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

Keir Mather Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Clause 7 stand part.

New clause 6—Airport drop-off charges: 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 cap on airport drop-off charges on users of airport services in the United Kingdom.

(2) The cap contained in the proposals published under subsection (1) must be £5.

(3) In this section, ‘drop-off charge’ means any charge levied by an airport operator on a vehicle entering a terminal forecourt or designated kerbside area for the purpose of setting down one or more passengers.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a £5 airport drop-off cap at UK airports.

Government amendments 2 and 3.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I hope Members will agree that a planned and thorough review delivered within 12 months is preferable to a report that cannot engage substantively with the issues at hand but is delivered within six.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

May I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind and consider the impact on residents near airports in my constituency who are affected by airport drop-off charges? They also have hire vehicles that create a bit of a nuisance to public spaces, green spaces and gardens across my constituency.

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents, both those affected by drop-off charges and those—he has spoken to me about this—who live in Prestwick, Ponteland and Woolsington who are particularly affected by taxi drivers not being able to use the airport in the way they want to and who end up impacting local communities. I raised that with local residents when I did a series of roundtables at Heathrow in relation to expansion. We need to manage all those impacts very carefully. People do not deserve to have disruption and nuisance on their doorstep because we are not getting the systems functioning in the way that they need to.

Government amendments 2 and 3, tabled in my name, make a related change to the commencement provisions of the Bill. As currently drafted, the review duty would come into force two months after Royal Assent; however, as the period for completing the review is measured from Royal Assent, it is appropriate that the duty itself also commences at that point, which the amendments provide for. They are technical and consequential amendments that simply ensure that the Bill is tidied and operates as intended, with the commencement provisions aligning with the revised review timetable.

Clause 7, as we have discussed, requires the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the impact of airport drop-off charges on airport users. The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I do not have much to add to the remarks I made when discussing Government amendment 1, but for the avoidance of doubt, let me quickly reiterate that we recognise the considerable strength of feeling that exists on this issue among passengers and parliamentarians.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

My constituents have also raised issues around airport drop-off charges at Bournemouth airport, which have gone up to £8 this year. There are no public transport options to get to Bournemouth airport, so I hope that the Minister and the Government will take into account alternative routes to get to airports when looking at this issue in the consultation.

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the functions of airport drop-off charges, as presently constituted, is to facilitate mode share changes at airports and to encourage airport users to take public transport where possible, but it is true that across the airports in the United Kingdom there is not consistent public transport availability. Those questions around provision and whether free drop-off spaces are provided, and the transparency with which they can be accessed, is of major importance. I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

In North Somerset, we have Bristol airport, which I was very glad to welcome the Minister to visit, but we have exactly the same transport deficit for a very busy airport without a mass transit system. Will the Minister talk about how it might be possible to have conversations about wider mass transit systems and their integration with airports?

[Keir Mather]

It was a pleasure to visit Bristol airport to see its impressive and ambitious plans to facilitate new international routes and to modernise its terminals. It wants more people to use the airport, so it is incumbent on us all to think about how we can best facilitate that. With the new Prime Minister’s increased focus on pushing power out into every local community in the United Kingdom, local mayors and local authorities will also have an enormous role to play in ensuring that we have the right public transport connectivity to our airports so that more people can benefit from being able to travel cheaply and comfortably to airports in their local areas.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Similarly to my hon. Friends who have just spoken, we have serious issues at Newquay airport about connectivity, so I welcome the suggestion on local transport connectivity that promoting alternative modalities will be part of the review, but to what extent will the Minister join up that review with the other work he is doing more broadly to support smaller regional airports through, for example, the review of the public service obligation, which is so necessary for airports like Newquay to be able to bid in a more flexible way?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that PSOs serve as a lifeline for many regional airports, and provide important economic and business connectivity to the nation’s capital from many regions of the United Kingdom, including his own, which is serving as a catalyst for regional economic growth. We of course need to think about the intersection of these questions, and how we can work with local mayors to create robust public transport systems that can get people to the places they want to go, to facilitate economic growth across the entire United Kingdom. My hon. Friend makes the point well.

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for tabling new clause 6, which seeks to require the Government to publish proposals for a cap on airport drop-off charges within six months of Royal Assent, and to specify that the cap must be £5. The Government have committed to reviewing the impact on airport users within 12 months of Royal Assent. The new clause would cut across that proposal by requiring the Government to bring forward proposals for a specific £5 cap before the review had completed, effectively predetermining the outcome before evidence had been adequately considered. For those reasons, I cannot support the new clause and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press it to a vote.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. On new clause 6, I note the Minister’s comments about the study to understand the level of public transport provision and charges at UK airports, which we obviously welcome. It is worth reflecting on the comments from a number of Government Members that a charge to encourage passengers to use public transport to access an airport, to reduce emissions, congestion and the impact on airport communities, is unfair when a public transport option does not exist for that airport. It is contradictory and confusing, and it undermines the case and the consensus that we must build that aviation is good but the impacts of aviation travel—be they emissions, disruption for nearby communities, or noise—must be mitigated and addressed.

As part of the review, I encourage the Minister and his officials, and those who are undertaking the study, to come up with a much more nuanced approach to the allowable limits for charges related to public transport provision to the airports in question. I believe we will push new clause 6 to a vote, primarily to make the point that a particular charge level cap is appropriate, but I implore the Minister to look into that nuance. It is absolutely right that we encourage modal share and push passengers to use sustainable methods of transport to get to the airport; however, where airports use a charge to increase their revenue that conflicts with the goals at alternative airports, where it is levied entirely to manage ground transportation demand and the impact on local residents.

Airport charges, it is worth noting, are not the norm across Europe. They are definitely not the norm across the world. It is our model of airport ownership that means that this has become an additional fee that, as in the two examples given by Government Members, is unavoidable. It becomes effectively an essential fee. There is an argument that suggests using public hire vehicles to travel to an airport reduces the impact on roadways because instead of dropping off and travelling home empty, or parking, that vehicle is then available for picking up passengers and returning them to another location. It should be considered that there is a possibility to have different charges for different vehicle types—public hire taxis, for example. It is not that we are against the principle; there just needs to be a much more considered approach to how it is structured.

Finally, as stated in the new clause, we believe that £5 is the right level for the charge to be set at, considering all the various cost of living challenges and the lack of alternatives in many places. We have to see that accompanied by investment in active travel and public transport infrastructure at airports, particularly those outside London, where there is lacking provision at present. Hopefully the Government are able to pull those two aspects together to balance that investment in alternatives with the nudge of that charge pushing passengers into alternative modes.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 8, page 7, line 16, at end insert—

“(aa) after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first—

(a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected,

(b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and

(c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.’”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The Committee will be familiar with the Government’s position in relation to amendment 27 and I do not seek to disguise the fact that it remains unchanged. The amendment addresses safeguards that, in our view, are already firmly imbedded in the airspace change process. Environmental assessment and meaningful consultation are, and will remain, fundamental to that process. Nothing in the Bill removes, bypasses or weakens the requirements to consult thoroughly or to assess noise and wider environmental impacts robustly.

Clause 8 supports the Government’s objectives of delivering airspace modernisation and ensuring that approved airspace changes can be implemented efficiently. The clause extends the Secretary of State’s existing powers to direct relevant parties to prepare, develop or review airspace change proposals.

Clause 8 adds a power to direct the implementation of airspace change proposals, once they have been approved by the CAA. That reflects the practical reality that delivering airspace modernisation requires action from a number of different organisations. While we expect industry to work collaboratively to implement approved changes, there is a risk that a single party could delay or frustrate delivery. The new power provides a proportionate last-resort mechanism to ensure that approved airspace changes are implemented. That is particularly important as the UK Airspace Design Service has begun work redesigning the complex airspace over London and the south-east. Modernising our airspace will help maintain high safety standards, improve efficiency and resilience across the network, and support reductions in emissions and noise.

Importantly, clause 8 retains the existing statutory safeguards. It only applies to an airspace change that has been through the CAA’s robust regulatory process—including consultation of those affected by it—and has then been approved by the CAA. Before issuing a direction, the Secretary of State must consult the party being directed, which also has a right of appeal. The clause therefore strengthens the framework for delivering approved airspace changes while preserving appropriate protections and oversight.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 2.

Clause 10 stand part.

[Keir Mather]

Clause 9 supports the reforms to the charging for air services contained in clause 10. Clause 10 allows air service charges to be imposed on a broader range of persons than under the current framework. Clause 9 therefore makes corresponding changes to the licence modifications process to ensure that existing safeguards remain effective and apply equally to all relevant parties. The clause requires the Secretary of State or the CAA to identify and consult anyone who would be materially affected by a proposed licence modification. It also introduces schedule 2, which makes additional corresponding changes to the air services licencing regime and the appeal process.

[Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I support updating the framework for funding air navigation services. Will the Minister explain how the changes will ensure that costs are shared fairly among those who benefit, with proper scrutiny on charges and a clear expectation that the money supports a reliable service?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[The Chair]

The floor is yours.

[Keir Mather]

I appreciate it, Ms McVey. To the shadow Minister’s point about materiality and the effectiveness of use, it is my understanding that this provision was changed in the Lords to ensure that those who can be charged is restricted only to those who use or benefit from the services that are outlined in the charging regime. This balances the necessary flexibility for the future with safeguarding the internationally established user pays principle. However, I will consult with my officials after our proceedings today and if there is anything remaining that still needs to be clarified, I will put it to the shadow Minister in writing or update her at the start of the next Committee session, if that is to her liking.

I thank the shadow Minister for giving the Committee the opportunity to consider the appropriate level of scrutiny for regulations relating to airport slots. The Government’s position remains that the approach in the Bill is both proportionate and appropriately safeguarded. The power is limited to exceptional circumstances where there is either a significant threat to public health or another substantial reason, and can be used only to make temporary changes to slot usage requirements. Applying the affirmative procedure in every case would reduce the Government’s ability to respond quickly and decisively to major disruption. Experience during the pandemic and this past summer has shown that timely intervention can be critical to protecting the operation and resilience of the aviation sector. On that basis, I cannot support the amendment.

Clause 11 ensures that the Government can continue to maintain and update the UK’s airport slot framework now that temporary powers put in place following EU exit have expired. Airport slots are a vital mechanism for managing access to capacity-constrained airports. They help to ensure that scarce airport capacity is allocated in a fair, transparent and efficient way, supporting both connectivity and competition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

It feels like we are back in the Railways Bill with such a chunky group of amendments to work through—[Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] My Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield, would be very pleased to be back in the Railways Bill, given his penchant for that particular mode.

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling her amendments. The Committee will recognise that amendment 14, the lead amendment, returns to an issue considered during the Bill’s passage in the other place: whether aviation safety rules should ultimately be made by the Secretary of State rather than the CAA. The Government’s position on this matter remains clear. The amendment would prevent the delegation of technical rule making to the CAA, which is a central purpose of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

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

[Keir Mather]

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

[Luke Taylor]

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

[Keir Mather]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 14 to 16 stand part.

Government amendment 4.

Clause 17 stand part.

[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.

[Luke Taylor]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I thank the Minister for the meetings he has held with my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) to discuss his new clause. However, there are still some concerns and issues that we would like to address on behalf of his constituents.

To be clear, the Liberal Democrats, including my hon. Friend, do support airspace modernisation. Communities across the country support it too, but modernisation works only if people trust the process that delivered it. At the moment, there is a risk that that trust is missing and that consent is not necessarily fully collected at the beginning of the process. Communities are asked for their views only once a draft design exists and, unfortunately, by that point—I have spent time in the aviation industry and know this full well—although choices have not necessarily been made, the direction and likely outcomes have been narrowed down to what is feasible, and there is often not a huge amount between many of the options.

The new CAP 1616 update, in force since 1 October, makes that feedback and collection of consultation and input more difficult still. Residents affected by proposed changes are not included in the earlier stakeholder reference groups, and locally agreed design principles have been replaced by national priorities. The sponsor decides who is consulted and how, and the gateways in the process have fallen from three to one, with post-implementation reviews removed. Although we understand the need to speed up the process, we feel that this has tilted too far towards expediting the process rather than allowing communities to meaningfully feed back. Before, during and after a proposal, there is no accessible independent route for a community to be heard. The only challenge available after a decision is made is judicial review, and that is not a realistic option for a village, residents’ association or group of residents wanting to bring its points forward.

Some will say that an independent review function existed, but was barely used and the CAA scrapped it. However, new clause 1 proposes something different. Low use of an old process is not an argument against producing a better one. Nor is this about slowing change: the purpose is to let communities feed in early so that problems are caught before decisions are made, rather than having to be fought afterwards. The Government have given conflicting signals on whether the Public Service Ombudsman can deal with regulatory decisions. A written answer in the other place said that it cannot, but on Second Reading, the Minister suggested that it could.

I have three questions to ask the Minister, which I hope he can respond to today. Were the PSO route and the first-tier tribunal route examined, and if not, why not? Why is aviation excluded from that tribunal? How do the Government plan to ensure in practice that communities are included throughout the process and that their voices can truly be heard?

[Luke Taylor]

That is a good question, and I think the principle there would be to shift it on to the Government to say what the assessment of the cost would be. The cost was used as a reason to push back on this, but it did not appear to have been calculated. If the cost is unknown, I would suggest that that slightly weakens the argument that it is excessive.

There will obviously be a trade-off between the cost, the delay and the additional time taken to deliver these changes with the ability of communities to meaningfully feed back. Ultimately, this is about taking communities with us, because as we have said a number of times today—and different colleagues have made this point at different stages—we have to take communities with us in the changes that we are making to airspace, flightpaths, and approach and departure routes so that everybody can feel like their input is being considered. In that way, we do not lose that public consent and engagement with the process, and people are still encouraged to apply and feed back in future consultations. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s responses to my three questions.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) for tabling new clause 1. The Government agree that passengers and communities should have access to effective complaints and redress, but I do not believe that the case for a new aviation ombudsman has been fully made. I have had productive conversations with the hon. Member, and I understand that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is raising this issue in order for us to tease out some of those difficulties, so I hope I can address those to some extent in this debate. Whatever I cannot address now, I can set out to the hon. Members in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 3 would call on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ban the practice of surveillance pricing when purchasing airline tickets. Many people have been in this situation: they look at the details of the journey they wish to take via plane, but when they go to book it a few hours later, the price has skyrocketed. It can often seem that flight prices change constantly, with no real rhyme or reason. Information on the extent of surveillance pricing is limited, but there have been some recent suggestions that airlines are using such methods.

Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in New York against JetBlue, claiming that it uses customers’ personal data to set ticket prices. That is an example of the phenomenon of surveillance pricing: the strategy of a seller using personally identifiable online information to set prices. It is nearly impossible to know exactly when that is occurring and how widespread it is, but there is evidence that the airline industry is quite widely using those methods. Using a different device or incognito mode on a browser to book flights are well known methods to get around this, but they are not particularly customer-friendly, and not everybody will have the tech savviness to do that.

The advance of artificial intelligence means that these types of systems are only set to become more advanced, likely in ways that we cannot currently imagine and without the necessary transparency for consumers to make an informed decision about what platform they buy from. We are not the only ones voicing concerns: as well as the lawsuit in New York, Colorado passed a Bill in May banning surveillance pricing and surveillance wages. We have concerns about the privacy of customers whose data is being scraped to price in this way. Tickets should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger, although of course we understand the need for demand-based pricing. We believe that the Government need to look into this issue more, to establish how widely it is occurring and bring in measures to ban the practice, which runs counter to consumer interests. This is a matter of fairness, transparency and privacy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for this new clause on surveillance pricing. Airline pricing should be transparent and fair, and consumers should have the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions.

Airlines operating in the United Kingdom are responsible for setting their own fares in a competitive market, but they must comply with consumer protection law and requirements on price transparency. Where pricing practices use consumers’ personal data, businesses must do so in accordance with data protection requirements.

The hon. Member is right to point to concerns that many Members and members of the public have about surveillance pricing. He is also right to say, however, that the evidence on its application is not complete. It is a fair challenge that perhaps we need to do more work to discuss this matter. Clause 1 allows for reforms to price transparency, should they be required on the basis of that work. For that reason, I do not believe that implementing this new clause at this moment is appropriate. I hope that this provides reassurance that this is a matter that we can take forward through discussion with colleagues across the House in the future, and that the hon. Member feels able to withdraw the clause.

[Olly Glover]

I am partially reassured by the Minister’s answer. I do not think the vote would be an enormous nail-biter, so I am content to withdraw on this occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Automatic Compensation

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce a scheme to establish automatic compensation for delays under Regulation (EC) 2004/261 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004.

(2) The scheme must ensure that compensation for delays is automatically refunded to the original payment method, unless otherwise agreed by the passenger and airline, within 30 days of the flights’ planned departure date.”.—(Olly Glover.)

This new clause would introduce automatic delay repay for UK flights.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for the new clause, which seeks to implement an automatic compensation scheme for eligible flights within six months of Royal Assent. We do share the objective of ensuring that passengers receive the compensation to which they are entitled. However, the consultation that took place in 2022 demonstrated that reform of the aviation compensation regime is complex and involves a range of competing considerations. Further work is needed assess the merits, costs and practical implications of different approaches.

The new clause would require the Government to implement a specific solution within six months, before that work has been completed and the evidence properly evaluated. Any changes should be considered as part of the wider air passenger rights and compensation framework, to ensure that it remains robust and strikes the right balance. Clause 1 will allow the Government to make reforms in this area where the evidence supports them. I therefore believe the conversation is best had in the context of that clause, once we have achieved Royal Assent. The new clause is therefore unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw it.

Chair, am I now turning to new clause 9? Should I take both new clauses together?

[The Chair]

They are together.

[Olly Glover]

My mistake.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that checking the website could protect the passenger, but the problem is that these are arbitrary sizing decisions so they can be changed at any moment. Should Ryanair need to prop up its bottom line this season by taking another 5 cm off its baggage sizing, there is nothing to restrict it from doing so. The Bill offers the opportunity to set minimum standards for passenger service and to give passengers power and protection from predatory practices. I think we should grasp that opportunity, and that is why the new clause is so necessary.

To begin to conclude, the race to the bottom that Lord Hendy described is not the worst-case scenario; it is what is actually happening today. We live today under the tyranny of the gate agent’s sizing frame. The new clause would throw off that yoke and release us into a free market of airlines competing on passenger experience, service and price, rather than on their fear at sea level before they even board that terrible, fragile, flammable metal fart tube of misery. Please support new clause 8 today—not just because it is right, but maybe so I do not have to subject Members to this rant all over again during the Bill’s remaining stages.

[Keir Mather]

When I recently visited the Bayeux tapestry, I learned that the British Museum was the first institution to ever have “British” applied to its name, and I am now reflecting on the fact that we have an entire classification of luggage named after our beautiful country. It is hard not to be filled with a flood of patriotism at the prospect, and it is hard not to be moved by the reflections of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.

In my youth—some say it has not yet ended—I also experienced just the thing that the hon. Gentleman described. When I was on the way back from a rowdy holiday in Portugal, I flew on a carrier that will remain nameless, and I also felt the trepidation of looking down the line and thinking, “Oh no, I’m not sure my bag is going to fit.” Having to put on two hoodies and two pairs of jeans is not something that anyone should be subjected to, and in that respect, I feel his pain.

However, although the Government support clear information for passengers, and we expect airlines to communicate baggage allowances transparently, I feel that the new clause would impose what is a highly prescriptive statutory regime governing baggage sizes, weight limits and charging practices across the sector as a whole. Such matters are closely linked to airlines’ operating models and their commercial offerings, and any intervention of this scale would require careful consideration of its impacts on competition, consumer choice, operational efficiency and fares.

[Luke Taylor]

I sympathise with the Minister’s experience on holiday—and the experience of his rapidly decreasing youth. This point was potentially buried at the beginning of my speech, but the introduction of asymmetric EU regulations could present a challenge. Our passengers departing from the UK might not be protected by—I do see this as being “protected”—the same mandatory minimum standards that would support our European brethren on their journeys here. It really is a challenge to remove that disparity and ensure that there are not different rules at either end, which could then be exploited by carriers imposing charges and different conditions in each direction of a trip.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Regulatory alignment does not have to catch consumers out, and it can also provide regulatory certainty for business. Of course, the Government keep developments in the European Union under close watch and advisement, and I saw the ones made in relation to both baggage sizes and family seating. The beauty of this legislation is that it allows us, where appropriate, to align with European rules when it is in the best interests of both British business and consumers. He pre-empts a point that I was just about to make on clause 1, which, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage rightly reflected, has done a great deal of the heavy lifting: it allows us to make these changes once we have had time to consider matters carefully.

I have absolutely no doubt that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will continue to make a full contribution to those discussions. I do have sympathy with what he says, but I do not believe that now is the right moment to put what is quite a prescriptive regime on the face of this legislation. I thank him for what has been a very thought-provoking debate.

[Olly Glover]

How do I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam?

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

First, I apologise: there was an error in my notes as to the groupings and I had new clause 11 in the previous one. That is entirely my error, and I apologise to the Committee for the confusion. The good news is that the speech on new clause 11 has already been done, and the one for new clause 10 is significantly more concise—good news all round, I would suggest. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, marvellous.

New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report two years after the passage of the Act reviewing its impact on passenger protections and standards. Given the somewhat concise nature of the Bill, for which we might be grateful in the Committee but may regret in future, we feel that Parliament needs a formal mechanism by which to judge whether the Government’s promises of strengthened rights, for instance at the baggage carousel, havematerialised. The new clause would help to ensure that passenger protections and standards are not weakened as a result of the Bill. If the Minister is not minded to agree, perhaps he will say how else this legislation can be reviewed and he and his Department held to account, so that the many high expectations of clause 1 are fulfilled and delivered in.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olly Glover]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I know that you, Ms McVeigh, and the Committee will be delighted to know that this will be my final speech in this Bill Committee, because the last new clause will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The end is in sight.

New clause 12 would prohibit any powers in the Bill from being used for the purposes of airport expansion. Airport expansion is an entirely valid debate to be had and, indeed, the Transport Committee is spending innumerable hours at the moment scrutinising the Heathrow expansion national policy statement. I know everyone here who is also on the Transport Committee is very much enjoying that task. The new clause would ensure that the efforts to advance airport expansion are handled appropriately, transparently and not through the back door. We have received reassurances from Ministers in the Lords that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion and we take those assurances in good faith, but the time when British politics and our constitution, if that term can be used, can be relied upon in good faith has long gone and there is no substitute for legal guarantees.

While we are glad that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Aviation Minister are still with us and hope to continue the stewardship of their Department for a long time, none of us knows the future and we do not know who will be in charge going forward. Without clear instructions written into the Bill, the public and local communities do not have reassurance that powers included here will not be used for airport expansion via the back door. For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against vast, unscrutinised delegated powers that are potentially contained in this legislation.

While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition of a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments. The Minister in the Lords, the noble Lord Hendy, pointed to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement as the proper avenue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in a Bill.

While we recognise that this new clause is something of a blunt tool, if the Government truly have no intention of using the powers in this Bill to facilitate airport expansion we see no reason why such a clear safeguard cannot be written into it. It is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad—we come back to the marvellous clause 1. The Bill touches everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making function. Local residents deserve the certainty that can only come from primary statute. We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of a regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is intended to ensure that the economic regulation of NATS contains effective incentives to prevent avoidable disruption and strengthen operational resilience, as we recognise the impact that major system failures have on airlines, passengers and the wider economy. It would establish the principle that NATS’s regulatory framework should incentivise the prevention of major disruption events, particularly those arising from operational and technology failures. It should not simply focus on the recovery of costs. Recent NATS outages have demonstrated that the consequence of operational failures are borne overwhelmingly by airlines and passengers through cancellations, delays and the loss of economic activity, but the existing regulatory incentives are primarily focused on delay metrics and do not adequately address resilience, software assurance and major cancellation events.

The new clause would not alter NATS’s role as the UK’s air navigation service provider or undermine resilience. Instead, it would ensure that the regulator considers the economic consequence of major failures and whether the existing incentives are sufficient to drive operational performance. It would place those principles on a firm statutory footing and enhance the role of the CAA regarding the role of NATS in mitigating the impact of major cancellation events.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new clause, which seeks to ensure that the economic regulatory framework incentivises resilient and reliable air traffic services and efficient and cost-effective operations. Although we fully agree that resilient air navigation services are critical, particularly in the light of recent disruptions, I cannot support the new clause for reasons that I will outline.

In the first instance, safety must remain the overriding priority for air traffic controllers. Air traffic control decisions must be taken solely on safety grounds; they should not be based on other considerations, such as financial penalties. The CAA already regulates NATS with an existing regime that provides accountability, with delay-related targets and a penalty mechanism that reduces airline charges.

In addition, the new clause risks prejudging the results of ongoing work. The Secretary of State for Transport has commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to lead an independent investigation into the air traffic control disruptive events in September. It will examine the cause of the incidents and broader questions relating to NATS’s resilience, capital investment and modernisation plans, and will help to identify any lessons needed to strengthen the resilience of the UK air traffic management system. It will also review the findings, recommendations and actions arising from previous significant UK disruption, such as in August 2023. It will assess the extent to which they have been effectively implemented and whether they remain adequate for addressing system resilience, and the consequences of major disruption for airlines and passengers in the wider aviation sector.

The new clause assumes that the appropriate response to recent disruptions is to alter the statutory framework for economic regulation. However, it is not yet clear that the underlying issues relate to deficiencies in the CAA’s economic regulatory duties. The CAA’s investigation is intended to establish precisely what caused the incidents and what lessons should be learned. It would be premature to conclude that legislative changes to economic regulation are required before that evidence is available. If the CAA’s investigation identifies a case for changes to the economic regulatory framework, those proposals should be considered through the normal policymaking process so that any reforms are carefully developed, properly tested and coherent, rather than pre-empting the outcome of that work now. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that work is ongoing on this important issue and gives him leave to withdraw the new clause.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Keir Mather]

May I thank the shadow Minister? It has been a pleasure to work with her in the Committee room for the first time, and I look forward to many such interactions in the future. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, and all right hon. and hon. Members who made such fantastic contributions from their lived experience and from their constituency experiences—some more vivid than others, it must be said. Nevertheless, it has been a pleasure; the Bill Committee has been filled with constructive debate and good humour. I also thank the Whips, my fantastic Bill team, all the Clerks and staff who have made today’s proceedings possible, and you, Chair.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.