, the opportunities for this legislation to drive growth.
But perhaps, if not on this set of amendments in a future set of amendments where it is in scope, he may I'd be grateful if he might perhaps address that point. If he doesn't catch the clerk's eye in a negative way whilst doing so. And the final point I would make is he expressed a concern as the Minister, that such amendments as are being proposed in new clauses are being proposed, might unduly bind a future government or a future Parliament. But he's. He's may have only been here a few years, but he's an extremely experienced parliamentarian.
He knows that no Parliament can bind its successors. And it's very easy for governments, particularly those with the majority of this government, to overturn and amend legislation so they wouldn't be bound. It wouldn't be binding a future government because such legislation could be changed. So my my gentle ask of the minister, who, as he knows I have great respect for, is that even if he cannot accept these amendments today, he reflects on the intent behind them and perhaps considers how that intent might be better woven through the fabric of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Suggestions the opposition. Let's see how he does this time. Always a pleasure to be serving once again opposite the honourable member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who we serve on the railway Bill Committee and of course, the honourable gentleman for Wantage. And may I take the opportunity, Mr. Turner, to congratulate the member for Birmingham Northfield on his elevation since last we sat in a Bill Committee. It's well deserved, and I wish him all the very best in his new role. The Minister set out suddenly his opposition to accepting these amendments at this stage and this new clause, and I entirely, while I do entirely agree with him about the importance of retaining a focus on safety and on consumer protection and consumer rights, which is what this bill is about, I do think that that doesn't necessarily sit in contradiction to what my hon.
Friend is saying about economic growth, and I do think it's important that we keep that very much in mind and in terms of the costs. And he may, on a future occasion, wish to come back on this. I'd just ask him, though, to reflect on the impact assessment, pages 25 and pages 32, which show in terms of the monetized benefits, those are the two aspects of that impact assessment, which are rated red because of the cost. They're both negative because of the costs on business and more broadly. Now I hear what he says about, in the longer term, the opportunities for this legislation to drive growth.
But perhaps, if not on this set of amendments in a future set of amendments where it is in scope, he may I'd be grateful if he might perhaps address that point. If he doesn't catch the clerk's eye in a negative way whilst doing so. And the final point I would make is he expressed a concern as the Minister, that such amendments as are being proposed in new clauses are being proposed, might unduly bind a future government or a future Parliament. But he's. He's may have only been here a few years, but he's an extremely experienced parliamentarian.
He knows that no Parliament can bind its successors. And it's very easy for governments, particularly those with the majority of this government, to overturn and amend legislation so they wouldn't be bound. It wouldn't be binding a future government because such legislation could be changed. So my my gentle ask of the minister, who, as he knows I have great respect for, is that even if he cannot accept these amendments today, he reflects on the intent behind them and perhaps considers how that intent might be better woven through the fabric of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Minister.
09:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, Senator, just to respond briefly to a few of those points raised. I do agree both with the Shadow Minister and the honourable member, that economic growth and safety are not necessarily in conflict with one another. The question is, however, whether the amendments as drafted offer too prescriptive a lean towards economic growth, whilst not duly factoring in the question of safety. And I think when we exist in a system where economic growth is considered right through the gamut of policy development, it doesn't appear proportionate to me to include one to the exclusion of the other when the other you could say, well, I would argue is equally important and in some instances, more important.
The honourable member also at the Right Honourable member, actually, forgive me, raises a fair point about costs to business of regulatory alignment. He is right to point to the impact assessment, and he is also correct in the sense that initial compliance costs of adapting to new regulations do create negative costs for business. I am still of the view, however, that over the long term, the government is abiding by a target to reduce administrative burdens for business overall. In the longer term, this bill does reduce costs and therefore, on that basis, I don't believe it is necessary to put a formal target to reduce burdens by 25% on the face of the bill, given the fact that A we may wish to to go further in the future.
And B, there are some instances in which, in particular, in relation to aviation safety, we may want to, over a short period of time, increase the amount of regulatory compliance that is required to adapt to new and changing circumstances in the aviation sector more broadly. Thirdly, he raises a point about binding successes. I may have been overly literal in my remarks, and if so, I forgive him. I forgive me even. It's true that it doesn't formally doesn't formally bind the hands of a successive government. The question, however, is whether the clause setting out a purpose clause is unduly prescriptive in terms of what it does and does not lay out for future governments.
But I've, of course, been encouraged by the opposition frontbenchers to bear all of these principles in mind. I do have an overall sort of pseudo ideological position on how legislation of this kind should be developed, and I do think that it's better not to fill bills with things on their face, which take away flexibility in the future. That being said, these points around growth and reducing regulatory burden are of significance. I thank opposition members for the way that they've raised them. However, I do not feel the way that they are presented in the drafting of these amendments enhances the quality of the bill, and therefore I would repeat my urge for them to be withdrawn.
The honourable member also at the Right Honourable member, actually, forgive me, raises a fair point about costs to business of regulatory alignment. He is right to point to the impact assessment, and he is also correct in the sense that initial compliance costs of adapting to new regulations do create negative costs for business. I am still of the view, however, that over the long term, the government is abiding by a target to reduce administrative burdens for business overall. In the longer term, this bill does reduce costs and therefore, on that basis, I don't believe it is necessary to put a formal target to reduce burdens by 25% on the face of the bill, given the fact that A we may wish to to go further in the future.
And B, there are some instances in which, in particular, in relation to aviation safety, we may want to, over a short period of time, increase the amount of regulatory compliance that is required to adapt to new and changing circumstances in the aviation sector more broadly. Thirdly, he raises a point about binding successes. I may have been overly literal in my remarks, and if so, I forgive him. I forgive me even. It's true that it doesn't formally doesn't formally bind the hands of a successive government. The question, however, is whether the clause setting out a purpose clause is unduly prescriptive in terms of what it does and does not lay out for future governments.
But I've, of course, been encouraged by the opposition frontbenchers to bear all of these principles in mind. I do have an overall sort of pseudo ideological position on how legislation of this kind should be developed, and I do think that it's better not to fill bills with things on their face, which take away flexibility in the future. That being said, these points around growth and reducing regulatory burden are of significance. I thank opposition members for the way that they've raised them. However, I do not feel the way that they are presented in the drafting of these amendments enhances the quality of the bill, and therefore I would repeat my urge for them to be withdrawn.
09:48
09:48
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Tanner. Well, I'm grateful to to hear from the from the minister, but I really don't think that he has sufficiently addressed the concerns. Both of my right hon. Friend the member for Melton and Cistern, or the points that have been raised on. On this side, I think a North Star is critical for. For this bill it is all very well to have to have a bill, but without purpose. What is it? What is it there for? And I think that is an important point that we need to take into account the flexibility that that he references.
I think my right hon. Friend the member for for Melton has already addressed that point that you won't be removed. He won't be removing any flexibility in agreeing to our amendments. And I and I would also really point to our new clause two. The minister appears to think that it negates safety at the expense of . At the expense of competitiveness and growth. I would just reiterate the words within it that are to to protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services. I hardly see how that could possibly be construed as downplaying safety.
So , Mr. Turner, with with your permission, I would press for a vote on all three of the points that we've discussed today.
I think my right hon. Friend the member for for Melton has already addressed that point that you won't be removed. He won't be removing any flexibility in agreeing to our amendments. And I and I would also really point to our new clause two. The minister appears to think that it negates safety at the expense of . At the expense of competitiveness and growth. I would just reiterate the words within it that are to to protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services. I hardly see how that could possibly be construed as downplaying safety.
So , Mr. Turner, with with your permission, I would press for a vote on all three of the points that we've discussed today.
09:49
09:49
09:50
09:50
09:50
09:50
09:50
09:50
09:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The eyes were three and the nos were 11. The nos have it. The nos of it. Amendment six to clause one has just been debated. If the shadow minister or any other member of the committee has indicated that they wish to press amendment six to avoid. If you have. Thank you. The question is that amendment be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I of the contrary.
No, no, no.
No, no, no.
09:51
09:51
09:52
09:52
09:52
09:52
09:52
09:52
09:52
09:53
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Mr. Turner. These amendments are. And indeed new clause 14 are intended to strengthen the consumer and general citizen protections that the Bill has the opportunity to provide should our amendments be accepted, starting with amendment 24. This would stipulate that regulations coming from the Bill cannot create lower passenger and consumer standards than currently exist. Now, the reason why this is important is because whether we're debating information rights, delay compensation, or the powers conferred on the Secretary of State, the test has to be the same. Does the provision leave the passenger better protected , or leave the door open to an erosion of standards that they currently enjoy?
This amendment does not seek to load new obligations onto the government. It simply asks that when ministers use the powers that this bill grants them, they cannot use them to quietly lower the bar where the government takes power to make new regulations. The existing baseline of protection should not be capable of being diminished through that power. Now, this approach is not novel. Section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 already requires the minister before the second reading of any bill touching environmental law to confirm that it will not reduce existing environmental protection. If they cannot, they must say so and explain why.
And that single duty has kept the floor from moving. Air quality standards inherited from European Union law were carried through undiluted and remain in force today. Turning to amendment 25, this would put in law that family groups cannot be separated when travelling under the same booking, ensuring that children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult in other areas. Other aspects of life. When you make a booking and you find that you've not been, that you've been seated separately from your children or your family, that is something that is not considered acceptable and that booking has to be honoured or redress made, even when on other modes of transport.
This is the case, for example, on a train, if you reserve multiple seats in the same booking, the booking system automatically tries to seat the whole party together, although admittedly on occasion there is disruption or CrossCountry decide to put off 4 or 5 car on and then that ruins all that. But that's perhaps another matter. So why is it the case that these arrangements don't also apply to airlines? It might be. At the moment this is more common from some airlines than others, but at the moment they can get away with what they're doing because there are no restrictions.
And we hear far too many heartbreaking stories of passengers treated in this way, with potentially, particularly if passengers with disabilities treated as lower priority. We're glad to hear reports that the government has been convinced of the case, that we set out for this change in the House of Lords, and are now considering consulting on scrapping any charges of being seated next to children under the age of 14. But we really believe that this does require a focus. So we very much hope that the government will view this amendment favourably, or otherwise indicate what it is that they're going to do instead of it.
And Mr. Turner, with your with your indulgence, subject to the government not being willing to accept this principle, this is something we would like to move to a division. Turning to amendment 26, this would require that the UK diverges from EU. If the UK diverges from EU aviation laws . Regarding passenger rights and compensation, the new domestic standards must match or exceed the level of protection currently provided by the EU. For the same reasons as I've outlined before, that it's really important that we maintain our current levels of standard as a minimum. Of course we want to increase them.
New clause 14 would issue automatic refunds for a failure to honour Pre-purchased seats supporting the amendment I've just spoken on. I do want to say something very, very briefly about the opposition amendment seven. I think it is. Or is it a government? One plot now this is yours, right? Thank you. Yes, that's my notes that are effective. Yes. I can understand what the conservative shadow minister is intending with this amendment. And I and I would be interested in hearing her case. If it is about transparency and good governance, I do happen to I do feel that there is more of a tendency in the in the conservative benches to table such amendments whenever it comes to European Union things rather than others, which I find ironic given how often they accuse the Liberal Democrats of being obsessed with Europe.
Perhaps they have a comparable obsession, but in a different direction. I think I've said more than enough, and I look forward to hearing other members comments.
This amendment does not seek to load new obligations onto the government. It simply asks that when ministers use the powers that this bill grants them, they cannot use them to quietly lower the bar where the government takes power to make new regulations. The existing baseline of protection should not be capable of being diminished through that power. Now, this approach is not novel. Section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 already requires the minister before the second reading of any bill touching environmental law to confirm that it will not reduce existing environmental protection. If they cannot, they must say so and explain why.
And that single duty has kept the floor from moving. Air quality standards inherited from European Union law were carried through undiluted and remain in force today. Turning to amendment 25, this would put in law that family groups cannot be separated when travelling under the same booking, ensuring that children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult in other areas. Other aspects of life. When you make a booking and you find that you've not been, that you've been seated separately from your children or your family, that is something that is not considered acceptable and that booking has to be honoured or redress made, even when on other modes of transport.
This is the case, for example, on a train, if you reserve multiple seats in the same booking, the booking system automatically tries to seat the whole party together, although admittedly on occasion there is disruption or CrossCountry decide to put off 4 or 5 car on and then that ruins all that. But that's perhaps another matter. So why is it the case that these arrangements don't also apply to airlines? It might be. At the moment this is more common from some airlines than others, but at the moment they can get away with what they're doing because there are no restrictions.
And we hear far too many heartbreaking stories of passengers treated in this way, with potentially, particularly if passengers with disabilities treated as lower priority. We're glad to hear reports that the government has been convinced of the case, that we set out for this change in the House of Lords, and are now considering consulting on scrapping any charges of being seated next to children under the age of 14. But we really believe that this does require a focus. So we very much hope that the government will view this amendment favourably, or otherwise indicate what it is that they're going to do instead of it.
And Mr. Turner, with your with your indulgence, subject to the government not being willing to accept this principle, this is something we would like to move to a division. Turning to amendment 26, this would require that the UK diverges from EU. If the UK diverges from EU aviation laws . Regarding passenger rights and compensation, the new domestic standards must match or exceed the level of protection currently provided by the EU. For the same reasons as I've outlined before, that it's really important that we maintain our current levels of standard as a minimum. Of course we want to increase them.
New clause 14 would issue automatic refunds for a failure to honour Pre-purchased seats supporting the amendment I've just spoken on. I do want to say something very, very briefly about the opposition amendment seven. I think it is. Or is it a government? One plot now this is yours, right? Thank you. Yes, that's my notes that are effective. Yes. I can understand what the conservative shadow minister is intending with this amendment. And I and I would be interested in hearing her case. If it is about transparency and good governance, I do happen to I do feel that there is more of a tendency in the in the conservative benches to table such amendments whenever it comes to European Union things rather than others, which I find ironic given how often they accuse the Liberal Democrats of being obsessed with Europe.
Perhaps they have a comparable obsession, but in a different direction. I think I've said more than enough, and I look forward to hearing other members comments.
09:57
09:57
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. Turner. And I will speak to amendments 24, 25 and 26, amendment seven standing in my name and New Clause 14, which have been grouped together. Amendment 24 sets out an eminently sensible ambition, namely, to ensure that any future regulations don't water down the passenger and consumer protections currently in force. And that is an important principle and one that we do recognise. And , of course, as you know, the opposition supports a thriving competitive aviation sector, but passengers must also have confidence that when they travel, they will be treated fairly and that the protections they rely upon will be upheld.
This is particularly important for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. We know that far too many people still face unnecessary difficulties when travelling by air, whether that is the provision of assistance, the handling of mobility equipment or simply being able to travel independently and with dignity. These are matters that deserve serious attention. And as we, particularly my conservative colleagues in the other place, have consistently argued, accessibility should be considered from the outset rather than treated as an afterthought. However, I do have some reservations about binding ourselves to every existing regulation, particularly where certain requirements may create perverse incentives, imposed disproportionate burdens, or simply fail to deliver the outcomes they were intended to achieve.
We should always be in the business of retaining the flexibility to revisit and improve regulations where necessary, whilst ensuring that passengers remain properly protected. We therefore welcome the overarching objective of this amendment, but given these concerns, we will be abstaining. And now to amendment 25. I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. However, I am aware that airlines already have arrangements in place to seat young children with accompanying adults, whilst the needs of passengers requiring assistance are already addressed through existing accessibility regulations and CAA guidance, I do question what additional problem this amendment is seeking to solve.
We should be particularly cautious about introducing further regulatory requirements where protections already exist, especially when we're trying to reduce unnecessary burdens on the aviation industry. For those reasons, whilst sympathetic to the intention, we will abstain. Turning now to amendment 26. Whilst I understand and appreciate the intention behind the amendment tabled by the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage, I do have some concerns about the potential consequences of tying ourselves too closely to EU standards, particularly when we consider what could what that could mean further down the line. This country has continually demonstrated leadership above and beyond our European counterparts across a whole host of sectors, and aviation regulation should be no different.
We have a world leading aviation industry, and we should have the confidence to develop a regulatory framework that works in the best interests of British passengers, British businesses and our wider economy. That means ensuring that the regulations we introduce are proportionate, effective and do not impose unnecessary burdens on the industry. Of course, there are plenty of similarities between the challenges facing the aviation sectors in the UK and the European Union, and there will undoubtedly be occasions where that alignment makes very good sense. But there will also be circumstances where our interests differ, where the challenges we face require a different approach, and where the ability to respond flexibly, nimbly and independently will be enormously valuable.
I would be concerned about introducing provisions that could unnecessarily, unnecessarily constrain that flexibility, particularly when we cannot possibly know what changes the European Union may decide to decide to make in future. Our focus should be laser focused on getting this bill right, ensuring that we maintain high standards whilst creating the conditions for a thriving and competitive aviation sector. For these reasons, whilst I do recognise the intentions behind the amendment, I am unable to support it. I turn now to amendment seven, which stands in my name. We've tabled this amendment to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny remains at the heart of the process when it comes to revising standards and regulations, it's important that members across this House have the necessary clarity about the purpose and ambition of any regulations the Secretary of State wishes to make under this section, and that's why we've called for several proportionate and sensible steps to be taken before such regulations are made.
I would particularly draw members attention to proposed subsection 4AD, which would ensure that the impact of such measures on passengers, operators and indeed the aviation sector as a whole, is properly considered before aligning with international standards or EU law, because whilst there may be may well be good reasons to align with certain international standards, it's only right that ministers explain why they believe doing so is necessary and what the consequences might be. And ideally, rather than participating in its usual exercise of vote now and get the detail later, it really should be prepared to set out the evidence supporting that decision prior to it becoming law.
I do not think that that is an unreasonable request, and I hope the minister will support the amendment. Finally, I turn to New Clause 14. I think this is a very sensible new clause. If passengers have paid for a particular seat on a flight, they should reasonably expect to receive the service they have paid for. And where an airline is unable to honour that booking, it seems entirely fair that passengers 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 people get what they have paid for.
We are therefore happy to support the new clause.
This is particularly important for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. We know that far too many people still face unnecessary difficulties when travelling by air, whether that is the provision of assistance, the handling of mobility equipment or simply being able to travel independently and with dignity. These are matters that deserve serious attention. And as we, particularly my conservative colleagues in the other place, have consistently argued, accessibility should be considered from the outset rather than treated as an afterthought. However, I do have some reservations about binding ourselves to every existing regulation, particularly where certain requirements may create perverse incentives, imposed disproportionate burdens, or simply fail to deliver the outcomes they were intended to achieve.
We should always be in the business of retaining the flexibility to revisit and improve regulations where necessary, whilst ensuring that passengers remain properly protected. We therefore welcome the overarching objective of this amendment, but given these concerns, we will be abstaining. And now to amendment 25. I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind this amendment. However, I am aware that airlines already have arrangements in place to seat young children with accompanying adults, whilst the needs of passengers requiring assistance are already addressed through existing accessibility regulations and CAA guidance, I do question what additional problem this amendment is seeking to solve.
We should be particularly cautious about introducing further regulatory requirements where protections already exist, especially when we're trying to reduce unnecessary burdens on the aviation industry. For those reasons, whilst sympathetic to the intention, we will abstain. Turning now to amendment 26. Whilst I understand and appreciate the intention behind the amendment tabled by the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage, I do have some concerns about the potential consequences of tying ourselves too closely to EU standards, particularly when we consider what could what that could mean further down the line. This country has continually demonstrated leadership above and beyond our European counterparts across a whole host of sectors, and aviation regulation should be no different.
We have a world leading aviation industry, and we should have the confidence to develop a regulatory framework that works in the best interests of British passengers, British businesses and our wider economy. That means ensuring that the regulations we introduce are proportionate, effective and do not impose unnecessary burdens on the industry. Of course, there are plenty of similarities between the challenges facing the aviation sectors in the UK and the European Union, and there will undoubtedly be occasions where that alignment makes very good sense. But there will also be circumstances where our interests differ, where the challenges we face require a different approach, and where the ability to respond flexibly, nimbly and independently will be enormously valuable.
I would be concerned about introducing provisions that could unnecessarily, unnecessarily constrain that flexibility, particularly when we cannot possibly know what changes the European Union may decide to decide to make in future. Our focus should be laser focused on getting this bill right, ensuring that we maintain high standards whilst creating the conditions for a thriving and competitive aviation sector. For these reasons, whilst I do recognise the intentions behind the amendment, I am unable to support it. I turn now to amendment seven, which stands in my name. We've tabled this amendment to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny remains at the heart of the process when it comes to revising standards and regulations, it's important that members across this House have the necessary clarity about the purpose and ambition of any regulations the Secretary of State wishes to make under this section, and that's why we've called for several proportionate and sensible steps to be taken before such regulations are made.
I would particularly draw members attention to proposed subsection 4AD, which would ensure that the impact of such measures on passengers, operators and indeed the aviation sector as a whole, is properly considered before aligning with international standards or EU law, because whilst there may be may well be good reasons to align with certain international standards, it's only right that ministers explain why they believe doing so is necessary and what the consequences might be. And ideally, rather than participating in its usual exercise of vote now and get the detail later, it really should be prepared to set out the evidence supporting that decision prior to it becoming law.
I do not think that that is an unreasonable request, and I hope the minister will support the amendment. Finally, I turn to New Clause 14. I think this is a very sensible new clause. If passengers have paid for a particular seat on a flight, they should reasonably expect to receive the service they have paid for. And where an airline is unable to honour that booking, it seems entirely fair that passengers 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 people get what they have paid for.
We are therefore happy to support the new clause.
10:05
10:05
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, chair. It's a pleasure to serve in your presence. As a vocal advocate of flying. It is upon me to acknowledge that currently flying is horrible. Flying is uncomfortable, it is stressful and in most occasions you are late. You arrive in a condition that your initial reaction is to go and shower and to strip off all your clothes, and to rid yourself of the filth that you have been stewing in for hours in an aircraft. And yet the fact that we all aspire to do it regularly shows that it is necessary. But I think there is an opportunity here to remove some of that stress, some of that worry, some of that uncomfortableness in as minor a way as we possibly can to make it slightly less horrible.
I'd like to speak particularly on amendment 25, a new clause 14, which I think are fair and proportionate responses to improve the experience of flying and to reduce the stress and the worry of flying and airport experience in two very minor and sensible ways. I reflect comments from my hon. Friend the member for Didcot Wantage about the the hope that the government has seen the wisdom of protecting parents and protecting everybody else on an aircraft from the risk of being seated next to an unaccompanied minor. It is a reasonable expectation when you are flying with children that you make a booking that covers yourself and children, and that when you arrive on the aircraft, you have not been split to the four corners of the aircraft and then worry about having to persuade people to change seats, to move back, and to have your child under some level of control.
Although for some parents, that may well be a blessing. And the thought of your seven year old sitting next to some poor soul in the back of the plane is attractive. Most of us, I think, would agree that that is not something that we should be. Subjecting other random members of the public to. As written, amendment 25, I think, takes a reasonable, proportionate approach to address this. I'd be very, very interested to hear from the Minister on the approach that the government is going to take. I unless I've missed it, that the government's approach doesn't appear in the bill at the moment.
So we'd be very interested to hear about that. And I think our approach would be to withdraw if the reassurance from the minister is is sufficient. I think particularly the line to state it's 16 or over, and also including a point about an adult or carer for those who need that additional support, I think is appropriate as well. So I would very much. Yeah, absolutely. I'm very grateful.
I'd like to speak particularly on amendment 25, a new clause 14, which I think are fair and proportionate responses to improve the experience of flying and to reduce the stress and the worry of flying and airport experience in two very minor and sensible ways. I reflect comments from my hon. Friend the member for Didcot Wantage about the the hope that the government has seen the wisdom of protecting parents and protecting everybody else on an aircraft from the risk of being seated next to an unaccompanied minor. It is a reasonable expectation when you are flying with children that you make a booking that covers yourself and children, and that when you arrive on the aircraft, you have not been split to the four corners of the aircraft and then worry about having to persuade people to change seats, to move back, and to have your child under some level of control.
Although for some parents, that may well be a blessing. And the thought of your seven year old sitting next to some poor soul in the back of the plane is attractive. Most of us, I think, would agree that that is not something that we should be. Subjecting other random members of the public to. As written, amendment 25, I think, takes a reasonable, proportionate approach to address this. I'd be very, very interested to hear from the Minister on the approach that the government is going to take. I unless I've missed it, that the government's approach doesn't appear in the bill at the moment.
So we'd be very interested to hear about that. And I think our approach would be to withdraw if the reassurance from the minister is is sufficient. I think particularly the line to state it's 16 or over, and also including a point about an adult or carer for those who need that additional support, I think is appropriate as well. So I would very much. Yeah, absolutely. I'm very grateful.
10:08
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Member for Sutton and Cheam and he's painted a a very vivid picture of the realities of air travel on many occasions. But he's also doing the same in explaining very eloquently the thinking behind these amendments. Can I just ask him? However, I can see what he's trying to do, and I entirely understand that. And I think it's a a worthy and sensible aim. Does he not have a slight concern that the wording and the drafting of the amendment is really quite tight, actually, and therefore, there may be circumstances when an airline, because of circumstances beyond its control, number of passengers, seating arrangements, whatever, would find itself falling foul of the legislation because it doesn't allow that degree of discretion that may be necessary in some circumstances.
10:09
10:09
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank the member for his intervention there, and this is absolutely right. I think there are particular booking sizes, particular geometry of aircraft seating arrangements, where conflicting groups may well mean that the kind of the mathematical problem isn't solvable. And I think there would need to be redrafting or there would need to be a way to exclude where those occasions are possible so that, you know, we don't become subject to fines or to failure to achieve these requirements in a, in a way that just wasn't possible. However, I think the the goal of this amendment is to effectively stop the charging of.
And this comes to the. The new clause 14 stop the predatory approach of charging for seat selections to be made to avoid the possibility of families and carers being split up, and to enable groups and families and carers to have a confidence that they would be sitting together on the aircraft. And I think the point and my my hon. Friend the member for Wantage made about why this is relevant to air travel and not to other modes of transport, is that air travel is particularly sensitive to sitting in your assigned seat, and whether that is relevant to the part of the cabin that you should be sitting in, or just the ability to identify passengers with particular allergies, meal preferences, or your your your seating location in terms of weight allowances and things like that.
Aviation and assigned seating are different in in aircraft, and I think this reflects the need to both protect the passenger, protect the consumer. And that's something I think this bill is, is brought forward to ensure. And it's absolutely right to do so. I think this is a proportionate way to do that. And moving on to the almost accompanying new clause 14, which is about where passengers choose that, I suppose, premium choice to choose a particular seat, whether that's an exit row, whether that is a window seat, whether that's the front of the plane or the back of the plane, whether you want to make a connection, therefore, you want to be able to leg it off the the flight at the very first opportunity when you land, that is a product and a differentiation an airline may choose to offer.
And I think that that is okay. But what it can't do and again, what amendment 25 working together with new clause 14 does is it means that airlines cannot use that premium fee to allow families, carers to ensure that they're able to support loved ones and to potentially protect other passengers from their eight year olds flicking of his porridge or his scrambled eggs across the aisle. So specifically on New clause 14, it is entirely within the airline's ability to issue automatic refunds when services are not delivered. And again, this is the the argument the honourable member made about airlines due to the geometry , due to the combination of passenger preferences not being able to deliver.
And that's okay. But in those occasions where an equipment change or groups mean that passengers have to be moved and the product that you paid for is not available, the refund should be automatic. The systems are able to do this today, and I think the necessity of this new clause is demonstrated by the fact that these things do not happen today. It is down to you as a consumer, to chase an airline for a refund, to get that paid back. So I think, and I agree with the premise that a new clause or amendment must be necessary, it must be proved to be necessary.
But I think that is shown by the fact that it doesn't happen today. And you have to chase and you have to go through the rigmarole of emailing and potentially deploying your AI refund bot to get that fees returned to you. So on those two, hopefully I'd be interested in the minister's response. And depending upon that, we may well choose to push or to withdraw both. Thank you.
And this comes to the. The new clause 14 stop the predatory approach of charging for seat selections to be made to avoid the possibility of families and carers being split up, and to enable groups and families and carers to have a confidence that they would be sitting together on the aircraft. And I think the point and my my hon. Friend the member for Wantage made about why this is relevant to air travel and not to other modes of transport, is that air travel is particularly sensitive to sitting in your assigned seat, and whether that is relevant to the part of the cabin that you should be sitting in, or just the ability to identify passengers with particular allergies, meal preferences, or your your your seating location in terms of weight allowances and things like that.
Aviation and assigned seating are different in in aircraft, and I think this reflects the need to both protect the passenger, protect the consumer. And that's something I think this bill is, is brought forward to ensure. And it's absolutely right to do so. I think this is a proportionate way to do that. And moving on to the almost accompanying new clause 14, which is about where passengers choose that, I suppose, premium choice to choose a particular seat, whether that's an exit row, whether that is a window seat, whether that's the front of the plane or the back of the plane, whether you want to make a connection, therefore, you want to be able to leg it off the the flight at the very first opportunity when you land, that is a product and a differentiation an airline may choose to offer.
And I think that that is okay. But what it can't do and again, what amendment 25 working together with new clause 14 does is it means that airlines cannot use that premium fee to allow families, carers to ensure that they're able to support loved ones and to potentially protect other passengers from their eight year olds flicking of his porridge or his scrambled eggs across the aisle. So specifically on New clause 14, it is entirely within the airline's ability to issue automatic refunds when services are not delivered. And again, this is the the argument the honourable member made about airlines due to the geometry , due to the combination of passenger preferences not being able to deliver.
And that's okay. But in those occasions where an equipment change or groups mean that passengers have to be moved and the product that you paid for is not available, the refund should be automatic. The systems are able to do this today, and I think the necessity of this new clause is demonstrated by the fact that these things do not happen today. It is down to you as a consumer, to chase an airline for a refund, to get that paid back. So I think, and I agree with the premise that a new clause or amendment must be necessary, it must be proved to be necessary.
But I think that is shown by the fact that it doesn't happen today. And you have to chase and you have to go through the rigmarole of emailing and potentially deploying your AI refund bot to get that fees returned to you. So on those two, hopefully I'd be interested in the minister's response. And depending upon that, we may well choose to push or to withdraw both. Thank you.
10:13
10:13
10:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. Chair. Let me start by saying that I agree with the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage that we must maintain a high level of consumer protection in aviation. The intention of clause one is to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights through secondary legislation. This is why the government added clause three in the other place, following discussions with Baroness Grender, clause three provides an important safeguard which requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to the desirability of strengthening passenger rights when exercising. Clause one power. However, requiring all future reforms to be equal or superior to current standards could have, in our view, unintended consequences.
A balanced package of reforms may strengthen protections in some areas whilst making proportionate adjustments in others. The amendment could prevent such a package from proceeding, even when it would improve outcomes for all passengers overall. Therefore, while I agree that the Bill should be used to strengthen rather than reduce passenger protections, clause one and three already provide for the right framework for balanced, evidence based reform, and I therefore ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw it. I also thank the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment, which seeks to prohibit airlines from separating family groups travelling under the same booking, and I agree with him that parents should have a guarantee that they will sit with their child and should not feel pressured to pay extra to do so.
And that is why earlier this month, we announced that we would use clause one to require airlines to seat children under the age of 14 next to a parent or guardian, free of charge. As part of the Prime Minister's everyday fixes agenda. I would also like to reassure the honourable gentleman that existing legislation already requires airlines to make all reasonable efforts to seat passengers with disabilities next to their accompanying person. This is supported by CAA guidance, which states that airlines should, where necessary, move and compensate other passengers to ensure that this is met. The guidance forms part of the CAA's Airline Accessibility Performance framework against which airlines are assessed.
However, we will consider this issue and whether any reform may be needed in our consultation, which is required under clause two of this Bill and determine whether next steps would be appropriate. Furthermore, if there are persistent issues with compliance, the new enforcement powers for the CAA under clause five will enable it to take effective action against non-compliant airlines. I hope this therefore reassures the honourable gentleman and he feels able to withdraw his amendments. Turning next to amendment 26, as I've said, we must maintain a high level of consumer protection in aviation. The honourable member for Didcot and Wantage.
Next amendment seeks to ensure that UK domestic standards match or exceed those of the European Union. The purpose of clause one is to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights through secondary legislation that is consistent with the shared UK EU objective under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement of securing a high level of consumer protection while preserving the freedom to improve those protections over time in a way that reflects the UK market. The difficulty with the amendment is the test that it would put into law, whether a future or whether a future package of reforms is both equal or superior may not be straightforward to determine.
A balanced reform may strengthen protection in one respect whilst adjusting it in another. The amendment could therefore constrain sensible evidence based changes, even where they would produce better outcomes for passengers. Overall, we share the objective of strong and improving passenger protections, but this amendment would replace practical flexibility with an uncertain statutory test. Clause one and clause three provide the right framework, in my view, to deliver reform whilst maintaining high standards. And for those reasons, I would ask the honourable member to withdraw his amendment. Turning next to amendment seven. I thank the Shadow Minister for bringing it forward.
It would introduce an additional requirement for the government to explain the basis for aligning UK aviation consumer rights legislation with provisions of EU law or with international standards, if any such alignment occurs. I recognise the importance she outlined of transparency in this area, but the information sought by the amendment, in my view, would already be provided through the established policy making process. Any secondary legislation would be supported by a full assessment of its likely effects on business passengers and governments, including the case for intervention. The accompanying documentation would also explain why the regulations were being made and the approach that was being taken.
The amendment would therefore add a further statutory step without providing additional scrutiny or information. The existing process already delivers its intended objective and for that reason I cannot support it and would ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment. Finally, chair, I would like to turn to New Clause 14, and I thank the honourable member for Sutton and Cheam for this amendment made all the more compelling by his stark description of UK air passengers experience, which seeks to introduce an automatic refund scheme for passengers who are allocated a seat different from the specific seat that they paid for.
I do fundamentally understand the concern behind it. Passengers should receive what they have paid for and should be treated fairly. Where an airline is unable to provide a pre-purchased seat, seat allocations sometimes do have to change, as the honourable member reflected on for legitimate reasons such as safety, security or operational reasons, and the appropriate remedy may depend on circumstances and the terms of the reservation. Existing consumer law does already require airlines to provide appropriate remedies where contracted services are not delivered. The CAA has recommended that airlines have a key terms document that prominently sets out terms relating to the non-provision of services, such as paid for seat selection.
Furthermore, airlines are required under existing law to have fair terms and conditions, meaning that they cannot create a significant imbalance between their rights and the customer's rights to the detriment of customers. The government, in my view, should not prescribe a particular scheme and timetable in primary legislation without first assessing the evidence and ensuring that any intervention is proportionate and workable. Should there be evidence to go further in this space. Clause one would therefore enable necessary reforms to be made. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment and I would ask the honourable member to withdraw it.
A balanced package of reforms may strengthen protections in some areas whilst making proportionate adjustments in others. The amendment could prevent such a package from proceeding, even when it would improve outcomes for all passengers overall. Therefore, while I agree that the Bill should be used to strengthen rather than reduce passenger protections, clause one and three already provide for the right framework for balanced, evidence based reform, and I therefore ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw it. I also thank the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment, which seeks to prohibit airlines from separating family groups travelling under the same booking, and I agree with him that parents should have a guarantee that they will sit with their child and should not feel pressured to pay extra to do so.
And that is why earlier this month, we announced that we would use clause one to require airlines to seat children under the age of 14 next to a parent or guardian, free of charge. As part of the Prime Minister's everyday fixes agenda. I would also like to reassure the honourable gentleman that existing legislation already requires airlines to make all reasonable efforts to seat passengers with disabilities next to their accompanying person. This is supported by CAA guidance, which states that airlines should, where necessary, move and compensate other passengers to ensure that this is met. The guidance forms part of the CAA's Airline Accessibility Performance framework against which airlines are assessed.
However, we will consider this issue and whether any reform may be needed in our consultation, which is required under clause two of this Bill and determine whether next steps would be appropriate. Furthermore, if there are persistent issues with compliance, the new enforcement powers for the CAA under clause five will enable it to take effective action against non-compliant airlines. I hope this therefore reassures the honourable gentleman and he feels able to withdraw his amendments. Turning next to amendment 26, as I've said, we must maintain a high level of consumer protection in aviation. The honourable member for Didcot and Wantage.
Next amendment seeks to ensure that UK domestic standards match or exceed those of the European Union. The purpose of clause one is to strengthen and enhance air passenger rights through secondary legislation that is consistent with the shared UK EU objective under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement of securing a high level of consumer protection while preserving the freedom to improve those protections over time in a way that reflects the UK market. The difficulty with the amendment is the test that it would put into law, whether a future or whether a future package of reforms is both equal or superior may not be straightforward to determine.
A balanced reform may strengthen protection in one respect whilst adjusting it in another. The amendment could therefore constrain sensible evidence based changes, even where they would produce better outcomes for passengers. Overall, we share the objective of strong and improving passenger protections, but this amendment would replace practical flexibility with an uncertain statutory test. Clause one and clause three provide the right framework, in my view, to deliver reform whilst maintaining high standards. And for those reasons, I would ask the honourable member to withdraw his amendment. Turning next to amendment seven. I thank the Shadow Minister for bringing it forward.
It would introduce an additional requirement for the government to explain the basis for aligning UK aviation consumer rights legislation with provisions of EU law or with international standards, if any such alignment occurs. I recognise the importance she outlined of transparency in this area, but the information sought by the amendment, in my view, would already be provided through the established policy making process. Any secondary legislation would be supported by a full assessment of its likely effects on business passengers and governments, including the case for intervention. The accompanying documentation would also explain why the regulations were being made and the approach that was being taken.
The amendment would therefore add a further statutory step without providing additional scrutiny or information. The existing process already delivers its intended objective and for that reason I cannot support it and would ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment. Finally, chair, I would like to turn to New Clause 14, and I thank the honourable member for Sutton and Cheam for this amendment made all the more compelling by his stark description of UK air passengers experience, which seeks to introduce an automatic refund scheme for passengers who are allocated a seat different from the specific seat that they paid for.
I do fundamentally understand the concern behind it. Passengers should receive what they have paid for and should be treated fairly. Where an airline is unable to provide a pre-purchased seat, seat allocations sometimes do have to change, as the honourable member reflected on for legitimate reasons such as safety, security or operational reasons, and the appropriate remedy may depend on circumstances and the terms of the reservation. Existing consumer law does already require airlines to provide appropriate remedies where contracted services are not delivered. The CAA has recommended that airlines have a key terms document that prominently sets out terms relating to the non-provision of services, such as paid for seat selection.
Furthermore, airlines are required under existing law to have fair terms and conditions, meaning that they cannot create a significant imbalance between their rights and the customer's rights to the detriment of customers. The government, in my view, should not prescribe a particular scheme and timetable in primary legislation without first assessing the evidence and ensuring that any intervention is proportionate and workable. Should there be evidence to go further in this space. Clause one would therefore enable necessary reforms to be made. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment and I would ask the honourable member to withdraw it.
10:20
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Turner. I thank the Minister for his comments. We are content to withdraw the amendments except 25. The minister has given some assurances about the government's future intention. They're good, but not quite enough. And so with the with the chair's permission, we'd be grateful for a division on amendment 25.
10:20
10:20
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Which we just debated. Does anyone wish to push any of these amendments to a. What? I think the shadow Minister wishes to push clause seven and oligomer 25. Yes, I call Olly Glover to move it formally. Thank you very much. Amendment 25, 2025 proposed to clause one as on the amendment paper. The question is that the amendment be made as many as are of that opinion, say I.
I. On the contrary, no, no.
I. On the contrary, no, no.
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:23
10:23
10:23
10:23
10:23
10:23
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:25
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
I beg to move amendment eight. I shall speak to amendments nine and ten and finished by briefly addressing clauses one, two and three stand part . Starting with the amendments. They concern a very straightforward principle that Parliament ought to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the regulations made under this legislation. They would ensure that the relevant regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament and thus would preserve scrutiny, accountability and fair process for all concerned. I would also say that given the breadth of powers contained in this bill, this is an entirely reasonable safeguard.
Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be? Regulations here will have important and wide reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole. Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine those decisions before they take effect. It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the government declined to accept this basic principle. Turning briefly to clauses 1 to 3, we support the objective of strengthening passenger protections, particularly for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Clause two provides for consultation on several important issues, including assistance for disabled passengers, protections for those with allergies, complaints procedures and the provision of suitable wheelchairs.
We welcome the practical steps, these practical steps and look forward to the consultation producing timely and effective action. Clause three welcomes sorry. Clause three places welcome principles of dignity, equal access, appropriate assistance and independent travel at the heart of the new framework. The importance of those objectives make proper parliamentary scrutiny of the resulting regulations all the more necessary. That is precisely what amendments eight, nine and ten seek to secure, and I hope the Minister will support them.
Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be? Regulations here will have important and wide reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole. Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine those decisions before they take effect. It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the government declined to accept this basic principle. Turning briefly to clauses 1 to 3, we support the objective of strengthening passenger protections, particularly for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Clause two provides for consultation on several important issues, including assistance for disabled passengers, protections for those with allergies, complaints procedures and the provision of suitable wheelchairs.
We welcome the practical steps, these practical steps and look forward to the consultation producing timely and effective action. Clause three welcomes sorry. Clause three places welcome principles of dignity, equal access, appropriate assistance and independent travel at the heart of the new framework. The importance of those objectives make proper parliamentary scrutiny of the resulting regulations all the more necessary. That is precisely what amendments eight, nine and ten seek to secure, and I hope the Minister will support them.
10:27
10:27
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, chair. And may I again thank the Shadow Minister for her. Amendment eight and nine. Taken together, they would require regulations made under clause one to be subject to the affirmative procedure, and as such I will address them together. I agree that regulations that are made under these powers must receive proper parliamentary scrutiny. The question is not whether Parliament should scrutinise them, but what level of scrutiny is proportionate to their nature and their effect. Clause one deliberately provides for a split approach, ensuring that Parliament's time is focused where the potential impact is greatest. Some regulations may make only minor or technical changes, for instance, updating the name of an organisation and it would not be proportionate to require an affirmative debate in every such case.
By contrast, regulations creating criminal offences or financial penalties could have a significant effect on businesses and individuals, and the bill rightly reserves the affirmative procedure for those measures. The amendments would therefore apply the highest levels of scrutiny, irrespective of the substance of the regulations, placing unnecessary demands on parliamentary time without improving oversight. Yes, I'd be glad.
By contrast, regulations creating criminal offences or financial penalties could have a significant effect on businesses and individuals, and the bill rightly reserves the affirmative procedure for those measures. The amendments would therefore apply the highest levels of scrutiny, irrespective of the substance of the regulations, placing unnecessary demands on parliamentary time without improving oversight. Yes, I'd be glad.
10:28
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
To give way, Minister, for giving way. And does he find it as curious as I do that the party opposite tabled amendment five, which is all about, you know, a smaller state, more effective regulation and competition in the aviation industry when the requirements for affirmative, affirmative procedures on these matters would put us out of whack with other other markets.
10:29
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, let me thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is right to point to the fact that a number of other amendments tabled by the party opposite center on creating an agile, dynamic aviation sector, which is flexible and responding to the needs of consumers. There is an important consideration that relates to proportionality, but I don't believe it is adequately applied through the amendments that have been brought forward. In this case, we need to be able to enforce new consumer rights in aviation in a way that is proportionate but is also effective and flexible.
Creating this balance between reserving affirmative procedures for important matters that relate to things such as financial penalties or criminal sanctions, is, of course, right to ensure the oversight is there. But the Secretary of State, put in place by the Prime Minister, by the majority party, should be able to make regulations in an effective way where they don't require parliament to have an affirmative debate so that we can keep an effective regulatory system that best serves the interests of the travelling public. And it is a point well made by my hon. Friend. The approach in this Bill, therefore, chair, is both targeted and proportionate, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw the amendment.
The next amendment. Amendment ten would require regulations coordinating the concurrent exercise of direct enforcement powers by relevant authorities to be made again under the affirmative procedure. As I've said, I recognise the importance of ensuring that Parliament applies the right level of scrutiny to delegated powers. However, the key point here is that these regulations will not create or extend enforcement powers. They will instead govern how existing powers are coordinated between authorities. The affirmative procedure would therefore not be proportionate, in my view, to their limited function. The regulations will be administrative in nature, providing a practical framework for cases in which more than one authority is able to act.
They may, for example, cover information sharing, notification arrangements and the process for determining which direct enforcer should exercise its powers in a particular category of case. Those operational arrangements are important, but they do not warrant the highest level of parliamentary procedure. That approach is also consistent with established precedents comparable powers to coordinate concurrent enforcement under competition legislation are already subject to the negative procedure. The bill therefore provides a tested, proportionate and appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment and I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Chair, may I defer to your expertise?
AM I also able to speak to the clause stand part aspect as well? Excellent. Thank you. So having addressed the amendments, let me turn to clause one itself. Clause one is central to government's aim of strengthening consumer protections. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to passenger rights. Existing passenger rights regulations sit within assimilated EU law, which requires primary legislation to update. This clause creates a power to update and amend existing legislation via secondary means. It allows for regulations across a range of issues, including but not limited to , delays and cancellations. Denied boarding, price transparency, accessibility for disabled passengers and people with reduced mobility and liabilities relating to injury, baggage and cargo.
It also provides for effective enforcement to ensure passenger rights are backed by meaningful remedies. It would enable the government to introduce dispute resolution arrangement powers for the Civil Aviation Authority to secure compliance and, where appropriate, financial penalties and criminal offences. The power is subject to important safeguards, any regulations creating criminal offences or financial penalty regimes will require the approval of both houses through the Affirmative procedure. Clause one therefore establishes the framework needed to keep aviation consumer protections effective, proportionate and fit for the future, and I commend it to the committee. Alongside this, it would be logical to briefly set out clause two, which works in tandem with clause one.
Clause two will ensure that air passenger rights legislation provides appropriate protections for disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility. Yeah, I'd be glad to give way.
Creating this balance between reserving affirmative procedures for important matters that relate to things such as financial penalties or criminal sanctions, is, of course, right to ensure the oversight is there. But the Secretary of State, put in place by the Prime Minister, by the majority party, should be able to make regulations in an effective way where they don't require parliament to have an affirmative debate so that we can keep an effective regulatory system that best serves the interests of the travelling public. And it is a point well made by my hon. Friend. The approach in this Bill, therefore, chair, is both targeted and proportionate, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw the amendment.
The next amendment. Amendment ten would require regulations coordinating the concurrent exercise of direct enforcement powers by relevant authorities to be made again under the affirmative procedure. As I've said, I recognise the importance of ensuring that Parliament applies the right level of scrutiny to delegated powers. However, the key point here is that these regulations will not create or extend enforcement powers. They will instead govern how existing powers are coordinated between authorities. The affirmative procedure would therefore not be proportionate, in my view, to their limited function. The regulations will be administrative in nature, providing a practical framework for cases in which more than one authority is able to act.
They may, for example, cover information sharing, notification arrangements and the process for determining which direct enforcer should exercise its powers in a particular category of case. Those operational arrangements are important, but they do not warrant the highest level of parliamentary procedure. That approach is also consistent with established precedents comparable powers to coordinate concurrent enforcement under competition legislation are already subject to the negative procedure. The bill therefore provides a tested, proportionate and appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment and I ask the honourable member to withdraw it. Chair, may I defer to your expertise?
AM I also able to speak to the clause stand part aspect as well? Excellent. Thank you. So having addressed the amendments, let me turn to clause one itself. Clause one is central to government's aim of strengthening consumer protections. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to passenger rights. Existing passenger rights regulations sit within assimilated EU law, which requires primary legislation to update. This clause creates a power to update and amend existing legislation via secondary means. It allows for regulations across a range of issues, including but not limited to , delays and cancellations. Denied boarding, price transparency, accessibility for disabled passengers and people with reduced mobility and liabilities relating to injury, baggage and cargo.
It also provides for effective enforcement to ensure passenger rights are backed by meaningful remedies. It would enable the government to introduce dispute resolution arrangement powers for the Civil Aviation Authority to secure compliance and, where appropriate, financial penalties and criminal offences. The power is subject to important safeguards, any regulations creating criminal offences or financial penalty regimes will require the approval of both houses through the Affirmative procedure. Clause one therefore establishes the framework needed to keep aviation consumer protections effective, proportionate and fit for the future, and I commend it to the committee. Alongside this, it would be logical to briefly set out clause two, which works in tandem with clause one.
Clause two will ensure that air passenger rights legislation provides appropriate protections for disabled passengers and passengers with reduced mobility. Yeah, I'd be glad to give way.
10:33
10:33
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Shortly after the election, this government set up the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, and clearly a lot of work in the bill builds on that. And I know disabled passenger groups want to see those measures introduced. So can the minister confirm that clause two will firstly require a consultation to be carried out within 12 months of the Bill being passed, and then that the Minister will then publish the outcome of that consultation so we can continue to build on the work of the task and finish Group.
10:34
10:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Well, let me thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, not only here, but across a range of accessibility issues in transport, but particularly those that relate to aviation. He is right to point to the fact that a consultation will be undertaken as part of this clause within 12 months of Royal assent, and the purpose of that is to ensure that where consumer rights legislation is improved, it is done so with the unashamed ambition to make sure that people who travel with disabilities have equal access to the benefits of aviation and not only that, have a dignified and welcoming experience wherever they travel in the United Kingdom.
And that is exactly what this clause is designed to facilitate. In fact, it places a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult on those accessibility issues, which will help to identify what changes to air passenger rights legislation may be needed. The consultation must be started within a year of Royal Assent, and any resulting reforms could then be implemented through the regulating regulation. Making power in clause one, government must consult on a non-exhaustive list of issues, including compensation for breaches of assistance requirements, protections for passengers with allergies, complaints handling and the provision of wheelchairs suitable for use on aircraft.
Yes, I'd be glad to. Boy.
And that is exactly what this clause is designed to facilitate. In fact, it places a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult on those accessibility issues, which will help to identify what changes to air passenger rights legislation may be needed. The consultation must be started within a year of Royal Assent, and any resulting reforms could then be implemented through the regulating regulation. Making power in clause one, government must consult on a non-exhaustive list of issues, including compensation for breaches of assistance requirements, protections for passengers with allergies, complaints handling and the provision of wheelchairs suitable for use on aircraft.
Yes, I'd be glad to. Boy.
10:35
10:35
10:35
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Welcome provision on wheelchairs because just from personal experience, a wheelchair and can really leave someone unable to work get around their home. Obviously personal care alongside compensation. But can the minister say something about how the government will encourage prompt repairs and maybe temporary place replacements as well?
10:35
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And I thank my hon. Friend for raising those specific issues in terms of how we are able to create a system by which those who may have responsibility for damaging mobility Aids have requisite responsibility, both in regard to compensation, but also the process. It's been raised with me outside of this room chair , that often, if a person's mobility aid is damaged in transit when they fly, not only is the compensation not requisite, and that's something we will turn to later in the bill. But that also the process of claiming compensation and getting a new mobility aid is torturous.
It places too much pressure on the individual, and it's not done with requisite reflection on the fact that they have as much right to travel as anybody else, and deserve for their means of accessibility, not to be damaged or broken by a private provider. Clause one of this bill will allow us to set out in more detail how we will deal with matters of the kind that she describes. But she raises, I feel, an ancillary question about how the overall process should work, which is very well made and which I'll take away, reflect on and report back to her.
Just to. Yes.
It places too much pressure on the individual, and it's not done with requisite reflection on the fact that they have as much right to travel as anybody else, and deserve for their means of accessibility, not to be damaged or broken by a private provider. Clause one of this bill will allow us to set out in more detail how we will deal with matters of the kind that she describes. But she raises, I feel, an ancillary question about how the overall process should work, which is very well made and which I'll take away, reflect on and report back to her.
Just to. Yes.
10:37
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you chair. I thank the Minister for giving way. Just very quickly, I appreciate the the contribution already made around the provision for individuals who require wheelchair accessibility. Could the minister just elaborate a little bit more on how we would protect those travellers with allergies? As someone with personal experience of travelling with a child with an allergy. I know how stressful this can be.
10:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you chair. And may I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. And I know the experience that she has on this issue, and I believe it was her who outlined to me some of the challenges that are that go beyond the health risk of travelling with people with allergies and the difficulties they face, one of which is ensuring that the right food is provided on aeroplanes. If you're on a long haul flight, and suddenly it becomes clear to the staff that they don't have allergy friendly food for you to be able to eat, that can make a travelling experience, which might have already been stressful all the more difficult.
The clauses that are set out, which I am currently addressing through that consultation, will allow people with allergies to feed in directly to how the consumer rights system should be designed to most adequately address the concerns that they have, and to give them equal access without fear of being denied requisite food or safety. The ability to fly alongside their friends and family. Clause two consultation requirements allow that to happen, and clause one empowers the Secretary of State to make those changes in an agile way, in a definitive way, and in a way that will quickly provide change so that people can fly with confidence.
So, chair, government must consult with disabled passengers, persons with reduced mobility and the organisations that represent them alongside airlines and airports, who, I must say, do a lot of good and pioneering work in this space and this framework will allow them to go further. Clause two also provides that the government may consult with others as appropriate. This may include the CAA, passenger rights advocates and groups, or wider industry stakeholders. This approach will enable a genuinely pan disability approach grounded in lived experience and expert evidence, and I therefore commend this clause to the Committee. Finally, for this grouping, let me turn to clause three, which the government added during its passage through the other place.
Following constructive engagement with peers on how the Bill could do more to strengthen air passenger rights and promote accessibility, clause three supports the government's aim of using clause one to enhance and strengthen air passenger rights in the future. It requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to the desirability of strengthening air passenger rights when considering whether and how to make regulations under clause one, particularly where those rights affect disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility. The clause also establishes a clear set of principles to guide future policy development. These include that passengers should be treated with dignity, that disabled passengers should have access to air travel that is equal or comparable to that enjoyed by other passengers, that any accessibility assistance provided should meet the individual's need and that independent travel should be facilitated wherever possible.
Taken together, clauses two and three help ensure that accessibility is embedded in the future development of passenger rights policy, and remains a central consideration whenever the powers in clause one are exercised, and I therefore commend these clauses to the committee.
The clauses that are set out, which I am currently addressing through that consultation, will allow people with allergies to feed in directly to how the consumer rights system should be designed to most adequately address the concerns that they have, and to give them equal access without fear of being denied requisite food or safety. The ability to fly alongside their friends and family. Clause two consultation requirements allow that to happen, and clause one empowers the Secretary of State to make those changes in an agile way, in a definitive way, and in a way that will quickly provide change so that people can fly with confidence.
So, chair, government must consult with disabled passengers, persons with reduced mobility and the organisations that represent them alongside airlines and airports, who, I must say, do a lot of good and pioneering work in this space and this framework will allow them to go further. Clause two also provides that the government may consult with others as appropriate. This may include the CAA, passenger rights advocates and groups, or wider industry stakeholders. This approach will enable a genuinely pan disability approach grounded in lived experience and expert evidence, and I therefore commend this clause to the Committee. Finally, for this grouping, let me turn to clause three, which the government added during its passage through the other place.
Following constructive engagement with peers on how the Bill could do more to strengthen air passenger rights and promote accessibility, clause three supports the government's aim of using clause one to enhance and strengthen air passenger rights in the future. It requires the Secretary of State to have due regard to the desirability of strengthening air passenger rights when considering whether and how to make regulations under clause one, particularly where those rights affect disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility. The clause also establishes a clear set of principles to guide future policy development. These include that passengers should be treated with dignity, that disabled passengers should have access to air travel that is equal or comparable to that enjoyed by other passengers, that any accessibility assistance provided should meet the individual's need and that independent travel should be facilitated wherever possible.
Taken together, clauses two and three help ensure that accessibility is embedded in the future development of passenger rights policy, and remains a central consideration whenever the powers in clause one are exercised, and I therefore commend these clauses to the committee.
10:40
10:40
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Tanner. I wish to commend the Minister for the points made on accessibility and disability. And as I mentioned in my earlier speech, that is something that the opposition support. However, I was somewhat flummoxed and dumbfounded, frankly, to hear members on the government benches and the minister himself conflate parliamentary scrutiny with agility, growth and flexibility in an entirely negative way. It seems that they think that only only without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of a bill with what will become an act with considerable ministerial powers, can this , can this go forward? And the opposition position is absolutely.
That parliamentary scrutiny is at the essence of this democracy. And with a Bill with such significant powers, it is entirely appropriate that there should be much greater parliamentary scrutiny. And I think we can demonstrate that that is not at the expense of agility and growth. We will be pushing.
That parliamentary scrutiny is at the essence of this democracy. And with a Bill with such significant powers, it is entirely appropriate that there should be much greater parliamentary scrutiny. And I think we can demonstrate that that is not at the expense of agility and growth. We will be pushing.
10:41
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:42
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. The question is that clause 1 to 3 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion say, I. I and of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group four. And the question that clause four stand part of the bill with which it will be convenient to consider new. Clause 13. The question is that new.
That clause four rather stand part of the bill, Minister. Yes.
That clause four rather stand part of the bill, Minister. Yes.
10:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you. Chair. I will begin this grouping by addressing clause four, which was added during 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. This 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, this clause is about making sure disabled passengers can travel with greater confidence that if something goes wrong, they will not be left without the equipment they rely on or are forced to observe, absorb. Forgive me an unfair financial loss. May I also turn to new clause 13 while that matter. Thank you. Turning to new clause 13, tabled by the Honourable Gentleman for Didcot and Wantage. Let me thank him in advance for returning to the important issue of transporting wheelchairs in air travel. The government agrees 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 underway has concluded, the honourable 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 Electronic 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 has also acted through the Bill. We introduced clause two in the Lords, placing a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consult on accessibility matters. This is an issue that could be considered as part of that consultation, ensuring any future reforms are evidence based and take account of passengers and stakeholders experience. It would therefore be premature, in my view, to prescribe a wheelchair passport scheme now.
We should instead allow the implementation group's work in statutory consultation to determine what measures are necessary, workable and proportionate. Should the evidence support the need for legislation. Clause one provides a route to acting following full consultation. The amendment instead risks cutting across that work rather than strengthening it. And on that basis, I hope that I've reassured the honourable gentleman and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Ultimately, this clause is about making sure disabled passengers can travel with greater confidence that if something goes wrong, they will not be left without the equipment they rely on or are forced to observe, absorb. Forgive me an unfair financial loss. May I also turn to new clause 13 while that matter. Thank you. Turning to new clause 13, tabled by the Honourable Gentleman for Didcot and Wantage. Let me thank him in advance for returning to the important issue of transporting wheelchairs in air travel. The government agrees 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 underway has concluded, the honourable 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 Electronic 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 has also acted through the Bill. We introduced clause two in the Lords, placing a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consult on accessibility matters. This is an issue that could be considered as part of that consultation, ensuring any future reforms are evidence based and take account of passengers and stakeholders experience. It would therefore be premature, in my view, to prescribe a wheelchair passport scheme now.
We should instead allow the implementation group's work in statutory consultation to determine what measures are necessary, workable and proportionate. Should the evidence support the need for legislation. Clause one provides a route to acting following full consultation. The amendment instead risks cutting across that work rather than strengthening it. And on that basis, I hope that I've reassured the honourable gentleman and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
10:48
10:48
10:48
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
The Minister for his words, particularly on 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 cross-party group of of Lords, the removal of the compensation cap for damaged wheelchairs on domestic flights is a great step forward for accessibility. For disabled person, a wheelchair is not merely luggage, it is a vital extension of their body and their independence. I'm glad, though, to pick up the noble Baroness Brinton's amendment on wheelchair passports. She's been a strong advocate for accessibility for many years, and we're glad to support her in this campaign.
I'd invite all members actually to read through the exchanges in the Lords stage of this bill to see and understand the the lived experience. I'm sure we'll hear some here of the experience of disabled passengers struggling with complex, unwieldy and challenging circumstances at various airports around the country. So I'm glad that we're getting a focus on this here. We have seen over the last few years the DFT has discussed creating wheelchair passports, which would smooth the journey with one brief check at check in to ensure that both wheelchair and, if relevant, the battery and the passport match.
Once you have that passport, the details can be in the airport system and the airline system forever. However, this amendment makes clear that the Secretary of State has to work with Ayata and obviously other countries and airlines who are supporting and part of that organisation to make will only work if it won't work, if only the UK does it. Now, I do note that I asked already provides for a mobility aid passport within its international guidance, but I think the. The. It is self-evident that this is not sufficiently well understood or implemented at present. I note the Minister talks about mobility Pack and he talks about an investigation that is being undertaken at the moment to design appropriate measures.
So I would encourage reference back to the Air Mobility Aid passport to understand how that can be incorporated, improved, strengthened , and that we work both with airlines and international organisations to make sure that the goals and the aims of this new clause 13 are reflected in, in the experience, the lived experience of those who are struggling today, who come up to an airline check in desk and have to go through the same set of questions, the same arguments, and again, reflecting on the experiences that have been shared in the Lords of having to pull out the guidance that you know, that they have printed and explained time and time again.
And that's just not acceptable. So whether it is the regulation, the , the wording of customer protections, or whether it is then becoming incumbent upon the airlines 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 do rely on mobility aids, so that they're able to experience flying as miserably as the rest of us.
I'd invite all members actually to read through the exchanges in the Lords stage of this bill to see and understand the the lived experience. I'm sure we'll hear some here of the experience of disabled passengers struggling with complex, unwieldy and challenging circumstances at various airports around the country. So I'm glad that we're getting a focus on this here. We have seen over the last few years the DFT has discussed creating wheelchair passports, which would smooth the journey with one brief check at check in to ensure that both wheelchair and, if relevant, the battery and the passport match.
Once you have that passport, the details can be in the airport system and the airline system forever. However, this amendment makes clear that the Secretary of State has to work with Ayata and obviously other countries and airlines who are supporting and part of that organisation to make will only work if it won't work, if only the UK does it. Now, I do note that I asked already provides for a mobility aid passport within its international guidance, but I think the. The. It is self-evident that this is not sufficiently well understood or implemented at present. I note the Minister talks about mobility Pack and he talks about an investigation that is being undertaken at the moment to design appropriate measures.
So I would encourage reference back to the Air Mobility Aid passport to understand how that can be incorporated, improved, strengthened , and that we work both with airlines and international organisations to make sure that the goals and the aims of this new clause 13 are reflected in, in the experience, the lived experience of those who are struggling today, who come up to an airline check in desk and have to go through the same set of questions, the same arguments, and again, reflecting on the experiences that have been shared in the Lords of having to pull out the guidance that you know, that they have printed and explained time and time again.
And that's just not acceptable. So whether it is the regulation, the , the wording of customer protections, or whether it is then becoming incumbent upon the airlines 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 do rely on mobility aids, so that they're able to experience flying as miserably as the rest of us.
10:51
10:51
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank Mr. Turner, and it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Now, last year, I was delighted to. In fact, the year before, shortly after my election, I was delighted to bring forward my aviation accessibility private members. Bill and I welcome a number of measures, including that are encompassed in this Bill and particularly in these clauses. Accessibility and air travel is not just a matter of convenience, it's a matter of rights, dignity and equality, and it's about ensuring that everyone regards the mobility of physical condition can enjoy the freedom to travel. Now, I'd like to pay tribute to my fellow chair of the all party group for wheelchair users, Baroness Grey-thompson, for the work she's done in the Lords already on this bill , and also the work she did as chair of the Aviation Accessibility Task and Finish Group, which reported back to government last year.
But that was set up by this government shortly after our election to ensure that these safeguards and this piece of work started, and as well as being the chair of the group, of course, as members know, I am the parent of a wheelchair user. So do live and see that lived experience on a daily basis. I'd also, if you allow me chair place like to place on record my thanks to Sophie Morgan, Christopher Wood who's with us today in the gallery, and their colleagues at the Rights on Flights campaign for their work to raise awareness of the issues which have led us to this place.
Now, as we've said, the bill will require ministers to give due regard to strengthening passenger rights in those earlier clauses, but the measures within this clause, within clause four, will remove vitally remove that compensation for wheelchairs, mobility aids and other assistive devices. At present, that can be around £1,500, but that can also mean a very lengthy battle through the courts for several months, with no real understanding of your legal rights in that process. And for many, even my even my 13 year old's wheelchair is worth more than £1,500. And as I've said to the minister, certainly I'm aware of a member in the other place whose wheelchair is worth six times that the current limit.
So. So there really is a need to to remove that. And the current arrangements do put people off from flying as well as causing that complexity. Unlike the 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. And so strengthening these rights will not only help people during the journey, but encourage people to encompass journeys again. So I do welcome those measures on compensation rights for loss , damaged or destroyed wheelchairs or mobility aids. Airlines, as we said, are not currently required to cover the full cost of repairs.
Of course, the limit for international flights continues to be set out in the Montreal Convention. The limit in this legislation will be for internal flights. Now, with regard to the Montreal Conventions, clearly there remains work to be done. They fall outside of the bill and for passengers travelling on those longer journey flights, there will continue to be some pressures and I'll continue. I know the minister knows I will continue to press the government on working with international partners to press for compensation regardless. We can't, of course, encompass that in the bill, but I'd welcome the minister's comments on what we can continue to do on that matter.
The CAA is responsible for the regulation of aviation safety in the UK, but they have been inhibited rather without the power to take proper action against airlines in this matter and taking businesses to court, which has been a lengthy process and I do strongly, therefore welcome the measures in clause four of this Bill with regard to the amendment from the Liberal Democrats and, of course, 13 I do, of course, you know, concur with the minister on this matter. You know, we do have the themes in theme four of the Aviation Task and Finish Group on mobility Aids, design and handling.
But we're continuing to look at those both through consultation and through through the bill and how they be incorporated. And there is some really good I won't go naming airlines, but there are some really good examples out there actually, of airlines that are following when you talk to them and that guidance and ahead of the curve on matter, of course, there are some airlines that do need to step up to the plate, quite frankly. And the new clause 13 is very well intentioned, but I think there's good practice out there. There's work from that theme for in the report that was submitted by the Task and Finish Group.
And as the Minister said, there are the will, of course, be the consultation that we've seen in clause two. And . Absolutely, absolutely.
But that was set up by this government shortly after our election to ensure that these safeguards and this piece of work started, and as well as being the chair of the group, of course, as members know, I am the parent of a wheelchair user. So do live and see that lived experience on a daily basis. I'd also, if you allow me chair place like to place on record my thanks to Sophie Morgan, Christopher Wood who's with us today in the gallery, and their colleagues at the Rights on Flights campaign for their work to raise awareness of the issues which have led us to this place.
Now, as we've said, the bill will require ministers to give due regard to strengthening passenger rights in those earlier clauses, but the measures within this clause, within clause four, will remove vitally remove that compensation for wheelchairs, mobility aids and other assistive devices. At present, that can be around £1,500, but that can also mean a very lengthy battle through the courts for several months, with no real understanding of your legal rights in that process. And for many, even my even my 13 year old's wheelchair is worth more than £1,500. And as I've said to the minister, certainly I'm aware of a member in the other place whose wheelchair is worth six times that the current limit.
So. So there really is a need to to remove that. And the current arrangements do put people off from flying as well as causing that complexity. Unlike the 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. And so strengthening these rights will not only help people during the journey, but encourage people to encompass journeys again. So I do welcome those measures on compensation rights for loss , damaged or destroyed wheelchairs or mobility aids. Airlines, as we said, are not currently required to cover the full cost of repairs.
Of course, the limit for international flights continues to be set out in the Montreal Convention. The limit in this legislation will be for internal flights. Now, with regard to the Montreal Conventions, clearly there remains work to be done. They fall outside of the bill and for passengers travelling on those longer journey flights, there will continue to be some pressures and I'll continue. I know the minister knows I will continue to press the government on working with international partners to press for compensation regardless. We can't, of course, encompass that in the bill, but I'd welcome the minister's comments on what we can continue to do on that matter.
The CAA is responsible for the regulation of aviation safety in the UK, but they have been inhibited rather without the power to take proper action against airlines in this matter and taking businesses to court, which has been a lengthy process and I do strongly, therefore welcome the measures in clause four of this Bill with regard to the amendment from the Liberal Democrats and, of course, 13 I do, of course, you know, concur with the minister on this matter. You know, we do have the themes in theme four of the Aviation Task and Finish Group on mobility Aids, design and handling.
But we're continuing to look at those both through consultation and through through the bill and how they be incorporated. And there is some really good I won't go naming airlines, but there are some really good examples out there actually, of airlines that are following when you talk to them and that guidance and ahead of the curve on matter, of course, there are some airlines that do need to step up to the plate, quite frankly. And the new clause 13 is very well intentioned, but I think there's good practice out there. There's work from that theme for in the report that was submitted by the Task and Finish Group.
And as the Minister said, there are the will, of course, be the consultation that we've seen in clause two. And . Absolutely, absolutely.
10:56
10:56
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Giving way, and I. I think we do accept the the huge steps that have been taken as somebody who obviously has particular experience in this, does he see the challenge around training, about airline checking staff, ground handlers? What does he see as a way of actually achieving the aims and the goals of this? And we can talk about regulation and we can talk about legislation until the cows come home as obviously, literally, we're paid to do. But how does he see actually the implementation on the ground? As someone who who lives in this world and struggles with different airlines that may well implement things well and others that don't, I'd be interested to hear how he kind of how he would suggest we break through that and feed that back to the working group to really understand the trick to fixing it.
10:57
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Turner, and I welcome the comments from the member for Sutton. Again, you know, there are themes within the Aviation Task Task group on that matter. Training was in theme one and passenger information was in theme two. So there are recommendations there. There'll be the consultation. You know, I think we need to look at those really good examples. As I say, I won't mention airlines. I tell the minister later, but we can feed that in and look at that. But of course, there is also the complexity, as the members of the honourable members referred to that, of course we would, under the current arrangements, end up with that passport being used for internal flights for flights leaving the United Kingdom, but it wouldn't be applicable for people returning on a flight from overseas to the United Kingdom.
And that, of course, would cause some confusion. I you know, as a user, I think that would cause some confusion. You know, I know my rights on a TfL. I'm a London MP, you know, I know my rights on TfL bus. I quote the Red book to bus drivers if they are not upholding the rights of a wheelchair user. I know my rights on the railway and I think it could be hugely confusing at this point in time. If you had one set of rights for a flight leaving the UK and not the same set of rights returning.
So I think.
And that, of course, would cause some confusion. I you know, as a user, I think that would cause some confusion. You know, I know my rights on a TfL. I'm a London MP, you know, I know my rights on TfL bus. I quote the Red book to bus drivers if they are not upholding the rights of a wheelchair user. I know my rights on the railway and I think it could be hugely confusing at this point in time. If you had one set of rights for a flight leaving the UK and not the same set of rights returning.
So I think.
10:58
10:58
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
The point that we've raised in the new clause is about the need to work together with the organisation to make sure that this is part of that, either the mobility, a passport or a separate wheelchair passport structure so that it does protect passengers when they fly both from and to UK airports, EU airports. And it's something I think that's common across and it'll be a theme we pick up on later is the fact that aviation is is asymmetrical and that covering flights between different jurisdictions is difficult. So therefore, the importance of working with international organisations and being rule makers and influencers, rather than necessarily just sitting back and being rule takers, I think is, is the right way to to proceed.
10:59
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you. I think I think the honourable member makes a point for me. You know, it's the same as the issues within the Montreal Convention. We can't put them in the bill. So I think the issue is within our charter. We can't put in the bill. We need to leave to governments and ministers to consult and work on them to strengthen those rights. And that, again, is why I wouldn't support them being in the bill. I do support the measures in clause four, but I would ask ministers to go away, look at the Montreal Convention conversations with charter and continue to strengthen rights in that place.
Thank you, Mr. Turner.
Thank you, Mr. Turner.
10:59
10:59
10:59
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Turner. I will speak briefly to clause four. A wheelchair is clearly different to other pieces of luggage for disabled passengers. It is what gives them their independence and allows them to travel with dignity. When an airline loses or damages someone's wheelchair, the consequences can be serious and immediate. As such, it is only right that the passenger should be properly compensated .
Rather than being subject to limits designed for ordinary baggage. We therefore welcome this clauses . Inclusion in the bill.
Rather than being subject to limits designed for ordinary baggage. We therefore welcome this clauses . Inclusion in the bill.
11:00
11:00
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you, chair. And just to pick up a few points of debate, although, to be frank, I don't feel like I have much more to add, given the sort of the quality of the conversation that happened between the honourable member for Sutton and Cheam and the member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, shows the committee process genuinely at its best in terms of deliberative policy making. I want to turn first, though, to the point raised around the Montreal convention, because both honourable members were right to point to the fact that lifting the compensation cap on damaged wheelchairs and mobility aids only applies in this bill to domestic UK flights.
That's because to do it for international flights would require change to the Montreal Convention, which is, of course, an international treaty to which the UK is party through the International Civil Aviation Organization. While my hon. Friend has set out the limitations of how far this bill can go, can I just reassure the committee that this is something that I take very seriously in terms of the UK using its phenomenal reputation in international fora as a leader in aviation policy, and I met personally with the UK's representative at ICAO, William Gatwood, and discussed the importance of this.
And we've agreed to explore ways in which we can have a discussion about compensation caps through the Montreal Convention, through the appropriate fora at ICAO, and I'd be very glad to keep members updated on that work. Can I just thank again the member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for his contributions. He is incredibly experienced in this field, and he is right to point to the fact that many of the recommendations which he put forward in his Aviation Accessibility Bill have found their way through to this piece of legislation, and it's a credit both to his perseverance and his dogged determination to do right on behalf of the people he represents and people who travel with disabilities and their families across the United Kingdom.
I would also like to thank the honourable member for Sutton and Cheam for setting out so clearly his perspective on this issue to do with wheelchair passports. I think we've had a a productive conversation about where some of the limitations are, including for return flights. That's the limitation that we are also working with when it comes to the compensation cap through the Montreal Convention. I do think, however, that issues such as this one are appropriate to be to form part of the consultation clause as part of this bill, and I would be glad to have a conversation with the honourable member as to how we take that forward.
I do think that in terms of working it into our processes, that is certainly something that we should also consider. I do still think that the point that I made in my original comment stands that the Aviation Accessibility Implementation Group is exploring a lot of these issues in detail. I would like to see the outcome of those considerations before we move forward, but the bill provides us with a lot of tools to be able to make purposeful progress in that space. Once we've gotten to grips with what their conclusions are, he does raise a very important and more general point, however, about aviation accessibility in the United Kingdom, and that is around training of airline staff and about inconsistent treatment across the domestic aviation sector.
He raises it in regard to those who travel with wheelchairs and having inconsistent treatment in terms of storage and facilitating independence in travel arrangements. I visited Bristol Airport and had a really productive conversation there about people who travel with stoma bags fitted, and there is often not enough training and awareness when they go through baggage search about the implications that can have, and about how you can carry out searches in ways that respects people's dignity and privacy. So he is right to point to the fact that people who travel with accessibility requirements or with disabilities should not be in a position where they have to read the rulebook to members of staff.
However, to look at that through a positive lens that produces an obligation on the Department for transport and our private sector stakeholders to think very collaboratively about how we can improve standards, create a minimum baseline in terms of enforcement of consumer standards, which this bill facilitates. But there is a broader conversation about how we facilitate better training, better awareness, better sensitivity for airport staff who in the vast majority of times are trying to do the right thing. Yeah, I'm very gladly give way.
That's because to do it for international flights would require change to the Montreal Convention, which is, of course, an international treaty to which the UK is party through the International Civil Aviation Organization. While my hon. Friend has set out the limitations of how far this bill can go, can I just reassure the committee that this is something that I take very seriously in terms of the UK using its phenomenal reputation in international fora as a leader in aviation policy, and I met personally with the UK's representative at ICAO, William Gatwood, and discussed the importance of this.
And we've agreed to explore ways in which we can have a discussion about compensation caps through the Montreal Convention, through the appropriate fora at ICAO, and I'd be very glad to keep members updated on that work. Can I just thank again the member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for his contributions. He is incredibly experienced in this field, and he is right to point to the fact that many of the recommendations which he put forward in his Aviation Accessibility Bill have found their way through to this piece of legislation, and it's a credit both to his perseverance and his dogged determination to do right on behalf of the people he represents and people who travel with disabilities and their families across the United Kingdom.
I would also like to thank the honourable member for Sutton and Cheam for setting out so clearly his perspective on this issue to do with wheelchair passports. I think we've had a a productive conversation about where some of the limitations are, including for return flights. That's the limitation that we are also working with when it comes to the compensation cap through the Montreal Convention. I do think, however, that issues such as this one are appropriate to be to form part of the consultation clause as part of this bill, and I would be glad to have a conversation with the honourable member as to how we take that forward.
I do think that in terms of working it into our processes, that is certainly something that we should also consider. I do still think that the point that I made in my original comment stands that the Aviation Accessibility Implementation Group is exploring a lot of these issues in detail. I would like to see the outcome of those considerations before we move forward, but the bill provides us with a lot of tools to be able to make purposeful progress in that space. Once we've gotten to grips with what their conclusions are, he does raise a very important and more general point, however, about aviation accessibility in the United Kingdom, and that is around training of airline staff and about inconsistent treatment across the domestic aviation sector.
He raises it in regard to those who travel with wheelchairs and having inconsistent treatment in terms of storage and facilitating independence in travel arrangements. I visited Bristol Airport and had a really productive conversation there about people who travel with stoma bags fitted, and there is often not enough training and awareness when they go through baggage search about the implications that can have, and about how you can carry out searches in ways that respects people's dignity and privacy. So he is right to point to the fact that people who travel with accessibility requirements or with disabilities should not be in a position where they have to read the rulebook to members of staff.
However, to look at that through a positive lens that produces an obligation on the Department for transport and our private sector stakeholders to think very collaboratively about how we can improve standards, create a minimum baseline in terms of enforcement of consumer standards, which this bill facilitates. But there is a broader conversation about how we facilitate better training, better awareness, better sensitivity for airport staff who in the vast majority of times are trying to do the right thing. Yeah, I'm very gladly give way.
11:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I thank the minister for giving way. I think just another another group of people, I think needs to be considered here. Those with diabetes, particularly type one diabetes, who have medical equipment on them that can't go through the scanner. And sometimes that creates a problem at airports and indeed other terminals. And also would be really helpful to include that in any awareness raising that the government intends to do.
11:05
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
May I thank the honourable member for his contribution. A close family member of mine has type one diabetes and travelling with him, I know the the pressure and worry that can be caused by travelling with needles and with insulin, and I think that should also factor in to those conversations as they move forward. So oh yes, of course I'd be glad to give away.
11:05
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank Minister for giving way. Just to add on to that point, travelling with an EpiPen is also incredibly problematic. Quite often the regulations about what you should take and how you should prove you need to carry an EpiPen is different per airline, and quite often families are left with maybe a receipt that they need to get from their GP. That can cost up to £50 to prove that they are an EpiPen carrier. So I think actually looking at this, this issue in the round is going to be really important.
11:05
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank my honourable friend for her contribution and actually just just use that as a bit of a springboard to both agree with her. And to raise the point that there is another piece of this puzzle, which is about guidance that is given to GPS, about the advice that they provide to patients when they are diagnosed with a particular. I'd be glad to give way. And thank you.
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:06
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think the officials in the box will be getting nervous. Chair, that I'm creating lots and lots of extra considerations for us. That being said, I do think all of these points are very well made, and speak to the fact that the provisions in this bill, through both the consultation, but also the agility of the Secretary of State's consumer protection making powers, allow us to advance across a range of issues that affect those who travel, not just those with disabilities or additional needs, but but everyone who uses our aviation sector, the ability to improve their rights in a meaningful and purposeful way.
To that end, I hope I've sufficiently answered the remarks from the honourable member for Sutton and Sheen. I feel I have a little more to add about clause four. Other than that, it will help us to address an issue that desperately needs to be dealt with around making sure that people who use wheelchairs and mobility aids can travel with confidence and know that if their devices are damaged, they will get the requisite compensation that they deserve. And therefore I beg to move.
To that end, I hope I've sufficiently answered the remarks from the honourable member for Sutton and Sheen. I feel I have a little more to add about clause four. Other than that, it will help us to address an issue that desperately needs to be dealt with around making sure that people who use wheelchairs and mobility aids can travel with confidence and know that if their devices are damaged, they will get the requisite compensation that they deserve. And therefore I beg to move.
11:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
For here the question is that clause four some part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group five, and the question that clause five, some part with which shall be convenient to consider. Amendment 11, That clause five stand part of the bill? Minister.
11:25
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. Chair. Lots of talking from me in this. This section of the bill. Can I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate so far? I'll begin with clause five, which is another part of the government's objective of strengthening consumer protection within the aviation sector. It will give the CAA the tools it needs to enforce consumer law effectively. The CAA's current powers are not strong enough, and court processes can be slow and resource intensive. This clause brings the CAA into line with other regulators, such as the CMA, by allowing it to investigate breaches and take enforcement action where appropriate.
This means that where passenger rights are breached, the CAA will be able to act more quickly and secure better outcomes for consumers. The clause also includes mechanisms to ensure oversight of the CAA's enforcement activity. These were strengthened in response to scrutiny in the other place, and the bill now requires the CAA to report on its use of these powers, and that information will be laid before Parliament, helping to ensure appropriate scrutiny and accountability. This measure will strengthen consumer protection in the aviation sector by enabling quicker and more effective enforcement, improving compliance with consumer law and providing passengers with greater confidence that their rights are protected when travelling by air.
Turning to the amendment. Amendment 11 put forward by the Shadow Minister, which would introduce an independent review of CAA Direct Enforcement notice before the existing right of appeal to the courts is exercised. I do agree on the underlying principle of this amendment. Organizations must have a clear and independent means of challenging the CAA's decisions. That safeguard is important, but the statutory right of appeal, in my view, already provides it. The amendment would instead add an administrative stage ending only in a non-binding recommendation that could delay resolution and increase complexity, particularly where a party then proceeds to court in any event.
It would also create an uneven framework by adding a review process for CAA notices, but not equivalent notices issued by other direct enforcers. There is no clear case for that distinction. The CAA is best placed to assess compliance with air passenger rights in the first instance where its decision is challenged, the court offers independent scrutiny and a binding outcome. A further non-binding review, in my view, would add process, not meaningful protection. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment and I would ask the shadow minister to withdraw it on to schedule one, which gives effect to clause five, which provides the Civil Aviation Authority with direct consumer enforcement powers.
The schedule provides the CAA with the detailed investigatory and enforcement powers needed to exercise those functions. It enables the CAA to investigate suspected breaches, take direct enforcement action and impose penalties where appropriate, whilst also providing for appeals and reporting requirements. The the schedule is therefore an essential part of the new enforcement regime established by clause five. Setting out the detailed powers and procedures needed for it to operate effectively and I commend it to the Committee. Finally, for this grouping, clause six, clause six ensures that the CAA can effectively enforce existing safety and consumer requirements relating to air carrier identity.
It does this by bringing existing legislation relating to air carrier identity requirements within the CAA's consumer enforcement framework. This legislation sets out requirements for passengers to be informed of the identity of the air carrier operating their flight, and requires the Secretary of State to maintain a list of air carriers banned from operating in the United Kingdom. Clause six does not create new requirements for passengers or airlines. Rather, it strengthens the enforcement of existing regulation, ensuring that passengers have the information they need and that measures designed to protect passengers and maintain safety standards can be effectively enforced, and I therefore beg to move the causes of minor.
This means that where passenger rights are breached, the CAA will be able to act more quickly and secure better outcomes for consumers. The clause also includes mechanisms to ensure oversight of the CAA's enforcement activity. These were strengthened in response to scrutiny in the other place, and the bill now requires the CAA to report on its use of these powers, and that information will be laid before Parliament, helping to ensure appropriate scrutiny and accountability. This measure will strengthen consumer protection in the aviation sector by enabling quicker and more effective enforcement, improving compliance with consumer law and providing passengers with greater confidence that their rights are protected when travelling by air.
Turning to the amendment. Amendment 11 put forward by the Shadow Minister, which would introduce an independent review of CAA Direct Enforcement notice before the existing right of appeal to the courts is exercised. I do agree on the underlying principle of this amendment. Organizations must have a clear and independent means of challenging the CAA's decisions. That safeguard is important, but the statutory right of appeal, in my view, already provides it. The amendment would instead add an administrative stage ending only in a non-binding recommendation that could delay resolution and increase complexity, particularly where a party then proceeds to court in any event.
It would also create an uneven framework by adding a review process for CAA notices, but not equivalent notices issued by other direct enforcers. There is no clear case for that distinction. The CAA is best placed to assess compliance with air passenger rights in the first instance where its decision is challenged, the court offers independent scrutiny and a binding outcome. A further non-binding review, in my view, would add process, not meaningful protection. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment and I would ask the shadow minister to withdraw it on to schedule one, which gives effect to clause five, which provides the Civil Aviation Authority with direct consumer enforcement powers.
The schedule provides the CAA with the detailed investigatory and enforcement powers needed to exercise those functions. It enables the CAA to investigate suspected breaches, take direct enforcement action and impose penalties where appropriate, whilst also providing for appeals and reporting requirements. The the schedule is therefore an essential part of the new enforcement regime established by clause five. Setting out the detailed powers and procedures needed for it to operate effectively and I commend it to the Committee. Finally, for this grouping, clause six, clause six ensures that the CAA can effectively enforce existing safety and consumer requirements relating to air carrier identity.
It does this by bringing existing legislation relating to air carrier identity requirements within the CAA's consumer enforcement framework. This legislation sets out requirements for passengers to be informed of the identity of the air carrier operating their flight, and requires the Secretary of State to maintain a list of air carriers banned from operating in the United Kingdom. Clause six does not create new requirements for passengers or airlines. Rather, it strengthens the enforcement of existing regulation, ensuring that passengers have the information they need and that measures designed to protect passengers and maintain safety standards can be effectively enforced, and I therefore beg to move the causes of minor.
11:26
11:26
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Mr. Turner wants to say a little bit about the conservative Amendment 11, which would introduce an independent review stage before an appeal went to the High Court or the Court of Session. We on these benches feel that this is a sensible amendment, and I suppose we find ourselves somewhat perplexed by the logic of the government not being keen on them. Given. Given to the Railways Bill. The government put an extremely high bar for any legal action against a decision taken by GBR or R, so using that same principle, logic ought to suggest that they should welcome opportunities to avoid litigation and protracted court proceedings with this step, which to us would quite sensibly introduce an element of independent peer review just to make sure that the enforcement action or notice taken by the CAA did make sense before it got to a court.
So I'd be interested to hear the minister's comments as to why he thinks that this amendment doesn't make sense in that context.
So I'd be interested to hear the minister's comments as to why he thinks that this amendment doesn't make sense in that context.
11:27
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Turner, and I thank the honourable member for Didcot Unwanted for his support and indeed the Minister for recognising the underlying principle is absolutely the right one, that this is an important safeguard, to use his words. And I would also argue that it is absolutely not administrative, as he would argue, and that ensuring that the CAA is not judge and jury is something that we should be making sure we're doing so. I will begin briefly with clauses five and six and schedule one, clause five and schedule one. Give the Civil Aviation Authority new enforcement powers, while clause six brings the existing rules on banned air carriers and informing passengers which airline will operate their flight within the Consumer Protection Enforcement framework.
We support those provisions and the principle of effective enforcement, but we believe the process needs an additional safeguard for those affected by the CAA decisions. As such, we have tabled amendment 11, which stands in my name. We've tabled this amendment to ensure that there is a more sensible and balanced process for reviewing enforcement notices issued by the Civil Aviation Authority, as the bill is currently drafted, the route to challenging these decisions is through an appeal to the High Court or Court of Session. I have to say, I do think that this is quite unreasonable. Surely there should be an opportunity for an independent review of the decision before businesses are expected to embark on potentially costly and lengthy court proceedings.
This is precisely what our amendment seeks to achieve. We are simply suggesting that an additional check should be available, allowing an independent reviewer to consider whether a notice should be confirmed, varied or withdrawn before the matter proceeds to court. That would provide greater certainty and clarity for those affected, whilst helping to ensure that the process is fair and proportionate. And importantly, it would not prevent anyone from pursuing an appeal through the courts if they remain dissatisfied. I think that is an entirely sensible safeguard, and I hope the Minister will now recognise the merits of the amendment and support it.
We support those provisions and the principle of effective enforcement, but we believe the process needs an additional safeguard for those affected by the CAA decisions. As such, we have tabled amendment 11, which stands in my name. We've tabled this amendment to ensure that there is a more sensible and balanced process for reviewing enforcement notices issued by the Civil Aviation Authority, as the bill is currently drafted, the route to challenging these decisions is through an appeal to the High Court or Court of Session. I have to say, I do think that this is quite unreasonable. Surely there should be an opportunity for an independent review of the decision before businesses are expected to embark on potentially costly and lengthy court proceedings.
This is precisely what our amendment seeks to achieve. We are simply suggesting that an additional check should be available, allowing an independent reviewer to consider whether a notice should be confirmed, varied or withdrawn before the matter proceeds to court. That would provide greater certainty and clarity for those affected, whilst helping to ensure that the process is fair and proportionate. And importantly, it would not prevent anyone from pursuing an appeal through the courts if they remain dissatisfied. I think that is an entirely sensible safeguard, and I hope the Minister will now recognise the merits of the amendment and support it.
11:27
11:27
11:27
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Both honourable members for their contributions. I suppose in the first instance, I would point to the fact that if redress to the courts is still available, if a somebody against whom an enforcement action is dissatisfied, it does speak to the fact that potentially having a enforcement abilities in this way doesn't quite lead to an effective way of removing the need for the court process to be there in the first place. There is also that point around the arrangement that exists through the Railways Bill in relation to how we make decisions between GBR and the Ora.
I should say this is direct enforcement of protections which are important both to the aviation safety regime, but also to consumers who fly. It's not a determination on commercial matters, wherein in a railway context, GBR needs to have a strong ability to be able to work in a holistic way to support, track and train together. I think the point still stands that it would create an unevenly an uneven framework. It would add a review process for CAA notices, but there wouldn't be equivalent ones issued by other direct enforcers. I do believe that in the first instance, the CAA is best placed to assess compliance with air passenger rights.
Reflecting on the gravity of some of the issues that we have already discussed. But there is a question around making sure that CAA action isn't disproportionate and similar to the CMA, the CAA will need to make clear how it's going to use its powers. It will have to follow a set of rules to ensure that its actions are proportionate and correct, and on that basis, I don't believe that the level of oversight which is set out by the shadow minister in her amendment is proportionate and therefore I would urge her to withdraw it.
I should say this is direct enforcement of protections which are important both to the aviation safety regime, but also to consumers who fly. It's not a determination on commercial matters, wherein in a railway context, GBR needs to have a strong ability to be able to work in a holistic way to support, track and train together. I think the point still stands that it would create an unevenly an uneven framework. It would add a review process for CAA notices, but there wouldn't be equivalent ones issued by other direct enforcers. I do believe that in the first instance, the CAA is best placed to assess compliance with air passenger rights.
Reflecting on the gravity of some of the issues that we have already discussed. But there is a question around making sure that CAA action isn't disproportionate and similar to the CMA, the CAA will need to make clear how it's going to use its powers. It will have to follow a set of rules to ensure that its actions are proportionate and correct, and on that basis, I don't believe that the level of oversight which is set out by the shadow minister in her amendment is proportionate and therefore I would urge her to withdraw it.
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:29
11:29
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Eyes of five. The nose at ten. The nose of it the nose of it. We now come to schedule one which has already been debated. The question is that schedule one be the first schedule to the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say hi. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question that clause six part of the bill, which has already been debated. The question is that clause six part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say I.
I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. But we now come to Group six and Government Amendment one.
I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. But we now come to Group six and Government Amendment one.
11:34
11:34
11:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. We'll stop dead on. 1125. My learned clerk is has got a form of words for me to read, which I expect to see appearing in front of me at the particular time. Thank you chair. We now come to Group six and Government amendment one to clause seven, with which it will be convenient to consider clause seven stand part new clause six and government government amendments two and three. I call the Minister to move the government.
Amendment one .
Amendment one .
11:35
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Turner. And it's only a shame we're running out of time. Just when we hit such an exciting part of the bill, I turn now to the government amendments relating to the review of airport drop off charges. As the committee will be aware, the bill was amended in the other place to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the impact of airport drop off charges on users of airport services, and to publish that review within six months of royal Assent. Let me be clear at the outset that the government is committed to undertaking that review.
We recognise that airport drop off charges are an issue of interest to passengers, parliamentarians and others, and we agree that it is important to establish a clear evidence base to inform any decision making. I would be glad to.
We recognise that airport drop off charges are an issue of interest to passengers, parliamentarians and others, and we agree that it is important to establish a clear evidence base to inform any decision making. I would be glad to.
11:36
11:37
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I suspect all in this room will have received complaints from constituents about receiving either very high charges for dropping off. I had one just recently about East Midlands Airport or indeed fines related to opaque regulations about dropping off at airports. Therefore, notwithstanding the exact wording of this, is the Minister open to reflecting on whether to look at not just drop off charges, but also penalty notices associated with drop off areas and drop off charges at airports.
11:38
11:38
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
I thank him for that challenge and also thank him for not encouraging me to pre-empt what the the terms of any particular review might be. That being said, I believe that there are a general basket of issues which do require close attention, one of which, in the broader terms to which he speaks is around transparency for for those who pay airport drop off charges. And that could relate to penalties as much as the process by which you pay signage at the airport or the provision of free public transport. And I would expect matters of that kind would be of interest as part of the review.
And however, chair, we don't believe that a six month timetable attached to the provision would allow sufficient time to carry out a meaningful and robust piece of work. There is currently no single comprehensive source of evidence on the impact of airport drop off charges across the United Kingdom. A credible review will require engagement with airports, passengers, accessibility groups and other stakeholders alongside research and analysis of the available evidence, a rushed review would risk producing limited findings and would not do justice to the concerns that have been raised. The government amendment, therefore, extends the period for completing the review from six months to 12 after royal Assent.
That additional time will allow the government to undertake a more thorough and evidence based assessment. While the detailed scope of the review will be developed in due course, it could include, as I have mentioned, consideration of issues such as affordability, accessibility, travel behaviour and the experiences of different groups of passengers. It could also examine the role that revenue from drop off charges plays in supporting airport operations and infrastructure, and the extent to which such charges encourage modal shift so that customers use public transport and other sustainable transport options when travelling to the airport. In doing so, it is important to recognise the wider context.
Most UK airports are privately owned and operated businesses. Decisions about parking and drop off charges are generally commercial matters for operators, and we know that parking revenue is often used to support investment in airport infrastructure and services to the benefit of airport users. Parking and drop off arrangements are also subject to consumer protection legislation. The amendment ensures that Parliament receives findings on the impacts of these charges based on a strong and credible evidence base.
.
And however, chair, we don't believe that a six month timetable attached to the provision would allow sufficient time to carry out a meaningful and robust piece of work. There is currently no single comprehensive source of evidence on the impact of airport drop off charges across the United Kingdom. A credible review will require engagement with airports, passengers, accessibility groups and other stakeholders alongside research and analysis of the available evidence, a rushed review would risk producing limited findings and would not do justice to the concerns that have been raised. The government amendment, therefore, extends the period for completing the review from six months to 12 after royal Assent.
That additional time will allow the government to undertake a more thorough and evidence based assessment. While the detailed scope of the review will be developed in due course, it could include, as I have mentioned, consideration of issues such as affordability, accessibility, travel behaviour and the experiences of different groups of passengers. It could also examine the role that revenue from drop off charges plays in supporting airport operations and infrastructure, and the extent to which such charges encourage modal shift so that customers use public transport and other sustainable transport options when travelling to the airport. In doing so, it is important to recognise the wider context.
Most UK airports are privately owned and operated businesses. Decisions about parking and drop off charges are generally commercial matters for operators, and we know that parking revenue is often used to support investment in airport infrastructure and services to the benefit of airport users. Parking and drop off arrangements are also subject to consumer protection legislation. The amendment ensures that Parliament receives findings on the impacts of these charges based on a strong and credible evidence base.
.
11:42
11:42
11:42
14:00
14:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. Can I just urge you to bear in mind and consider the impact on residents near airports from my constituency, of those who are affected by airport drop off charges, but also have higher vehicles who are creating a bit of a nuisance to public spaces, to green spaces and to gardens across my constituency.
14:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Minister, I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is a champion on behalf of his constituents, both those who are affected by drop off charges, but also those who have spoken to me about this, who live in Prestwick, in Ponteland and Woolsington, who are particularly affected by taxi drivers not being able to use the airport in the way that they want to and impacting on local communities. This is also something that was raised by me with local residents when I did a series of roundtables at Heathrow in relation to expansion. We need to manage all of those impacts very carefully.
And can I just be clear that people do not deserve to have disruption and nuisance on their doorstep, because we aren't getting these systems functioning in the way that they need to? Turning to government amendments two and three in my name, this amendment makes a related change to the commencement provisions of the bill. As currently drafted, the review duty would come into force two months after Royal Assent. However, as the period for completing the review is measured from Royal Assent, it is appropriate that the duty itself also commences at that point which these amendments provide for.
These are technical and consequential amendments which simply ensure that the Bill is tidied and operates as intended, with the commencement provisions aligning with the revised review timetable, and on that basis, I beg to move. Turning to clause seven itself, as we've discussed, it requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the impact of airport drop off charges on airport users. The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I don't have much to add to the remarks I made when discussing Government Amendment one, but for the avoidance of doubt, let me quickly reiterate that we recognise the considerable strength of feeling that exists on the issues on this issue among passengers and parliamentarians.
That is, I'd be glad to give way. Yes. Jessica. Thank you. Chair.
And can I just be clear that people do not deserve to have disruption and nuisance on their doorstep, because we aren't getting these systems functioning in the way that they need to? Turning to government amendments two and three in my name, this amendment makes a related change to the commencement provisions of the bill. As currently drafted, the review duty would come into force two months after Royal Assent. However, as the period for completing the review is measured from Royal Assent, it is appropriate that the duty itself also commences at that point which these amendments provide for.
These are technical and consequential amendments which simply ensure that the Bill is tidied and operates as intended, with the commencement provisions aligning with the revised review timetable, and on that basis, I beg to move. Turning to clause seven itself, as we've discussed, it requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the impact of airport drop off charges on airport users. The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I don't have much to add to the remarks I made when discussing Government Amendment one, but for the avoidance of doubt, let me quickly reiterate that we recognise the considerable strength of feeling that exists on the issues on this issue among passengers and parliamentarians.
That is, I'd be glad to give way. Yes. Jessica. Thank you. Chair.
14:02
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Like many people, my constituents have also raised issues around airport drop off charges at Bournemouth University, which have gone. Bournemouth airport. I'd rather that have gone up to £8 this year. There are no public transport options to get to Bournemouth Airport, so I hope that the Minister and the government, in this consultation take into account alternative routes to get to Air Force when looking at this issue in a consultation.
14:03
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Minister. Well, my hon. Friend raises a very important point that one of the functions of airport drop off charges, as presently constituted, is to facilitate mode share changes at airports and to encourage airport users to take public transport where that is possible. But it is true that across the breadth of airports in the United Kingdom, there is not consistent public transport availability. And I think those sorts of questions around provision about whether free drop off spaces are provided and the transparency with which they can be accessed is of major importance, and I thank my hon.
Friend for making that contribution, and I would be very glad to give way.
Friend for making that contribution, and I would be very glad to give way.
14:04
14:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. In North Somerset we have Bristol Airport, which I was very glad to welcome the Minister to visit, but in it we actually have exactly the same transport deficit for a very busy airport without a mass transit system. So I was going to ask if the minister could talk about how this may be possible, to have those conversations about wider mass transit systems and their integrations with airports to.
14:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Minister? Well, may I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It was a pleasure to visit Bristol Airport to see the. The impressive and ambitious plans they have about facilitating new international routes and modernising their terminals. They want more people to use the airport and therefore, it is incumbent upon us all to think about how we can best facilitate that. And with this new Prime Minister's increased focus on pushing power out into every local community in the United Kingdom, I think local mayors and local authorities will also have an enormous role to play in ensuring that we have the right public transport connectivity to our airports so that more people can benefit from being able to travel cheaply and comfortably to airports in their local areas.
And I'd be glad to give way.
And I'd be glad to give way.
14:07
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Or thank him for giving way on that point. And similarly to my hon. Friends who have just spoken, we have serious issues in Newquay Airport about connectivity, so I welcome the suggestion that that local transport connectivity promoting alternative modality is part of that review. But to what extent will the minister join up that review more broadly with the other work he is doing on supporting smaller regional airports through, for example, the review of the SOE, which is so necessary for airports like Newquay to be able to bid in in a more flexible way.
14:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Than is done. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that so obligations serve as a lifeline for many regional airports, and also provide very important economic and business connectivity to the nation's capital from many regions of the United Kingdom, including his own, which is serving as catalysts for regional economic growth. We, of course, need to think about the intersection of these questions about how we can work with local mayors to create robust public transport systems, which can get people to the places that they want to go to facilitate economic, economic growth across the entire United Kingdom.
And that is a point well made by the honourable member. To draw my remarks on this section to a close chair. On that note, I just want to briefly turn to new clause six, tabled by the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage. I thank him for this amendment, 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 that cap must be £5. Given the government has committed to reviewing their impacts on airport users within 12 months of Royal assent, this amendment would cut across that proposal by requiring the government 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 this amendment and would ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw it. Government amendment one to clause seven as on the amendment paper. The question is that the amendment be made. Luke Taylor.
And that is a point well made by the honourable member. To draw my remarks on this section to a close chair. On that note, I just want to briefly turn to new clause six, tabled by the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage. I thank him for this amendment, 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 that cap must be £5. Given the government has committed to reviewing their impacts on airport users within 12 months of Royal assent, this amendment would cut across that proposal by requiring the government 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 this amendment and would ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw it. Government amendment one to clause seven as on the amendment paper. The question is that the amendment be made. Luke Taylor.
14:11
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you, chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your chair. So referring to new clause six, and I note the comments from the minister about the study, to understand the level of public transport provision and charges at UK airports, which we obviously welcome, it's worth pointing out and reflecting the comments from a number of the honourable members opposite, that a charge to encourage passengers to use public transport to access an airport, to reduce emissions congestion and to reduce the impact on airport communities is unfair when a public transport option does not exist for that airport itself.
It is contradictory. It is confusing, and it undermines the case that I think we must build, and the consensus that we must build that aviation is good, but that the impacts of aviation travel be that emissions, be that disruption for nearby communities, be that noise, must be mitigated and addressed. So I think as part of the review, I would really encourage the minister and his officials and those who are undertaking this study to come up with a much more nuanced approach to the allowable limits for charges related to public transport provision, to the individual airports in question.
Now, I will be I believe we will be pushing nuclear to a vote, primarily to to make the point that a a particular charge level cap is appropriate. But I do implore the minister to to to look into that nuance now. It is absolutely right that we are encouraging modal share, that we are pushing passengers to use sustainable methods of transport to get to the airport. However, where airports are using a charge to increase their income, increase revenue, that then does conflict with the goals at alternative airports where it is entirely to manage ground transportation demand and impact on local residents.
Sorry, the airport charges, it's worth noting, are not the norm across Europe. They are definitely not the norm across the world. It is our model of airport ownership, and that means that this has become an additional charge and a fee. That. And again, for the two examples that are given by members opposite. It is unavoidable. It becomes effectively an essential fee. Now, there is a argument that suggests that using public higher vehicles to travel to an airport reduces the impact on reducing the impact on roadways, because instead of dropping off and travelling home empty or parking, that vehicle then is available for picking up passengers and returning them to another location.
And so it should be considered that there is a possibility to have different charges for different vehicle types. Public hire taxis, for example. So it is not that we are against the principle. It's just that there needs to be a much more considered approach to how it is structured. I think the final point I would like to make, just to just to wrap up currently, and as stated in the in the new clause, we do believe that £5 is the right level for the charge to be set at, considering all of the various cost of living challenges and the lack of alternatives in many places.
But we have to see that accompanied by investment in active travel and public transport infrastructure, airports, particularly those outside of London, where there is lacking provision at present. And hopefully the government is able to pull those two aspects together to balance that investment in alternatives with the the nudge of that charge pushing passengers into alternative modes.
It is contradictory. It is confusing, and it undermines the case that I think we must build, and the consensus that we must build that aviation is good, but that the impacts of aviation travel be that emissions, be that disruption for nearby communities, be that noise, must be mitigated and addressed. So I think as part of the review, I would really encourage the minister and his officials and those who are undertaking this study to come up with a much more nuanced approach to the allowable limits for charges related to public transport provision, to the individual airports in question.
Now, I will be I believe we will be pushing nuclear to a vote, primarily to to make the point that a a particular charge level cap is appropriate. But I do implore the minister to to to look into that nuance now. It is absolutely right that we are encouraging modal share, that we are pushing passengers to use sustainable methods of transport to get to the airport. However, where airports are using a charge to increase their income, increase revenue, that then does conflict with the goals at alternative airports where it is entirely to manage ground transportation demand and impact on local residents.
Sorry, the airport charges, it's worth noting, are not the norm across Europe. They are definitely not the norm across the world. It is our model of airport ownership, and that means that this has become an additional charge and a fee. That. And again, for the two examples that are given by members opposite. It is unavoidable. It becomes effectively an essential fee. Now, there is a argument that suggests that using public higher vehicles to travel to an airport reduces the impact on reducing the impact on roadways, because instead of dropping off and travelling home empty or parking, that vehicle then is available for picking up passengers and returning them to another location.
And so it should be considered that there is a possibility to have different charges for different vehicle types. Public hire taxis, for example. So it is not that we are against the principle. It's just that there needs to be a much more considered approach to how it is structured. I think the final point I would like to make, just to just to wrap up currently, and as stated in the in the new clause, we do believe that £5 is the right level for the charge to be set at, considering all of the various cost of living challenges and the lack of alternatives in many places.
But we have to see that accompanied by investment in active travel and public transport infrastructure, airports, particularly those outside of London, where there is lacking provision at present. And hopefully the government is able to pull those two aspects together to balance that investment in alternatives with the the nudge of that charge pushing passengers into alternative modes.
14:19
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
Thank you. Amanda Hack yeah. Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I just wanted to speak on this on this part of the the bill. My constituency of North West Leicestershire is the home of East Midlands Airport. And in East Midlands Airport there have been an increase of £5 for 15 minutes for rapid drop off to £8 for ten minutes. Just a few weeks ago, one of the briefings we received on the bill identified some interesting rationale for the charges, and I'm sure that will come out in the review. However, some reflections on choice and fairness when parking or getting a loved one to drop you off.
There's a number of variables in my case, in my constituency, East Midlands Airport, just 9% of the public travel to the airport using public transport because the options are just not available. East Midlands Parkway, the closest train station. You can't actually get a public bus. It's a demand responsive transport option. There is a free one hour car park. It claims you can get a free shuttle bus, which you can until early November, and then you'll have to walk in the dark. I did that without any luggage and it took me about 14 minutes and I was quite speedy.
So I can imagine how inconvenient this will be for individuals who don't have the ability to pay. The ability to pay at the point of use is also very much a part of my casework, when it is about simply forgetting to pay when you dropped off a loved one off. And the rapid drop off, you're often doing that at unusual hours , early in the morning or late at night. By the time you get home, you've simply just forgotten to pay. And that what I've been asking the airport is that a pay terminal is installed inside the airport for a person being dropped off with the ability to pay.
They simply continue to refuse to do that for me. Choice and fairness. That doesn't seem to be. There's much choice or much fairness. The fear is, is that actually using the the the £100 penalty actually as a way of making up the cost. The cost itself is is it proportionate? Well, it's clearly too expensive. And what what's really frustrating is that Manchester Airport group that operates Stansted as well as a as a direct comparison, 50% of the people travel to Stansted using public transport. So when you're talking about choice and fairness, you can choose to use other methods.
East Midlands Airport that just simply isn't the case. The other additional benefit of Stanstead is that people who live within a ten mile radius get an 85% discount on the rapid drop off fee. There is no such discount at East Windsor Airport, an airport with such poor transport links that only 9% can choose as an option. I'd really welcome the Minister's view, not pre-empting the consultation, of course, but thinking about actually, how can we start making sure that rapid drop off and the fairness to use it is equated with the use of public transport in the locality.
There's a number of variables in my case, in my constituency, East Midlands Airport, just 9% of the public travel to the airport using public transport because the options are just not available. East Midlands Parkway, the closest train station. You can't actually get a public bus. It's a demand responsive transport option. There is a free one hour car park. It claims you can get a free shuttle bus, which you can until early November, and then you'll have to walk in the dark. I did that without any luggage and it took me about 14 minutes and I was quite speedy.
So I can imagine how inconvenient this will be for individuals who don't have the ability to pay. The ability to pay at the point of use is also very much a part of my casework, when it is about simply forgetting to pay when you dropped off a loved one off. And the rapid drop off, you're often doing that at unusual hours , early in the morning or late at night. By the time you get home, you've simply just forgotten to pay. And that what I've been asking the airport is that a pay terminal is installed inside the airport for a person being dropped off with the ability to pay.
They simply continue to refuse to do that for me. Choice and fairness. That doesn't seem to be. There's much choice or much fairness. The fear is, is that actually using the the the £100 penalty actually as a way of making up the cost. The cost itself is is it proportionate? Well, it's clearly too expensive. And what what's really frustrating is that Manchester Airport group that operates Stansted as well as a as a direct comparison, 50% of the people travel to Stansted using public transport. So when you're talking about choice and fairness, you can choose to use other methods.
East Midlands Airport that just simply isn't the case. The other additional benefit of Stanstead is that people who live within a ten mile radius get an 85% discount on the rapid drop off fee. There is no such discount at East Windsor Airport, an airport with such poor transport links that only 9% can choose as an option. I'd really welcome the Minister's view, not pre-empting the consultation, of course, but thinking about actually, how can we start making sure that rapid drop off and the fairness to use it is equated with the use of public transport in the locality.
14:26
14:26
14:26
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. McVey. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I must say I am absolutely delighted, delighted that the government has finally decided to back our amendment. Delighted that ministers now concur with our excellent conservative colleagues in the other place, that a review of airport drop off charges is desperately needed, and I particularly welcome the government's slight change to the timelines, giving ministers even more time to pore over this issue and examine precisely why these charges are soaring. Because we already know that this government's anti-growth policies, from business rates to increases in employers National insurance contributions, have heaped enormous additional costs onto our airports.
We also know that airport service surface access targets needs to be thoroughly examined. These targets, some of which are buried away in planning agreements at airports such as Luton and Heathrow, are designed to encourage modal shift away from cars and towards public transport. And I think we need to establish precisely how far those requirements are indirectly driving up the charges being passed on to passengers and motorists, because these charges are penalising everyone. Families dropping off loved ones, motorists collecting passengers, holidaymakers already facing considerable costs, and disabled passengers, particularly those who rely on taxis who can find themselves facing yet another additional expense simply to get to and from an airport.
So I am genuinely delighted that the government has finally seen the light and recognised that these charges deserve proper scrutiny. Conservative peers fought to secure this review in the other place, despite Labour voting against it. And now, rather pleasingly, the government has decided that we were right all along. I'm always pleased to welcome ministers to a sensible, conservative position, however long it takes them to get there. We will therefore be delighted to support the government's amendment. I turn now to New Clause six. I find this new clause rather extraordinary. We've been very clear about our concerns over soaring airport drop off charges, which is precisely why conservative peers secured a review of these charges in the other place.
Despite Labour initially voting against it. But why on earth do the Liberal Democrats want to introduce a £5 cap when a number of airports currently charge considerably less than that? Belfast International and Cardiff charge £3. Belfast City charges £4 and Manchester and Newcastle charge £5. What reassurance can the honourable member give us that his proposal would not simply encourage airports currently charging 3 or £4 to increase their charges to £5.
That would be a remarkable outcome for a measure supposedly designed to protect consumers.
We also know that airport service surface access targets needs to be thoroughly examined. These targets, some of which are buried away in planning agreements at airports such as Luton and Heathrow, are designed to encourage modal shift away from cars and towards public transport. And I think we need to establish precisely how far those requirements are indirectly driving up the charges being passed on to passengers and motorists, because these charges are penalising everyone. Families dropping off loved ones, motorists collecting passengers, holidaymakers already facing considerable costs, and disabled passengers, particularly those who rely on taxis who can find themselves facing yet another additional expense simply to get to and from an airport.
So I am genuinely delighted that the government has finally seen the light and recognised that these charges deserve proper scrutiny. Conservative peers fought to secure this review in the other place, despite Labour voting against it. And now, rather pleasingly, the government has decided that we were right all along. I'm always pleased to welcome ministers to a sensible, conservative position, however long it takes them to get there. We will therefore be delighted to support the government's amendment. I turn now to New Clause six. I find this new clause rather extraordinary. We've been very clear about our concerns over soaring airport drop off charges, which is precisely why conservative peers secured a review of these charges in the other place.
Despite Labour initially voting against it. But why on earth do the Liberal Democrats want to introduce a £5 cap when a number of airports currently charge considerably less than that? Belfast International and Cardiff charge £3. Belfast City charges £4 and Manchester and Newcastle charge £5. What reassurance can the honourable member give us that his proposal would not simply encourage airports currently charging 3 or £4 to increase their charges to £5.
That would be a remarkable outcome for a measure supposedly designed to protect consumers.
14:33
14:33
14:33
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I thank the Honourable lady for giving way. I'm. The honourable Lady has always struck me as a master of the English language, and I'm sure she will therefore understand that the word cap is not a target. It is a. It is an upper limit, and there is no reason why it should induce an increase in those airports who don't feel a need, because those airports will have reached that decision for their own particular market. Now, surely if she does believe that limits are caps, then perhaps her party will withdraw its frequent opposition to things like 20 mile an hour speed limits.
Because by that argument, people only ever drive or go up to up to the cap, and therefore all other sorts of limits are harmless as well. Now, of course, I don't actually think that. I'm just suggesting that that is how one could logically, logically extend her argument. If we're going to view all caps and limits as in fact being targets or incentives to hit them.
Because by that argument, people only ever drive or go up to up to the cap, and therefore all other sorts of limits are harmless as well. Now, of course, I don't actually think that. I'm just suggesting that that is how one could logically, logically extend her argument. If we're going to view all caps and limits as in fact being targets or incentives to hit them.
14:35
14:35
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
But I thank the honourable member for his for his intervention. And, of course, the evidence historically is not in his favour, because if you if you look at numerous other similar things, like, for example, the education fees universities charge to the cap almost immediately. And I think market behaviour is such that it would that would happen. And may I just correct his positioning of the conservative position on 20 mile an hour limits, which is not to get rid of all of them. It is to get rid of a blanket, not to get rid of blanket, 20 mile an hour limits so that they are used precisely at the points where they would be useful and where they would meet the objective that is required, which is why a blanket cap or a blanket ban makes no sense.
But I thank the honourable member for his intervention. We have already secured a review of these changes, and I think it makes sense to allow that work to take place before introducing further legislation.
But I thank the honourable member for his intervention. We have already secured a review of these changes, and I think it makes sense to allow that work to take place before introducing further legislation.
14:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Minister. Thank you, chair. And may I begin by responding to the Shadow Minister? I am no physicist, but I know that a plane must fly on both its left and its right wing. And I'm very pleased, therefore, to see the level of consensus that we have across the room today on the principle of a review into airport drop off charges. I think, on a serious note, members have raised a number of key themes which go to the heart of why this has been deemed necessary by the government, and that is to ensure that consumers, when they travel through our airports and use the drop off facilities that are available, can be assured that fairness, transparency and ultimately choice about their use of transport mode is at the heart of their travelling experience.
The Shadow Minister is also right to point to the special impact that drop off charges can have on people with disabilities who travel. I would also focus on people who travel from rural communities to airports, who might not have the public transport access that they require. It's, of course, worth noting that airports do provide bespoke drop off locations for passengers who drive to airports with disabilities. But that brings us to another question about signage and about access to those spaces, which I think are points very well made. And those sorts of issues should form part of the discussion about how this system evolves.
Speaking to New Clause six, a particular question I have is around freezing a cap in aspic around £5. Is it proportionate? Is it enough? There's this point about disparity around the country, which I think is worthy of further discussion. Ultimately, I do identify with the honourable member for Sutton and Jim's point that there is a question around fairness about ensuring compliance with mode share targets when public transport access to airports is poor. But it is also worth reflecting on the shadow ministers contribution that actually a lot of planning requirements on airports require management of mode shift targets in a way that impacts, therefore directly on how those drop off systems work, and that is also worthy of consideration.
I would also just say that drop off charges, although we can have a conversation about fairness and transparency and choice, are used often by airports to make very necessary improvements to airport facilities and access to the airport itself. So I think that is also worthy of consideration. And the shadow minister perhaps didn't point to some of the work that we've done more recently to facilitate airport expansion and modernization, which of course, helps the airport sector to grow. But that also being said, she is right to point to the fact that the cost stack that is faced by airports is of material concern, and therefore, we have to be cognizant of what we do in terms of reviewing airport drop off charges and think about it in the round when we think about how best to support the airport sector.
And on that basis, chair, I think there have been some great contributions by both government and opposition MPs. Speaking to the constituency impact that drop off charges can bring. The review will be designed to address some of these questions. I do have those concerns about new clause six, which mean that I cannot support it, but I would just finally say that I beg to move all the clauses that stand in my name.
The Shadow Minister is also right to point to the special impact that drop off charges can have on people with disabilities who travel. I would also focus on people who travel from rural communities to airports, who might not have the public transport access that they require. It's, of course, worth noting that airports do provide bespoke drop off locations for passengers who drive to airports with disabilities. But that brings us to another question about signage and about access to those spaces, which I think are points very well made. And those sorts of issues should form part of the discussion about how this system evolves.
Speaking to New Clause six, a particular question I have is around freezing a cap in aspic around £5. Is it proportionate? Is it enough? There's this point about disparity around the country, which I think is worthy of further discussion. Ultimately, I do identify with the honourable member for Sutton and Jim's point that there is a question around fairness about ensuring compliance with mode share targets when public transport access to airports is poor. But it is also worth reflecting on the shadow ministers contribution that actually a lot of planning requirements on airports require management of mode shift targets in a way that impacts, therefore directly on how those drop off systems work, and that is also worthy of consideration.
I would also just say that drop off charges, although we can have a conversation about fairness and transparency and choice, are used often by airports to make very necessary improvements to airport facilities and access to the airport itself. So I think that is also worthy of consideration. And the shadow minister perhaps didn't point to some of the work that we've done more recently to facilitate airport expansion and modernization, which of course, helps the airport sector to grow. But that also being said, she is right to point to the fact that the cost stack that is faced by airports is of material concern, and therefore, we have to be cognizant of what we do in terms of reviewing airport drop off charges and think about it in the round when we think about how best to support the airport sector.
And on that basis, chair, I think there have been some great contributions by both government and opposition MPs. Speaking to the constituency impact that drop off charges can bring. The review will be designed to address some of these questions. I do have those concerns about new clause six, which mean that I cannot support it, but I would just finally say that I beg to move all the clauses that stand in my name.
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. McVeigh, sir. Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. Yes. Our amendment 27 is intended to make sure that the expansion of airport and changes to aviation and flight paths are done with, rather than done to communities, and take account of the significant environmental impact that they have. Now, at this point, there's normally a lot of chuntering from the government benches about how we are NIMBYs, but this this amendment is intended precisely to counter some of those sentiments, which often originate from a feeling that major decisions on infrastructure and transport are done to and taken apart from the communities that are most affected.
Now, in part, this is about communities directly affected by noise and air pollution from airports. And of course, there are many of those around Heathrow in particular, which is a very densely populated area, Gatwick, Luton and many others. But this is also about the fact that the environmental impact from aviation affects all of us. We are all affected parties because despite the government's Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, there remains a very long way to go before the aviation industry has a credible plan to decarbonise. It's it's what it does. So this amendment is all about making sure that where directions are issued, that there is an assessment made of the impact of those of of those directions so that people have the opportunity to see the decision making and to make their voices heard.
So I look forward to hearing the minister's comments.
Now, in part, this is about communities directly affected by noise and air pollution from airports. And of course, there are many of those around Heathrow in particular, which is a very densely populated area, Gatwick, Luton and many others. But this is also about the fact that the environmental impact from aviation affects all of us. We are all affected parties because despite the government's Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, there remains a very long way to go before the aviation industry has a credible plan to decarbonise. It's it's what it does. So this amendment is all about making sure that where directions are issued, that there is an assessment made of the impact of those of of those directions so that people have the opportunity to see the decision making and to make their voices heard.
So I look forward to hearing the minister's comments.
14:49
14:49
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Thank you, chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your Chairship. Before entering this house, I spent nearly two decades as a pharmacist, and that can give you a particular view of the world where staying up to date with technology, processes and drugs is crucial to saving lives. That is in part why I support this bill and clause eight. If it is good enough for pharmacy, then surely staying up to date is good enough for flying. With modern rules, modern plane plans and modern powers. Clause eight will help. A problem that my constituency of North Somerset, home to Bristol Airport, knows only too well, with around 12 million passengers using the airport and a potential expansion on the horizon, we must reform the 1950s framework governing our airspace and bring it up to date.
My constituents stand to gain the most. Less noise overhead, greater efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and fewer delays. And as with all things, there is a cost to doing nothing. Without reform. Flight delays are expected to rise by 200% by 2040, and we must do all we can to help combat climate change. The establishment of the UK Airspace Design Service will deliver the resilience and efficiency that our airspace needs as it begins its work in the London region. I would ask that the Minister consider Bristol as a priority for the next phase. North Somerset residents have waited long enough for an airspace that works for them here.
My constituents stand to gain the most. Less noise overhead, greater efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and fewer delays. And as with all things, there is a cost to doing nothing. Without reform. Flight delays are expected to rise by 200% by 2040, and we must do all we can to help combat climate change. The establishment of the UK Airspace Design Service will deliver the resilience and efficiency that our airspace needs as it begins its work in the London region. I would ask that the Minister consider Bristol as a priority for the next phase. North Somerset residents have waited long enough for an airspace that works for them here.
14:52
14:52
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Thank you. Thank thank you, miss McVey. I will speak briefly to amendment 27 and clause eight. Of course, we believe local communities should have the opportunity to make their voices heard when decisions may affect them. That's an important part of the process. Consultation should be meaningful and intrinsically there ought to be sensible, local, proportionate mitigations. However, I do have some concerns about the additional requirements this amendment would impose. We're talking here about the implementation of airspace changes, including those that have already been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority, and I do question whether it's sensible to require further environmental and noise impact assessments before the Secretary of State can even issue a direction to get those changes implemented.
It really ought to be our aim to reduce this merry go round of regulation that impairs growth and investment. After all, modernizing our airspace is absolutely vital to improving capacity,
It really ought to be our aim to reduce this merry go round of regulation that impairs growth and investment. After all, modernizing our airspace is absolutely vital to improving capacity,
14:55
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Growth and investment. After all, modernizing our air space is absolutely vital to improving capacity, reducing delays, and ensuring that our airports can grow and expand. The last thing we should be doing is introducing further requirements that risk holding up improvements that have been through the appropriate approval process. Of course, local communities should have their voices heard and their concerns should be properly considered, but that must be done proportionately. We cannot allow endless assessments and procedural hurdles to strangle the growth of our aviation sector. So whilst I recognise the importance of local consultation and the intentions behind this amendment, I confess I have reservations about the additional burdens it could create.
For those reasons, we will be abstaining. I'll finish by turning briefly to clause eight itself. The clause will allow the Secretary of State to direct that approved airspace changes and the findings of airspace design reviews are implemented. We support the modernisation of our airspace and we want to see approved changes delivered without unnecessary delay.
For those reasons, we will be abstaining. I'll finish by turning briefly to clause eight itself. The clause will allow the Secretary of State to direct that approved airspace changes and the findings of airspace design reviews are implemented. We support the modernisation of our airspace and we want to see approved changes delivered without unnecessary delay.
14:57
14:57
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you, miss McVay. I've heard the debate. I think perhaps perhaps perhaps we might. Oh sorry. All right. Perhaps perhaps we might. Perhaps we might need to have a whip round. And by the shadow minister. A house underneath the flight path and see if she still has a similar view. But we therefore would like to push this to a division. With your permission, Minister.
14:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair, and I'll be very brief. The House will be familiar with the government's position in relation to amendment 27, and I do not seek to disguise the fact that it remains unchanged. The amendment addresses safeguards that are, in our view, already firmly embedded in the airspace change process. Environmental assessment and meaningful consultation are and will remain fundamental to that process. Nothing in the bill removes, bypasses or weakens the requirements to consult thoroughly or to assess noise and wider environmental impacts robustly. To speak briefly to clause eight. Clause eight supports the government's objectives of delivering airspace modernisation and ensuring that approved airspace changes can be implemented efficiently.
The clause extends the Secretary of State's existing powers to direct relevant parties to prepare, develop or review airspace change proposals. Clause eight adds a power to direct the implementation of airspace change proposals once they have been approved by the CAA. This reflects the practical reality that delivering airspace modernisation requires action from a number of different organisations, and while we expect industry to work collaboratively to implement approved changes, there is a risk that a single party could delay or frustrate delivery. The new power provides a proportionate last resort mechanism to ensure that approved airspace changes are implemented.
This is particularly important as the UK Airspace Design Service has begun work redesigning the complex airspace over London and the South East. Modernising our airspace will help maintain high safety standards, improve efficiency and resilience across the network, and can support reductions in emissions and noise. Importantly, the clause retains the existing statutory safeguards. It only applies to an airspace change which has been through the CAA's robust regulatory process, including consultation of those affected by it and which has then been approved by the CAA. Before issuing a direction, the Secretary of State must consult the party being directed, which also has a right of appeal.
The clause therefore strengthens the framework for delivering approved airspace changes while preserving appropriate protections and oversight, and I therefore beg to move.
The clause extends the Secretary of State's existing powers to direct relevant parties to prepare, develop or review airspace change proposals. Clause eight adds a power to direct the implementation of airspace change proposals once they have been approved by the CAA. This reflects the practical reality that delivering airspace modernisation requires action from a number of different organisations, and while we expect industry to work collaboratively to implement approved changes, there is a risk that a single party could delay or frustrate delivery. The new power provides a proportionate last resort mechanism to ensure that approved airspace changes are implemented.
This is particularly important as the UK Airspace Design Service has begun work redesigning the complex airspace over London and the South East. Modernising our airspace will help maintain high safety standards, improve efficiency and resilience across the network, and can support reductions in emissions and noise. Importantly, the clause retains the existing statutory safeguards. It only applies to an airspace change which has been through the CAA's robust regulatory process, including consultation of those affected by it and which has then been approved by the CAA. Before issuing a direction, the Secretary of State must consult the party being directed, which also has a right of appeal.
The clause therefore strengthens the framework for delivering approved airspace changes while preserving appropriate protections and oversight, and I therefore beg to move.
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The eyes were to the nose were eight. The nos have it, the nos have it unlock. We now come to group eight. And the question that clause nine stand apart with which it will be convenient to consider schedule two and clause ten stand part. The question is that clause nine stand part of the bill. Minister.
15:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. Chair. Clause nine supports the reforms to the the charging for air services contained in clause ten. Clause ten allows air service charges to be imposed on a broader range of persons than under the current framework. Clause nine therefore makes corresponding changes to the licence modifications process to ensure that existing safeguards remain effective and apply equally to all relevant parties. The clause requires the Secretary of State or the CAA to identify and consult anyone who would be materially affected by a proposed licence modification. It also introduces schedule two, which makes additional corresponding changes to the air services licensing regime and to the appeal process.
Together, these. Oh yeah, I'd be glad to give away.
Together, these. Oh yeah, I'd be glad to give away.
15:07
15:07
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
Thank you for giving way. I support updating the framework for funding air navigation services, but can the Minister explain how the changes will ensure that costs are shared fairly among those who benefit with proper scrutiny of charges, charges and a clear expectation that the money supports a reliable service?
15:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, and she is right to say that where there is a broadening of who is charged, there must also be a broadening of the principles which should underlie a fair and transparent process by which those charges take place, and that any decisions in relation to it should be made through the lens of who benefits. Now, I will turn to some of that later in my remarks. Together, these changes will ensure that the regulatory framework can evolve while maintaining the established rights of stakeholders affected by licensing conditions. Schedule two updates the appeals framework for changes to air services licences to reflect the broader charging regime introduced by clause ten.
As the bill broadens the categories of persons who may be liable for charges for air services, the schedule ensures that appeal rights continue to apply. Continue to apply appropriately to those affected by licence modifications and that those affected are notified of the stages of the appeal process, providing that transparency and fairness to which my hon. Friend refers. The schedule therefore , extends appeal rights to reflect the wider range of stakeholders who may be affected by regulatory decisions, and I therefore commend it to the committee. Finally, Chair , Clause ten updates the charging framework for air services to remain to ensure that it remains fit for the future.
Existing legislation only allows charges to be imposed on operators and owners of aircraft. This clause broadens the framework so that charges may be imposed on a wider range of persons in the future. Anyone charged must either be a user or a beneficiary of a service, and must be consulted before charges are set. This provides flexibility to accommodate future developments in aviation, and enables charges to be imposed efficiently on new users of licensed air services, such as providers of services to uncrewed aircraft, where appropriate. And whilst the government moves forward very purposefully on things like the Future of Flight Industry Group, and we focus on beyond visual line of sight, drone operations and electric vehicle takeoff and landing.
Those benefits will be accrued. It's right that the charging regime is adapted to focus on it, but those two things must work in tandem, as my hon. Friend encourages me to consider. We believe that this will provide flexibility to accommodate future developments. The clause. The clause also makes consequential amendments to ensure that the relevant provisions of the Transport Act 2000 and the appeal process operate consistently following these changes. Overall, this provides greater flexibility to ensure that the costs of providing air services can continue to be recovered fairly, as the management and use of airspace evolves, including with the emergence of new users such as drones and I therefore beg to move.
As the bill broadens the categories of persons who may be liable for charges for air services, the schedule ensures that appeal rights continue to apply. Continue to apply appropriately to those affected by licence modifications and that those affected are notified of the stages of the appeal process, providing that transparency and fairness to which my hon. Friend refers. The schedule therefore , extends appeal rights to reflect the wider range of stakeholders who may be affected by regulatory decisions, and I therefore commend it to the committee. Finally, Chair , Clause ten updates the charging framework for air services to remain to ensure that it remains fit for the future.
Existing legislation only allows charges to be imposed on operators and owners of aircraft. This clause broadens the framework so that charges may be imposed on a wider range of persons in the future. Anyone charged must either be a user or a beneficiary of a service, and must be consulted before charges are set. This provides flexibility to accommodate future developments in aviation, and enables charges to be imposed efficiently on new users of licensed air services, such as providers of services to uncrewed aircraft, where appropriate. And whilst the government moves forward very purposefully on things like the Future of Flight Industry Group, and we focus on beyond visual line of sight, drone operations and electric vehicle takeoff and landing.
Those benefits will be accrued. It's right that the charging regime is adapted to focus on it, but those two things must work in tandem, as my hon. Friend encourages me to consider. We believe that this will provide flexibility to accommodate future developments. The clause. The clause also makes consequential amendments to ensure that the relevant provisions of the Transport Act 2000 and the appeal process operate consistently following these changes. Overall, this provides greater flexibility to ensure that the costs of providing air services can continue to be recovered fairly, as the management and use of airspace evolves, including with the emergence of new users such as drones and I therefore beg to move.
15:13
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. McVey. I'll briefly address clauses nine and ten and schedule two, clause nine and schedule two. Update the licensing arrangements for air traffic services, including who should be consulted when licence conditions are changed and who should have the right to appeal. We support those provisions. However, I do have concerns about the drafting of clause ten. As my noble friend Lord Moylan pointed out in the other place, the clause says that a person may be charged where a service is available for their use or benefit, whilst also saying that it is immaterial whether that service could actually be used by them.
How can a service be available for someone's use if it could not be used by them? The government amended part of the provision in the other place, but that basic question remains unanswered. The Minister must explain clearly who may be charged under this clause, and how the government will ensure that the new arrangements do not lead to unfair or disproportionate charges, particularly for general aviation. Subject to the Minister's response, we will not oppose clause ten, but we do expect this ambiguity to be properly addressed.
How can a service be available for someone's use if it could not be used by them? The government amended part of the provision in the other place, but that basic question remains unanswered. The Minister must explain clearly who may be charged under this clause, and how the government will ensure that the new arrangements do not lead to unfair or disproportionate charges, particularly for general aviation. Subject to the Minister's response, we will not oppose clause ten, but we do expect this ambiguity to be properly addressed.
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I beg to move amendment 12 and will also speak to amendment 13. These amendments concern a very straightforward principle that Parliament ought to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the regulations made under this regulation, this legislation. They would ensure that the relevant regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament and thus would preserve scrutiny, accountability and fair process for all concerned. I would also say that given the breadth of powers contained in this bill, this is an entirely reasonable safeguard. Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be?
Regulations here will have an important and wide reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole. Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine those decisions before they take effect. It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the government declined to accept this basic principle. I hope the government can recognise today the merits of affording this House that ability to scrutinise and do its job. I'll finish by briefly addressing clause 11 itself. The clause gives the Secretary of State broad powers to amend or restate the airports slot allocation regime.
We recognise that the system may need to respond quickly and genuine emergencies, but these powers must be exercised carefully and must not undermine the independence of the slot allocation process. That is precisely why the parliamentary scrutiny provided by amendments 12 and 13 is so important.
Regulations here will have an important and wide reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole. Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine those decisions before they take effect. It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the government declined to accept this basic principle. I hope the government can recognise today the merits of affording this House that ability to scrutinise and do its job. I'll finish by briefly addressing clause 11 itself. The clause gives the Secretary of State broad powers to amend or restate the airports slot allocation regime.
We recognise that the system may need to respond quickly and genuine emergencies, but these powers must be exercised carefully and must not undermine the independence of the slot allocation process. That is precisely why the parliamentary scrutiny provided by amendments 12 and 13 is so important.
15:23
15:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, chair. With your with your indulgence, may I just very briefly respond to a comment that the Shadow Minister made right at the end of the debate, which I didn't quite on the previous ones. She asked me for a point of clarity. I do appreciate it, chair. Thank you. On her point around materiality and the the effectiveness of use. My understanding is that this was changed in the Lords to ensure that those who can be charged is restricted only to those who use or benefit from the services that are outlined in the charging regime.
This balances the necessary flexibility for the future with safeguarding the sort of internationally established user pays principle, but I'll consult with my officials after proceedings today, and if there's anything remaining that still needs to be clarified, I'll put it to her in writing or update her at the start of the next committee session, if that's if that's to her, to her liking. Moving to amendments 12 and 13, let me thank the shadow Minister for giving the committee an opportunity to consider the appropriate level of scrutiny for regulations relating to airport slots. I'll take both of these amendments together.
The government's position remains that the approach and the bill is both proportionate and appropriately safeguarded. The power is limited to exceptional circumstances where there is a significant threat either to public health or another substantial reason, and can be used only to make temporary changes to slot usage requirements. Applying the affirmative procedure in every case would reduce the government's ability to respond quickly and decisively to major disruption experienced during the pandemic, and indeed, in the past. This past summer has shown that timely intervention can be critical to protecting the operation and resilience of the aviation sector.
And on this basis, I cannot support this amendment. Clause 11 as a whole ensures that the government can continue to maintain and update the UK's airport slot framework. Now that temporary powers put in place following EU exit have expired. Airport slots are a vital mechanism for managing access to capacity constrained airports. They help ensure that scarce airport capacity is allocated in a fair and transparent and efficient way, supporting both connectivity and competition. This clause gives the Secretary of State powers to amend the existing slots regime and, where necessary, to make new secondary legislation to respond to changing industry needs or exceptional circumstances we've seen in recent years through the Covid pandemic and wider international disruption.
The importance of being able to act quickly when unforeseen circumstances affect aviation operations. The clause therefore provides a proportionate domestic framework that allows the government to keep the slots regime effective and up to date, while ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. With the affirmative procedure applying in all but the most urgent of cases. I therefore beg to move that clause 11 stands parts of the bill.
This balances the necessary flexibility for the future with safeguarding the sort of internationally established user pays principle, but I'll consult with my officials after proceedings today, and if there's anything remaining that still needs to be clarified, I'll put it to her in writing or update her at the start of the next committee session, if that's if that's to her, to her liking. Moving to amendments 12 and 13, let me thank the shadow Minister for giving the committee an opportunity to consider the appropriate level of scrutiny for regulations relating to airport slots. I'll take both of these amendments together.
The government's position remains that the approach and the bill is both proportionate and appropriately safeguarded. The power is limited to exceptional circumstances where there is a significant threat either to public health or another substantial reason, and can be used only to make temporary changes to slot usage requirements. Applying the affirmative procedure in every case would reduce the government's ability to respond quickly and decisively to major disruption experienced during the pandemic, and indeed, in the past. This past summer has shown that timely intervention can be critical to protecting the operation and resilience of the aviation sector.
And on this basis, I cannot support this amendment. Clause 11 as a whole ensures that the government can continue to maintain and update the UK's airport slot framework. Now that temporary powers put in place following EU exit have expired. Airport slots are a vital mechanism for managing access to capacity constrained airports. They help ensure that scarce airport capacity is allocated in a fair and transparent and efficient way, supporting both connectivity and competition. This clause gives the Secretary of State powers to amend the existing slots regime and, where necessary, to make new secondary legislation to respond to changing industry needs or exceptional circumstances we've seen in recent years through the Covid pandemic and wider international disruption.
The importance of being able to act quickly when unforeseen circumstances affect aviation operations. The clause therefore provides a proportionate domestic framework that allows the government to keep the slots regime effective and up to date, while ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. With the affirmative procedure applying in all but the most urgent of cases. I therefore beg to move that clause 11 stands parts of the bill.
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:33
15:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The eyes were five. The nos were eight. So the nos have it. The nos have it unlock. We now come to the question that clause 11 stand part of the bill which has already been debated. The question is the clause 11 stand part of the bill. As many of that opinion say, I. I on the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group ten and amendment 14 to clause 12, with which will be convenient to consider. Amendments 15, 19 , 2021, 22, 16, 23, 17 and clause 12 stand part I call Alison Griffiths to move amendment 14.
15:36
Speaker 9
-
Speaker 9
I beg to move. Amendment 14. I shall speak also to amendments 1519, 20, 21, 22, 16, 23 and 17, which have been grouped with it. The Secretary of State should remain at the heart of aviation regulation, providing clear direction and ensuring that the CaaS regulatory framework supports growth, competitiveness and investment. It should be ministers setting that direction and driving the CAA towards those objectives , rather than handing them over extensive rulemaking powers with insufficient democratic accountability. That is why we have tabled amendment 14, to ensure that the government retains the ability to set that direction, rather than sitting on the sidelines as a passive bystander.
I turn to amendment 15. This is an amendment designed to provide clarity and explanation, and to ensure that a smooth and transparent process is followed as a matter of course. It follows directly from the recommendation of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which raised concerns about the extent of the rule making powers being handed to the CAA. We are simply asking the government to explain the principles governing which powers should remain with ministers, and which should be exercised by the regulator. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request. Indeed, when this was debated in the other place, the Minister acknowledged the concerns and promised to consider them carefully.
So I would be interested to hear what became of those assurances and why the government has not seen fit to include this perfectly sensible safeguard in the Bill. I turn next to amendment 19. I am inclined to support this amendment. I think it's entirely sensible that those affected by changes to aviation rules should have a proper opportunity to contribute to the process. That includes our airports, airlines and the wider aviation industry who need clarity and certainty about the regulatory framework in which they operate. Giving businesses greater access to the process and the opportunity to comment on draft rules before they are introduced, can only help them to plan ahead, make investment decisions and ultimately grow and succeed.
We want a regulatory framework that supports a thriving aviation sector, and I think, and I think proper consultation with those who actually have to operate under these rules is an important part of achieving that on amendment 20. I thank I think the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage is rather hedging his bets here. Having tabled two amendments seeking to address the same issue in slightly different ways, we certainly agree with the principle that the CAA should not be able to determine entirely for itself when consultation is unnecessary. However, we think amendment 21 provides a more sensible approach by ensuring that the Secretary of State also has a say in that decision.
Turning to amendment 21, we support this amendment, which I think is a very reasonable measure. The CAA should not be able to operate entirely off its own steam. Deciding for itself when proposed rule changes are sufficiently minor to dispense with the normal consultation process, surely it is right that the Secretary of State should have a role in that decision. And importantly, this amendment does not undermine the ambition of the clause to provide a faster, more responsive rule making process. The fast track procedure would remain available. It would simply require ministers and the CAA to agree that a proposed change is sufficiently minor to justify using it.
That is hardly an onerous requirement. It simply provides an additional safeguard, ensures proper ministerial oversight, and helps prevent the CAA from becoming a law unto itself. I turn next to amendment 22. I think that this is also a perfectly sensible amendment. Signposting provides clarity, and I suspect it would be particularly useful for smaller aviation businesses who may not have the resources to navigate multiple pieces of legislation and regulatory guidance. I know the Shadow Secretary of State has received representations from those involved in gliding and general aviation, and I think it's important that we consider the needs of those smaller operators alongside the major airlines and airports.
Anything that makes the regulatory framework easier to understand and navigate is surely a good thing. This amendment would help ensure that the guidance accompanying the CAA's new rulebook properly signposts related requirements elsewhere in aviation legislation ease, clarity and transparency are principles we are always inclined to support, and for those reasons, we will support this amendment. I turn now to amendment 16, which stands in my name. One of our key concerns throughout consideration of this bill has been the extent to which the CAA is being given increasingly unfettered powers, with insufficient accountability and. Of ministers and indeed to Parliament.
It should always be the case that government should set the direction of aviation policy. With the CAA responsible for delivering within that framework, I struggle to understand why the regulator should have the final say over the priorities and objectives set by the Secretary of State. This amendment, therefore, seeks to tighten that relationship considerably, ensuring that ministers retain the authority to set the direction and can be held accountable to Parliament for the decisions they make. Turning to amendment 23 again, I think this is a very sensible amendment, providing greater clarity about how the CAA rules interact with existing legislation will be particularly helpful for airlines, airports and the wider aviation sector.
Businesses need to understand the regulatory framework in which they operate, and anything that makes that framework clearer and easier to navigate should be welcomed. It appears a straightforward, practical measure that will help aviation businesses comply with their obligations, and we are therefore happy to support it. Finally, I turn to amendment 17, which stands in my name. This amendment seeks to delete a Henry VII's provision from clause 12. We've consistently raised concerns throughout this bill about the extent to which powers are being transferred away from Parliament, and this provision is another example of that. The government is giving the CAA substantial new rulemaking powers, whilst also giving ministers the ability to amend or repeal primary legislation through secondary legislation to facilitate those rules.
I appreciate that the minister in the other place argued that this was necessary to avoid gaps in legislation and ensure a smooth transition, but surely a little admin inconvenience cannot be an excuse for hollowing out parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Acts of Parliament should be amended through proper parliamentary process, and we should be extremely cautious about granting ministers powers to bypass those processes. For those reasons, we have tabled this amendment and will support it. I'll finish by talking briefly to clause 12 itself. We recognise the need for aviation rules to be updated efficiently and to keep pace with changing international standards.
However, clause 12 transfers substantial rule making powers to the CAA, and those powers must be accompanied by proper ministerial accountability and parliamentary oversight. That is why the safeguards contained in our amendments are so important.
I turn to amendment 15. This is an amendment designed to provide clarity and explanation, and to ensure that a smooth and transparent process is followed as a matter of course. It follows directly from the recommendation of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which raised concerns about the extent of the rule making powers being handed to the CAA. We are simply asking the government to explain the principles governing which powers should remain with ministers, and which should be exercised by the regulator. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request. Indeed, when this was debated in the other place, the Minister acknowledged the concerns and promised to consider them carefully.
So I would be interested to hear what became of those assurances and why the government has not seen fit to include this perfectly sensible safeguard in the Bill. I turn next to amendment 19. I am inclined to support this amendment. I think it's entirely sensible that those affected by changes to aviation rules should have a proper opportunity to contribute to the process. That includes our airports, airlines and the wider aviation industry who need clarity and certainty about the regulatory framework in which they operate. Giving businesses greater access to the process and the opportunity to comment on draft rules before they are introduced, can only help them to plan ahead, make investment decisions and ultimately grow and succeed.
We want a regulatory framework that supports a thriving aviation sector, and I think, and I think proper consultation with those who actually have to operate under these rules is an important part of achieving that on amendment 20. I thank I think the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage is rather hedging his bets here. Having tabled two amendments seeking to address the same issue in slightly different ways, we certainly agree with the principle that the CAA should not be able to determine entirely for itself when consultation is unnecessary. However, we think amendment 21 provides a more sensible approach by ensuring that the Secretary of State also has a say in that decision.
Turning to amendment 21, we support this amendment, which I think is a very reasonable measure. The CAA should not be able to operate entirely off its own steam. Deciding for itself when proposed rule changes are sufficiently minor to dispense with the normal consultation process, surely it is right that the Secretary of State should have a role in that decision. And importantly, this amendment does not undermine the ambition of the clause to provide a faster, more responsive rule making process. The fast track procedure would remain available. It would simply require ministers and the CAA to agree that a proposed change is sufficiently minor to justify using it.
That is hardly an onerous requirement. It simply provides an additional safeguard, ensures proper ministerial oversight, and helps prevent the CAA from becoming a law unto itself. I turn next to amendment 22. I think that this is also a perfectly sensible amendment. Signposting provides clarity, and I suspect it would be particularly useful for smaller aviation businesses who may not have the resources to navigate multiple pieces of legislation and regulatory guidance. I know the Shadow Secretary of State has received representations from those involved in gliding and general aviation, and I think it's important that we consider the needs of those smaller operators alongside the major airlines and airports.
Anything that makes the regulatory framework easier to understand and navigate is surely a good thing. This amendment would help ensure that the guidance accompanying the CAA's new rulebook properly signposts related requirements elsewhere in aviation legislation ease, clarity and transparency are principles we are always inclined to support, and for those reasons, we will support this amendment. I turn now to amendment 16, which stands in my name. One of our key concerns throughout consideration of this bill has been the extent to which the CAA is being given increasingly unfettered powers, with insufficient accountability and. Of ministers and indeed to Parliament.
It should always be the case that government should set the direction of aviation policy. With the CAA responsible for delivering within that framework, I struggle to understand why the regulator should have the final say over the priorities and objectives set by the Secretary of State. This amendment, therefore, seeks to tighten that relationship considerably, ensuring that ministers retain the authority to set the direction and can be held accountable to Parliament for the decisions they make. Turning to amendment 23 again, I think this is a very sensible amendment, providing greater clarity about how the CAA rules interact with existing legislation will be particularly helpful for airlines, airports and the wider aviation sector.
Businesses need to understand the regulatory framework in which they operate, and anything that makes that framework clearer and easier to navigate should be welcomed. It appears a straightforward, practical measure that will help aviation businesses comply with their obligations, and we are therefore happy to support it. Finally, I turn to amendment 17, which stands in my name. This amendment seeks to delete a Henry VII's provision from clause 12. We've consistently raised concerns throughout this bill about the extent to which powers are being transferred away from Parliament, and this provision is another example of that. The government is giving the CAA substantial new rulemaking powers, whilst also giving ministers the ability to amend or repeal primary legislation through secondary legislation to facilitate those rules.
I appreciate that the minister in the other place argued that this was necessary to avoid gaps in legislation and ensure a smooth transition, but surely a little admin inconvenience cannot be an excuse for hollowing out parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Acts of Parliament should be amended through proper parliamentary process, and we should be extremely cautious about granting ministers powers to bypass those processes. For those reasons, we have tabled this amendment and will support it. I'll finish by talking briefly to clause 12 itself. We recognise the need for aviation rules to be updated efficiently and to keep pace with changing international standards.
However, clause 12 transfers substantial rule making powers to the CAA, and those powers must be accompanied by proper ministerial accountability and parliamentary oversight. That is why the safeguards contained in our amendments are so important.
15:55
15:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair. And it feels like we're back in the Railways bill, with such a chunky group of amendments to work through, and I thank the. Well, my whip would be very pleased to know that we're back in the Railways Bill, given his penchant for that particular mode. But let me thank the shadow Minister for her amendments. The committee will recognise that the first proposal Amendment, amendment 14, returns to an issue considered during the bill's passage in the other place, whether aviation safety rules should be made ultimately by the Secretary of State rather than the CAA.
The government's position on this matter does remain clear. The amendment would prevent the delegation of technical rule making to the CAA, which is a central purpose of the Bill. Under the existing process, the UK risks falling behind in its international safety obligations, entrusting detailed rule making to the specialist regulator addresses that risk by enabling our aviation safety framework to respond more quickly to evolving international standards, emerging evidence and challenges across the industry. That does not mean transferring policy control without constraints. The bill contains robust safeguards to preserve ministerial oversight and accountability. Ministers will set the CAA strategic priorities.
The Secretary of State may direct how the CAA exercises its rulemaking functions, and the government may reserve specified Therefore combines regulatory expertise with clear parliamentary scrutiny and control. The House should also note that the government strengthened parliamentary scrutiny of the new framework during the bill's passage in the other . Implementing the associated recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Importantly, that Committee recognised the case for a quicker, more responsive and regulator led approach, replacing that carefully balanced model with regulations made by the Secretary of State would recreate the very constraints that this bill is intended to overcome.
For those reasons, the amendment, in our view, would not strengthen the framework. Instead, it would make it less agile and duplicate powers already available to the Secretary of State, and I therefore believe that it should not be adopted. The next amendment from the shadow Minister seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish principles for exceptions to the cars delegated rule making power. I would like to draw the lady's attention to section 61 F on page 15 of the bill. Following recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place, my honourable friend, my noble friend the Minister for rail, tabled amendments that now form part of the Bill.
These require the Secretary of State to consider certain principles when deciding which matters should remain reserved to the Department. Those principles cover matters such as national security, the wider public interests and the interests of passengers, including those without, with accessibility needs as set out in new section 61 F. These are the very principles that will inform the use of the reserving power, as recommended by the Committee and as such, a statement . Setting out these principles is a tough word, duplicative and unnecessary. I trust this reassures the honourable lady and she withdraws her amendment. Turning to amendment 19, May I thank the honourable member for Sutton and Cheam for his amendment.
The government agrees that those affected by aviation rules should have appropriate opportunities to provide their views. However, I cannot support an amendment that would prescribe in legislation exactly how the CAA must consult before making their rules. The Bill already requires the CAA to consult such persons as it considers appropriate before exercising its rulemaking powers. This ensures stakeholders views are considered , whilst allowing the CAA flexibility to design consultation and engagement that is proportionate to the issue under consideration, requiring consultation to take place on draft rules in every case and proscribing particular groups for consideration would reduce that flexibility.
In practice, the CAA may need to engage with stakeholders at different stages of policy development depending on the nature, complexity and urgency of the proposal at hand, and more prescriptive process could lead to duplication of engagement. Impose additional procedural requirements where they add little value and slow the delivery of rule changes that would run counter to one of the central objectives of the bill to enable aviation rules to be updated more efficiently, whilst maintaining appropriate consultation and accountability. And for those reasons, I would ask the honourable member to withdraw his amendments. Turning next to amendment 20, the honourable member for Sutton and Cheam amendment 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 where it considers that a proposed provision is sufficiently minor that consultation would be unnecessary to give that point.
The government's position on this matter does remain clear. The amendment would prevent the delegation of technical rule making to the CAA, which is a central purpose of the Bill. Under the existing process, the UK risks falling behind in its international safety obligations, entrusting detailed rule making to the specialist regulator addresses that risk by enabling our aviation safety framework to respond more quickly to evolving international standards, emerging evidence and challenges across the industry. That does not mean transferring policy control without constraints. The bill contains robust safeguards to preserve ministerial oversight and accountability. Ministers will set the CAA strategic priorities.
The Secretary of State may direct how the CAA exercises its rulemaking functions, and the government may reserve specified Therefore combines regulatory expertise with clear parliamentary scrutiny and control. The House should also note that the government strengthened parliamentary scrutiny of the new framework during the bill's passage in the other . Implementing the associated recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Importantly, that Committee recognised the case for a quicker, more responsive and regulator led approach, replacing that carefully balanced model with regulations made by the Secretary of State would recreate the very constraints that this bill is intended to overcome.
For those reasons, the amendment, in our view, would not strengthen the framework. Instead, it would make it less agile and duplicate powers already available to the Secretary of State, and I therefore believe that it should not be adopted. The next amendment from the shadow Minister seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish principles for exceptions to the cars delegated rule making power. I would like to draw the lady's attention to section 61 F on page 15 of the bill. Following recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place, my honourable friend, my noble friend the Minister for rail, tabled amendments that now form part of the Bill.
These require the Secretary of State to consider certain principles when deciding which matters should remain reserved to the Department. Those principles cover matters such as national security, the wider public interests and the interests of passengers, including those without, with accessibility needs as set out in new section 61 F. These are the very principles that will inform the use of the reserving power, as recommended by the Committee and as such, a statement . Setting out these principles is a tough word, duplicative and unnecessary. I trust this reassures the honourable lady and she withdraws her amendment. Turning to amendment 19, May I thank the honourable member for Sutton and Cheam for his amendment.
The government agrees that those affected by aviation rules should have appropriate opportunities to provide their views. However, I cannot support an amendment that would prescribe in legislation exactly how the CAA must consult before making their rules. The Bill already requires the CAA to consult such persons as it considers appropriate before exercising its rulemaking powers. This ensures stakeholders views are considered , whilst allowing the CAA flexibility to design consultation and engagement that is proportionate to the issue under consideration, requiring consultation to take place on draft rules in every case and proscribing particular groups for consideration would reduce that flexibility.
In practice, the CAA may need to engage with stakeholders at different stages of policy development depending on the nature, complexity and urgency of the proposal at hand, and more prescriptive process could lead to duplication of engagement. Impose additional procedural requirements where they add little value and slow the delivery of rule changes that would run counter to one of the central objectives of the bill to enable aviation rules to be updated more efficiently, whilst maintaining appropriate consultation and accountability. And for those reasons, I would ask the honourable member to withdraw his amendments. Turning next to amendment 20, the honourable member for Sutton and Cheam amendment 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 where it considers that a proposed provision is sufficiently minor that consultation would be unnecessary to give that point.
16:05
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Just to clarify, I thank the Minister for giving way. 21 and 20 are alternative approaches to to a safeguard, as the Shadow Minister has observed, and I think our preferred amendment would be. 21 because that gives that oversight back to the Secretary of State. Just to confirm that that minor classification is is appropriate. So preferred amendment 21, hopefully persuade the government to accept an amendment. 20 obviously can be superseded if that's the case.
16:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I thank him for that clarification. And on that basis, I think I'll turn to a substantive challenge that we have with amendment 21, and that pertains to the fact that the decision about whether a proposed rule change is sufficiently minor to justify the use of the fast track procedure, we believe, is primarily a technical regulatory judgment. And the CAA is the independent aviation safety regulator and is therefore best placed to assess the significance of proposed changes within that wider aviation safety framework requiring ministerial agreement for every minor technical amendment we feel could risk introducing additional administrative steps which could delay routine updates without materially improving scrutiny or outcomes.
Yeah, I'm glad to give way.
Yeah, I'm glad to give way.
16:08
16:08
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
And I thank the Minister for giving way again on that point. I do think that it's worth clearly defining the CAS role to deliver a, this safety and process improvements, and obviously it's down to the minister and the government to drive the direction on which they want to take. Is there a risk there for that when something may be considered minor by the regulator? Who is operating within the status quo, is unable to consider the direction the government might want to take, for example, in prioritising impact on drone operators, impact on new technologies, impact on innovation and therefore having the ability to need to agree the point at which, whether a particular innovation or approach would be, would be able to be fast tracked, or where there should be a full consultation or full approach taken.
I think it just gives the government and the minister himself more, more opportunity to direct. And so that was why this would seem to be a logical prime Minister.
I think it just gives the government and the minister himself more, more opportunity to direct. And so that was why this would seem to be a logical prime Minister.
16:10
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I thank him for that intervention, and I do think it's a point well made. And he also pays note to the fact that as our aviation sector evolves, especially as it relates to things like drone and beyond visual line of sight technology, we may want to have a more hands on approach in determining what does or does not constitute significant change when a lot of these technologies, when they first appear, might appear as though they are not going to reach fruition and maturity for some time, and then quickly become very consequential to how our airspace develops.
I suppose what I would say is that the ministers are responsible , ultimately for setting the CEA strategic priority. The the Secretary of State, of course, has that direction power for the CAA and can reserve particular functions on that basis. I think at present the amendments aren't necessary, given the suite of ministerial powers that are available, to think about where those more nuanced circumstances might be. But that is a conversation that I'll happily pick up with the honourable member outside of this committee to to consider further, I do want to turn to amendment 22, which seeks to make explicit that guidance on the publication of CAA rules may provide for signposting to related requirements in air navigation orders and other legislation, and I understand the intention behind the amendment.
It's important that those who are subject to aviation safety requirements are able to understand how the CAA rules interact with requirements elsewhere in the legislative framework. However, I do feel that this amendment is unnecessary. Section 61 G already gives the Secretary of State the ability to issue guidance about the publication of CAA rules, and in my view, it's unnecessary to be more specific. But perhaps we ought to have a conversation about what more routine processes we can build in to better consider when guidance should be provided in a more timely way to make sure that those smaller operators, which the shadow Minister spoke of, have access to the guidance that 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 this particular approach. On the face of the Bill, we therefore consider that these matters are better addressed in that flexible way through the guidance under section 61 G. Turning to amendment 16, brought forward by the Shadow Minister, it 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 this matter remains clear. The CAA is the UK's independent aviation safety regulator, and its technical experts will be responsible for turning those priorities that are 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. Removing that safeguard, in our view, 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. But nor does it give the CAA a veto over government policy. The Secretary of State does have the power to direct the CAA in its rulemaking, and retains powers to resolve matters from the CaaS rulemaking functions and to legislate directly where appropriate.
For these reasons, we believe that the amendment would remove a necessary safeguard without necessarily strengthening ministerial authority. And on that basis, I would ask the honourable lady to withdraw it. Turning to the next amendment tabled by the Honourable member for Sutton and Cheam, amendment 23, which would require the CAA to maintain on its website an up to date consolidated version of the whole of the text of the CAA's rules. I agree that aviation rules must be clear and they must be accessible. All CAA rules will be published and will remain available and accessible. The question is whether the CAA should be under a legal duty to keep that rule book continuously consolidated.
We do not personally consider such a duty to be necessary. The CAA rule book will contain many thousands of provisions, and it's important for the CAA to have flexibility in how it develops, prepares and maintains that consolidated version of its rules, which it then publishes. If the CAA is required to fully consolidate the rule book after every change, it would be required to ensure that the whole consolidated rule book is updated, even where a change affects only a small number of provisions. It would also prevent, for instance, CAA undertaking consolidation exercises at more appropriate and proportional intervals than every instance where it would be required to.
Under these provisions, this could impose an. Our view. Disproportionate disproportionate costs and delay frustrating the bill's purpose of enabling the CEA to maintain a more agile rule making framework. I promise I'm making good progress through my response to these amendments, and I will turn next to amendment 17, which returns to the provision that enables consequential amendments to be made in connection with CAA rules. The need for that power is, in our view, practical and unavoidable. As responsibility for safety rulemaking 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 this, the provisions may become unworkable and result in significant legal uncertainty. This is not a broad or unconstrained power. It may be used only to make secondary legislation needed to facilitate or give effect to the CAA rulemaking function. Powers of this kind are a well established feature of primary legislation, where they are necessary to manage an orderly transition to a new statutory regime. Removing the permission. The provision would therefore not provide an additional safeguard. It would instead risk leaving gaps in the legislative framework and prevent the transition to CAA rule making from operating effectively.
Finally, chair, turning to clause 12 itself, clause 12 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. This will allow detailed and technical aviation safety requirements to be updated more quickly and efficiently, helping the United Kingdom 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 wider public interest arise.
Importantly, the framework also includes robust safeguards. This includes the power for the Secretary of State to direct the CAA. With regard to rulemaking, the CAA will in most situations be required to consult before making rules, publish them transparently and report annually on the use of its powers. The Secretary of State will also set strategic priorities for the rulemaking, and may direct how those functions are exercised, whilst not being able to dictate the content of individual rules. It gives Parliament a clearer and more joined up view of safety rulemaking, replacing today's fragmented approach, and together these provisions create a more agile system for updating aviation safety requirements whilst maintaining clear accountability and oversight, and I therefore commend this clause to the committee.
I suppose what I would say is that the ministers are responsible , ultimately for setting the CEA strategic priority. The the Secretary of State, of course, has that direction power for the CAA and can reserve particular functions on that basis. I think at present the amendments aren't necessary, given the suite of ministerial powers that are available, to think about where those more nuanced circumstances might be. But that is a conversation that I'll happily pick up with the honourable member outside of this committee to to consider further, I do want to turn to amendment 22, which seeks to make explicit that guidance on the publication of CAA rules may provide for signposting to related requirements in air navigation orders and other legislation, and I understand the intention behind the amendment.
It's important that those who are subject to aviation safety requirements are able to understand how the CAA rules interact with requirements elsewhere in the legislative framework. However, I do feel that this amendment is unnecessary. Section 61 G already gives the Secretary of State the ability to issue guidance about the publication of CAA rules, and in my view, it's unnecessary to be more specific. But perhaps we ought to have a conversation about what more routine processes we can build in to better consider when guidance should be provided in a more timely way to make sure that those smaller operators, which the shadow Minister spoke of, have access to the guidance that 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 this particular approach. On the face of the Bill, we therefore consider that these matters are better addressed in that flexible way through the guidance under section 61 G. Turning to amendment 16, brought forward by the Shadow Minister, it 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 this matter remains clear. The CAA is the UK's independent aviation safety regulator, and its technical experts will be responsible for turning those priorities that are 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. Removing that safeguard, in our view, 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. But nor does it give the CAA a veto over government policy. The Secretary of State does have the power to direct the CAA in its rulemaking, and retains powers to resolve matters from the CaaS rulemaking functions and to legislate directly where appropriate.
For these reasons, we believe that the amendment would remove a necessary safeguard without necessarily strengthening ministerial authority. And on that basis, I would ask the honourable lady to withdraw it. Turning to the next amendment tabled by the Honourable member for Sutton and Cheam, amendment 23, which would require the CAA to maintain on its website an up to date consolidated version of the whole of the text of the CAA's rules. I agree that aviation rules must be clear and they must be accessible. All CAA rules will be published and will remain available and accessible. The question is whether the CAA should be under a legal duty to keep that rule book continuously consolidated.
We do not personally consider such a duty to be necessary. The CAA rule book will contain many thousands of provisions, and it's important for the CAA to have flexibility in how it develops, prepares and maintains that consolidated version of its rules, which it then publishes. If the CAA is required to fully consolidate the rule book after every change, it would be required to ensure that the whole consolidated rule book is updated, even where a change affects only a small number of provisions. It would also prevent, for instance, CAA undertaking consolidation exercises at more appropriate and proportional intervals than every instance where it would be required to.
Under these provisions, this could impose an. Our view. Disproportionate disproportionate costs and delay frustrating the bill's purpose of enabling the CEA to maintain a more agile rule making framework. I promise I'm making good progress through my response to these amendments, and I will turn next to amendment 17, which returns to the provision that enables consequential amendments to be made in connection with CAA rules. The need for that power is, in our view, practical and unavoidable. As responsibility for safety rulemaking 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 this, the provisions may become unworkable and result in significant legal uncertainty. This is not a broad or unconstrained power. It may be used only to make secondary legislation needed to facilitate or give effect to the CAA rulemaking function. Powers of this kind are a well established feature of primary legislation, where they are necessary to manage an orderly transition to a new statutory regime. Removing the permission. The provision would therefore not provide an additional safeguard. It would instead risk leaving gaps in the legislative framework and prevent the transition to CAA rule making from operating effectively.
Finally, chair, turning to clause 12 itself, clause 12 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. This will allow detailed and technical aviation safety requirements to be updated more quickly and efficiently, helping the United Kingdom 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 wider public interest arise.
Importantly, the framework also includes robust safeguards. This includes the power for the Secretary of State to direct the CAA. With regard to rulemaking, the CAA will in most situations be required to consult before making rules, publish them transparently and report annually on the use of its powers. The Secretary of State will also set strategic priorities for the rulemaking, and may direct how those functions are exercised, whilst not being able to dictate the content of individual rules. It gives Parliament a clearer and more joined up view of safety rulemaking, replacing today's fragmented approach, and together these provisions create a more agile system for updating aviation safety requirements whilst maintaining clear accountability and oversight, and I therefore commend this clause to the committee.
16:25
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:26
16:27
16:27
16:27
16:27
16:27
16:29
16:30
16:50
16:51
16:51
16:51
16:51
16:51
16:52
16:52
16:52
16:52
16:52
16:52
16:53
16:53
16:53
16:53
16:54
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
The eyes were three. The nose were nine. So the nose. Have it. The nose. Have it unlock. I call. It will be Alison Griffiths to move amendment nine. Oh, it's 21. Okay. Luke Taylor to move amendment 21. Cheers. Amendment 21 proposed to clause 12 as on the amendment paper. The question is that the amendment be made as many of that opinion say I.
I to the contrary, no.
I to the contrary, no.
16:55
16:55
16:56
16:56
16:56
16:57
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:58
16:59
16:59
17:00
17:00
17:00
17:00
17:00
17:01
17:01
17:01
17:01
17:01
17:01
17:01
17:01
17:01
17:01
17:02
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
The eyes were for the nose were nine. So the nose habit. The nose. Have it unlock. We now come to the question. That clause 12 stand part of the bill which has already been debated. The question is the clause 12 stand part of the Bill. As many of that opinion say, I. I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group 11, and the question that clause 13 stand part with which will be convenient to consider. Clauses 14 to 16 stand part. The government amendment four and clause 17 stand part.
The question is that clause 13 stand part of the bill. Minister.
The question is that clause 13 stand part of the bill. Minister.
17:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair. And with apologies to the Committee for continuing my grand oration, I'm going to speak to all of these clauses and the government amendment in my name. Clause 13 restores powers lost following EU exit to create and amend criminal offences relating to aviation safety requirements in assimilated law. It closes a gap in the current framework by allowing air navigation orders to provide for offences relating to breaches of those requirements in assimilated law, helping to ensure they can be enforced effectively. The clause also updates the power in respect of endangerment offences to ensure the most serious aviation safety risks are treated appropriately.
Importantly, it does not create any new offences itself. Any future use of the power would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Turning to clause 14, it provides a standard, consequential amendment power to ensure that legislation operates effectively. Following the changes made by this bill. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to update, amend or remove references and provisions elsewhere in the statute book, whether where this is necessary. As a consequence of the bill, the power is limited to consequential , supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving changes and cannot be used to make policy changes. Any regulations made under this power must be made by statutory instrument.
Where such regulations amend or repeal provisions in primary legislation, they will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. In all other cases, the regulations will be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament. This clause provides the necessary flexibility to ensure the legislative framework remains clear and consistent, while maintaining appropriate parliamentary oversight. Clause 15 is a standard provision which sets out the extent of the bill's measures. Clause 16 contains provisions relating to the commencement of bill measures. This includes a standard power for the Secretary of State to bring provisions of the Bill into force by commencement regulations, leaving provisions in the Bill to be brought into force by regulations will afford the necessary flexibility to commence the provisions of the Bill at the appropriate time, having regard to the need to make any necessary secondary legislation, issue guidance, undertake appropriate training and put the necessary systems and procedures in place as the case may be.
Turning next to Government Amendment four, this covers a procedural matter. It removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords, currently at clause 17, subsection two of this bill. This privilege amendment and its removal here is standard procedure for all bills that originate in the other place, and I beg to move that amendment in my name. Clause 17 sets out the short title, the name by which an Act of Parliament is commonly known and cited.
And with that chair, I beg to move all of the clauses in my name.
Importantly, it does not create any new offences itself. Any future use of the power would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Turning to clause 14, it provides a standard, consequential amendment power to ensure that legislation operates effectively. Following the changes made by this bill. The clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to update, amend or remove references and provisions elsewhere in the statute book, whether where this is necessary. As a consequence of the bill, the power is limited to consequential , supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving changes and cannot be used to make policy changes. Any regulations made under this power must be made by statutory instrument.
Where such regulations amend or repeal provisions in primary legislation, they will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. In all other cases, the regulations will be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament. This clause provides the necessary flexibility to ensure the legislative framework remains clear and consistent, while maintaining appropriate parliamentary oversight. Clause 15 is a standard provision which sets out the extent of the bill's measures. Clause 16 contains provisions relating to the commencement of bill measures. This includes a standard power for the Secretary of State to bring provisions of the Bill into force by commencement regulations, leaving provisions in the Bill to be brought into force by regulations will afford the necessary flexibility to commence the provisions of the Bill at the appropriate time, having regard to the need to make any necessary secondary legislation, issue guidance, undertake appropriate training and put the necessary systems and procedures in place as the case may be.
Turning next to Government Amendment four, this covers a procedural matter. It removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords, currently at clause 17, subsection two of this bill. This privilege amendment and its removal here is standard procedure for all bills that originate in the other place, and I beg to move that amendment in my name. Clause 17 sets out the short title, the name by which an Act of Parliament is commonly known and cited.
And with that chair, I beg to move all of the clauses in my name.
17:09
17:09
17:09
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you, chair. I'll briefly address clauses 13 and 14. Clauses 15 and 16 are technical , and even by the exacting standards of opposition scrutiny, it would be a little harsh to take issue with clause 17, which simply gives the Bill its name. So I shall leave those clauses alone. Clause 13 widens the circumstances in which air navigation orders may create, amend or repeal criminal offences connected with aviation safety requirements. I'd be grateful if the minister could explain how these powers are expected to be used, and what parliamentary scrutiny will apply. Clause 14 gives the Secretary of State the power to make consequential provision arising from the Bill, including the power to amend or repeal primary legislation.
The government's own memorandum says that it has identified all the changes to primary legislation that it believes are necessary, and has included them in the bill. It also says that the power is being retained in case something important has been missed. I would therefore be interested to hear in what circumstances the minister expects this power to be used.
The government's own memorandum says that it has identified all the changes to primary legislation that it believes are necessary, and has included them in the bill. It also says that the power is being retained in case something important has been missed. I would therefore be interested to hear in what circumstances the minister expects this power to be used.
17:12
17:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank the Shadow Minister for her questions in relation to when I would expect the power to be used. I'm afraid I won't be drawn into commenting on hypothetical situations where it might be appropriate, but I can reassure her that this legislation is designed to allow the bill to operate effectively. It only is limited, it's consequential, and it only affects legislation which doesn't have a primary application. In that sense, it is both proportionate and technical in ensuring its application of the Bill. In regards to clause 13, it only pertains to restoring powers that have been lost following EU exit to both create and amend those criminal offences.
And in that sense, it's closing a gap in the current framework by closing the the the gap that relates to offences relating to breaches for those requirements in assimilated law. It doesn't create any new offences in itself. Any future use of the power would be subject to robust parliamentary scrutiny, and therefore, I believe that there are appropriate safeguards in place. It's addressing the powers gap issue that is only caused by our exit from the European Union, and therefore, I commend the clauses to the committee and would be happy to provide her with any other information that she might require.
And in that sense, it's closing a gap in the current framework by closing the the the gap that relates to offences relating to breaches for those requirements in assimilated law. It doesn't create any new offences in itself. Any future use of the power would be subject to robust parliamentary scrutiny, and therefore, I believe that there are appropriate safeguards in place. It's addressing the powers gap issue that is only caused by our exit from the European Union, and therefore, I commend the clauses to the committee and would be happy to provide her with any other information that she might require.
17:14
17:14
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
The question is that clause 13 stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion say, I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group 12, a new clause one new clause one was tabled by John Mill, who was not on the committee. Does anyone wish to move? Yes. Luke Taylor.
17:15
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
, thank you chair. And it's worth noting and thanking the Minister for the meetings held with some friends to discuss the new clause. I think there's still some concerns and still some issues that we'd like to address. And to our representative on behalf of his constituents. So therefore planning to move this here. So just to be very clear that the Liberal Democrats and the member do support airspace modernisation, communities across the country do support it, too. But modernisation only works if people trust the process that deliver it. So at the moment, there is a risk that that trust is missing and 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 by then, unfortunately, and having spent time in the aviation industry myself, I know full well that quite often the choices have not necessarily been made, but the direction and the likely outcomes have been narrowed down to what is feasible. And often there's not a huge amount between many of those options. The new cap 1616 update in force since the 1st of October makes that feedback and makes that collection of consultation input much more difficult. Still, residents affected by proposed changes are not included in the early stakeholder reference groups.
Locally agreed design principles have been replaced by national priorities. The sponsor decides who is consulted and how, and the gateway is in the process have fallen from 3 to 1 with post-implementation reviews removed. And whilst we do understand the need to speed up the process, it is is our view and we feel that this has tilted too far to expedition or expediting the process rather than allowing communities meaningful feedback. So before, during and after a proposal, there is no accessible independent route for a community to be heard. The only challenge available after decision is after decision is made is judicial review, and that's not a realistic option for a village or a residents association or a group of residents wanting to bring their points forward.
Now, some will say an independent review function already exists and it was barely used, but the CAA scrapped it. And this amendment 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 the problems are caught before decisions are made, rather than fighting them afterwards. The government has given conflicting signals on whether the Public Service Ombudsman can deal with regulatory decisions and a written answer in the other place. That said, it cannot, and at second reading the minister suggested it could.
So I asked the minister three questions if he's able to respond today, were the so route and the first tier tribunal route examined, and if not, why not? And why is aviation excluded from that tribunal? And finally, how in practice does the government plan to ensure that communities are included throughout the process and that their voices can truly be heard when considering give way? Briefly. Yes, I'm very grateful. My only question. I can understand entirely what the honourable gentleman member for Sutton and Cheam is seeking to do, or his colleagues in moving the new clause are seeking to do with this, but can I just ask what assessment has he or have his colleagues made of what the financial implications on a per annum basis would be of setting up this new route?
It's very good question, and I think that the principle there would be shifted on to the government. Say what what assessment of the cost, because the cost was used as a reason to push back on this. However, that cost did not appear to have been calculated as a figure. Therefore, if the cost is unknown, I suggest that that weakens the argument slightly that the cost is excessive. I do think that there will be a trade off, obviously between the cost, the delay, the additional time taken to deliver these changes with the ability of communities to meaningfully feed back.
And ultimately, it is about taking communities with us because, as we've said a number of times today and a different colleagues have made the point at different stages. We have to take communities with us along these changes that we're making to airspace, to flight paths, to approach and departure routes so that everybody can feel like their input is being considered and that we don't then lose that public consent and that that engagement with the process so that in future consultations, people are still encouraged to apply and to feedback. So I'd be interested in the minister's responses to to those three questions.
Thank you.
At the beginning of the process, communities are asked for their views only once a draft design exists, and by then, unfortunately, and having spent time in the aviation industry myself, I know full well that quite often the choices have not necessarily been made, but the direction and the likely outcomes have been narrowed down to what is feasible. And often there's not a huge amount between many of those options. The new cap 1616 update in force since the 1st of October makes that feedback and makes that collection of consultation input much more difficult. Still, residents affected by proposed changes are not included in the early stakeholder reference groups.
Locally agreed design principles have been replaced by national priorities. The sponsor decides who is consulted and how, and the gateway is in the process have fallen from 3 to 1 with post-implementation reviews removed. And whilst we do understand the need to speed up the process, it is is our view and we feel that this has tilted too far to expedition or expediting the process rather than allowing communities meaningful feedback. So before, during and after a proposal, there is no accessible independent route for a community to be heard. The only challenge available after decision is after decision is made is judicial review, and that's not a realistic option for a village or a residents association or a group of residents wanting to bring their points forward.
Now, some will say an independent review function already exists and it was barely used, but the CAA scrapped it. And this amendment 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 the problems are caught before decisions are made, rather than fighting them afterwards. The government has given conflicting signals on whether the Public Service Ombudsman can deal with regulatory decisions and a written answer in the other place. That said, it cannot, and at second reading the minister suggested it could.
So I asked the minister three questions if he's able to respond today, were the so route and the first tier tribunal route examined, and if not, why not? And why is aviation excluded from that tribunal? And finally, how in practice does the government plan to ensure that communities are included throughout the process and that their voices can truly be heard when considering give way? Briefly. Yes, I'm very grateful. My only question. I can understand entirely what the honourable gentleman member for Sutton and Cheam is seeking to do, or his colleagues in moving the new clause are seeking to do with this, but can I just ask what assessment has he or have his colleagues made of what the financial implications on a per annum basis would be of setting up this new route?
It's very good question, and I think that the principle there would be shifted on to the government. Say what what assessment of the cost, because the cost was used as a reason to push back on this. However, that cost did not appear to have been calculated as a figure. Therefore, if the cost is unknown, I suggest that that weakens the argument slightly that the cost is excessive. I do think that there will be a trade off, obviously between the cost, the delay, the additional time taken to deliver these changes with the ability of communities to meaningfully feed back.
And ultimately, it is about taking communities with us because, as we've said a number of times today and a different colleagues have made the point at different stages. We have to take communities with us along these changes that we're making to airspace, to flight paths, to approach and departure routes so that everybody can feel like their input is being considered and that we don't then lose that public consent and that that engagement with the process so that in future consultations, people are still encouraged to apply and to feedback. So I'd be interested in the minister's responses to to those three questions.
Thank you.
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair, and may I thank the member for Horsham for tabling new clause one. The government agrees that passengers and communities should have access to effective complaints and redress, but I don't believe that the case has been fully made for a new aviation ombudsman. I have had productive conversations with the honourable member for Horsham, and although I understand that the honourable member for Sutton and Cheam is raising this issue, in order for us to tease out some of those those difficulties, I hope I can address them to an extent today. And whatever I can, I can set out in writing to the honourable member.
The government does agree that passengers and communities should have effective access to complaints and redress, but I don't believe currently there is a clear enough evidence of gap of gaps in the current system. CAA decisions are already subject to a range of established complaints, review and appeal routes. This includes the CAA's internal complaints process, the Independent Complaints Assessor, the Public Service Ombudsman, judicial review and specific statutory appeals. So I do take on board two points made by the honourable member that judicial review is a process which lots of community groups and individuals would obviously find it extremely hard to access.
I also take his point around CAA accountability and the removal of accountability mechanisms because they weren't adequately used. That is, of course, not a reason why we shouldn't seek to enhance accountability of the stages in the process. Airlines, of course, also participate in approved alternative dispute resolution schemes. For many passenger complaints, the proposed ombudsman would therefore largely duplicate some of those existing mechanisms. In addition, the proposed remit goes beyond the role normally performed by an ombudsman. While remits may vary, an ombudsman would not ordinarily revisit the merits of a regulatory decision that has been lawfully taken in accordance with the statutory framework.
However, this amendment would allow the Ombudsman to examine CAA regulatory decisions and issue binding determinations, potentially requiring decisions reached through the proper statutory processes to be reconsidered. In practice, this could reopen matters that have already been subject to consultation, evidence based assessments and regulatory scrutiny. Where there are concerns about a decision, established routes already exist to challenge it. A further statutory body would also add cost, complexity and delay with little clear benefits. Additional layers of review could slow important regulatory decisions, including airspace modernisation, while overlapping routes could leave consumers uncertain about where to take a complaint.
Binding court enforceable determinations could also make the process more legalistic, adversarial and expensive. There are also practical concerns the amendment appears to give individuals and community groups an additional routes to challenge a decision without providing an equivalent route to other effective parties, and that asymmetry could undermine confidence in the fairness and finality of the decision making process. The proposed levy could also fall unevenly if charges could not be recovered as effectively from overseas operators. A greater share might fall on UK operators, including smaller airports, regional carriers and general aviation. The precise distribution would depend on the funding model, but the amendment does not resolve that risk.
For these reasons, the government considers the amendment unnecessary, but I would say that I am sympathetic with the intentions of the honourable member for Horsham for seeking to ensure that his constituents are adequately consulted throughout this process. I believe that Liberal Democrat representatives have rightly acknowledged the fact that we do want to make progress quickly on airspace modernisation to deliver those benefits, including reductions in noise impacts for local communities. The worry that I have in relation to the specific proposal is that it could be used to reopen considerations when decisions have been taken, and the regulator's purpose is to judge whether a process has been taken, has been conducted correctly, rather than opining on whether the right decision has been made.
As I know, the honourable member understands, but I'm happy to discuss when where we can go further. Just finally, in relation to the specific points he raises on SOEs. I believe in being honest throughout the Bill committee process. I cannot remember specifically off the top of my head what the answer is to the honourable member. I've committed to write to the member for Horsham on the same subject, and I will write to him in due course.
But for those reasons, I would urge the honourable member to withdraw his amendment.
The government does agree that passengers and communities should have effective access to complaints and redress, but I don't believe currently there is a clear enough evidence of gap of gaps in the current system. CAA decisions are already subject to a range of established complaints, review and appeal routes. This includes the CAA's internal complaints process, the Independent Complaints Assessor, the Public Service Ombudsman, judicial review and specific statutory appeals. So I do take on board two points made by the honourable member that judicial review is a process which lots of community groups and individuals would obviously find it extremely hard to access.
I also take his point around CAA accountability and the removal of accountability mechanisms because they weren't adequately used. That is, of course, not a reason why we shouldn't seek to enhance accountability of the stages in the process. Airlines, of course, also participate in approved alternative dispute resolution schemes. For many passenger complaints, the proposed ombudsman would therefore largely duplicate some of those existing mechanisms. In addition, the proposed remit goes beyond the role normally performed by an ombudsman. While remits may vary, an ombudsman would not ordinarily revisit the merits of a regulatory decision that has been lawfully taken in accordance with the statutory framework.
However, this amendment would allow the Ombudsman to examine CAA regulatory decisions and issue binding determinations, potentially requiring decisions reached through the proper statutory processes to be reconsidered. In practice, this could reopen matters that have already been subject to consultation, evidence based assessments and regulatory scrutiny. Where there are concerns about a decision, established routes already exist to challenge it. A further statutory body would also add cost, complexity and delay with little clear benefits. Additional layers of review could slow important regulatory decisions, including airspace modernisation, while overlapping routes could leave consumers uncertain about where to take a complaint.
Binding court enforceable determinations could also make the process more legalistic, adversarial and expensive. There are also practical concerns the amendment appears to give individuals and community groups an additional routes to challenge a decision without providing an equivalent route to other effective parties, and that asymmetry could undermine confidence in the fairness and finality of the decision making process. The proposed levy could also fall unevenly if charges could not be recovered as effectively from overseas operators. A greater share might fall on UK operators, including smaller airports, regional carriers and general aviation. The precise distribution would depend on the funding model, but the amendment does not resolve that risk.
For these reasons, the government considers the amendment unnecessary, but I would say that I am sympathetic with the intentions of the honourable member for Horsham for seeking to ensure that his constituents are adequately consulted throughout this process. I believe that Liberal Democrat representatives have rightly acknowledged the fact that we do want to make progress quickly on airspace modernisation to deliver those benefits, including reductions in noise impacts for local communities. The worry that I have in relation to the specific proposal is that it could be used to reopen considerations when decisions have been taken, and the regulator's purpose is to judge whether a process has been taken, has been conducted correctly, rather than opining on whether the right decision has been made.
As I know, the honourable member understands, but I'm happy to discuss when where we can go further. Just finally, in relation to the specific points he raises on SOEs. I believe in being honest throughout the Bill committee process. I cannot remember specifically off the top of my head what the answer is to the honourable member. I've committed to write to the member for Horsham on the same subject, and I will write to him in due course.
But for those reasons, I would urge the honourable member to withdraw his amendment.
17:18
17:18
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you, chair. I will speak briefly to new clause one. I appreciate what the honourable member is seeking to achieve with this new clause. However, much of what he is calling for is already being addressed through the wider provisions of this bill, particularly the new powers being given to the CAA to protect consumers and enforce passenger rights. I am therefore concerned that introducing another layer of regulation through a separate aviation ombudsman would be unnecessarily cumbersome and potentially duplicative. We should allow the measures in this bill to take effect before creating further regulatory structures, and for those reasons, we will abstain on the new clause.
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you, miss McVay. New clause three would call on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ban the practice of surveillance pricing when purchasing airline tickets. Many people have been in the situation where you look at the details of a journey that you wish to take by plane, then go to book it a few hours later and the price has skyrocketed. Skyrocketed. It can often seem like flight prices change constantly, with no real rhyme or rhythm. Information on the extent of usage of surveillance pricing is limited, but there have been some recent suggestions that airlines are indeed using such methods.
Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in New York against JetBlue, claiming it uses customers personal data to set ticket prices. This is an example of the phenomenon of surveillance pricing, the strategy of a seller using personally identifiable online information to set prices. It is nearly impossible to know exactly when and how widespread this is occurring, but there is evidence that the airline industry is quite widely using these methods. And while the methods of using a different device or incognito mode on one's browser to book flights to get around this is well known.
It's not a particularly customer friendly method, and not everybody will have the tech savviness. In order to do that, we. Advance of artificial intelligence means these types of systems are set to only become more advanced, likely in ways we cannot imagine currently and without the necessary transparency, so that consumers can make an informed decision about what platform they are buying from. We are not the only one to hold these concerns. As well as New York, in May, Colorado passed a bill banning both surveillance, pricing and surveillance wages. We have concerns over the privacy of customers whose data is being scraped to price in this way, and tickets should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger.
Not, of course, we understand the need for demand based pricing, and we believe that the government clearly needs to look into this issue more to establish how widely this is occurring and bring in measures to ban this practice, which goes counter to consumer interests. It is a matter of fairness, transparency and privacy. I look forward to hearing the minister's comments.
Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in New York against JetBlue, claiming it uses customers personal data to set ticket prices. This is an example of the phenomenon of surveillance pricing, the strategy of a seller using personally identifiable online information to set prices. It is nearly impossible to know exactly when and how widespread this is occurring, but there is evidence that the airline industry is quite widely using these methods. And while the methods of using a different device or incognito mode on one's browser to book flights to get around this is well known.
It's not a particularly customer friendly method, and not everybody will have the tech savviness. In order to do that, we. Advance of artificial intelligence means these types of systems are set to only become more advanced, likely in ways we cannot imagine currently and without the necessary transparency, so that consumers can make an informed decision about what platform they are buying from. We are not the only one to hold these concerns. As well as New York, in May, Colorado passed a bill banning both surveillance, pricing and surveillance wages. We have concerns over the privacy of customers whose data is being scraped to price in this way, and tickets should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger.
Not, of course, we understand the need for demand based pricing, and we believe that the government clearly needs to look into this issue more to establish how widely this is occurring and bring in measures to ban this practice, which goes counter to consumer interests. It is a matter of fairness, transparency and privacy. I look forward to hearing the minister's comments.
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair, and may I thank the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment relating to surveillance, pricing. Airline pricing should be transparent and should be fair, and consumers should have the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions. Airlines operating in the United Kingdom are responsible for setting their own fares in a competitive market, but they must comply with consumer protection law and requirements on price transparency, where pricing practices use consumers personal data, businesses must do so in in accordance with data protection requirements. The honourable member is right to point to concerns that many honourable members have, but also members of the public have, about surveillance pricing.
He is also right to say, however, that evidence on its application is not complete, and I think it's a fair challenge that perhaps we need to do more work to discuss this matter. But I would say that clause one of the bill allows for reforms to price transparency, should they be required on the basis of that work. And for that reason, I don't believe that this new clause to be implemented at this moment, on the face of the bill, is most appropriate. I therefore hope that this provides reassurance that this is a matter that we can take forward through discussion with colleagues across the House in the future, and that the honourable member feels able to withdraw his amendment.
He is also right to say, however, that evidence on its application is not complete, and I think it's a fair challenge that perhaps we need to do more work to discuss this matter. But I would say that clause one of the bill allows for reforms to price transparency, should they be required on the basis of that work. And for that reason, I don't believe that this new clause to be implemented at this moment, on the face of the bill, is most appropriate. I therefore hope that this provides reassurance that this is a matter that we can take forward through discussion with colleagues across the House in the future, and that the honourable member feels able to withdraw his amendment.
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The concept of automatic delay repay to flights. This is a concept that exists within our rail industry, although admittedly a somewhat inconsistently applied. As we have debated previously as part of the Railways Bill discussion, which we all remember with great fondness and nostalgia, I'm sure now, at present, the law grants air passengers a right to compensation for significant delays, yet places the entire burden of securing that right upon the passenger. And many passengers do not always find that a welcome experience. Passengers must identify their entitlement, submit a claim and in many cases pursue it through dispute resolution or the courts.
And anyone who has ever had to try and get compensation from many airlines knows that it is often a long, hard fought struggle to get what one is owed. The scale of the issue is considerable. More than 45 million passengers departed UK airports between June and August of this year, and disruption over those three months is estimated to have cost them in excess of £800 million. The consumer organisation, which has found that airlines are retaining millions of pounds in unclaimed compensation with thousands of passengers refused payment. Airlines already hold the information required, which is the identity of the passengers, their payment details, boarding records and precise arrival and departure times of planes, as I mentioned in the rail industry, has demonstrated through delay repay that compensation can be processed automatically and at scale for clear consumer benefit.
A claims based system disproportionately disadvantages those least able to navigate it older passengers, disabled passengers, families with young children and those who may be less confident or less have less access to digital services and entitlement that can be realised only by the most persistent is not an entitlement equally available to all. Passengers should not have to fight for what the law already says they are owed. It should be paid to them in full as a matter of course. Except, of course, for those minority of cases where the what the delays may not be unclear, etc.
if were I a betting man, I'd imagine the minister would say that this legislation is not the appropriate place for this measure. If I am correctly anticipating that, perhaps he can say what he thinks of the idea and where else it might be explored.
And anyone who has ever had to try and get compensation from many airlines knows that it is often a long, hard fought struggle to get what one is owed. The scale of the issue is considerable. More than 45 million passengers departed UK airports between June and August of this year, and disruption over those three months is estimated to have cost them in excess of £800 million. The consumer organisation, which has found that airlines are retaining millions of pounds in unclaimed compensation with thousands of passengers refused payment. Airlines already hold the information required, which is the identity of the passengers, their payment details, boarding records and precise arrival and departure times of planes, as I mentioned in the rail industry, has demonstrated through delay repay that compensation can be processed automatically and at scale for clear consumer benefit.
A claims based system disproportionately disadvantages those least able to navigate it older passengers, disabled passengers, families with young children and those who may be less confident or less have less access to digital services and entitlement that can be realised only by the most persistent is not an entitlement equally available to all. Passengers should not have to fight for what the law already says they are owed. It should be paid to them in full as a matter of course. Except, of course, for those minority of cases where the what the delays may not be unclear, etc.
if were I a betting man, I'd imagine the minister would say that this legislation is not the appropriate place for this measure. If I am correctly anticipating that, perhaps he can say what he thinks of the idea and where else it might be explored.
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, let me again thank the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment seeking to implement an automatic compensation scheme for eligible flights within six months of royal Assent. We do share the objective of ensuring that passengers receive the compensation to which they're entitled. However, the consultation, which took place in 2022, demonstrated that reform of aviation compensation regime is complex and involves a range of competing considerations. Further work is needed to assess the merits, costs and practical implications of different approaches. This amendment would require the government to implement a specific solution within six months before that work has been completed and the evidence has been properly evaluated.
Any changes should be considered as part of the wider Air Passenger Rights and compensation framework to ensure that it remains robust and strikes the right balance. Clause one will allow the government to make reforms in this area where the evidence supports them. I therefore believe that the conversation is best had in the context of that clause in the Bill. Once we've achieved royal assent. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw it. Chair with. Can I get your advice, please? I mean, now , turning to New Clause nine, or is that next.
AM I taking them both together? Should I take them both together? They're together.
Any changes should be considered as part of the wider Air Passenger Rights and compensation framework to ensure that it remains robust and strikes the right balance. Clause one will allow the government to make reforms in this area where the evidence supports them. I therefore believe that the conversation is best had in the context of that clause in the Bill. Once we've achieved royal assent. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw it. Chair with. Can I get your advice, please? I mean, now , turning to New Clause nine, or is that next.
AM I taking them both together? Should I take them both together? They're together.
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
No, no. Don't worry. Well, I thank him for his his next amendment, which seeks to establish a duty to provide information about flight delays. Passengers should receive timely, accurate and accessible information when their flight is delayed or disrupted. However, many of the matters addressed by this amendment are already covered by existing legislation and regulatory oversight. Airlines are already required to provide passengers with information about disruption and, where applicable, in accessible formats. The CAA monitors compliance with those requirements and recently conducted research on airline communications with passengers during disruption. The report looked at passenger's preferences and made recommendations to airlines, which the CAA will work closely with industry to take forward to improve passenger communications.
While the intention of this amendment is clear, it would create a new and highly prescriptive statutory regime, including requirements for updates every 30 minutes, regardless of operational circumstances, we do not believe that duplicating existing obligations is the most effective way to improve the passenger experience. Instead, our focus should be on ensuring compliance with and effective enforcement of the framework that is already in place, while retaining the flexibility under the bill to introduce targeted requirements in future, where evidence demonstrates they are needed.
While the intention of this amendment is clear, it would create a new and highly prescriptive statutory regime, including requirements for updates every 30 minutes, regardless of operational circumstances, we do not believe that duplicating existing obligations is the most effective way to improve the passenger experience. Instead, our focus should be on ensuring compliance with and effective enforcement of the framework that is already in place, while retaining the flexibility under the bill to introduce targeted requirements in future, where evidence demonstrates they are needed.
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
I'll speak to New Clause nine. I have considerable sympathy with what the honourable member is seeking to achieve, and I think the principle behind this new clause is very sensible. Passengers deserve timely, accurate information when their flights are delayed, and the industry should absolutely be doing everything possible to improve communication. However, I do have some concerns about the practical implications of requiring airlines to provide updated departure estimates every 30 minutes, particularly when delays are caused by circumstances outside their control. Just as we've seen with the recent Nats incidents, we must be careful not to impose additional costs and administrative burdens on airlines without being satisfied that those requirements are proportionate and deliver a genuine benefit to passengers.
So whilst we strongly support the direction of travel, we have some reservations about the precise requirements in this new clause and will therefore abstain.
So whilst we strongly support the direction of travel, we have some reservations about the precise requirements in this new clause and will therefore abstain.
17:18
17:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yes, thank you. My apologies. I should have covered new clause nine when speaking at the beginning. That was my oversight. But both the minister and the shadow Minister have summed it up well. I think all I would add on that particular new clause is I understand what our honourable members have said about our amendment. But, you know, we we are going to have to do something to improve this issue rather than just hoping that the marvellous aviation sector sorts it, because these are very long standing problems. Technology and information technology in particular, have moved on.
It should be easier to do these things well. And I know that the minister keeps referring to clause one. I mean, goodness me, the the the heavy weight of expectation really does sit upon clause one. It will perhaps be the most, most impactful clause one has ever been in a government bill, the way he's talking it up. So we can we can keep an eye on that in the future.
But I can't push these to the vote, miss McVey, because we do have a few more to get through.
It should be easier to do these things well. And I know that the minister keeps referring to clause one. I mean, goodness me, the the the heavy weight of expectation really does sit upon clause one. It will perhaps be the most, most impactful clause one has ever been in a government bill, the way he's talking it up. So we can we can keep an eye on that in the future.
But I can't push these to the vote, miss McVey, because we do have a few more to get through.
17:18
17:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you again, miss McVay. Up and down like a jack in the box. New clause five new clause five would require Secretary of State to publish proposals for a national disruptive passenger database. I think for all of the very obvious reasons that we are that that we know of. Alas, when you're on a plane and there is a disruptive passenger, one tends not to have the luxury of moving to the next carriage as one can on a train. It's one of many advantages of rail travel. The fact that one has that freedom, although of course not always, because sometimes they're rammed or short formed, etc.
but I'm not going to Wang on, Wang on for too long on this miss McVay, because I believe that the government does have some good intentions or good plans even on this topic, and I will I'll give the speaking time over to the Minister to tell us about them. Hopefully.
but I'm not going to Wang on, Wang on for too long on this miss McVay, because I believe that the government does have some good intentions or good plans even on this topic, and I will I'll give the speaking time over to the Minister to tell us about them. Hopefully.
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair, and I thank the honourable member for Didcot and Wantage for his amendment, which seeks to require a proposal for a national disruptive passenger database to be published within six months of Royal Assent. May I may I say, it brings me absolutely no pleasure to rain on the honourable member's parade in the way that I have been doing in the previous few new clauses. However, there may be some rays of light in relation to this one when it comes to action that the government is taking in this space, disruptive passenger behaviour is completely unacceptable, and airline staff and passengers must be protected from those who engage in such conduct.
That's precisely why the government has announced work with airlines and trade unions to develop a new system for sharing information on persistently disruptive passengers that does not require primary legislation. That work is already underway, and we are considering practical arrangements to improve information sharing while properly addressing data protection, fairness and operational effectiveness, requiring the publication of statutory proposals within six months and prescribing specific features, they must contain risks preempting the ongoing work and limiting our ability to develop the most effective solution in partnership with industry. I cannot express enough my agreement of how much of a significant problem this is to say that we have.
I met recently with representatives from Unite the Union and GMB from Glasgow Airport and Edinburgh Airport. They've described to me the appalling abuse that they get as members of staff, from disruptive passengers being hit, being spat at, being screamed in the face of. And we now have an existing system because that information sharing does not take place where that person can just walk out of the airport, book a new ticket, walk back in and board a different carrier's flight. I'm really pleased to say that both airlines and airports have been really constructive and helpful in engaging with us on this work to develop this system so that you can have a shared list of passengers, so that airlines can make that determination whether or not to allow them to board.
We are making very meaningful progress in this space. And for those reasons, while we share the amendments objective, the government's existing work, in my view, provides the right route to develop a proportionate and workable approach, and I would therefore ask the honourable member to withdraw his amendment.
That's precisely why the government has announced work with airlines and trade unions to develop a new system for sharing information on persistently disruptive passengers that does not require primary legislation. That work is already underway, and we are considering practical arrangements to improve information sharing while properly addressing data protection, fairness and operational effectiveness, requiring the publication of statutory proposals within six months and prescribing specific features, they must contain risks preempting the ongoing work and limiting our ability to develop the most effective solution in partnership with industry. I cannot express enough my agreement of how much of a significant problem this is to say that we have.
I met recently with representatives from Unite the Union and GMB from Glasgow Airport and Edinburgh Airport. They've described to me the appalling abuse that they get as members of staff, from disruptive passengers being hit, being spat at, being screamed in the face of. And we now have an existing system because that information sharing does not take place where that person can just walk out of the airport, book a new ticket, walk back in and board a different carrier's flight. I'm really pleased to say that both airlines and airports have been really constructive and helpful in engaging with us on this work to develop this system so that you can have a shared list of passengers, so that airlines can make that determination whether or not to allow them to board.
We are making very meaningful progress in this space. And for those reasons, while we share the amendments objective, the government's existing work, in my view, provides the right route to develop a proportionate and workable approach, and I would therefore ask the honourable member to withdraw his amendment.
17:18
17:18
Speaker 12
-
Speaker 12
Thank you, chair, and I was delighted to hear the comments made by the Minister just now. It is such an important topic and I have to say it is quite extraordinary that anyone who flies regularly will know how disruptive such behaviour is, and has become an increasingly concerning issue in recent years. It's a serious matter for passengers, cabin crew, airlines and one that does deserve the proper attention that I'm delighted to hear from the minister that the government is now bringing forward, and I look forward to a timeline from the Minister on when he will be bringing this forward.
The Liberal Democrats, in their in their amendment, have sorry, in their new clause, rather have suggested a timeline which has been rejected. So I look forward to hearing an alternative proposal from the Minister.
The Liberal Democrats, in their in their amendment, have sorry, in their new clause, rather have suggested a timeline which has been rejected. So I look forward to hearing an alternative proposal from the Minister.
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
May I just say I completely understand her encouragement for us to set out a timeline? I suppose all I would say is that this has been developed in consultation with private sector operators, who, due to working through those kind of data requirements and the, the the legal strictures that relate to information sharing of this kind. It's obviously a complicated process. That being said, I'm very happy to take this away and to write to both her and the Lib Dem spokesperson and share whatever detail I can on how that scheme is likely to unfold.
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
17:18
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, miss McVeigh. So this new clause returns to my overarching theme and the overarching theme. I think for all of us. How do we make flying slightly less horrible for all involved, for families, for the disabled, for those who need to drive to the airport. And now, New clause eight intend to take a huge step forward towards making flying marginally less stressful and importantly, less expensive for anyone who brings hand luggage aboard a flight. To explain this new clause as clearly as possible, I should probably start by defining the difference between the British standard hand luggage of the first bullet, separately to the British standard suitcase of the second, and the somewhat admittedly overly theatrical terms simply act as minimal minimum standards and not, sadly, for any aspiring baggage entrepreneurs amongst us, as a required suitcase model or dimensions.
EU 261 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 that has a maximum dimension defined under EU 261 of 40 by 30 by 15cm, adding up to 85cm combined. EU 261 also defines one piece of hand luggage, which corresponds roughly in concept to my British standard suitcase weighing up to seven kilos and requiring a maximum of 100cm in combined dimensions. As we are all very aware, the EU is no longer part of the EU.
Opinions on the wisdom of this may vary, which means that British passengers may only be entitled to a free cabin bag when returning home on a carrier covered by these new EU regulations. For example, Easyjet has confirmed that the changes will apply to flights returning from EU countries rather than 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, has said the rules will apply to UK passengers only on return flights. This demonstrates the need for this new clause.
It avoids the streams and streams of passengers potentially being fined by airlines on their way home to Europe, because there are different rules on one leg of the trip to another. If we don't address this, we risk tourists being put off from visiting our country due to this lack of parity and costing our fragile economy and hospitality industry huge amounts of revenue. So we've heard today already 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 find 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 purchase drink taken away if it is slightly over the limit.
Having navigated our way to the gate where we can see the fragile aluminium or carbon fibre tube mere millimeters thick, that , together with the wings full of extremely flammable jet fuel, will convey us at 600 miles an hour, at 40,000ft, through storms and turbulence, lightning and rain to a far off land where we will stew in 200 strangers, halitosis and flatulence, surrounded by other people's screaming children as ours sit at the far corner of the plane. Because we didn't pay the fee to guarantee we would all sit together, but that we must, before we, getting on, must face the most terrifying hurdle of all that is the gate agent and the handbag sizing frame.
We look down and we suddenly realise we've packed our hand luggage in our Easyjet bag instead of our Ryanair bag. Easyjet, alongside British Airways and Jet2, allow the most generously sized bag for large airlines 56 by 45 by 25cm, and that compares to 55 by 40 by 20 . For Ryanair, that one centimetre height, five centimetre width and five centimetre depth exceedance on that bag clearly means it cannot fit on that 40 metre long aircraft. I longingly gaze out through the terminal window, so I shuffle forward with my bag. Now I'm past the point of no return, because at check in, I could have dealt with my error by paying £45 ish to check that bag in the hold.
So I now nervously watch the gate agent in my queue, check each bag of passengers ahead of me in that sizing frame, but the gate agent across the way is allowing passengers to walk through completely unchecked. But it's too late if I switch cuz it's going to look suspicious and I'm going to get other people checked. So I accept my fate. I fess up, I pay the £75 fee for that vital five centimetres by five centimetres by one centimetre sin and I watch at the next gate critically as a jet two passenger happily brings an identical bag onto an identical Boeing 737 800 aircraft without fine, without charge, without obstacle.
And that's ultimately the rub the ability for airlines to set obscure, arbitrary sizing requirements seemingly designed solely to catch passengers out, to raise revenue and to pad their bottom line. We know that is the case because Ryanair airline staff are incentivised to catch passengers out with a per bag bonus of €2.50, approximately £2.25 per non-compliant bag identified at the boarding gate, which was recently increased. The. The tariff. The. The. The bonus given recently increased from €1.50 or £1.30. Now I use Ryanair here to illustrate the point. I'm sure that they are not the only nor potentially the worst offender.
However, their style is such that they are completely open and transparent about their sharp practices. So again, to be clear, this new clause does not restrict the charges that airlines can apply, but only to define the minimum maximum size that the British standard hand luggage piece can be restricted by an airline. Now forgive me, Minister, I expect he's about to rise and tell me, as the noble Lord Hendy explained in the Lords, that aircraft have different overhead and underseat 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.
However, the jet two example exposes this fallacy they operate today both the two main types of narrowbody in the market the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320, both with almost identical interior seat and overhead luggage dimensions. And do they require using the smallest aircraft capacity, which is the 707 800? No. The same aircraft that Ryanair fly but choose to apply a smaller, arbitrary baggage size primarily in order, as is my hypothesis, to catch passengers out to increase the stress. So this line of argument I do fear likely written by the airlines themselves, for him to be false and to be clearly anti-consumer and intended to preserve the miserable, miserly status quo.
The argument that aircraft have different overhead and underseat storage capacities actually reinforces the necessity for this legislation. Aircraft interiors are designed according to regulations, and airlines choose their fit out based on the markets they will serve. And the Jet2 example proves beyond reasonable doubt here in the court of public opinion that it is entirely possible, nay, it is entirely right, that there is a need for this new clause and a need for legislation to protect passengers from the power of a cruel and unfeeling airline industry. Because ultimately, sadly, tragically, the only way we can hand on heart confidently know that our hand luggage will comply with one of the 5 or 6 airlines we might choose to use to take our summer holiday or long weekend away with the partner.
We must. We must actually today, by the smallest size bag already. The bag that we know will comply with all of those. Absolutely. I'm very grateful to him. I hesitate to interrupt the flow of rhetoric highlighting the golden age of air travel as he characterizes it, or might not, but can I just suggest on that point, while I don't disagree with the challenges that can face and people make ordinary mistakes, isn't there also a simple way of doing this? Before you get on a plane and go to the airport, you check the requirements on the website and just make sure your bag fits them.
EU 261 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 that has a maximum dimension defined under EU 261 of 40 by 30 by 15cm, adding up to 85cm combined. EU 261 also defines one piece of hand luggage, which corresponds roughly in concept to my British standard suitcase weighing up to seven kilos and requiring a maximum of 100cm in combined dimensions. As we are all very aware, the EU is no longer part of the EU.
Opinions on the wisdom of this may vary, which means that British passengers may only be entitled to a free cabin bag when returning home on a carrier covered by these new EU regulations. For example, Easyjet has confirmed that the changes will apply to flights returning from EU countries rather than 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, has said the rules will apply to UK passengers only on return flights. This demonstrates the need for this new clause.
It avoids the streams and streams of passengers potentially being fined by airlines on their way home to Europe, because there are different rules on one leg of the trip to another. If we don't address this, we risk tourists being put off from visiting our country due to this lack of parity and costing our fragile economy and hospitality industry huge amounts of revenue. So we've heard today already 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 find 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 purchase drink taken away if it is slightly over the limit.
Having navigated our way to the gate where we can see the fragile aluminium or carbon fibre tube mere millimeters thick, that , together with the wings full of extremely flammable jet fuel, will convey us at 600 miles an hour, at 40,000ft, through storms and turbulence, lightning and rain to a far off land where we will stew in 200 strangers, halitosis and flatulence, surrounded by other people's screaming children as ours sit at the far corner of the plane. Because we didn't pay the fee to guarantee we would all sit together, but that we must, before we, getting on, must face the most terrifying hurdle of all that is the gate agent and the handbag sizing frame.
We look down and we suddenly realise we've packed our hand luggage in our Easyjet bag instead of our Ryanair bag. Easyjet, alongside British Airways and Jet2, allow the most generously sized bag for large airlines 56 by 45 by 25cm, and that compares to 55 by 40 by 20 . For Ryanair, that one centimetre height, five centimetre width and five centimetre depth exceedance on that bag clearly means it cannot fit on that 40 metre long aircraft. I longingly gaze out through the terminal window, so I shuffle forward with my bag. Now I'm past the point of no return, because at check in, I could have dealt with my error by paying £45 ish to check that bag in the hold.
So I now nervously watch the gate agent in my queue, check each bag of passengers ahead of me in that sizing frame, but the gate agent across the way is allowing passengers to walk through completely unchecked. But it's too late if I switch cuz it's going to look suspicious and I'm going to get other people checked. So I accept my fate. I fess up, I pay the £75 fee for that vital five centimetres by five centimetres by one centimetre sin and I watch at the next gate critically as a jet two passenger happily brings an identical bag onto an identical Boeing 737 800 aircraft without fine, without charge, without obstacle.
And that's ultimately the rub the ability for airlines to set obscure, arbitrary sizing requirements seemingly designed solely to catch passengers out, to raise revenue and to pad their bottom line. We know that is the case because Ryanair airline staff are incentivised to catch passengers out with a per bag bonus of €2.50, approximately £2.25 per non-compliant bag identified at the boarding gate, which was recently increased. The. The tariff. The. The. The bonus given recently increased from €1.50 or £1.30. Now I use Ryanair here to illustrate the point. I'm sure that they are not the only nor potentially the worst offender.
However, their style is such that they are completely open and transparent about their sharp practices. So again, to be clear, this new clause does not restrict the charges that airlines can apply, but only to define the minimum maximum size that the British standard hand luggage piece can be restricted by an airline. Now forgive me, Minister, I expect he's about to rise and tell me, as the noble Lord Hendy explained in the Lords, that aircraft have different overhead and underseat 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.
However, the jet two example exposes this fallacy they operate today both the two main types of narrowbody in the market the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320, both with almost identical interior seat and overhead luggage dimensions. And do they require using the smallest aircraft capacity, which is the 707 800? No. The same aircraft that Ryanair fly but choose to apply a smaller, arbitrary baggage size primarily in order, as is my hypothesis, to catch passengers out to increase the stress. So this line of argument I do fear likely written by the airlines themselves, for him to be false and to be clearly anti-consumer and intended to preserve the miserable, miserly status quo.
The argument that aircraft have different overhead and underseat storage capacities actually reinforces the necessity for this legislation. Aircraft interiors are designed according to regulations, and airlines choose their fit out based on the markets they will serve. And the Jet2 example proves beyond reasonable doubt here in the court of public opinion that it is entirely possible, nay, it is entirely right, that there is a need for this new clause and a need for legislation to protect passengers from the power of a cruel and unfeeling airline industry. Because ultimately, sadly, tragically, the only way we can hand on heart confidently know that our hand luggage will comply with one of the 5 or 6 airlines we might choose to use to take our summer holiday or long weekend away with the partner.
We must. We must actually today, by the smallest size bag already. The bag that we know will comply with all of those. Absolutely. I'm very grateful to him. I hesitate to interrupt the flow of rhetoric highlighting the golden age of air travel as he characterizes it, or might not, but can I just suggest on that point, while I don't disagree with the challenges that can face and people make ordinary mistakes, isn't there also a simple way of doing this? Before you get on a plane and go to the airport, you check the requirements on the website and just make sure your bag fits them.
17:18
17:18
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
He I thank the honourable member for his intervention and frankly, he is correct. That protects you. The problem you have is that because there are these arbitrary sizing decisions that can be changed at any moment, should Ryanair need to prop up its bottom line this this season by taking another five centimetres off its baggage sizing, there is nothing to restrict them from doing so. This opportunity in this bill to set minimum standards for passenger service, to give passengers the power and the protection from predatory practices, I think is is what we should be grasping. And I think it's why this amendment, this new clause is so necessary.
So to begin to conclude the race to the bottom that Lord Henry described is not the worst case scenario outcome, but is actually what's happening today. We live today under the tyranny of the gate agent sizing frame. This amendment would throw off that yoke and release us into a free market of airlines competing on passenger experience and service and price, not of fear at sea
So to begin to conclude the race to the bottom that Lord Henry described is not the worst case scenario outcome, but is actually what's happening today. We live today under the tyranny of the gate agent sizing frame. This amendment would throw off that yoke and release us into a free market of airlines competing on passenger experience and service and price, not of fear at sea