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

Alison Griffiths Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will 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. It shows how the clauses and schedules have been selected and how amendments have been grouped together for debate. The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate if they 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 whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote—that includes grouped new clauses—that 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 are taken in the order in which they appear on the Bill. That means that some amendments may be decided on considerably later than the point at which they are debated. I hope that explanation is helpful.

Clause 1

Air transport and airport services: rights and duties

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—

“(1A) When making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to promoting economic growth.

(1B) In complying with subsection (1A), the Secretary of State must in particular consider the impact of the regulations on—

(a) the competitiveness of air transport service providers and airport operators,

(b) investment in the United Kingdom aviation sector, and

(c) the burdens imposed on air transport service providers and airport operators in complying with the regulations.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth before making regulations under clause 1, with particular reference to the competitiveness of the aviation sector, investment, and the regulatory burden on businesses.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert—

“(1A) When making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the Regulation Action Plan, published in March 2025, target of reducing the administrative costs of regulation on business by 25% by the end of the 2024-2029 Parliament.

(1B) Regulations under subsection (1) must not impose administrative requirements on air transport service providers or airport operators the costs of which are disproportionate to the consumer protection objectives the regulations seek to achieve, having regard to the target referred to in subsection (1A).

(1C) In this section, ‘administrative costs’ means costs incurred by air transport service providers or airport operators in complying with information, reporting, documentation or other procedural requirements imposed by regulations under this section.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State, when making regulations under clause 1, to have regard to the Government’s target of reducing the administrative costs of regulation on business by 25% by the end of the Parliament.

New clause 2—Purpose—

“(1) The purpose of this Act is to—

(a) promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector;

(b) support economic growth in that sector; and

(c) protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services.

(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”

This new clause inserts a purpose clause into the Bill requiring the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the promotion of the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector and economic growth in that sector.

[Alison Griffiths]

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

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

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

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

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

[Alison Griffiths]

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

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

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

The amendments and 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.

Amendment 24 would stipulate that regulations coming from the Bill cannot create lower passenger and consumer standards than currently exist. This is important because, whether we are 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 the standards that they currently enjoy? The amendment does not seek to load new obligations on to the Government but simply asks that when Ministers use the powers that the Bill grants them, they cannot use them to quietly lower the bar. Where the Government take a power to make new regulations, the existing baseline of protection should not be capable of being diminished through that power.

This approach is not novel; section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 requires a Minister, before the Second Reading of any Bill touching environmental law, to confirm that it will not reduce existing environmental protection. If they cannot do so, they must say so and explain why. 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.

Amendment 25 would put into 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 aspects of life, when someone makes a booking and finds that they have been seated separately from their children or family, that is not considered acceptable; the booking has to be honoured or redress has to be made.

Even on other modes of transport, that is the case. For example, on a train, if someone reserves 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 decides to put on a four or five-car train, ruining all that, but that is perhaps another matter. Why do those arrangements not also apply to airlines?

This issue might be more common with some airlines than others, but they can currently get away with what they are doing because there are no restrictions. We hear far too many heartbreaking stories of passengers being treated in that way, and particularly of passengers with disabilities being treated as a lower priority.

We are glad to hear reports that the Government have 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 for being seated next to children under the age of 14. However, we really believe that this requires focus, so we very much hope that the Government will view amendment 25 favourably or otherwise indicate what they are going to do instead of accepting it. Subject to the Government not being willing to accept that principle, we will press amendment 25 to a Division.

Amendment 26 would require that, 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 reasons that I have outlined, it is important that we maintain our current standards as a minimum—of course, we want to increase them.

New clause 14 would support amendment 25 by introducing automatic refunds for a failure to honour pre-purchased seats.

Let me say something briefly about the Opposition’s amendment 7. I understand what the Conservative shadow Minister intends with the amendment, and I would be interested in hearing her case if it is about transparency and good governance; however, I feel there is a tendency on the Conservative Benches to table such amendments more when it comes to European Union matters than to 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 have said more than enough, and I look forward to hearing other Members’ comments.

[Alison Griffiths]

I will speak to amendments 24 to 26, amendment 7, which stands in my name, and new clause 14, which have all been grouped together.

Amendment 24 sets out an eminently sensible ambition, namely to ensure that any future regulations do not water down the passenger and consumer protections currently in force. That is an important principle and one that we recognise. Of course, as hon. Members know, the Opposition support a thriving, competitive aviation sector, but passengers must also have confidence that, when they travel, they will be treated fairly and the protections that they rely upon will be upheld.

That is particularly important for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Far too many people still face unnecessary difficulties when travelling by air, whether regarding the provision of assistance, the handling of mobility equipment or simply being able to travel independently and with dignity. Those matters deserve serious attention. As we—and 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 have some reservations about binding ourselves to every existing regulation, particularly where certain requirements may create perverse incentives, impose disproportionate burdens or simply fail to deliver the outcomes that they were intended to achieve. We should always be in the business of retaining the flexibility to revisit and improve regulations where necessary, while ensuring that passengers remain properly protected. We welcome the overarching objective of the amendment, but given those concerns, we will abstain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I thank the Minister for his comments. We are content not to press all the amendments, except amendment 25. The Minister has given some assurances about the Government’s future intentions, which are good but not quite enough. With the Chair’s permission, we would be a grateful for a Division on amendment 25.

[Alison Griffiths]

We would like to press amendment 7 to a vote. I do not consider the Minister to have sufficiently addressed our concerns around the reasons and impact of the provisions in the Bill.

[Olly Glover]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 25, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—

“(2A) The regulations must include provision prohibiting a carrier from seating members of the same booking in such a way that any child under the age of 16, or any adult requiring care, is not seated adjacent to, or within immediate proximity of, at least one accompanying adult or carer included in that booking.

(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an ‘accompanying adult or carer’ means a person who is—

(a) a parent or guardian of the child,

(b) a carer responsible for the child or adult requiring care during the journey, or

(c) any other adult who has legal responsibility for the child or adult requiring care,

and who is included in the same booking as the child or adult requiring care.

(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an ‘adult requiring care’ means a person aged 16 or over who requires assistance or support from another person during the journey by reason of disability, illness or any other condition affecting their ability to travel independently.”—(Olly Glover.)

This amendment requires regulations to prohibit airlines from separating family groups travelling under the same booking, ensuring that young children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult or carer.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 4

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 5

Noes: 11

[Alison Griffiths]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 42, leave out

“that include provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(e) or (f)”.

This amendment would ensure that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, rather than only regulations containing provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(e) or (f).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (7).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 5 and would require all regulations made under clause 1 to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 23, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.

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

Clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

[Alison Griffiths]

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

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

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

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I know about my hon. Friend’s experience, and she outlined to me some of the challenges that go beyond the health risk of travelling with people with allergies and the difficulties that they face. One of those is ensuring that the right food is provided on aeroplanes. If someone is on a long-haul flight and it suddenly becomes clear that the staff do not have allergy-friendly food for them, that can make a travelling experience, which might already have been stressful, all the more difficult.

Through the consultation, the clauses that I am currently addressing will allow people with allergies to directly feed into how the consumer rights system should be designed to most adequately address their concerns and give them equal access without fear of being denied the requisite food, safety or the ability to fly alongside their friends and family. Clause 2’s consultation requirements will allow that to happen, and clause 1 will empower the Secretary of State to make those changes in an agile and definitive way that will quickly provide change so that people can fly with confidence.

The Government must consult disabled passengers, persons with reduced mobility and the organisations that represent them, alongside airlines and airports—which, I must say, do a lot of good and pioneering work in this space, and this framework will allow them to go further. Clause 2 also provides that the Government may consult with others as appropriate. That may include the CAA, passenger rights advocates and groups, or wider industry stakeholders. This will enable a genuinely pan-disability approach grounded in lived experience and expert evidence.

The Government added clause 3 during the Bill’s passage through the other place following constructive engagement with peers on how the Bill could do more to strengthen air passenger rights and promote accessibility. Clause 3 will support the Government’s aim of using clause 1 to enhance and strengthen air passenger rights in the future. It requires the Secretary of State to “have due regard” to the desirability of strengthening air passenger rights when considering whether and how to make regulations under clause 1, particularly where those rights affect disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility.

Clause 3 also establishes a clear set of principles to guide future policy development. They include that passengers should be “treated with dignity”; that disabled passengers should have access to air travel that is “equal or comparable” to that enjoyed by other passengers; that any accessibility assistance provided should meet the individual’s need; and that independent travel should be “facilitated wherever possible.”

Taken together, clauses 2 and 3 help to ensure that accessibility is embedded in the future development of passenger rights policy and remains a central consideration when the powers in clause 1 are exercised. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Alison Griffiths]

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

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths]

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

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

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

[Alison Griffiths]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his support, and indeed the Minister for recognising that the underlying principle is absolutely the right one—that this is an important safeguard, to use his words. It is not administrative, as he argued; we should be ensuring that the CAA is not judge and jury.

Clause 5 and schedule 1 give the Civil Aviation Authority new enforcement powers, while clause 6 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 that the process needs an additional safeguard for those affected by the CAA's decisions. As such, we have tabled amendment 11, which stands in my name.

The Opposition have tabled the 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 for challenging these decisions is through an appeal to the High Court or Court of Session. I must say I think that that 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. That 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 could be confirmed, varied or withdrawn before the matter proceeds to court. That would provide greater certainty and clarity for those affected, while helping to ensure that the process was fair and proportionate. Importantly, it would not prevent anyone from pursuing an appeal through the courts if they remained dissatisfied. It is an entirely sensible safeguard; I hope the Minister will now recognise the merits of the amendment and support it.