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

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

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

Hear, hear.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm—it is not yet shared by those on the Government Benches, but perhaps that will come in time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Here we are with yet another Transport Bill Committee. People often say that transport is a boring, unsexy topic—

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I rise to support amendments 5 and 6, and new clause 2, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.

May I say at the outset that it is a pleasure to again be serving on a Public Bill Committee relating to transport and to be opposite the Minister, who is an extremely decent and able Minister? In previous Public Bill Committees, even when he said no, he managed to say no to the Opposition’s suggestions in a very nice and gentle way. Let us see how he does this time.

It is also a pleasure to serve again opposite the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford—we served on the Railways Bill Committee together—and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield on his elevation since we last sat on a Public Bill Committee together? It is well deserved, and I wish him all the very best in his new role.

The Minister has set out his opposition to the amendments and the new clause. Although I entirely agree with him about the importance of retaining a focus on safety, consumer protection and consumer rights, which is what the Bill is about, that does not necessarily sit in contradiction to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said about economic growth. It is important that we keep that in mind.

The Minister might wish on a future occasion to come back to the point about costs, but I ask him now to reflect on pages 25 and 32 of the impact assessment, which show that the monetised benefits are the two aspects that are rated red because of the costs; they are both rated as negative, because of the costs on business and the broader costs. I heard what he said about the longer-term opportunities for this legislation to drive growth. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if he addressed that point—if not in relation to this set of amendments, then perhaps in relation to a future set of amendments, where it is in scope to do so—if he does not catch the Clerk’s eye in a negative way while doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

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

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

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

[Edward Argar]

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

[Luke Taylor]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are particular booking sizes, seating arrangements and issues relating to the geometry of aircraft in respect of which conflicting groups may well mean that the mathematical problem is not solvable. There would need to be redrafting to exclude those occasions, so that we do not subject airlines to fines for failure to achieve impossible requirements.

The goal of amendment 25, which relates to new clause 14, is to stop predatory charging for seat selection to avoid families and carers being split up and to give groups, families and carers confidence that they will be sitting together on the aircraft. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage made the point that assigned seating is relevant to air travel and not to other modes of transport because it is different in an aircraft, where assigned seating is particularly important to ensure that passengers are in the right part of the cabin, to be able to identify passengers with allergies or meal preferences, or because of things like weight allowances. The amendment reflects the need to protect the passenger—the consumer—as the Bill has rightly been introduced to do, in a proportionate way.

New clause 14 relates to the fact that passengers can sometimes choose a particular seat, whether in an exit row, by a window, or at the front or back of the plane, perhaps because they want to make a connection and so be able to leg it off the flight at the very first opportunity when they land. Airlines may choose to offer that product, and that is okay. However, what they cannot do is make families and carers pay that premium fee to ensure that they are able to support loved ones and, potentially, to protect other passengers from their eight-year-old flicking his porridge or scrambled eggs across the aisle. Amendment 25, together with new clause 14, would prevent that.

It is entirely within an airline’s ability to issue automatic refunds when services are not delivered. The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston argued that airlines might not be able to deliver due to the geometry or combination of passenger preferences, which is okay, but on occasions when an equipment change or groups mean that passengers have to be moved and the product they paid for is not available, the refund should be automatic. I agree with the premise that a new clause or amendment must be proved to be necessary—this new clause is necessary because the systems are able to do that today, but it does not happen. It is down to the consumer to chase an airline for a refund. They have to go through the rigmarole of emailing and potentially deploying their AI refund bot to get that fee returned.

Depending on the Minister’s response to amendment 25 and new clause 14, we will choose whether to push them to a vote or withdraw them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

It is a shame that we are running out of time just as we hit such an exciting part of the Bill: the Government amendments relating to the review of airport drop-off charges. As the Committee will be aware, the Bill was amended in the other place to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the impact of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services and to publish that review within six months of Royal Assent. Let me be clear at the outset that the Government are committed to undertaking that review. We recognise that airport drop-off charges are an issue of interest to passengers, parliamentarians and others, and we agree that it is important to establish a clear evidence base to inform any decision making.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the Minister for being typically generous in giving way. I suspect that all in the room will have received complaints from constituents about either very high charges for dropping off—I had one recently at East Midlands airport—or fines related to opaque regulations about dropping off at airports. Nothwithstanding the exact wording here, is the Minister open to reflecting on not just drop-off charges, but penalty notices associated with drop-off areas and charges at airports?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that challenge and for not encouraging me to pre-empt whatever the terms of any particular review might be. That being said, I believe that the general basket of issues requires close attention, one of them in the broader terms to which he speaks: transparency for those who pay airport drop-off charges. That could relate to penalties as much as to the process of paying, to signage at the airport or to other provision such as free public transport. I expect that matters of that kind would be of interest as part of the review.

We do not believe, however, that the six-month timetable attached would allow sufficient time to carry out a meaningful and robust piece of work. There is currently no single, comprehensive source of evidence for the impacts of airport drop-off charges across the United Kingdom. A credible review will require engagement with airports, passengers, accessibility groups and other stakeholders, alongside research and analysis of the available evidence. A rushed review would risk producing limited findings and would not do justice to the concerns that have been expressed.

The Government amendment therefore extends the period for completing the review from six months to 12 months after Royal Assent. That additional time will allow the Government to undertake a more thorough and evidence-based assessment. While the detailed scope of the review will be developed in due course, it could include, as I said, consideration of other issues such as affordability, accessibility, travel behaviour and the experiences of different groups of passengers. It could also examine the role that revenue from drop-off charges plays in supporting airport operations and infrastructure, and the extent to which such charges encourage modal shift so that customers use public transport and other sustainable transport options when travelling to the airport. In doing so, however, it is important that the wider context should be recognised.

Most UK airports are privately owned and operated businesses. Decisions about parking and drop-off arrangements are generally commercial matters for airport operators. We know that parking revenue is often used to support investment in airport infrastructure and services to the benefit of airport users. Parking and drop-off arrangements are also subject to consumer protection legislation. The Government amendment ensures that Parliament will receive the findings on the impact of the charges, based on a strong and credible evidence base.