Highways (Financing) Bill (Third sitting)
Alison Griffiths ExcerptsTuesday 3rd November 2026
(2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 View all Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - (3 Nov 2026)
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. That shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A reminder that the Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause to speak again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote—that includes grouped new clauses and schedules—they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which the amendments appear on the amendment paper.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I apologise, but I am struggling to hear you. I am partially deaf, so I just wanted to ask that everyone speaks as clearly as possible. Thank you so much.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out lines 15 to 18, and insert—
“it is the Lower Thames Crossing.”
This amendment would restrict the application of the Bill to the Lower Thames Crossing.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, on the first day of line-by-line consideration of this important Bill. Whenever I sit on a Bill Committee, I seem to be opposite this Minister. We spent many happy weeks together on the Employment Rights Bill earlier in the Parliament. I look forward to the next few weeks.
I genuinely believe that a lot of the Bill has cross-party consensus, certainly between the Government and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. However, as we explored in some of the evidence sessions the other day and on Second Reading, there are some question marks over many aspects of the Bill. We will no doubt explore those in future debates in Committee and later in the passage of the Bill in our House and the other place. For now, however, my proposition through this amendment is that we should seize on where we have agreement in order to get progress on a project that I think all parts of the House wish to see built, namely the lower Thames crossing. The amendment therefore seeks to restrict the Bill to just the lower Thames crossing.
In other parts of the Bill, we have genuine consensus, such as on the provisions for barrier-free tolling on roads such as the M6 and the Mersey tunnel, but that could easily be brought forward in separate legislation. The real purpose of the amendment is so that the Government can get on with the lower Thames crossing, which we very much want to see happen, particularly Labour Members in the direct locality of the crossing, as well as a number of Conservative Members from Kent and Essex.
If we can do that, I think we will see speed that we do not often see in infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom. Last week, we heard evidence about the differentials between us in the United Kingdom and our nearest neighbours in France and how they get stuff built faster and cheaper. For once in this Parliament, why do we not grasp the nettle, take what we agree on and move forward with it, having the debate on the other aspects further down the line?
One of the arguments I make is something I have seen throughout my political career in this place, in local government and as an activist: the importance to trial a new model to prove that it works. This is innovation for the lower Thames crossing, so let us test it, try it and work out the gremlins before the Government, whoever that might be at that point, come forward with other projects that could be financed and secured through the RAB—regulated asset base—model and the innovations in the Bill. I will ask the Minister a few questions on that.
Given that so much of the media and debate narrative has been about the lower Thames crossing, what other projects do the Government think might come forward or could be financed through the model proposed in the Bill, other than the lower Thames crossing? If literally nothing else is on the table, why are we legislating in this place for something that no one has the first clue about what it might be for? We can all gather around the point on the lower Thames crossing, but we may have divergence on other projects, in particular if no one can name a single one of them.
The framework brought forward by the Bill is open ended. The public we serve in all our respective constituencies would expect us to have far greater clarity on precisely what any law that we pass in this place is for. My constituents and those in the constituency of every other right hon. and hon. Member can understand and get behind the lower Thames crossing; it is far more difficult to get behind an abstract, which they cannot see, touch, breathe or smell, and so on. I put it to the Minister, therefore: accept the amendment and let us get an Act on the statute book that can move forward at pace—that favourite political phrase, at the moment—to get the lower Thames crossing built.
Alison Griffiths
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. During the evidence sessions, the Minister was categorical that his intention was not for any other road to be covered by this, so I join my hon. Friend in asking the Minister why he would not agree to the amendment, since he is so adamant about no other need for the clause.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reasserting my argument. I hope that the Minister can answer the question. Some speculation has been that the Government want to avoid a hybrid Bill on the lower Thames crossing, and believe you me, Mr Dowd, I see the pitfalls of hybrid Bills in my own constituency, with 35 km of a certain railway being built through the middle of it, but I do not see a real argument why a hybrid Bill would be necessary. Why can we not talk explicitly about the lower Thames crossing in this piece of legislation?
I know the Minister to be a reasonable man, with whom we share agreement on this particular point of the lower Thames crossing, and on a determination to get on with it, so I gently ask him why we cannot have this piece of legislation on something that all parties can get behind. Later, we can have the debate on the other matters, which will take more time to get right with parliamentary scrutiny, but meanwhile we can move forwards.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman may not be surprised to hear that we will not find consensus on that point. I accept that Mr Palmer gave us his view of the world, which was that there was no differential in price. However, any simple look at the market prices of white diesel and HVO shows that the differential very much exists. That is not even a point of debate; it is in the market price. Also, later in the Committee’s oral evidence session, we heard evidence that the building of the road pales into slight insignificance compared with everything that will use the road. Operational vehicles powered by either petroleum or diesel will still be the vast majority of vehicles using the lower Thames crossing, which clearly has not been taken into account.
Alison Griffiths
In the evidence session, we heard from Mr Palmer that he had not taken different quotes from organisations looking at the differential cost between HVO and white diesel; all the quotations were based only on HVO. Therefore, his assertion that they were comparable in price was based on his view alone.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s question. The Bill’s purpose is to give the ORR the powers and ultimately the responsibility to regulate this model. It will be able to levy the licence holder to finance that particular work. A great deal of preparatory work is already going on to ensure that the ORR is capable of delivering the important functions set out under the Bill.
Alison Griffiths
The Minister just made the point that the ORR is not yet capable of delivering this. What is the plan from the Secretary of State and the Minister to deliver an ORR that has that capability? We also heard in evidence last week that the ORR does not believe that it is ready for it either.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. There is a plan in place, but it would be a bit ridiculous for us to have everyone ready now when the legislation has not been passed. I assure her that a number of considerations are already taking place about having the right skills. We heard evidence last week that there is confidence that the right skillsets and people will be in place to provide the important functions that the ORR will have to deliver under the legislation.
Clause 2 sets out the overarching duty that will guide the Secretary of State when exercising functions under the Bill. It mirrors the duty placed on the ORR in clause 1 and ensures that both key decision makers operate within a consistent statutory framework. As the Bill gives important functions to the Secretary of State and the ORR, it is therefore important that decisions made by each are guided by the same overarching objectives and principles.
The clause requires the Secretary of State, like the ORR, to act in a way that furthers the interests of road users. In doing so, the Secretary of State must balance a range of important considerations, including efficiency, safety, sustainability and the impact of decisions on the wider strategic road network. These duties are underpinned by established principles of good regulation, helping to ensure that decisions are transparent, accountable, proportionate and targeted only when action is needed. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd—I hope you are not too distraught about not having been in the Chair for some of the other very exciting transport Bill Committees that we have had this year.
I want to start by addressing amendment 82, tabled by the shadow Minister. We understand where he is coming from, because the Committee heard evidence from Steve Gooding of the RAC Foundation about the danger of clause 3 being used as a Trojan horse for widespread road pricing, which is something that the Minister has assured us will not happen.
Our amendment 44 takes a different approach to the problem of excluding non-new roads altogether. As I said on Second Reading, we feel that the idea of tolls and fees is reasonable in principle, and it is used quite widely in Europe, but the safeguards must be clear. That is why our amendment 44 would require a strict threshold for applying tolls to existing roads, which we are defining as a continuous extra lane, to show a genuine improvement in the road’s capacity and to justify any introduction.
I agree with the shadow Minister on clause 3, in that so much of the Bill relies on us to take it on trust that the Government will do the right thing with the extensive powers that it creates. There was a good article in The Economist a few years ago about the problem with the good chaps theory of government, which has been an historic feature of the British so-called constitution. The problem is that it is difficult to take things on trust and rely on the current generation to do the right thing and interpret a Bill as it was intended, because a Bill cannot force the hand of a future Government, but future Governments do need to work to the legislation that has been passed. We therefore have some concerns about that and would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
We support the shadow Minister’s amendment 81. It is sensible to require consultation with the relevant local and mayoral authorities and important to involve them in any major changes to their areas that could increase local traffic flow and the burden on the local community, so we would support the amendment if it were pressed to a Division.
Subject to what the Minister says, at this point we would be keen, with your permission, Mr Dowd, to press amendment 44 to Division.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak to amendment 82, standing in the shadow Minister’s name and my name.
On the face of it, clause 3 looks quite straightforward. The licence would be granted for “works involving”—not delivering, just involving—
“the construction of a highway specified in the licence”.
However, granting a licence for being involved in the work set out in subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c), which our amendment 82 would remove, would make the ORR responsible for determining what is fair and transparent in terms of a toll that could be charged in future for that work. Again, to be clear, the clause does not talk about delivery; it just talks about involvement, so there is a total lack of clarity.
The ORR will rely on a code that has not yet been written and that will not come before this House, so we will have no say in what it looks like. As far as I am aware, there will be no cost-effectiveness constraints on the licensee, so the toll could be considerable. Nor does the toll need to end when the costs have been recovered. Paragraphs (b) and (c) create the prospect of a never-ending toll upon our constituents for what could be a pretty unspecific piece of work.
To return to the points already made by the shadow Minister, a licence should be granted only for the construction of new roads. If we want to look at future roads, the code should be subject to a parliamentary vote at a later stage. Obviously the Committee has voted against this, but to return to our earlier discussion, we would prefer to be looking at two specific roads: the lower Thames crossing and, potentially, the associated Dartford crossing. Without those constraints, however, this piece of legislation is very problematic. I support the amendment.
Justin Madders
That would be where clauses 1 and 2 come in, which should give the hon. Member sufficient reassurance. It is important to say—I will use scouse terminology, if you do not mind, Mr Dowd—that I think the arguments coming forward are a bit jarg. I do not know if that is a phrase the Committee is familiar with, but it is a bit of a scaring-the-horses moment—a bit of a ride on the ghost train. Unfortunately, that is what we have come to expect from the Opposition. They are trying to create a scare story where none exists. I have to be clear, as I was on Second Reading and in the evidence sessions, that improving an existing road does not mean that the road will automatically be brought into the regime or be subject to tolls.
Justin Madders
I will just finish.
Establishing and structuring a RAB arrangement comes with significant costs, so for small-scale improvements such as the setting up of a speed camera, it is just not going to be financially viable for anyone to consider it. In practice, it simply would not be justified, or work, in any way. We are clear from the evidence that we heard last week that the model will make sense only for projects of sufficient scale, where the benefits of bringing in long-term private investment justify those costs.
Members should be clear that I know that what I say on the record is relevant to the intention of the Bill, and that that will be something that any future court will take into account.
Justin Madders
I will now give way to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.
Justin Madders
We are very clear that the clause is about the specified highway. It is about the trunk road. It is about the protections in clauses 1 and 2. I will simply push back that, if there was some secret plan to expand road tolls, there is already legislation in place that would allow us to do that. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which was passed by the hon. Member’s party in Government, created the powers to introduce road tolling. If there was a secret plan to do that, we would not need to bring forward legislation. This is about setting up a new regulatory model to bring in investment for particular projects.
Alison Griffiths
I refer back to the intervention that I was going to make earlier, which was about clarity. The Minister said several times that he was being very clear, but I would gently suggest that the legislation is not very clear. That is the point that several of us are making: we are in danger of passing legislation that may not deliver what is perhaps intended by the Minister at this stage. It is at a point where a future Government, perhaps not as benign as others, might abuse the wording of the legislation. We are really just looking to ask the Minister to be clear in the Bill, not just in his words.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question and her description of “benign”, which I will frame and put on my wall at home.
The Bill is clear. There are reasons why we have to look at the existing network, particularly when we consider what is happening in the lower Thames crossing. The simple economics of this would not be attractive to investors if we were going to broadly open up road charging across the country—as I say, there is already legislation that would enable us to do that. The clause is about setting up a specific financial model, which will have strong regulation and will enable capacity-enhancing improvements to be made to the road network. As I say, it is very clear that there are sufficient protections already within the legislation to avoid the situation that Opposition Members are concerned about.
Turning to amendment 44, I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for raising the question of capacity-enhancing improvements. We will be clear that this framework is intended for major road infrastructure, not for minor changes to the road network. There are practical constraints on the use of this model. Again, as I have referred to, clauses 1 and 2 require the ORR to act in the “interests of users” of the highway specified in licences or proposed to be specified. Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to act in the
“interests of users of trunk roads in England.”
Both have regard to the principle that regulatory action should be proportionate and targeted only where it is needed. I am not entirely sure that the amendment would deliver the changes that the hon. Gentleman proposes. I am concerned that, while he is talking about an extra lane, he has not put any de minimis length on that, which might give a future non-benign Government encouragement to take it further than is our intention.
We have to be clear that establishing and structuring a RAB arrangement carries substantial costs. It must be sufficiently large and economically viable for that financing approach to make sense. We heard evidence that the geography of this country is such that simply adding lanes on here and there is not a viable option. I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman not press his amendment to a Division.
The shadow Minister spoke to amendment 81. I hope I never have a call from him when he is feeling frustrated—I am not sure how that would go for either of us—but he made an important point about ensuring that local and mayoral authorities are notified where there may be a proposed scheme. It is of course the case that the Bill already ensures that the relevant authorities are consulted. As set out in clause 4, before any licence can be granted, the licensing authority must publish the proposal, which must also be shared with the relevant bodies, expressly including the strategic highways company and any other appropriate bodies exercising highway functions. At least 28 days must be allowed for representations from those bodies.
Different projects will affect different places and different authorities. Therefore, the right consultees will depend on the project. As we have seen in recent times, the structure of local government can change, so it would not make sense to hardwire into legislation that particular types of authority should be consulted, because that could become outdated.
Justin Madders
Of course the answer to that is that we cannot predict the future. In 2010, the idea of a mayoral combined authority was nothing more than a glint in George Osborne’s eye. It is about future-proofing the legislation: it does not make sense for us to come back at a later stage to add in extra consultees, because the Bill already has the correct powers to ensure that the licensing authority must consult appropriate bodies. That makes the framework flexible enough to respond both to the circumstances of individual projects and to changes in local government structures over the life of the legislation, which will be significant, because of the LTC project.
Clause 3 is at the heart of a lot of the debate today. The clause establishes what a licence is, what it can authorise and the circumstances in which one can be granted. The purpose of the licensing regime is to provide the framework through which private investment can support the delivery of strategic road infrastructure. In simple terms, clause 3 allows a licensing authority to grant a person a licence giving them the right to charge tolls on a highway specified in that licence. But that right is not freestanding; it is granted in return for the licence holder securing specified works to the highway.
The works fall into three main categories. A licence may support the construction of a highway; it may support the improvement of an existing highway, where the purpose is to increase its capacity; and, where a highway has already been constructed or improved under this licensing regime, it may provide for its maintenance, operation or further improvement. If another highway is specified in the licence, the licence may also authorise the licence holder to charge tolls in respect of that highway. That is an important point about the structure of the regime. Clause 3 is not simply a general power to allow private companies to charge motorists; the authority to charge tolls is tied directly to the licence holder securing the highway works specified in the licence. In addition, clause 3 does not allow the model to be applied indiscriminately across the road network.
We have heard the concern about the measure meaning a change to existing roads. A small improvement to an existing road, such as a smart motorway camera, does not automatically mean that that road will be brought into the regime or become subject to tolls. A highway can be included in a licence only if it is, or is to be, a trunk road in England, or part of one. The licensing regime created by this part is therefore deliberately confined to that network.
Clause 3 also sets out who may grant the licences. When the regime first begins, both the Secretary of State and the ORR will be licensing authorities. This is known as the “initial period”. Put simply, it is the period for dealing with the first licence under the Bill. Once the first licence has been issued, the initial period will end and the ORR will become the licensing authority. The end of the initial period will be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
It is important to say that there is an additional safeguard during that initial period. The ORR cannot itself grant a licence without the Secretary of State’s consent. Where the Secretary of State gives that consent, the decision must be published in a way that the Secretary of State considers appropriate to bring it to the attention of people likely to be affected. Where the Secretary of State grants the licence directly, a copy must be provided to the ORR as soon as reasonably practicable.
Clause 3 should also be read alongside the safeguards in the rest of the licensing framework. In particular, clause 4 requires consultation before a licence can be granted. The proposal must identify both the works to be secured and the highway on which tolls would be authorised, and there must be at least 28 days for representations. A licence cannot be granted unless that consultation requirement has been met.
That is an important safeguard because bringing a road into this regime is of course a significant decision. Before a licence is granted, those likely to be affected have an opportunity to understand what is proposed and make representations. The licensing authority must go through that process before deciding whether the licence should be granted.
It is also important to be clear that, whether we are talking about a new road or a capacity enhancing improvement, the regime is confined to the trunk road network. A highway can only be included in a licence if it is, or is to become, a trunk road in England.
We will come later to clause 81, which makes the necessary changes to the existing trunking provisions in section 10 of the Highways Act 1980 so that a new highway built under this licensing regime can become a trunk road. It does not create a blanket new power to designate any road as a trunk road; rather, it enables the existing process to work for the new type of highway.
Alison Griffiths
I thank the Minister for giving way. This should be the easiest intervention to reply to—I only wish to ask him to speak more slowly so that I can understand what he is saying.
Justin Madders
Apologies to the hon. Member.
Taken together, these provisions mean that the Bill can support both new strategic roads and significant capacity enhancing improvements, while remaining firmly focused on the trunk road network. The licensing authorities will also exercise their functions within the overarching statutory duties we have just debated. Those duties put the interests of road users at the centre of decision making, while requiring consideration of matters including efficiency and economy, safety, the wider strategic road network, sustainable development and competition.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, which goes to the heart of what we are talking about here: projects not on the strategic road network but that are important to local people—roads or indeed other forms of transport, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman spoke of—will be integral to getting traffic flows and people on to the new schemes that the Bill would enable. Not shutting out and turning our back on the other authorities that are part of the all-important jigsaw puzzle of our road network in its entirety, which feeds into and feeds off the lower Thames crossing or other schemes that the Bill would enable, surely has to be all important.
Alison Griffiths
I listened to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in the Chamber yesterday espouse the future of her devolution programme, which of course encompasses many strategic authorities and regional mayors and is at the heart of the Government’s programme. It seems inconceivable that this Bill specifically excludes them. I urge the Minister to join us in a spirit of cohesion and future clarity. Let us show our constituents what we can do when we work together. We can improve legislation, and the Minister would be working hand in glove with the Secretary of State to deliver that, so I encourage him to support us.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend adds to the argument for amendment 78. For the sake of the record, I should say that those mayoral combined authorities are not excluded; they are just not explicitly included and named in the Bill as important stakeholders in our road system that will ensure that any new scheme functions properly and well, and does not lead to the unintended consequences I spoke of earlier. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Highways (Financing) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Alison Griffiths ExcerptsTuesday 3rd November 2026
(2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 View all Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - (3 Nov 2026)
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend makes the case incredibly well. This discussion is about transparency; it is about openness. It is about saying to those who in the future might receive a licence to run the lower Thames crossing or any other piece of road infrastructure that might be financed through this model that they are still accountable to the public and to the Government, be that the current Government or any future Government.
Such reviews will give us transparency and a clear light on what is going on, so that—to go back to the earlier debate today—any future schemes, which no one can name yet, that might be financed under the scheme created by the Bill could be improved upon by reviews of the operation of the lower Thames crossing in the future. Let us not put a date on when it will actually get built; every state project ends up being built more slowly than originally intended. But five years into the operation of the lower Thames crossing, why would all of us collectively—as parliamentarians or as the general public—not want to know how it was going?
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I was also reflecting upon the fact that the tolling is almost open-ended. From a competitive perspective, in any regular private sector organisation it would be expected that at the end of a licence or a contract, there would be a competitive tender period. If a road has already been built and, as we now know, the maintenance of that road will then become part of a tolling operation, surely we should consider regularly—my hon. Friend said potentially every five years, but I am open to other suggestions—and on a competitive basis which company should operate it going forward, because once a road is built there is no reason why it should be the original road builder that does so.
Greg Smith
There are no coalitions here. There is only one audition going for the next general election, and it will not be looking toward our side of the House.
If there is a sensible solution that does not involve state snooping on our motorists as they use this new infrastructure, the principle that someone has paid their money and should expect a quick journey time is a fundamentally good one, and it should apply.
Amendment 72 would prevent the Bill from coming into force until after the Secretary of State has published a report that sets out the proposed licence conditions, including—this is the $64,000 question, though I hope not literally—tolling arrangements. Throughout the debates so far, a number of questions have been asked about that. I understand the technical nature of the answers, but bluntly, that does not cut it with our constituents. No one can answer how much it will actually cost motorists to use the lower Thames crossing or how the tolling mechanism will be regulated to give clear, unambiguous rules about how a toll must be set and if there will be any caps on it, so that drivers, motorists, private cars and hauliers alike can have confidence in what is coming.
That is simply what amendment 72 seeks to do. The public should know how tolls will be set and how any increases—an equally important point—will be approved before the regime starts operating. It is not good enough for the road to be built and for people to then find out that they cannot afford to use it. Why should Parliament commence the Act before those conditions are published? If the Minister can come back with some clear guidance and rules around that, we will be much closer to full-throttled support for what he is trying to do. We want the lower Thames crossing, but we do not want it at a rate that nobody can afford to use.
Alison Griffiths
When I spoke earlier to amendment 82 to clause 3, it was with this exact issue in mind. We failed to get that amendment passed, so the improvement and maintenance of these roads will be paid for through tolling. However, we know that the “fair and transparent code” the ORR will decide on will not be put to a vote in Parliament. It therefore becomes even more important that on the tolling for these roads, we require a report from the Secretary of State that sets out the conditions and proposed arrangements for toll levels and the approval of increases. Without that, there is no control or stopgap for these tolls. The tolling does not end when costs have been recovered by the operator, so we could have a very open-ended tolling situation.
Given that it is going to one operator, we do not know how cost-effective maintenance will be. Will they be required to go out to tender on this? If a report is coming to the Secretary of State before we set tolling, that will create a position where we have greater control.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I am trying to understand the Opposition’s position, because it seems that they want the Government to intervene in setting the tolling price, but they have also called for a strengthened and independent regulator. I am trying to understand their proposed position.
Alison Griffiths
We are looking for clarity and making sure that our constituents are looked after in this process. At the moment, our constituents are left liable for whatever costs are coming down the track, with only the ORR’s code, which this place will have no say in, to set what those costs will be. Given that the Government do not wish to put in place a limit on the length of a licence, all these things concurrently are creating a situation where constituents, quite rightly, may be wondering what exactly it is that they are paying for.
Shivani Raja
We are generally in agreement that it is essential that both transparency and cost control sit at the heart of this framework. Drivers and local businesses deserve to know exactly what they are being asked to pay before any tolling arrangements are introduced. We cannot expect motorists to accept potentially significant and unexpected costs without first having a clear understanding of what those charges will be, and how they will be determined.
Amendment 72 is about ensuring proper scrutiny before decisions are made and effectively locked in. By requiring licence conditions and proposed toll levels to be published before the Act comes into effect, Parliament has the opportunity to examine the arrangements and understand the potential impact on roads users and motorists.
Ultimately, people deserve transparency, accountability and certainty. We must ensure that the interests of drivers and local businesses in all our constituencies are properly protected, and that no one is left facing unexpected costs without having had the opportunity to understand them.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the intervention, but I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that it is important that we keep the Bill technology-neutral because we do not know what might happen further down the line.
Alison Griffiths
I think it is quite interesting that, in an age of acute cyber-security risks, the Minister considers this a technology-neutral position. We have an analogue system that works very effectively and systems that could be controlled by the Government rather than the licensee, which would ensure appropriate cyber-security. The position that the Minister is suggesting is technology-neutral is actually the reverse: it exposes us to acute cyber-risk over which we will have very little control.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I would say that she is making my case for me: we need to keep up with important changes and risk in the cyber-security world. That is why keeping the Bill as technology-neutral as possible is important, because we simply do not know what will be coming next. Giving operators the flexibility to be able to determine what technology is used is an important part of cyber-security moving forward.
Amendment 53 would insert specific consultation requirements into the Bill before a toll can be set. I agree that local communities and those who use the tolls should have a voice. The question is not whether they should have a voice, but how best to secure that engagement within the Bill’s framework of independent regulation. As it stands, the framework places responsibility with the regulator to set tolling requirements through its code and licence conditions, and to enforce compliance. Consultation requirements should sit within those arrangements, rather than be prescriptive in the Bill.
In exercising its functions, the ORR must have regard to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionality and consistency, and keep the interests of users at the heart of its decision making. That is an important safeguard in the Bill, and I hope that it addresses some of the shadow Minister’s concerns. He will know that the Bill establishes a stakeholder group that will directly advise the ORR. Again, I hope that will address the point about the voices of users being heard in this process. I do not believe that the amendment would improve engagement. Instead, it would constrain the regulator’s discretion to determine how best to take forward individual users’ voices, so I ask the Member not to press it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Labour promised that nationalisation would deliver a more reliable railway. Two years on, it is getting worse. Between April and June, all Government-run operators saw cancellations rise or punctuality fall. Ministers say that Great British Railways will turn that around when it launches next year. They promised its implementation timetable and draft licence consultation this autumn. On this last sitting day of October, neither has yet appeared. When will they, and when will passengers see the improvements they were promised?
Heidi Alexander
May I start by congratulating the hon. Lady on her appointment to the Opposition Front Bench? I think this is the first opportunity that I have had a chance to do so from the Dispatch Box. She is right in some respects. We do need to make more progress on improving punctuality and reliability, and I cannot pretend that I am happy with performance across the entirety of the rail network at the moment. However, I would gently point out to her that at the last reporting period, cancellations across publicly-owned operators were 3.9% compared to 4.9% for operators yet to transfer and still in private ownership. On punctuality, 82.6% of stops by publicly-owned operators were within three minutes of their scheduled arrival time, compared with just 73.8% for operators yet to transfer.
Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Reader
Q
Steve Gooding: They will certainly want the income—there is no question about that. We are comparing it with the M6 toll—one of very few examples of this in this country—where there is an alternative, free-of-charge route. Here, the operating cost for commercial traffic to go around to the west of London, for example, would realistically make that a much less viable alternative.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Q
Steve Gooding: I worked at the ORR back in the day—
Alison Griffiths
I used to work at RAC.
Steve Gooding: As somebody who worked there, I think there are two key things: one is independence, and the other is capability. We are talking specifically about growing and making sure that the ORR has the requisite capability to undertake the tricky and, in a way, very public task of setting that. It would need to build that up. As you say, a lot of the expertise in the ORR today is on railways. Yes, that is engineering, construction and all that, but I would certainly like to see a significant strengthening in the capability of the ORR around some of the specific things about this project and its relationship with the existing crossing.
Edmund King: I agree. I believe the ORR is looking to bring in new skills, particularly in economic regulation and the broader issues, which will be needed. There are similarities between road and rail, but there are also differences and some of the consequences in regulation are quite different, so it will need to be beefed up.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
Secondly, this week, the Public Accounts Committee, which I sit on, released a report on the RAB model for Sizewell, which there are concerns about. Do you have a view on that model? I appreciate that you have indicated that the model will not be used elsewhere, but is there an educated view on whether an alternative model might have worked better?
Steve Gooding: On the first point, the Bill is not specific even to the Dartford crossing or the lower Thames crossing, so I do not think that it takes account of the other schemes we have talked about per se, other than in the general duty for the Secretary of State and ORR to consider the network as a whole. That has already been raised, but the Committee might want to probe it a bit further.
As for the RAB model, I can certainly see the logic, but one has to start with a decision that the Chancellor does not wish to borrow the money himself. If that is the case, in these circumstances, given where National Highways has got to already with contracting for the construction of the tunnel, this appears to be a sensible model, provided that lessons are learnt from past RAB projects. One of those is about the ability and capability of the regulator to do what it is being relied on to do.
Edmund King: One of the features of the RAB model that is quite hard to get your head around is that it is open ended. There is no finish date. On the M6 toll I know that it is a different private finance model, but it was given a 53-year concession. Under this model, in effect, the concession could be 100 or 120 years unless the licence is revoked. That is quite difficult to get your head around at first, because when you look at the Dartford crossing and the tolls going to the Treasury, this is totally changing the model. We have to be sure that the safeguards are there and built into the model. That is why I think toughening up and strengthening the Office of Rail and Road and bringing in a greater degree of independence is increasingly vital.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Michael Whelan: In terms of economic benefits, the best way to look at the M6 toll is to consider the fact that 50,000 vehicles use it every day. If it was not there, the M6 and surrounding network would be quite a mess. As a result of the M6 toll, we have seen significant investment into the region. Numerous businesses have invested in logistics sites up and down that corridor—for example, there is a massive Amazon site near us. That also creates jobs for the region. I will not go through it all; please refer to the pre-reading that I know you all have.
In terms of part 7 of the Bill, which we are specifically interested in, as we see it, as it is an existing road, the ORR regulations do not apply. If they were to apply, that would have a significant impact on our concession agreement, on investors and, in particular, on lenders, who have all invested into the roads. Having this conversation is important, but for us it is a separate issue.
Declan Pang: On the RAB model in particular, we are supportive of any measures that will be brought forward to increase road building and capacity, and efforts in that regard. We think that RAB gives some certainty to the market around providing investment opportunities.
In addition to my comments around the stakeholder group, the ORR has been heavily weighted towards rail regulation and currently has a much smaller role in highways monitoring. As a proportion of what it does as an organisation, its role from a roads perspective is smaller than the rail element, and that is probably reflected in its level of engagement with the sector as it stands. The Bill would reflect quite a significant change in its level of responsibility, and we would want to be sure about the capability and capacity for it to take on that responsibility.
Ben Garratt: I want to expand on something Michael said about the wider benefits. Understandably, the logistics sector invests where there is transport capacity and junctions, from where it can then access the rest of the country. Particular parts of the road and rail network have a lot of logistics clustered around them. It is also about having good journey times between large conurbations.
We can definitely see, in other parts of the country, what we would say is artificially less logistics investment than there should have been, because of transport constraints in parts of the network. It particularly affects the north-west, where it is more of a rail issue. A lack of capacity on the west coast main line leads to more modern logistics being clustered further south than maybe it otherwise would be. There is a real economic benefit for the country in getting the capacity right.
Jim Dickson
Q
Ben Garratt: I think it would inhibit economic growth. Thinking about the modal shift piece, using the right modes for the right kind of journeys in our logistics system is really important, but it is not simply about getting more off congested roads and more on to rail. Rail can play a particularly strong role, as you would understand, where there are railway tracks that connect to ports and are bringing in containers. As this area gets congested, I do not think that would automatically lead to the logistics sector switching to rail, because of the lack of rail connectivity.
It could, over time, lead to less use of the short straits and more use of container shipping but, really, those dynamics are shaped by where the goods are coming from in the world. It would largely just be a bottleneck. It would increase the costs, over time, of exporters connecting to new markets. The current situation will invariably be inhibiting businesses from thinking about going to export, because it has an effect on the costs. We want to see that resolved. In short, it would be bad for the economy if it did not happen.
Declan Pang: We are very much behind it and we are grateful for your efforts in campaigning for it. We are pleased to see that the development consent order was approved. It is already having a significant impact on the economy, given the level of congestion. It is vital that we get it delivered.
Highways (Financing) Bill (Second sitting)
Alison Griffiths ExcerptsThursday 29th October 2026
(1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 View all Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2026 - (29 Oct 2026)
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
Q
Ben Hopkinson: It is a good question. First, in the French example, I am well aware that it is quite expensive to drive on a French motorway. On the other hand, they have many more miles of motorway, and if it is too expensive you can take the equivalent of an A road for certain journeys. Judging by the number of people who drive on French motorways, I think people are generally willing to accept the costs, especially given that they have built many more miles of motorway just this century than we have in total.
I could be proved wrong if it works really well, but the main challenge with the RAB model is the sheer uncertainty of whether the ORR is up to the task and has the right staff in place. It has never done this before. I know there have already been some concerns about capacity issues and general commercial experience within the ORR. I would be concerned if the private sector had large commercial control and contract teams and the public sector did not have them and was out-negotiated. That is certainly possible if civil servants are not able to properly push back on price increases.
I think the fundamental incentives in a RAB model are not right for delivering one-of-a-kind, unique pieces of infrastructure. It works a lot better for infrastructure that has very clear unit costs—for example, the cost of laying 100 metres of pipe. That is good because a regulator is clearly able to understand how much 100 metres of pipe costs to lay and can apply that across its base, whereas the cost of one lower Thames crossing is up in the air. Some additions from the private contractor might seem sensible; they might get away with that. Having a more environmentally friendly construction process certainly seems sensible on the face of it, but that also adds cost. I would want to be reassured that the ORR is up to the task and has both the capacity and the know-how to properly understand the arrangements it is entering into.
Sam Dumitriu: You mentioned price gouging. It is important to work out what the main risks are. Roads are, in most cases, natural monopolies, and the best thing about being a monopoly is a quiet life. It is not necessarily that you have all these opportunities to gouge your customers; it is that the lack of competition means you are not forced to adopt cost-saving measures, or become more customer-friendly and so on. You might have a situation where various people are claiming quite high margins or they are being aggressive in that sense, but the UK has the other problem, where people are not on it around costs. They are not working out what the best structure is to ensure that costs keep falling.
On Ben’s point, one possible way of resolving the issue is quite a radical reform that is probably beyond the scope of the Bill. I have always wondered whether it makes sense for the UK to have Ofgem doing RAB regulation for energy networks, Ofwat doing it for water, the ORR for road and rail and Ofcom for telecoms, or whether it makes sense to have a specialist economic regulator that deals with the costs of natural monopoly networks. That would have a bunch of advantages. It would potentially resolve some of the revolving door problems that you might see. It would also ensure that there is a similar expertise and a standard approach. You do not want varying approaches between all the regulators, because that suggests that they are doing something wrong when you have essentially the same economic problem to solve. As I say, however, that would be far beyond the scope of the Bill.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Q
In a situation such as we have at the moment, where diesel is at £2 a litre and the sustainable version another 50p on top of that, costs are going right up not only for the build, but for the corporate budgets of the haulage companies and for everyday individuals, who have to manage their household budgets. If the cost goes up to a level beyond the right balance of pricing that is commercially viable for the operator, or absorbable for the family or the business, what happens?
At the moment, I am worried about a white elephant across the Thames. In such circumstances, in the end all the costs would get absorbed by the taxpayer and this model goes up in smoke. I am keen to hear from you how concerned I should be about that and what alternative models there are elsewhere.
Ben Hopkinson: The ultimate backstop is the Exchequer. Already the Exchequer has had to bear the cost of bringing the lower Thames crossing through planning. I think it is expected to spend about £3.1 billion on the lower Thames crossing even before private investment is brought in. If we have a circumstance where the toll is not paying back what is necessary and the private body that has financed the road falls into difficulty, the Bill states that the Exchequer is able to top up or provide payments, guarantees or low-cost loans. The backstop is therefore ultimately the taxpayer, combined with higher charges for motorists on the road.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Ben Hopkinson: I am not sure if that would be an appropriate thing for the Bill itself, but trying to make the project as low-cost as possible will definitely be appropriate as we go on to construction and working with National Highways and whatever private company wins the contract. That will be about ensuring that the Office of Rail and Road is set up properly to oversee the costs that are being put through.
Sam Dumitriu: It is worth remembering, however, that the families who may pay higher tolls to cross either the Dartford crossing or the lower Thames crossing, in the absence of a lower Thames crossing bear very high costs, too, as does freight traffic between two of our major ports. The crossing is crucial to the whole wider freight economy—there are really big problems there. I think it is worth remembering that the projects should be made a priority and that, ultimately, they need to get built.
Alison Griffiths
Q
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Thomas McLennan gave evidence.
Jim Dickson
Q
Matt Palmer: The logic is that the economic benefit of the scheme is great. Not only does it solve the problem in the local area; it is a national-level project, so we move at pace, we start the construction and we take a lot of the difficult, time-consuming activities like land assembly—putting plots of land together—and that is what we are doing at the moment. All of that enables a much more stable platform for investors to come in.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Matt Palmer: In construction in the UK, about two thirds of our constructors use HVO as standard. For a project, you will find that a number of constructors bid with HVO—it is just in the costs. That is the case with lower Thames crossing. Two thirds of our contractors bid with HVO.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Matt Palmer: But we have never—what I am saying is that we went to market and asked them to build us a project. They did that with HVO as the base bid. We did not see the cost with diesel.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Matt Palmer: We did not go out with a diesel-based product because the market typically comes forward with an HVO product.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Matt Palmer: I think I have explained myself. They are comparable. £1.70 is what we are paying. I have been clear that that is what we are paying for HVO at the moment.
Alison Griffiths
As I say, when I asked each of these sources specifically about construction projects—I have not asked them about retail; I asked them about construction—they have been clear that there are substantial additional costs to using HVO. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Roger Forsdyke and Andrew Truscott gave evidence.
Tristan Osborne
Q
Andrew Truscott: I would slightly reject your first statement, if I am honest. As an infrastructure investor, we provide, candidly, the lowest cost private capital that is available across the world. If you are attracting John Laing and people like us, I can guarantee that you are getting the lowest cost of equity capital that you can possibly attract and therefore the risk transfer needs to be accordingly appropriate.
I will slightly repeat my opening comments: when we first started interacting with DFT about this project, I was quite nervous about the RAB model. I am not a RAB nerd; there are lots of RAB nerds, and I am not one. RAB can be incredibly complicated, and it can take a huge amount of time to drill down. There is not a regulator. There is an awful lot of work that needs to be done. Am I nervous that that is going to take longer than it should do or could do? Yes, I am, but again, credit to DFT and the Treasury, they seem to be well on track. Maybe the better answer to your question is that we as investors will need absolute certainty—and I mean absolute certainty—about what that regulatory model is, who the regulator is and how that regulation is going to work before we will put in a dollar, a pound, or a euro—whatever currency you like.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Roger Forsdyke: It is really interesting that you say that from your experience it is the commercial pressure. The most important thing in the tendering process is to have measurables beyond just the cost. If it is first past the post, you are destined to push the price down to the lowest-quality bid, which often creates the problems you are describing and that we described earlier. You have to look at how you will measure the quality of the tenders in real terms, beyond the cost of the lowest bid. I do not think that is regularly done effectively, so you end up with cheap materials, optimistic programming, optimistic budgeting and all those things just to get to a price that is probably optimistic in the first place. That echoes what Andrew said.
Alison Griffiths
Q
Roger Forsdyke: I think so. If you have gateways where you build the price through detailed submissions, you can then control it. You do not want uncontrollable cost and excellent quality, but you need to create some gateways through the process so that you can control the quality as you go through. That is my experience. Those sorts of two-stage processes create the best outcomes.
You then have to make sure there is no undefined scope. As you cross the line to secured and the responsibility moves to the contractor, you do not want any change. That is sometimes very hard to achieve, but it is a really important step. It is often, “Oh, we just need to get started,” and the pressure of starting often means that the project will start prematurely, before the scope is defined. That is where the optimism bias goes in—the provisional sum might be light or whatever—and then you end up with escalation, notwithstanding the delays to resolving the issues themselves.
Andrew Truscott: I do not have a huge amount to add, because Roger has put it beautifully. I will just say one thing, and he can kick me under the table: contracting is a hard business. They do billions of pounds-worth of revenue for 2%, 3% or 4% margins—it is hard—and there is therefore little scope in their business models for mistakes. They will always enter into these sorts of projects with an expectation that mistakes do not land at their desk, because otherwise they go bust, and they have done globally.
Again, credit to the way LTC is being procured. I think separating church and state a little bit—separating equity and financing from contracting, rather than having one single proposal—is arguably a way of getting more certainty around deliverability than amalgamating all those elements into one. Where we have seen material cost overruns, it tends to be in the big projects where one single solution is given to a customer. We have been looking at a lot of US projects recently in the road space where single projects— equity, traffic and revenue, as well as construction—are lumped into one big unit and presented to a customer, who then tries to aggregate and always aggregates to lowest cost, and that is not always the right solution.
I am giving my previous panellists an awful lot of credit today, which is wonderful. I think disaggregating elements could be a way of managing that risk and that cost and delay overrun quite well.
Jim Dickson
Q
Andrew Truscott: Hopefully not.
Road Traffic Collision Reporting: Cats
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to you for chairing this debate. I know that many of my cat-loving constituents are deeply invested in this issue, with 363 of them having signed the petition. In common with many Members, I place on record my deep affection for my childhood cats: Scruff, Jasper, Ziggy and my personal favourite, Eartha Kitt.
Before we delve into the proposal in the petition, we should acknowledge the importance of reporting an incident through the existing channels where there has been a collision between a vehicle and a cat. Although there may not be a mandatory legislative requirement, I hope that most drivers, in the event of a collision, would show the level of British decency to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) alluded. If our own pet were involved in a collision, we would expect to receive the same British decency.
There are more than 11 million cats across the country, living in one in four households. We should always strive to protect these cherished pets. Indeed, many are a key part of their owners’ families. As my right hon. Friend the Member also said, they are not merely affectionate members of the family; they are world class at pest control, even if that can occasionally produce a messy result.
The death of any cat is naturally devastating to its owners, and we should support them by ensuring that they are informed of a collision, either so that their cat can receive treatment or so that they can achieve closure. Each person who signed the petition will feel the importance of this issue deeply. Rule 286 of the highway code states clearly:
“If you are involved in a collision which causes damage or injury to any other person, vehicle, animal or property, you MUST stop.”
I would hope that that requirement is adhered to, making it possible for someone to establish whether their cat has been involved in a collision. Reuniting cats with their owners has been made easier by the previous Government’s decision to roll out microchipping in England, ensuring that cats can be more easily identified and their owners contacted.
I am aware that DEFRA has been asked to commission a research project: first, to understand the operational challenges that prevent some cats from being reunited with their keepers after a road traffic collision, and secondly, to establish an evidence base to inform best practice for local authorities. The Government previously said that the project would report this year. I am sure that petitioners will be interested to hear from the Minister when its findings will be published and considered.
I have outlined those measures because I think we can all agree with the sentiments expressed by the petition. It would be disingenuous, however, to consider the comments made by the Government and the previous Conservative Administration and not conclude that there is currently no intention to bring forward legislation on this issue. That is not to dismiss the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) when he shared details of the provision announced in this Chamber in 2015 in response to the campaign for Harvey’s law. His note to me says that
“pets killed on the road must be collected, identified where possible, and their owners notified by the Highways Agency (now called National Highways)”,
so this provision exists already.
As a newly elected MP in 2024, I was not present when this issue was addressed in the House previously. A petition that almost mirrored this one was put forward in 2022 and followed by a debate in this Chamber in 2023. During the debate, the then Roads Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), said that the Government would look at the issue and that he would ask the Department to consider whether it would be appropriate to take further action. The Government subsequently indicated that they believed that a combination of microchipping and efforts by local authorities to reunite cats with their owners was the most effective way forward.
However, we must note a difference between today’s debate and the one in 2023. Since the election, the Labour Government have presided over a reduction in police officer numbers. Requiring the police to deal with collisions involving cats would add to an increasingly challenging workload. Any further demands on police time must be even more carefully considered as a result.
Although it would be simple to ask this Minister to show the same consideration as in 2023, the Government’s response to this petition suggests that the Department for Transport holds the same position as it did then. Furthermore, the Government’s road safety strategy does not mention animals or cats. Therefore, I will avoid reversing roles with the former shadow Minister by asking for the same things as Labour did in 2023, especially when the Government’s position appears to be clear. I will not step on the Minister’s prepared remarks by reiterating reasons given during the previous debate. Given the Department’s written petition response, I expect him to set them out again today.
Instead, I ask the Minister whether anything beyond the measures that the Government have already outlined could be considered. That means going beyond best practice and considering how existing technologies could be utilised more effectively. That might include making things easier for those who need to access microchip database information. More broadly, are there ways of utilising technologies such as GPS collars to help identify more quickly a cat that has tragically been killed during a collision? If we are to consider ways of making things easier for owners, we should consider how information already provided by the private sector could be utilised where owners consent to it being used for this reason.
As I said at the outset, we all share the sentiments set out in this petition. Cat owners are absolutely right to want their cat to be returned to them as quickly as possible. That is the least that all pet owners deserve. However, unless there has been a change of position, I am not clear on whether the Department for Transport believes that such a measure could be implemented effectively.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)
Alison Griffiths ExcerptsTuesday 20th October 2026
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2026 - (20 Oct 2026)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [LORDS] (Second sitting)
Alison Griffiths ExcerptsTuesday 20th October 2026
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 October 2026 - (20 Oct 2026)
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. My constituency is the home of East Midlands airport, where just a few weeks ago there was an increase for rapid drop off from £5 for 15 minutes to £8 for 10 minutes. One of the briefings that we received on the Bill identified an interesting rationale for the charges, and I am sure that will come out in the review.
I have some reflections on choice and fairness. When parking or getting a loved one to drop someone off there are a number of variables. In my constituency, just 9% of the public travel to East Midlands airport using public transport because the options are just not available. At East Midlands Parkway, the closest train station, passengers cannot get a public bus; instead there is a demand-responsive transport option. There is a free one-hour car park and the airport claims that people can get a free shuttle bus—which they can until early November, after which they will have to walk in the dark. I did that without any luggage and it took me about 14 minutes and I was quite speedy. I can imagine how inconvenient that would be for individuals who do not have the ability to pay.
The ability to pay at the point of use and simply forgetting to pay is also very much a part of my casework. When someone has dropped off a loved one at the rapid drop off, they are often doing so at unusual hours—early in the morning or late at night. By the time they get home, they have simply forgotten to pay. I have been asking the airport that a pay terminal be installed inside the airport for a person being dropped off and with the ability to pay, but it simply continues to refuse to do that. For me, it is about choice and fairness, and there does not seem to be much choice or much fairness there. The fear is that it is using the £100 penalty as a way of making up the cost.
There is also the question of whether the cost is proportionate. It is clearly too expensive. What is really frustrating is that Manchester Airports Group also operates Stansted and, as a direct comparison, 50% of people travelling to Stansted use public transport. We are talking about choice and fairness. People there can choose to use other methods, but at East Midlands airport that is simply not the case.
The other additional benefit of Stansted is that people who live within a 10-mile radius get an 85% discount on the rapid drop-off fee. There is no such discount at East Midlands airport—an airport with such poor transport links that only 9% can choose public transport as an option. Not to pre-empt the consultation, but I would welcome the Minister’s views on how we can start making sure that rapid drop off and the fairness to use it is equated with the use of public transport in the locality.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am absolutely delighted that the Government have finally decided to back our amendment and that Ministers now concur with our excellent Conservative colleagues in the other place that a review of airport drop-off charges is desperately needed. 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.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The hon. Lady has always struck me as a master of the English language. I am sure she will therefore understand that the word “cap” does not refer to a target; it is an upper limit. There is no reason why it should induce an increase among those airports that do not feel the need for one, because those airports will have reached that decision for their own particular market. If she does believe that limits are targets, perhaps her party will withdraw its frequent opposition to such measures as 20 mph speed limits, because by that argument people only ever drive—or go—up to the cap, and therefore all other sorts of limits are harmless are well. I of course do not actually think that; I am just suggesting that is how one could logically extend her argument, if we are to view all caps and limits as in fact being targets, or incentives to hit them.
Alison Griffiths
Of course, the historical evidence is not in the hon. Gentleman’s favour. For example, universities charge education fees to the cap almost immediately, and the same is true of other things—market behaviour is such that that will happen. May I also correct his suggestion of the Conservative position on 20 mph limits? We do not want to get rid of all of them, only the blanket 20 mph limits. They need to be used precisely in order to meet their objective. That is why a blanket cap or ban makes no sense, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have already secured a review of these changes, and it makes sense to allow that work to take place before introducing further legislation .
Keir Mather
I will 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. I am very pleased therefore to see the consensus across the room today on the principle of a review of airport drop-off changes.
On a serious note, Members have raised a number of key themes which go to the heart of why a review has been deemed necessary by the Government. That is to ensure that when consumers travel through our airports and use the drop-off facilities, they can be assured that fairness, transparency and ultimately choice about their transport mode is at the heart of their travelling experience.
The shadow Minister was 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 is of course worth noting that airports provide bespoke drop-off locations for people with disabilities, but that brings us to another question about signage and access to those spaces. Those points were very well made, and those sorts of issues should form part of the discussion about how this system evolves.
Speaking to new clause 6, I have a particular question about freezing a cap in aspic, at around £5. Is it proportionate and is it enough? There was a point about disparity around the country, which is worthy of further discussion. Ultimately, I identify with the point made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about ensuring fairness and compliance with mode shift targets where public transport access to airports is poor. It is also worth reflecting on the shadow Minister’s contribution that actually a lot of planning requirements on airports need management of mode shift targets in a way that impacts directly on how those drop-off systems work. That is worthy of consideration.
Though we can have conversations about fairness, transparency and choice, drop-off charges are often used by airports to make very necessary improvements to their facilities and access. That is also worthy of consideration. The shadow Minister perhaps did not point to the work we have done more recently to facilitate airport expansion and modernisation, which helps the airport sector to grow. That being said, she is right to point to the fact that the cost stack faced by airports is of material concern, and therefore we have to be cognisant of what we do in terms of reviewing airport drop-off charges and think of them in the round when we consider how best to support the sector.
On that basis, there have been some great contributions by both Government and Opposition MPs speaking to the constituency impact of drop-off charges. The review will be designed to address some of those questions. I do have concerns about new clause 6, which mean that I cannot support it.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Directions about implementation
Sadik Al-Hassan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Before entering this House, I spent nearly two decades as a pharmacist. That gives a person a particular view of the world, as staying up to date with technology, processes and drugs is crucial to saving lives, and that is, in part, why I support the Bill, including clause 8. Surely, if it is good enough for pharmacy, staying up to date, with modern rules, plans and powers, is good enough for flying.
Clause 8 will help with a problem that my North Somerset constituency, which is 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 and bring up to date the 1950s framework that governs our airspace. My constituents stand to gain the most from that, including less noise overhead, greater efficiency, lower greenhouse gas emissions and fewer delays.
As with all things, there is a cost to doing nothing. Without reform, flight delays are expected to rise by 200% by 2040. We must also do all we can to help to combat climate change. The establishment of the UK Airspace Design Service will deliver the resilience and efficiency that our airspace needs. The service has begun its work in London, but will 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.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak briefly to amendment 27 and clause 8. On amendment 27, the Opposition of course believe that local communities should have the opportunity to make their voices heard when decisions may affect them—that is an important part of the process. Consultation should be meaningful and, intrinsically, there ought to be sensible, local, proportionate mitigations.
I have concerns, however, about the additional requirements that the amendment would impose. The clause addresses the implementation of airspace changes, including those that have already been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. I question whether it is sensible to require further environmental and noise impact assessments before the Secretary of State can even issue a direction to implement those changes. Our aim ought to be to reduce the merry-go-round of regulation that impairs growth and investment; after all, modernising our airspace is absolutely vital to improving capacity, reducing delays, and ensuring that our airports can grow and expand. The last thing we should do is introduce further requirements that risk holding up improvements that have already been through the appropriate approval process.
Of course, local communities should have their voices heard and their concerns properly considered, but that must be done proportionately. We cannot allow endless assessments and procedural hurdles to strangle the growth of our aviation sector. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of local consultation and the intentions behind the amendment, I confess that I have reservations about the additional burdens it could create. For those reasons, the Opposition will abstain in any vote on the amendment.
Clause 8 allows 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.
Olly Glover
I have heard the debate; perhaps we need to have a whip-round to buy the shadow Minister a house underneath the flightpath and see if her view would remain the same then. I would like to press amendment 27 to a Division.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to say that where there is a broadening of who is charged, there must be a broadening of the principles that should underly 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. 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 2 will update the appeals framework for changes to air services licences to reflect the broader charging regime introduced by clause 10. As the Bill broadens the categories of persons who may be liable for charges for air services, the schedule will ensure that appeal rights continue to apply appropriately to those affected by licence modifications and that those affected are notified of the stages of the appeal process, providing the transparency and fairness to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston refers. The schedule will extend appeal rights to reflect the wider range of stakeholders who may be affected by regulatory decisions, and I commend it to the Committee.
Finally, clause 10 will update the charging framework for air services to ensure that it remains fit for the future. Existing legislation allows charges to be imposed only on operators and owners of aircraft. This clause will broaden the framework so that charges may be imposed on a wider range of persons in the future. Anyone charged must still be a user or beneficiary of a service and must be consulted before charges are set. That will provide flexibility to accommodate future developments in aviation and enable charges to be imposed efficiently on new users of licensed air services, such as providers of services to uncrewed aircraft, where appropriate.
While the Government move forward very purposefully on things such as the future of flight industry group, and as we focus on beyond visual line of sight drone operations and electric vehicle take-off and landing, those benefits will be accrued. It is right that the charging regime is adapted to focus on it, but those two things must work in tandem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston encourages me to consider. This will provide flexibility to accommodate future developments.
The clause will also make consequential amendments to ensure that the relevant provisions of the Transport Act 2000 and the appeal process operate consistently following these changes. Overall, this will provide 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.
Alison Griffiths
I will briefly address clauses 9 and 10 and schedule 2. Clause 9 and schedule 2 will 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.
I have concerns, however, about the drafting of clause 10. 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”,
while also saying that
“it is immaterial whether…the services…could 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 10, but we do expect that ambiguity to be properly addressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly agreed to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Allocation of slots and co-ordination and facilitation of schedules
Alison Griffiths
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 11, page 11, line 12, leave out “other than excluded regulations,”.
This amendment would ensure that all regulations made under new section 34A of the Airports Act 1986, including temporary regulations modifying or disapplying slot usage requirements, are subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 13, in clause 11, page 11, leave out lines 16 to 19.
This amendment would ensure that all regulations made under new section 34A of the Airports Act 1986, including temporary regulations modifying or disapplying slot usage requirements, are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause stand part.
Alison Griffiths
These amendments concern a very straightforward principle: that Parliament ought to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the regulations made under this legislation. The amendments would ensure that the relevant regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament and thus preserving scrutiny, accountability and fair process for all concerned. Given the breadth of powers in this Bill, that is an entirely reasonable safeguard. Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be?
Regulations under the clause 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 that basic principle. I hope that the Government can recognise today the importance of affording this House that ability to scrutinise and do its job.
Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State broad powers to amend or restate the airport slot allocation regime. We recognise that the system may need to respond quickly in 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.
Keir Mather
With your indulgence, Chair, may I just very briefly respond to a comment that the Shadow Minister made?
Alison Griffiths
I hear the Minister’s remarks. I fear that we will not agree on the important need for affirmative parliamentary scrutiny.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Alison Griffiths
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 12, page 12, line 7, leave out
“CAA may by rules (to be known as ‘CAA rules’)”
and insert
“Secretary of State may by regulations”.
This amendment would provide for CAA rules to be made by regulations by the Secretary of State.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 15, in clause 12, page 13, line 14, at end insert—
“(7A) Before making regulations under subsection (7), the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out the principles underlying the exceptions to the CAA’s power to make CAA rules.
(7B) The statement under subsection (7A) must explain how those principles apply to the provision, matters or purposes specified in the regulations.”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish the principles underlying the exceptions to the CAA’s delegated rule-making power, in line with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Amendment 19, in clause 12, page 13, line 22, at end insert—
“(1A) The consultation required by subsection (1) must be carried out on a draft version of the proposed rules.
(1B) In deciding which persons to consult under subsection (1)(b), the CAA must, in particular, consider whether to consult—
(a) persons likely to be affected by the proposed rules, and
(b) bodies appearing to the CAA to represent the interests of such persons.”.
This amendment would require the CAA to consult on proposed CAA rules in draft and to consider consulting affected persons and bodies representing their interests.
Amendment 20, in clause 12, page 13, lines 34 to 36, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would require a consultation under section 61B(1) where a provision in the proposed rules was deemed to sufficiently minor by the CAA.
Amendment 21, in clause 12, page 13, line 34, leave out “the CAA thinks” and insert
“the Secretary of State and the CAA agree”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the CAA to agree that a provision was sufficiently minor before that fast-track procedure was applied.
Amendment 22, in clause 12, page 15, line 40, after “rules,” insert
“including the provision of clear signposting to related requirements contained in Air Navigation Orders and other legislation,”
This amendment would make clear that guidance about the publication of CAA rules may include provision for signposting to related requirements in air navigation orders and other legislation.
Amendment 16, in clause 12, page 16, leave out lines 11 and 12.
This amendment would prevent the CAA from having a veto over the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives document.
Amendment 23, in clause 12, page 16, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert—
“(1) The CAA must publish and maintain on its website an up-to-date consolidated version of the whole of the text of CAA rules.
(1A) The CAA may prepare and publish up-to-date consolidated versions of any part of the text of CAA rules.”.
This amendment would require the CAA to maintain and publish on its website an up-to-date consolidated version of the complete CAA rules, with the ability to publish consolidated extracts.
Amendment 17, in clause 12, page 17, leave out lines 11 to 21.
This amendment deletes a Henry VIII provision.
Clause stand part.
Alison Griffiths
The Secretary of State should remain at the heart of aviation regulation, providing clear direction and ensuring that the CAA’s regulatory framework supports growth, competitiveness and investment. Ministers should be setting that direction and driving the CAA towards those objectives rather than handing them over extensive rule-making powers with insufficient democratic accountability. That is why we have tabled amendment 14, to ensure that the Government retain the ability to set that direction rather than sitting on the sidelines as a passive bystander.
Amendment 15 is designed to provide clarity, 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 is an unreasonable request. Indeed, when this was debated in the other place, the Minister acknowledged the concerns and promised to consider them carefully. What became of those assurances? Why has the Government not seen fit to include this perfectly sensible safeguard in the Bill?
I turn next to amendment 19, which I am inclined to support. It is entirely sensible those that 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, which 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 proper consultation with those who actually have to operate under those rules is an important part of achieving that.
On amendment 20, I think the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is rather hedging his bets, 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.
We support amendment 21, which 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? 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. The amendment would simply require Ministers and the CAA to agree that a proposed change is sufficiently minor to justify using that procedure. 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.
Amendment 22 is also perfectly sensible. Signposting provides clarity and I suspect it would be particularly useful for smaller aviation businesses, which may not have the resources to navigate multiple pieces of legislation and regulatory guidance. I know that the shadow Secretary of State has received representations from those involved in gliding and general aviation, and it is 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 to ensure that the guidance accompanying the CAA’s new rulebook properly signposts related requirements elsewhere in aviation legislation. Ease, clarity and transparency are principles that we are always inclined to support, and for those reasons we will press the amendment to a vote.
I turn to amendment 16, which stands in my name. One of our key concerns throughout consideration of the Bill has been the extent to which the CAA is being given increasingly unfettered powers, with insufficient accountability to Ministers and to Parliament. It should always be the case that Government 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. The 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.
Amendment 23 is also very sensible. Providing greater clarity on how the CAA’s 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 to be a straightforward, practical measure that will help aviation businesses to comply with their obligations, and we are therefore happy to support it.
Finally, I turn to amendment 17, which stands in my name. It seeks to delete a Henry VIII provision from clause 12. We have consistently raised concerns throughout the Bill’s passage about the extent to which powers are being transferred away from Parliament, and this provision is another such example. The Government are giving the CAA substantial new rule-making powers, while 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 that was necessary to avoid gaps in legislation and to ensure a smooth transition. However, surely a little admin inconvenience cannot be an excuse for hollowing out parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Acts of Parliament should be amended through parliamentary process, and we should be extremely cautious about granting Ministers powers to bypass those processes. For those reasons, the Opposition have tabled amendment 17 and will press it to a vote.
I will conclude by speaking 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.
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. He also notes that, as our aviation sector evolves—especially in relation to drone and beyond visual line of sight technology—we may want a more hands-on approach to determining what constitutes significant change. When a lot of these technologies first appear, it might seem as though they will not reach fruition and maturity for some time, and then they quickly become very consequential to how our airspace develops. Ministers are ultimately responsible for setting the CAA’s strategic priorities. The Secretary of State of course has the power to direct the CAA and can reserve particular functions. On that basis, the amendments are not necessary at present, given the suite of ministerial powers available when those more nuanced circumstances might arise. However, I will happily pick that conversation up with the hon. Gentleman outside the Committee to consider it further.
Amendment 22 seeks to make it explicit that guidance on the publication of CAA rules may provide for signposting to related requirements in air navigation orders and other legislation. I understand the intention behind the amendment. It is important that those who are subject to aviation safety requirements can understand how CAA rules interact with requirements elsewhere in the legislative framework. However, I feel that the amendment is unnecessary. Proposed new section 61G already gives the Secretary of State the ability to issue guidance about the publication of CAA rules.
In my view, it is unnecessary to be more specific, but perhaps we ought to have a conversation about what more routine processes we can build in to make sure that guidance is provided in a more timely way, so that the smaller operators the shadow Minister spoke of have access to the guidance they need. As the provision stands, the guidance that can be issued can address, should Ministers choose, how rules are presented and published, including appropriate signposting to related legislative requirements, without prescribing that particular approach in the Bill. We therefore consider that those matters are better addressed in that flexible way, through the guidance under proposed new section 61G.
Amendment 16, which was tabled by the shadow Minister, returns to the question of whether the CAA should have to agree the Secretary of State’s priorities and objectives. The Government’s position on that matter remains clear. The CAA is the UK’s independent aviation safety regulator, and its technical experts will be responsible for turning the priorities issued by the Secretary of State into a deliverable rule-making programme. Requiring its agreement ensures that the programme is feasible, appropriately targeted and compatible with its statutory responsibilities.
In our view, removing that safeguard would not improve accountability. Instead, it could require the CAA to pursue priorities it considers undeliverable or inconsistent with its responsibilities, undermining both its independence and the effective operation of the new framework. The requirement for its agreement does not, however, give the CAA a veto over Government policy. The Secretary of State has the power to direct the CAA in its rule making, and retains powers to reserve matters from the CAA’s rule-making functions and to legislate directly where appropriate. For those reasons, we believe that the amendment would remove the necessary safeguards without necessarily strengthening ministerial authority. On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister not to press it.
Amendment 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, would require the CAA to maintain on its website an up-to-date and consolidated version of the whole text of the CAA rules. I agree that aviation rules must be clear and accessible—all CAA rules will be published and remain available and accessible—but the question is whether the CAA should be under a legal duty to keep the entire rulebook continuously consolidated. We do not consider such a duty to be necessary.
The CAA rulebook will contain many thousands of provisions, and it is important for the authority to have flexibility in how it develops, prepares and maintains a consolidated version of the rules, which it then publishes. If the CAA is required to consolidate fully the rulebook after every change, no matter how minor, it would be required to ensure that the whole consolidated rulebook is updated even when a change affects only a small number of provisions. That would also prevent, for example, the CAA from undertaking consolidation exercises at more appropriate and proportionate intervals than in every instance that would be required under the proposed provisions. That could impose disproportionate cost and delay, frustrating the Bill’s purpose of enabling the CAA to maintain a more agile rule-making framework.
I promise, Ms McVey, that I am making good progress through my response to this group of amendments. Amendment 17 returns to the provision that enables consequential amendments to be made in connection with CAA rules. In our view, the need for that power is practical and unavoidable. As responsibility for safety rule making moves to the CAA, the Government must be able to make facilitating regulations and update related legislation so that the statute book remains coherent and the new framework can operate as intended. Without that, the provisions may become unworkable and result in significant legal uncertainty.
The power is not broad or unconstrained; it may be used only to make the secondary legislation needed to facilitate or give effect to the CAA’s rule-making function. Such powers are a well-established feature of primary legislation where necessary to manage an orderly transition to a new statutory regime. Removing the provision would therefore not provide an additional safeguard; it would risk leaving gaps in the legislative framework and prevent the transition to CAA rule making from operating effectively.
The clause itself delegates powers to the CAA to make legally binding aviation safety rules using a process that is quicker and simpler than the existing process of making secondary legislation. That will allow detailed and technical aviation safety requirements to be updated more quickly and efficiently, helping the UK to keep pace with technological developments and evolving international standards. The Secretary of State’s existing powers to legislate remain unaffected. The Bill allows the Government to reserve matters that should not be delegated to the CAA, including where issues of national security or the wider public interest arise.
Importantly, the framework includes robust safeguards. That includes a power for the Secretary of State to direct the CAA with regard to rule making. The CAA will in most situations be required to consult before making rules, to publish them transparently and to report annually on the use of its powers. The Secretary of State will also set strategic priorities for the CAA’s rule making and may direct how those functions are exercised, while not being able to dictate the content of individual rules. That gives Parliament a clearer and more joined-up view of safety rule making, replacing today’s fragmented approach. Together, the provisions create a more agile system for updating aviation safety requirements, while maintaining clear accountability and oversight. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Alison Griffiths
We have reached the conclusion that the Minister and I are probably not going to agree on the need for parliamentary scrutiny or for the holding back of Henry VIII powers in the Bill, so I will press the amendments to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Mather
With apologies to the Committee for continuing my grand oration, I will speak to these clauses and Government amendment 4, 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 that they can be enforced effectively. The clause also updates the power in respect of endangerment offences to ensure that the most serious aviation safety risks are treated appropriately. Importantly, it does not create any new offences itself, and any future use of the power would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Clause 14 provides a standard consequential amendment power to ensure that legislation operates effectively following the changes made by this Bill. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to update, amend or remove references and provisions elsewhere in the statute book where it 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, and 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. The clause provides the necessary flexibility to ensure that the legislative framework remains clear and consistent, while maintaining appropriate parliamentary oversight.
Clause 15 is a standard provision that sets out the extent of the Bill’s measures. Clause 16 contains provisions relating to the commencement of Bill measures, including 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 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.
Government amendment 4 covers a procedural matter. It removes
“the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords”,
which is currently in clause 17(2) of the Bill. The privilege amendment and its removal is standard procedure for all Bills that originate in the other place. Clause 17 sets out the short title—the name by which an Act of Parliament is commonly known and cited. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Alison Griffiths
I will 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. I shall leave those clauses alone.
Clause 13 widens the circumstances in which air navigation orders may create, amend or appeal criminal offences connected with aviation safety requirements. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how those 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 appeal primary legislation. The Government’s own memorandum says:
“We have identified all the changes to primary legislation that we believe are necessary…and have included them in the Bill.”
They also say 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 that power to be used?
Keir Mather
In relation to when I would expect the power to be used, I will not be drawn into commenting on hypothetical situations in which that might be appropriate. However, I can reassure the shadow Minister that it is designed to allow the Bill to operate effectively. It is limited and consequential and affects only legislation that does not have a primary application. In that sense, it is both proportionate and technical in ensuring the application of the Bill.
Clause 13 pertains only to restoring powers that have been lost following our exit from the EU to both create and amend the relevant criminal offences. It closes the gap in the current framework that relates to offences that breach those requirements in assimilated law. It does not create any new offences, and any future use of the power would be subject to robust parliamentary scrutiny. There are appropriate safeguards, and that addresses a powers gap issue that has only been caused by our exit from the European Union. I would be happy to provide the shadow Minister with any other information she might require. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Independent Aviation Ombudsman
“(1) The Civil Aviation Act 1982 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 1 insert—
‘1A Independent Aviation Ombudsman
(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Aviation Ombudsman (“the Ombudsman”).
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment, funding, and operation of the Ombudsman, and such regulations must include provision for—
(a) the appointment of the Ombudsman by the Secretary of State, following consultation with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
(b) the term of office, terms of appointment, and removal of the Ombudsman;
(c) funding of the Ombudsman’s functions by a levy on operators or owners of aircraft registered with the Civil Aviation Authority and on airport operators.
(3) The Ombudsman may investigate a complaint made by—
(a) a passenger, or a person acting on a passenger’s behalf;
(b) a resident, or a representative body of residents, in an area materially affected by a decision on airspace change, flight path, or air navigation services; against a regulated person, in relation to a matter within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under subsection (4).
(4) The matters within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction include—
(a) complaints about the service provided by an airline, airport operator, or air navigation service provider, including delay, cancellation, denied boarding, baggage, and accessibility for disabled passengers;
(b) complaints about the conduct of the Civil Aviation Authority in exercising its regulatory functions, including airspace change decisions made under the process set out in the Civil Aviation Authority’s Airspace Change Process;
(c) such other matters as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.
(5) Before investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman must be satisfied that the complainant has first exhausted the internal complaints procedure of the regulated person, unless the Ombudsman considers it would be unreasonable to require this.
(6) Following an investigation, the Ombudsman may—
(a) make a determination in favour of the complainant, including a direction that the regulated person pay compensation, take remedial action, or both;
(b) publish the determination and the reasons for it.
(7) A determination made under subsection (6)(a) is binding on the regulated person and enforceable, on the application of the Ombudsman, as if it were an order of the county court in England and Wales and Northern Ireland or of the Sheriff Court in Scotland.
(8) The Ombudsman must, at least once a year, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the Ombudsman’s functions, including the number and nature of complaints received, upheld, and resolved.
(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(10) In this section—
“regulated person” means a person holding an operating licence, an airport operator, or a licensed air navigation service provider;
“the Civil Aviation Authority” has the meaning given in the Civil Aviation Act 1982.’”—(Luke Taylor.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak briefly to new clause 1. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Horsham is seeking to achieve with this new clause, but much of what he is calling for is already 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 measurements in this Bill to take effect before creating further regulatory structures. For those reasons, the Opposition will abstain on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 9, 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 new clause 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 passengers’ preferences and made recommendations to airlines, and the CAA will work closely with industry to take those forward to improve passenger communications.
While the intention of this new clause 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 already in place, while retaining the flexibility under the Bill to introduce targeted requirements in future where evidence demonstrates they are needed.
Alison Griffiths
I will speak to new clause 9. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is seeking to achieve, and 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, as we have seen with the recent National Air Traffic Services 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. While the Conservatives strongly support its direction of travel, we have some reservations about the precise requirements in this new clause and will therefore abstain.
Olly Glover
My apologies; I should have covered new clause 9 when speaking at the beginning—that was my oversight—but both the Minister and the shadow Minister have summed it up well. All I would add on that particular new clause is that, while I understand what hon. Members have said, we are going to have to do something to improve this issue, rather than just hoping that the marvellous aviation sector sorts it. These are very long-standing problems. Technology, and information technology in particular, have moved on. It should be easier to do these things well. The Minister keeps referring to clause 1—goodness me, the heavy weight of expectation really does sit upon it; it will perhaps be the most impactful clause 1 there has ever been in a Government Bill, the way he is talking it up. We can keep an eye on that in future. I shall not push these new clauses to a vote, as we do have a few more to get through; I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
National Disruptive Passenger Database: Duty to publish proposals
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish proposals for a National Disruptive Passenger Database.
(2) The proposals under subsection (1) should include, but not be limited to, provisions that would—
(a) facilitate airlines to share information on disruptive passengers;
(b) require airlines to notify the Government of an incident involving a disruptive passenger;
(c) alert participating airlines when a person in the database books a flight; and
(d) provide airlines with an option of refusing to carry passengers flagged by the database.”—(Olly Glover.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a National Disruptive Passenger Database.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling the new clause, which seeks to require proposals for a national disruptive passenger database to be published within six months of Royal Assent. I must say, it brings me absolutely no pleasure to rain on the hon. Member’s parade in the way that I have done for the previous few new clauses that we have debated. However, there may be some rays of light in relation to this one, when it comes to action that the Government are 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 is precisely why the Government have 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 under way, 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 that they must contain risks pre-empting the ongoing work and limiting our ability to develop the most effective solution in partnership with industry.
I cannot express enough my agreement about how much of a significant problem this is. I recently met representatives from Unite the Union and GMB from Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport. They described the appalling abuse that they get as members of staff from disruptive passengers, including being hit and spat at and having people screaming in their face. Because information sharing does not take place in the existing system, a disruptive person can just walk out of the airport, book a new ticket, walk back in and board a different carrier’s flight.
I am pleased to say that airlines and airports have been constructive and helpful in engaging with us on the work to develop this system and create a shared list of passengers, so that airlines can determine whether to allow them to board. We are making meaningful progress in this space. For those reasons, although we share the objective of the new clause, the Government’s existing work provides the right route to develop a proportionate and workable approach. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clause.
Alison Griffiths
I am delighted to hear the Minister’s comments. This is such an important topic. It is quite extraordinary; anyone who flies regularly will know how disruptive such behaviour is, and this has become an increasingly concerning issue in recent years. It is a serious matter for passengers, cabin crew and airlines, and I am delighted to hear from the Minister that the Government are now giving this proper attention. I look forward to a timeline from him on when he will bring forward this system. The Liberal Democrats have suggested a timeline in their new clause, which has been rejected, so I look forward to hearing an alternative proposal from the Minister.
Keir Mather
I completely understand the hon. Lady’s encouragement for us to set out a timeline. This is being developed in consultation with private sector operators who are working through the data requirements and legal strictures that relate to information sharing of this kind. It is obviously a complicated process. That being said, I am happy to take this away and write to both her and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage and share whatever detail I can on how the scheme is likely to unfold.
Alison Griffiths
I thank the Minister for his response. To conclude, although we welcome the debate that the new clause has prompted, and we recognise the importance of the issue that it raises, we will be abstaining, pending more information from the Minister.
Olly Glover
We have heard enough. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Passenger Luggage Minimum Sizing: Duty to produce regulations
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament regulations providing for ‘British Standard’ luggage for Air Travel.
(2) The regulations specified in subsection (1) must set out the following definitions—
(a) ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’, namely a hand bag or personal item form of carry-on luggage; and
(b) ‘British Standard Suitcase’, namely a form of large carry-on bag.
(3) Regulations made under this section must provide for a minimum size, both in terms of dimensions and weight, for both the British Standard Hand Luggage and the British Standard Suitcase, and require airlines to allow luggage which meets the definition of a British Standard Hand Luggage to be taken on board by passengers without charge.
(4) The regulations made under subsection (1) may permit airlines to charge passengers who wish to carry a British Standard Suitcase aboard, however airlines may not impose a restriction on ‘carry-on luggage’ which would be smaller than the definitions of a ‘British Standard Suitcase’.
(5) Regulations made under this section must establish a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet the definitions of either ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’ or ‘British Standard Suitcase’.”—(Luke Taylor.)
This new clause makes provision for a minimum standard for hand luggage and carry-on bags and establishes a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet those standards.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 10, which would require a report on this legislation’s impact on passenger protections and standards two years after Royal Assent. I agree that it is important to ensure that legislation and regulation have the intended impact, but it is not necessary to include in primary legislation a requirement for a post-implementation review.
In practice, the inclusion of such review requirements must already be considered when developing secondary legislation and included where appropriate. Given that the much talked about clause 1 will give the Secretary of State the power to amend air passenger rights legislation through regulations, that would be the most suitable point at which to decide whether such a review was needed for a specific regulation and to determine its scope. In addition, a Government amendment made in the other place—clause 5(2)—requires the CAA to report annually on its use of the direct enforcement powers introduced by the Bill. Parliament will therefore receive regular, ongoing information on how the new enforcement regime is operating. As such, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw new clause 10.
I also thank him for tabling new clause 11, which would require the Government to introduce a statutory passengers’ charter for air travel. I recognise the ambition behind this new clause, but as was made clear when this proposal was considered in the other place, a statutory charter is not the right or most effective mechanism for delivering on that objective. The fundamental difficulty is how such a charter would operate in practice: if drafted broadly, it would create expectations that could not meaningfully be enforced; if drafted prescriptively, it would quickly become inflexible. Where reform is justified, targeted and evidence-based, regulation under clause 1 will offer a clearer and more effective route, allowing requirements to be introduced where there is evidence of consumer detriment, without prescribing broad service standards in primary legislation.
The new clause brings together matters that are already addressed through existing legislation and regulatory frameworks, while others are commercial decisions properly left to airlines. Established requirements cover safety, accessibility and passenger rights, and those protections can be strengthened through statutory instruments where the evidence demonstrates that change is needed. In contrast, catering, wi-fi, seat configuration, charging points and baggage allowances are ultimately commercial matters that properly sit with airlines.
Different operating models give passengers a choice between price and service. Low-cost carriers, for instance, can offer lower fares because they use higher-density seating and unbundle optional services. Imposing uniform statutory standards in these areas could reduce choice, increase costs and make affordable air travel less widely available. Nor are all the proposed commitments suitable for statutory targets. Concepts such as “value for money” and “adequate seating” are subjective, while punctuality and reliability can be affected by weather, air traffic restrictions and other factors outside an airline’s control.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the Department is already developing a non-statutory accessible travel charter. That work will set clear, shared expectations for transport operators and local authorities to improve accessibility for disabled people across all modes. It is a more focused and practical response than the wide-ranging statutory charter proposed here.
In short, the new clause would duplicate existing frameworks, constrain legitimate commercial flexibility and create a risk of unintended consequences. For those reasons, I cannot support it and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press new clause 11.
Alison Griffiths
New clause 10 is a very sensible amendment and one that is clearly in the interests of passengers. Given the significant changes being introduced through the Bill, it seems entirely reasonable to review their impacts after two years, particularly on passenger protections and accessibility. It is a fair point; providing greater clarity and accountability over whether the measures are working can only be a good thing. We are therefore happy to support the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his new clause, which seeks to prevent the powers in the Bill from being used “in connection with” airport expansion. The reasons I cannot support this new clause are clear and the central point is straightforward: this Bill is about aviation consumer protection and the aviation regulatory framework; it is not a Bill about airport expansion. Its measures are needed irrespective of whether an expansion proposal comes forward and irrespective of the outcome of any such proposal.
The Government have been clear that they support airport expansion where it can deliver economic and connectivity benefits and meet the relevant environmental and planning requirements, but such proposals must be considered through the established planning system. They are not authorised, facilitated or decided through this Bill.
That distinction is reflected in the scrutiny of the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, including my appearance tomorrow before the Transport Select Committee, which I very much look forward to. Airport expansion is considered through dedicated processes, with their own consultation, scrutiny and Parliamentary oversight. Nothing in this Bill displaces those processes or prejudges their outcomes. The new clause would therefore not provide a meaningful safeguard against airport expansion. Instead, its broad reference to powers used “in connection with” facilitating expansion could create uncertainty well beyond any individual proposal. It could cast doubt on routine regulatory activity that neither approves nor promotes expansion, potentially constraining the effective operation of the aviation framework to no clear benefit. Put simply, in my view this new clause seeks to guard against something the Bill does not do, while risking unintended consequences for what the Bill must do. It is therefore unnecessary and could inhibit legitimate regulatory functions. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Alison Griffiths
I find new clause 12 quite extraordinary. We have been clear throughout these proceedings that we want to see economic growth, greater investment and a thriving, internationally competitive aviation sector. Airport expansion has an important role to play in achieving these ambitions, subject to sensible, local, proportionate mitigations. I simply cannot understand why we would want to insert a provision into the Bill that deliberately seeks to restrict our ability to deliver that growth.
We want Britain to succeed and we will not be signing up to measures that deliberately seek to curtail the economic growth our country so desperately needs.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new clause, which seeks to ensure that the economic regulatory framework incentivises resilient and reliable air traffic services and efficient and cost-effective operations. Although we fully agree that resilient air navigation services are critical, particularly in the light of recent disruptions, I cannot support the new clause for reasons that I will outline.
In the first instance, safety must remain the overriding priority for air traffic controllers. Air traffic control decisions must be taken solely on safety grounds; they should not be based on other considerations, such as financial penalties. The CAA already regulates NATS with an existing regime that provides accountability, with delay-related targets and a penalty mechanism that reduces airline charges.
In addition, the new clause risks prejudging the results of ongoing work. The Secretary of State for Transport has commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to lead an independent investigation into the air traffic control disruptive events in September. It will examine the cause of the incidents and broader questions relating to NATS’s resilience, capital investment and modernisation plans, and will help to identify any lessons needed to strengthen the resilience of the UK air traffic management system. It will also review the findings, recommendations and actions arising from previous significant UK disruption, such as in August 2023. It will assess the extent to which they have been effectively implemented and whether they remain adequate for addressing system resilience, and the consequences of major disruption for airlines and passengers in the wider aviation sector.
The new clause assumes that the appropriate response to recent disruptions is to alter the statutory framework for economic regulation. However, it is not yet clear that the underlying issues relate to deficiencies in the CAA’s economic regulatory duties. The CAA’s investigation is intended to establish precisely what caused the incidents and what lessons should be learned. It would be premature to conclude that legislative changes to economic regulation are required before that evidence is available. If the CAA’s investigation identifies a case for changes to the economic regulatory framework, those proposals should be considered through the normal policymaking process so that any reforms are carefully developed, properly tested and coherent, rather than pre-empting the outcome of that work now. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that work is ongoing on this important issue and gives him leave to withdraw the new clause.
Alison Griffiths
I am delighted to hear from the Minister that work is ongoing on this important subject. New clause 15 makes a valuable contribution and we are happy to support it. Given the multiple serious failures at NATS in recent years, including two in September alone, it is absolutely right that the regulatory framework places greater emphasis on operational resilience and reliability, and preventing major disruption. We have seen the enormous consequences of these failures for airlines, passengers and the wider aviation industry, with thousands of flights disrupted through absolutely no fault of their own. What message does that send to potential investors—those wishing to expand and grow?
Frankly, I question whether the Government have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to ensuring that our air traffic control system is fit for purpose. They could not even be bothered to come to the House to make a statement, and had to be dragged to the Chamber to answer the urgent question asked by the shadow Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). We must do everything possible to safeguard passengers and airlines from further disruption and ensure that the regulatory framework properly incentivises NATS to prevent these failures in the first place. I therefore welcome the new clause, and the Opposition will support it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]
Alison Griffiths ExcerptsWednesday 9th September 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 40–I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (17 Jul 2026)
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
This has been a positive debate. I reiterate the call of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for the Government to make a statement on the third catastrophic systems failure of NATS. It is simply not good enough that the Secretary of State has come to the House only for Second Reading, and not to take questions from hon. Members. I am also deeply concerned to hear that she thinks six months is an acceptable time to take to report on this subject.
The Opposition’s ambition is to foster the conditions for a safe, competitive and world-leading aviation industry, which appears to be an uncontroversial aim. However, as was highlighted by the shadow Secretary of State, while this is an important administrative Bill, the soaring ambition the sector deserves is sadly missing.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions today. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) provided significant support for Lord Young’s amendment in the Lords, but I particularly enjoyed hearing about his British standard suitcase. The wider consensus has related to airport drop-off charges, and we have heard Members from right across the House endorse a review and keeping clause 7 in the Bill. The Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) all mentioned that subject—and spoke at length, in some cases. I endorse their thoughts on the issue.
The Opposition believe in the world-leading potential of our aviation sector. We want to encourage the enterprise, innovation and competition that will help it to thrive. However, on the searing cost to consumers of drop-off charges at airports, we urge the Government to keep clause 7 in the Bill. The Government’s surface access strategies and targets incentivise such charges while penalising drivers. Airports openly use them to discourage people from travelling to the airport by car. At Gatwick, an airport heavily used by my constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, it now costs £10 for 10 minutes—that is £1 a minute to drop off a loved one.
This cost is felt disproportionately by disabled and elderly passengers and others with limited mobility. For them, using public transport to get to the airport may not be an option. The Opposition welcome the fact that the Bill will provide greater protections for disabled passengers at the airport, yet it must not make it more expensive for them to get there. The Government must address that contradiction, and they should accept clause 7.
Yesterday we saw the limits of the consumer protections put in place by the Bill: a national air traffic control systems failure that has resulted in 900 flights—so far—being disrupted. The knock-on disruptions are likely to last for days. In the Lords, the Government voted down Lord Young’s amendment, which would have mandated a scheme to reimburse airlines and passengers for failures outside their control. The Government assured peers that a reimbursement scheme was unnecessary, yet now airlines and passengers will be forced to pick up the tab for cancellations over which they have no control. Is that fair?
I want to close by expressing my thanks to Conservative and Lib Dem colleagues in the other place, led by Lord Moylan. After their hard work, the Bill now delivers the necessary continuity of regulation that keeps our aviation industry safe, following our departure from the European Union, and it enhances the safeguards around travel arrangements for disabled passengers. Despite the concerns that we have outlined, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will support the Bill’s progress through the House, together with its aims of driving economic growth, strengthening aviation security and enhancing consumer protections.
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Alison Griffiths Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Keir Mather
The safety of the public and the operational capacity of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are of the utmost importance to the Government. CROs feeling that they are respected and able to play their full part in this process will facilitate that, and that is what I am determined to achieve. My hon. Friend is right to push me on the question of trade union involvement, and my expectation is that trade unions should play their full role in representing their members.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Last week, I met Paul Greenwood of the Selsey coastguard, one of a team of CROs who cover my constituency. The Court ruled that coastguards can be workers when paid for duties; it did not order Ministers to scrap payments. Can the Minister tell me what lawful alternatives were considered, why the impact assessment has still not been published and whether he will publish the MCA survey? Will he pause September’s change while considering an approach that will not risk gaps in emergency cover when people in coastal communities such as mine dial 999?