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 3 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.
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(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).”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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”).”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I therefore ask the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the new clause.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗