Alison Griffiths

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

The complete record

424 held · 414 searchable for Alison Griffiths. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 9.

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.

1. “There are similarities between road and rail, but there are also differences and some of the consequences in regulation are quite different, so it will need to be beefed up.”

   House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

2. “Particular parts of the road and rail network have a lot of logistics clustered around them. It is also about having good journey times between large conurbations. We can definitely see, in other parts of the country, what we would say is artificially less logistics investment than there should have been, because of transport constraints in parts of the network. It particularly affects the north-west, where it is more of a rail issue. A lack of capacity on the west coast main line leads to more modern logistics being clustered further south than maybe it otherwise would be. There is a real economic benefit for the country in getting the capacity right.”

   House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

3. “If we have a circumstance where the toll is not paying back what is necessary and the private body that has financed the road falls into difficulty, the Bill states that the Exchequer is able to top up or provide payments, guarantees or low-cost loans. The backstop is therefore ultimately the taxpayer, combined with higher charges for motorists on the road.”

   House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

4. “Q I will build on some of what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, said about tipping points. My question is to both of you, so please feel free to answer in whichever order you prefer. The shadow Minister was referring to things such as fuel duty, I am acutely conscious that the cost base of the lower Thames crossing project is going up and is as yet unknown, and we do not know what the toll will be. In a situation such as we have at the moment, where diesel is at £2 a litre and the sustainable version another 50p on top of that, costs are going right up not only for the build, but for the corporate budgets of the haulage companies and for everyday individuals, who have to manage their household budgets.”

   House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

5. “Sam Dumitriu: It is worth remembering, however, that the families who may pay higher tolls to cross either the Dartford crossing or the lower Thames crossing, in the absence of a lower Thames crossing bear very high costs, too, as does freight traffic between two of our major ports. The crossing is crucial to the whole wider freight economy—there are really big problems there. I think it is worth remembering that the projects should be made a priority and that, ultimately, they need to get built.”

   House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

6. “Q Ben just said he did not think that we should be stipulating cost-effectiveness in the Bill—I am paraphrasing, to be fair. My challenge back to that is: why not? If I sit and look at the effectiveness of regulation in other sectors, I come from the private sector—”

   House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

7. “Two thirds of our contractors bid with HVO.”

   House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

8. “As I say, when I asked each of these sources specifically about construction projects—I have not asked them about retail; I asked them about construction—they have been clear that there are substantial additional costs to using HVO. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear.”

   House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

9. “Roger Forsdyke: It is really interesting that you say that from your experience it is the commercial pressure. The most important thing in the tendering process is to have measurables beyond just the cost. If it is first past the post, you are destined to push the price down to the lowest-quality bid, which often creates the problems you are describing and that we described earlier. You have to look at how you will measure the quality of the tenders in real terms, beyond the cost of the lowest bid. I do not think that is regularly done effectively, so you end up with cheap materials, optimistic programming, optimistic budgeting and all those things just to get to a price that is probably optimistic in the first place. That echoes what Andrew said.”

   House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

10. “Q I want to go back to comments that both of you have made. Andrew, you said that you can count on one hand the number of projects that finish on time and on budget, and that is despite the extensive experience that you both have. Roger, you said that cost overruns come from uncertainty. I had a 30-year private sector career. One experience I had negotiating contracts was that when the customer was creating unrealistic expectations or poor procurement was taking place, where you had a competitive environment and people were trying to win the contract was where you ended up with cost and time overruns. Are there any lessons the Government should be learning about how we procure these types of contract so that we get the best possible outcome at the best possible price, but without cost and time overruns?”

    House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

11. “We have been looking at a lot of US projects recently in the road space where single projects— equity, traffic and revenue, as well as construction—are lumped into one big unit and presented to a customer, who then tries to aggregate and always aggregates to lowest cost, and that is not always the right solution. I am giving my previous panellists an awful lot of credit today, which is wonderful. I think disaggregating elements could be a way of managing that risk and that cost and delay overrun quite well.”

    House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

12. “They will always enter into these sorts of projects with an expectation that mistakes do not land at their desk, because otherwise they go bust, and they have done globally. Again, credit to the way LTC is being procured. I think separating church and state a little bit—separating equity and financing from contracting, rather than having one single proposal—is arguably a way of getting more certainty around deliverability than amalgamating all those elements into one. Where we have seen material cost overruns, it tends to be in the big projects where one single solution is given to a customer.”

    House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

13. “Labour promised that nationalisation would deliver a more reliable railway. Two years on, it is getting worse. Between April and June, all Government-run operators saw cancellations rise or punctuality fall. Ministers say that Great British Railways will turn that around when it launches next year. They promised its implementation timetable and draft licence consultation this autumn. On this last sitting day of October, neither has yet appeared. When will they, and when will passengers see the improvements they were promised?”

    House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

14. “More broadly, are there ways of utilising technologies such as GPS collars to help identify more quickly a cat that has tragically been killed during a collision? If we are to consider ways of making things easier for owners, we should consider how information already provided by the private sector could be utilised where owners consent to it being used for this reason. As I said at the outset, we all share the sentiments set out in this petition. Cat owners are absolutely right to want their cat to be returned to them as quickly as possible. That is the least that all pet owners deserve. However, unless there has been a change of position, I am not clear on whether the Department for Transport believes that such a measure could be implemented effectively.”

    House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

15. “Furthermore, the Government’s road safety strategy does not mention animals or cats. Therefore, I will avoid reversing roles with the former shadow Minister by asking for the same things as Labour did in 2023, especially when the Government’s position appears to be clear. I will not step on the Minister’s prepared remarks by reiterating reasons given during the previous debate. Given the Department’s written petition response, I expect him to set them out again today. Instead, I ask the Minister whether anything beyond the measures that the Government have already outlined could be considered. That means going beyond best practice and considering how existing technologies could be utilised more effectively. That might include making things easier for those who need to access microchip database information.”

    House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

16. “The Government subsequently indicated that they believed that a combination of microchipping and efforts by local authorities to reunite cats with their owners was the most effective way forward. However, we must note a difference between today’s debate and the one in 2023. Since the election, the Labour Government have presided over a reduction in police officer numbers. Requiring the police to deal with collisions involving cats would add to an increasingly challenging workload. Any further demands on police time must be even more carefully considered as a result. Although it would be simple to ask this Minister to show the same consideration as in 2023, the Government’s response to this petition suggests that the Department for Transport holds the same position as it did then.”

    House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

17. “His note to me says that “pets killed on the road must be collected, identified where possible, and their owners notified by the Highways Agency (now called National Highways)”, so this provision exists already. As a newly elected MP in 2024, I was not present when this issue was addressed in the House previously. A petition that almost mirrored this one was put forward in 2022 and followed by a debate in this Chamber in 2023. During the debate, the then Roads Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), said that the Government would look at the issue and that he would ask the Department to consider whether it would be appropriate to take further action.”

    House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

18. “The Government previously said that the project would report this year. I am sure that petitioners will be interested to hear from the Minister when its findings will be published and considered. I have outlined those measures because I think we can all agree with the sentiments expressed by the petition. It would be disingenuous, however, to consider the comments made by the Government and the previous Conservative Administration and not conclude that there is currently no intention to bring forward legislation on this issue. That is not to dismiss the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) when he shared details of the provision announced in this Chamber in 2015 in response to the campaign for Harvey’s law.”

    House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

19. “Rule 286 of the highway code states clearly: “If you are involved in a collision which causes damage or injury to any other person, vehicle, animal or property, you MUST stop.” I would hope that that requirement is adhered to, making it possible for someone to establish whether their cat has been involved in a collision. Reuniting cats with their owners has been made easier by the previous Government’s decision to roll out microchipping in England, ensuring that cats can be more easily identified and their owners contacted. I am aware that DEFRA has been asked to commission a research project: first, to understand the operational challenges that prevent some cats from being reunited with their keepers after a road traffic collision, and secondly, to establish an evidence base to inform best practice for local authorities.”

    House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

20. “If our own pet were involved in a collision, we would expect to receive the same British decency. There are more than 11 million cats across the country, living in one in four households. We should always strive to protect these cherished pets. Indeed, many are a key part of their owners’ families. As my right hon. Friend the Member also said, they are not merely affectionate members of the family; they are world class at pest control, even if that can occasionally produce a messy result. The death of any cat is naturally devastating to its owners, and we should support them by ensuring that they are informed of a collision, either so that their cat can receive treatment or so that they can achieve closure. Each person who signed the petition will feel the importance of this issue deeply.”

    House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

21. “It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to you for chairing this debate. I know that many of my cat-loving constituents are deeply invested in this issue, with 363 of them having signed the petition. In common with many Members, I place on record my deep affection for my childhood cats: Scruff, Jasper, Ziggy and my personal favourite, Eartha Kitt. Before we delve into the proposal in the petition, we should acknowledge the importance of reporting an incident through the existing channels where there has been a collision between a vehicle and a cat. Although there may not be a mandatory legislative requirement, I hope that most drivers, in the event of a collision, would show the level of British decency to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) alluded.”

    House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

22. “I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert— “(1A) When making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to promoting economic growth. (1B) In complying with subsection (1A), the Secretary of State must in particular consider the impact of the regulations on— (a) the competitiveness of air transport service providers and airport operators, (b) investment in the United Kingdom aviation sector, and (c) the burdens imposed on air transport service providers and airport operators in complying with the regulations.” This amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth before making regulations under clause 1, with particular reference to the competitiveness of the aviation sector, investment, and the regulatory burden on businesses.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

23. “New clause 2 would therefore make it clear that the purposes of the Bill are to promote the international competitiveness of the United Kingdom aviation sector, to support economic growth and to protect consumers. I struggle to see why the Government would object to putting those balanced and reasonable aims in the Bill. Amendments 5 and 6 and new clause 2 form a coherent package. They would establish a clear, pro-growth purpose, require Ministers to consider the effect of regulation on investment and competitiveness, and hold the Government to their own target for reducing administrative costs. I hope that the Minister will support them.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

24. “That is why we have tabled amendment 6: we are simply asking Ministers to stick to the target they set themselves. Finally, new clause 2 would place an overarching purpose in the Bill. As we have argued throughout the consideration of this legislation, growth must be our north star in aviation policy. We want Britain to have a thriving and internationally competitive aviation sector, with airports and airlines able to invest, expand and succeed. That ambition is entirely compatible with protecting the rights and interests of passengers. Indeed, a successful aviation sector depends on passengers having confidence in the services they receive.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

25. “The Opposition have not pulled the target in it out of thin air; it is the Government’s own target. They set it, not us. The Minister cannot ramble on in the usual way that his colleagues do about a poor inheritance; his Government made this commitment themselves. Yet bizarrely, when this matter was raised in the other place, the Minister there refused to back it—shameful, really. Do Ministers simply not care about the costs they are piling on to British businesses? Of course not. When we examine their record—regulation upon regulation; standard upon standard; requirement upon requirement—it is clear for all to see, especially the businesses that have suffered and been forced to curtail plans to grow, expand, hire and succeed.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

26. “It would ensure that, when Ministers exercise their considerable powers contained in this Bill, they are required to consider the consequences for growth, competitiveness and investment—I know that that is a rarity for them, but they may as well start today. How on earth can businesses be expected to make long-term investment decisions when the Government cannot even provide them with clear and consistent direction? Above all, the industry needs the confidence to expand and the certainty to invest, and a Government who are useful and whose policies are conducive to that goal, rather than being all over the place with myriad positions. Amendment 5 would clearly fulfil that goal, ensuring that Ministers consider the consequences for growth. I hope that the Minister will support it. It is bizarre that we have to debate amendment 6 at all.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

27. “Taken together, amendments 5 and 6 and new clause 2 address a single question: what is the Bill intended to achieve for British aviation? Amendment 5 would require Ministers to consider economic growth, competitiveness, investment and the regulatory burdens imposed on the sector. Amendment 6 would hold the Government to their own target for reducing the administrative cost of regulation. New clause 2 would place the Bill’s overarching purpose at its forefront: supporting a competitive, growing aviation sector while protecting consumers. Economic growth, competitiveness and investment must be at the heart of this Bill. That is why amendment 5 is so important.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

28. “I reiterate that its purpose is to “protect the rights and interests of consumers of air transport and airport services.” I cannot see how that could be construed as downplaying safety. With your permission, Mr Turner, I will press all three provisions to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

29. “I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I do not think he has sufficiently addressed the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston and the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I think a north star is critical for the Bill. It is all very well to have a Bill, but without a purpose, what is it there for? That is an important point that we need to take into account. On the flexibility that the Minister referenced, my right hon. Friend has already made the point that he would not be removing any flexibility in agreeing to our amendments. I also point to our new clause 2. The Minister appears to think that it negates safety at the expense of competitiveness and growth.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

30. “We should always be in the business of retaining the flexibility to revisit and improve regulations where necessary, while ensuring that passengers remain properly protected. We welcome the overarching objective of the amendment, but given those concerns, we will abstain.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

31. “Far too many people still face unnecessary difficulties when travelling by air, whether regarding the provision of assistance, the handling of mobility equipment or simply being able to travel independently and with dignity. Those matters deserve serious attention. As we—and particularly my Conservative colleagues in the other place—have consistently argued, accessibility should be considered from the outset rather than treated as an afterthought. However, I have some reservations about binding ourselves to every existing regulation, particularly where certain requirements may create perverse incentives, impose disproportionate burdens or simply fail to deliver the outcomes that they were intended to achieve.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

32. “I will speak to amendments 24 to 26, amendment 7, which stands in my name, and new clause 14, which have all been grouped together. Amendment 24 sets out an eminently sensible ambition, namely to ensure that any future regulations do not water down the passenger and consumer protections currently in force. That is an important principle and one that we recognise. Of course, as hon. Members know, the Opposition support a thriving, competitive aviation sector, but passengers must also have confidence that, when they travel, they will be treated fairly and the protections that they rely upon will be upheld. That is particularly important for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

33. “We would like to press amendment 7 to a vote. I do not consider the Minister to have sufficiently addressed our concerns around the reasons and impact of the provisions in the Bill.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

34. “I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 42, leave out “that include provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(e) or (f)”. This amendment would ensure that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure, rather than only regulations containing provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (3)(e) or (f).”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

35. “Clause 3 places the welcome principles of dignity, equal access, appropriate assistance and independent travel at the heart of the new framework. The importance of those objectives makes proper parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations all the more necessary. That is precisely what amendments 8 to 10 seek to secure, and I hope the Minister will support them.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

36. “Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine such decisions before they take effect. It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the Government declined to accept that basic principle. I turn briefly to clauses 1 to 3. We support the objective of strengthening passenger protections, particularly for disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility. Clause 2 provides for consultation on several important issues, including assistance for disabled passengers, protections for those with allergies, complaints procedures and the provision of suitable wheelchairs. We welcome these practical steps, and look forward to the consultation producing timely and effective action.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

37. “I shall also speak to amendments 9 and 10, and I will finish by briefly addressing clauses 1 to 3 stand part. The amendments concern a very straightforward principle: that Parliament ought to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the regulations made under this legislation. The proposals would ensure that the relevant regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament, so they would preserve scrutiny, accountability and fair process for all concerned. Given the breadth of powers in the Bill, that is an entirely sensible safeguard. Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be? The regulations will have important and wide-reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

38. “Question put, That the amendment be made.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

39. “I commend the Minister for his points about accessibility and disability, and as I mentioned, that is something that the Opposition support. However, I was somewhat flummoxed, nay dumbfounded, to hear Government Members and the Minister conflate parliamentary scrutiny with agility, growth and flexibility in an entirely negative way. They seem to think that this can go forward only without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of what will become an Act with considerable ministerial powers. The Opposition’s position is absolutely that parliamentary scrutiny is the essence of our democracy. With a Bill with such significant powers, it is entirely appropriate that there should be much greater parliamentary scrutiny. We can demonstrate that that is not at the expense of agility and growth, so we will press the amendment to a vote.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

40. “I will speak briefly to clause 4. A wheelchair is clearly different from other pieces of luggage. For disabled passengers, it is what gives them their independence and allows them to travel with dignity. When an airline loses or damages someone’s wheelchair, the consequences can be serious and immediate. As such, it is only right that the passenger is properly compensated rather than being subject to the limits designed for ordinary baggage. We therefore welcome this clause’s inclusion in the Bill.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

41. “That would provide greater certainty and clarity for those affected, while helping to ensure that the process was fair and proportionate. Importantly, it would not prevent anyone from pursuing an appeal through the courts if they remained dissatisfied. It is an entirely sensible safeguard; I hope the Minister will now recognise the merits of the amendment and support it.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

42. “The Opposition have tabled the amendment to ensure that there is a more sensible and balanced process for reviewing enforcement notices issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. As the Bill is currently drafted, the route for challenging these decisions is through an appeal to the High Court or Court of Session. I must say I think that that is quite unreasonable. Surely there should be an opportunity for an independent review of the decision before businesses are expected to embark on potentially costly and lengthy court proceedings. That is precisely what our amendment seeks to achieve. We are simply suggesting that an additional check should be available, allowing an independent reviewer to consider whether a notice could be confirmed, varied or withdrawn before the matter proceeds to court.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

43. “I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for his support, and indeed the Minister for recognising that the underlying principle is absolutely the right one—that this is an important safeguard, to use his words. It is not administrative, as he argued; we should be ensuring that the CAA is not judge and jury. Clause 5 and schedule 1 give the Civil Aviation Authority new enforcement powers, while clause 6 brings the existing rules on banned air carriers and informing passengers which airline will operate their flight within the consumer protection enforcement framework. We support those provisions and the principle of effective enforcement, but we believe that the process needs an additional safeguard for those affected by the CAA's decisions. As such, we have tabled amendment 11, which stands in my name.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

44. “It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am absolutely delighted that the Government have finally decided to back our amendment and that Ministers now concur with our excellent Conservative colleagues in the other place that a review of airport drop-off charges is desperately needed. I particularly welcome the Government’s slight change to the timelines, giving Ministers even more time to pore over this issue and examine precisely why these charges are soaring.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

45. “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 .”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

46. “For those reasons, the Opposition will abstain in any vote on the amendment. Clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to direct that approved airspace changes and the findings of airspace design reviews are implemented. We support the modernisation of our airspace, and we want to see approved changes delivered without unnecessary delay.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

47. “Our aim ought to be to reduce the merry-go-round of regulation that impairs growth and investment; after all, modernising our airspace is absolutely vital to improving capacity, reducing delays, and ensuring that our airports can grow and expand. The last thing we should do is introduce further requirements that risk holding up improvements that have already been through the appropriate approval process. Of course, local communities should have their voices heard and their concerns properly considered, but that must be done proportionately. We cannot allow endless assessments and procedural hurdles to strangle the growth of our aviation sector. Therefore, while I recognise the importance of local consultation and the intentions behind the amendment, I confess that I have reservations about the additional burdens it could create.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

48. “I will speak briefly to amendment 27 and clause 8. On amendment 27, the Opposition of course believe that local communities should have the opportunity to make their voices heard when decisions may affect them—that is an important part of the process. Consultation should be meaningful and, intrinsically, there ought to be sensible, local, proportionate mitigations. I have concerns, however, about the additional requirements that the amendment would impose. The clause addresses the implementation of airspace changes, including those that have already been approved by the Civil Aviation Authority. I question whether it is sensible to require further environmental and noise impact assessments before the Secretary of State can even issue a direction to implement those changes.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

49. “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”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

50. “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.”

    House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →