Keir Mather
MP for Selby · Labour · United Kingdom
“I could not agree more strongly. I pay tribute to the five volunteers recognised in my hon. Friend’s constituency and to RNLI volunteers across the country, who provide a vital public service. I am clear that there is no space for the disgraceful abuse and intimidation we have seen recently directed at volunteers and staff.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need to ensure that regional airports like Exeter and Newquay have the connectivity into larger airports that they need. Through our consultation on the Heathrow expansion national policy statement, we were dedicated and focused on how to increase that connectivity via either public service obligation connections or routes into the air…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The shadow Secretary of State does not seem to want to face up to the fact that this Government are taking decisive action to help our airports and airlines, whether it is signing off airport expansion across the country or modernising our airspace to provide community benefit alongside efficiencies.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of their being emergency workers, criminal penalties apply to any such abuse, discrimination or assault. The Government take enforcement of that incredibly seriously, and it is something that I will be certain to monitor extremely closely alongside my Home Office colleagues.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This Government welcome the £1.1 billion investment into Stansted by Manchester Airports Group, which will transform the airport and provide wider benefits to the local area, including Harlow, for which my hon. Friend is a determined champion.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me be clear: we expect airports to treat passengers fairly and to ensure that travel remains accessible. The review is going to look at the impacts of airport drop-off charges on users of airport services.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,684 held · 799 searchable for Keir Mather. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Through the consultation, the clauses that I am currently addressing will allow people with allergies to directly feed into how the consumer rights system should be designed to most adequately address their concerns and give them equal access without fear of being denied the requisite food, safety or the ability to fly alongside their friends and family. Clause 2’s consultation requirements will allow that to happen, and clause 1 will empower the Secretary of State to make those changes in an agile and definitive way that will quickly provide change so that people can fly with confidence.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know about my hon. Friend’s experience, and she outlined to me some of the challenges that go beyond the health risk of travelling with people with allergies and the difficulties that they face. One of those is ensuring that the right food is provided on aeroplanes. If someone is on a long-haul flight and it suddenly becomes clear that the staff do not have allergy-friendly food for them, that can make a travelling experience, which might already have been stressful, all the more difficult.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Didcot and Wantage and I ask him not to press his new clause.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We introduced clause 2 in the Lords, placing a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to consult on accessibility matters. This issue could be considered as part of that consultation, ensuring that any future reforms are evidence based and take account of passengers’ and stakeholders’ experience. It would therefore be premature to prescribe a wheelchair passport scheme now. We should instead allow the implementation group’s work and statutory consultation to determine what measures are necessary, workable and proportionate. Should the evidence support the need for legislation, clause 1 provides a route to acting following full consultation. The new clause instead risks cutting across that work rather than strengthening it. On that basis, I hope I have reassured the hon.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Gentleman will know that the transport of mobility aids and wheelchairs was considered by the aviation accessibility task and finish group, and is now being taken forward through the aviation accessibility implementation group. This industry-led working group is examining mobility aid design and handling and has developed the electric mobility aids air travel pack, which gives passengers, airlines and ground handlers the information they need in advance of a journey. The group is promoting wider use of that tool and considering how passengers’ individual requirements can be captured more effectively to support a more tailored experience. Since this proposal was debated in the other place, the Government have also acted through the Bill.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ultimately, the clause is about making sure that disabled passengers can travel with greater confidence that, if something goes wrong, they will not be left without the equipment they rely on or forced to absorb an unfair financial loss. On new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, I thank him for returning to the important issue of transporting wheelchairs during air travel. The Government agree that disabled passengers should be able to communicate their mobility and assistance requirements clearly, and that wheelchairs and mobility aids must be handled safely and with dignity. The question is how best to secure practical and long-lasting improvements, rather than placing a particular scheme in primary legislation before the work already under way has concluded. The hon.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will begin by addressing clause 4, which was added during the Bill’s passage in the other place to strengthen rights for disabled passengers. It removes the existing cap on compensation for wheelchairs, mobility aids and other assistive devices that are lost, damaged or destroyed on domestic UK flights. For many disabled passengers, these devices are essential to their independence and daily lives, and the current compensation limits may not reflect the true cost of repair or replacement. The clause ensures that passengers travelling on domestic UK flights are able to recover compensation that more accurately reflects the value of the equipment lost or damaged.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is also a broader conversation about how we facilitate better training, awareness and sensitivity for airport staff who, the vast majority of times, are trying to do the right thing.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I visited Bristol airport and had a really productive conversation about people who travel with stoma bags fitted. There is often not enough training and awareness when they go through baggage search about the implications that that can have, and about how searches can be carried out in ways that respect people’s dignity and privacy. The hon. Member is right to point out that people who travel with accessibility requirements or disabilities should not have to read the rulebook to members of staff. However, to look at that through a positive lens, it produces an obligation on the Department for Transport and our private sector stakeholders to think collaboratively about how we can improve consumer standards and create a minimum baseline for their enforcement, which this Bill facilitates.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think that my point in my original comments still stands, in that the aviation accessibility implementation group is exploring a lot of these issues in detail. I would like to see the outcome of those considerations before we move forward, but the Bill provides us with a lot of tools to make purposeful progress in that space once we have got to grips with its conclusions. However, the hon. Member raised a very important and more general point about aviation accessibility in the United Kingdom—about the training of airline staff and inconsistent treatment across the domestic aviation sector. He raised that in regard to those who travel with wheelchairs and who get inconsistent treatment in terms of storage and the facilitation of their independence in travel arrangements.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is a credit to his perseverance and dogged determination to do right on behalf of the people he represents, and the people with disabilities who travel and their families across the United Kingdom. I also thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for setting out so clearly his perspective on wheelchair passports. We have had a productive conversation about where some of the limitations are, including for return flights. We are also working with that limitation when it comes to the compensation cap through the Montreal convention. However, I think it is appropriate for such issues to form part of the consultation clause in the Bill, and I would be glad to have a conversation with the hon. Member about how we take that forward. We should certainly also consider working it into IATA processes.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend set out the limitations of how far the Bill can go, I reassure the Committee that I take this issue very seriously and want the UK to use its phenomenal reputation in international fora as a leader in aviation policy. I personally met the UK’s representative at the ICAO, William Gatward, and discussed its importance. We have agreed to explore ways to discuss compensation caps through the Montreal convention in the appropriate fora at the ICAO, and I would be glad to keep Members updated on that work. I again thank my hon. Friend for his contributions. He is incredibly experienced in this field, and he is right to point out that many of the recommendations he put forward in his Aviation (Accessibility) Bill have found their way through to this piece of legislation.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will pick up on a few points from the debate, although I do not feel I have much more to add, given the quality of the conversation between the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. It genuinely showed the Committee process at its best in terms of deliberative policymaking. I turn first to the point raised about the Montreal convention, because my hon. Friend and the hon. Member were right to point out that the lifting of the compensation cap on damaged wheelchairs and mobility aids in the Bill applies only to domestic UK flights. That is because doing the same for international flights would require a change to the Montreal convention, which is an international treaty that the UK is party to through the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Although my hon.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“From travelling with a close family member with type 1 diabetes, I know about the pressure and the worry that can be caused by travelling with needles and insulin, so that should also factor into the conversations.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will use that as a springboard to raise another piece of the puzzle: the guidance given to GPs about the advice they give patients when they are diagnosed with a particular condition.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have little more to add on clause 4, other than that it will help us address an issue that desperately needs to be dealt with by ensuring that people who use wheelchairs and mobility aids can travel with confidence in the knowledge that, if their devices are damaged, they will get the compensation they deserve. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Direct enforcement of consumer protection legislation by CAA Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My officials will be getting nervous, because we are creating lots of extra considerations. That said, I think hon. Members’ points are very well made. They speak to the fact that the provisions in the Bill—the consultation and the agility of the Secretary of State’s consumer protection-making powers—allow us to advance across a range of issues that affect not just those with disabilities or additional needs but everyone who uses our aviation sector, and to improve their rights in a meaningful and purposeful way. I hope I have sufficiently answered the questions of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Finally in this grouping, clause 6 ensures that the CAA can effectively enforce existing safety and consumer requirements relating to air carrier identity. It does so by bringing existing legislation relating to air carrier identity requirements within the CAA’s consumer enforcement framework. This legislation sets out requirements for passengers to be informed of the identity of the air carrier operating their flight and requires the Secretary of State to maintain a list of air carriers banned from operating in the United Kingdom. Clause 6 does not create new requirements for passengers or airlines; rather, it strengthens the enforcement of existing regulation, ensuring that passengers have the information they need and that measures designed to protect passengers and maintain safety standards can be effectively enforced.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A further non-binding review would add process, not meaningful protection. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment, and I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it. Schedule 1 gives effect to clause 5, which provides the Civil Aviation Authority with direct consumer enforcement powers. The schedule provides the CAA with the detailed investigatory and enforcement powers needed to exercise those functions. It enables the CAA to investigate suspected breaches, take direct enforcement action and impose penalties where appropriate, while also providing for appeals and reporting requirements. The schedule is therefore an essential part of the new enforcement regime established by clause 5, setting out the detailed powers and procedures needed for it to operate effectively, and I commend it to the Committee.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree with the underlying principle that organisations must have a clear and independent means of challenging the CAA’s decisions. That safeguard is important, but the statutory right of appeal already provides it. The amendment would instead add an administrative stage ending only in a non-binding recommendation. That could delay resolution and increase complexity, particularly where a party then proceeds to court in any event. It would also create an uneven framework by adding a review process for CAA notices, but not equivalent notices issued by other direct enforcers. There is no clear case for that distinction. The CAA is best placed to assess compliance with air passenger rights in the first instance. Where its decision is challenged, the court offers independent scrutiny and a binding outcome.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The clause also includes mechanisms to ensure oversight of the CAA’s enforcement activity, which were strengthened in response to scrutiny in the other place. The Bill now requires the CAA to report on the use of the powers, and that information will be laid before Parliament, ensuing appropriate scrutiny and accountability. This measure will strengthen consumer protection in the aviation sector by enabling quicker and more effective enforcement, improving compliance with consumer law and giving passengers greater confidence that their rights are protected when travelling by air. Amendment 11, tabled by the shadow Minister, would introduce an independent review of a CAA direct enforcement notice before the existing right of appeal to the courts is exercised.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is a lot of talking from me about this part of the Bill. I thank hon. Members for their contributions so far. Clause 5 is another part of the Government’s objective of strengthening consumer protection in the aviation sector. It will give the CAA the tools it needs to enforce consumer law effectively. The CAA’s current powers are not strong enough, and court processes can be slow and resource-intensive. The clause brings the CAA into line with other regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, by allowing it to investigate breaches and take direct enforcement action where appropriate. That means that, when passenger rights are breached, the CAA will be able to act quicker and secure better outcomes for consumers.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 1 Direct enforcement of consumer protection legislation by CAA Amendment proposed : 10, in schedule 1, page 23, line 9, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.— (Alison Griffiths.) This amendment ensures that regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The point still stands that this would create an uneven framework. It would add a review process for CAA notices, but no equivalent would be issued by other direct enforcers. The CAA is best placed to assess compliance with passenger rights, reflecting on the gravity of some of the issues we have already discussed, but there is a question around making sure that CAA action is not disproportionate. Like the CMA, the CAA will need to make clear how it is going to use its powers. It will have to follow a set of rules to ensure that its actions are proportionate and correct. On that basis, I do not believe that the level of oversight set out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, in her amendment is proportionate. I urge her to withdraw it. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for their contributions. In the first instance, if redress to the courts is still available when somebody against whom there is an enforcement action is dissatisfied, that speaks to the fact that having these enforcement abilities does not quite result in an effective way of removing the need for the court process. There is also the point about the arrangement that exists through the Railways Bill on how we make decisions between GBR and the ORR. This is direct enforcement of protections, which is important both for the aviation safety regime and for consumers who fly; it is not a determination on commercial matters. In a railway context, GBR needs to have a strong ability to be able to work in a holistic way to support track and train together.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 7, page 6, line 31, leave out “six” and insert “12”. This amendment would increase the amount of time available to complete the review of the impact of airport drop-off charges to 12 months.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government amendment ensures that Parliament will receive the findings on the impact of the charges, based on a strong and credible evidence base.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗