Olly Glover
MP for Didcot and Wantage · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“Q Could you say a little more about what you think can be learned from the M6 toll in terms of how we might look to improve or amend the Bill? That is perhaps the largest geographical manifestation of tolling at the moment, and the most similar to the presumed application of this Bill to the lower Thames crossing.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q It is a pleasure to serve on another Bill Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. One of my key concerns about the Bill is that a lot of it is about stuff being decided by regulations and secondary procedures, and by the ORR.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q Over the decades, we have often heard the wisdom that private finance is better than the Treasury, because it helps to keep things off the Treasury books and avoids constraints from public sector financing.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One thing that was really impressive under the last Government was the road investment strategy approach, which essentially said “We will set out a strategic case for all the big roads we want to build, we will give a pot of money and then we will give a delivery body the freedom to execute that.” The freedom to execute was slightly const…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q A witness said that one of my questions was best aimed at Government, so it would be churlish of me not to avail myself of the opportunity to ask it to you, Minister.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is perhaps relevant here that it is important to take account of the risk-adjusted cost of financing. You have already made the point about whether things are on the balance sheet or not. Another point to bring in is the certainty around the funding and delivery arrangements.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,137 held · 729 searchable for Olly Glover. 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.
“I do join my hon. Friend in calling for that. It was a shame that that, too, was missing from the shadow Minister’s speech. When designing the sustainable farming initiative and the system for allocating it, it would appear that the Ministers and officials concerned may have spent too much time here in Parliament, where Members wanting to get slots for some types of Bill have to become proficient in efficient use of Microsoft Outlook. That is similar to the bidding contest for SFI, which becomes as much about mastering process, IT savviness and a race against the clock as about the substance. This is a particular problem for smaller farms, where farmers will often have to be out on their land and not sat at their computer at a time convenient for DEFRA.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Finally, the Government could provide or underwrite the capital required for a temporary programme of interest-free farm crisis loans. That would really help the sector as it is suffering from current crises to do with inflation. It could be delivered through accredited commercial lenders and targeted at viable agricultural businesses that are suffering temporary cash flow pressure because of the current situation. I hope that the Government will listen to those requests and use the Budget to help our farmers and get SFI in a much better state for 2027.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Currently, such buildings and fixed structures do not qualify for AIA and instead generally qualify for the structures and buildings allowance, which provides relief at 3% per annum on qualifying expenditure. This does not incentivise investment in farm buildings when other forms of investment are relieved at a much faster rate. Similar reliefs are offered in competitor countries. For example, in Ireland such farm buildings can be written off over a period of seven years, and in the USA 100% relief is currently available for five-year periods. Our second ask of the Government relates to what we have already said about the approach to the carbon border adjustment mechanism introduction. The National Farmers’ Union estimates that fertiliser inclusion in UK CBAM will add up to £70 per metric tonne in extra costs.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government have an opportunity to in part make amends in the forthcoming Budget, and I hope that it is one that they will seize. There are many requests from the sector for the Budget, and I will talk about three briefly. One is to increase the annual investment allowance to at least £5 million and extend its scope to include assets qualifying for the structures and buildings allowance. This would support longer-term investments in efficiency and productivity improvements, including with regard to energy and water usage. The annual investment allowance allows businesses to reduce their tax bill by deducting the full cost of qualifying purchases—plant and machinery—from their profits.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend has clearly been listening carefully to farmers in his constituency and makes some strong points. The Government have said that SFI will be offered again in 2027 and that it will work with farming organisations on potential changes to the scheme. However, a timetable, budget and detailed arrangements for SFI 2027 have yet to be announced. As well as ending the bidding war process for SFI, they need to move beyond an annual settlement. Investment in farms and agriculture is not an annual exercise. It is a multi-year and often multi-decade labour of love that requires hard work, forward planning and long-term thinking. That is why the Government should look at some good practice that they have implemented elsewhere, such as moving to multi-year local government funding settlements, and embrace the same approach for SFI.”
House of Commons21 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his enthusiasm—it is not yet shared by those on the Government Benches, but perhaps that will come in time. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Here we are with yet another Transport Bill Committee. People often say that transport is a boring, unsexy topic—”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For example, yesterday he warmly embraced our policy of banning people listening to things on their phone in public without using their headphones. I hope the new culture initiated by the Prime Minister will be embraced by the Minister and that the Government will perhaps accept at least one of our ideas in this Committee. That is my hope; we shall see if it happens.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Perhaps there is a little too much faith being placed in the abilities of the CAA without enough oversight of it. We would also like to see some protections for consumers and the communities affected by aviation expansion. Of course, those communities include everybody on the planet, because of the significant environmental impact that aviation has, but I will say more on that as we as we go. As for this Committee, of course, the normal arrangement is for the Government to reject all ideas that are not their own. At this stage, however, I lay down a challenge to those on the Government Benches: could it be different this time? The new Prime Minister has indicated his willingness to embrace Liberal Democrat ideas on occasion.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Well, indeed. Yet the Government are dedicating so much legislative time to it, which rather undermines that thesis. I also note that a number of Government Members have already served their time in Transport Bill Committee jail, and now they are here again. I hope that is a sign of investment in their futures, rather than a punishment, because some would argue that being on a Public Bill Committee sometimes feels like a punishing, if necessary, duty—although I am sure the Minister would not endorse such seditious sentiments. I will defer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam on the substance of these amendments, but I will just say a little about the Bill as a whole and how I hope the Committee will operate. We broadly support a large amount of the Bill, but there are some aspects that we have concerns that.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert— “(1A) Regulations under this section may not reduce the standards of service and protection available to passengers and consumers of airport and air transport services compared to any provision which those regulations replace.” This amendment ensures that regulations made under this section do not make provision setting out lower passenger and consumer standards than current regulations.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand what the Conservative shadow Minister intends with the amendment, and I would be interested in hearing her case if it is about transparency and good governance; however, I feel there is a tendency on the Conservative Benches to table such amendments more when it comes to European Union matters than to others, which I find ironic given how often they accuse the Liberal Democrats of being obsessed with Europe. Perhaps they have a comparable obsession, but in a different direction. I think I have said more than enough, and I look forward to hearing other Members’ comments.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 26 would require that, if the UK diverges from EU aviation laws regarding passenger rights and compensation, the new domestic standards must match or exceed the level of protection currently provided by the EU. For the reasons that I have outlined, it is important that we maintain our current standards as a minimum—of course, we want to increase them. New clause 14 would support amendment 25 by introducing automatic refunds for a failure to honour pre-purchased seats. Let me say something briefly about the Opposition’s amendment 7.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We hear far too many heartbreaking stories of passengers being treated in that way, and particularly of passengers with disabilities being treated as a lower priority. We are glad to hear reports that the Government have been convinced of the case that we set out for this change in the House of Lords and are now considering consulting on scrapping any charges for being seated next to children under the age of 14. However, we really believe that this requires focus, so we very much hope that the Government will view amendment 25 favourably or otherwise indicate what they are going to do instead of accepting it. Subject to the Government not being willing to accept that principle, we will press amendment 25 to a Division.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In other aspects of life, when someone makes a booking and finds that they have been seated separately from their children or family, that is not considered acceptable; the booking has to be honoured or redress has to be made. Even on other modes of transport, that is the case. For example, on a train, if someone reserves multiple seats in the same booking, the booking system automatically tries to seat the whole party together—although admittedly, on occasion, there is disruption, or CrossCountry decides to put on a four or five-car train, ruining all that, but that is perhaps another matter. Why do those arrangements not also apply to airlines? This issue might be more common with some airlines than others, but they can currently get away with what they are doing because there are no restrictions.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Where the Government take a power to make new regulations, the existing baseline of protection should not be capable of being diminished through that power. This approach is not novel; section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 requires a Minister, before the Second Reading of any Bill touching environmental law, to confirm that it will not reduce existing environmental protection. If they cannot do so, they must say so and explain why. That single duty has kept the floor from moving. Air quality standards inherited from European Union law were carried through undiluted, and remain in force today. Amendment 25 would put into law that family groups cannot be separated when travelling under the same booking, ensuring that children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The amendments and new clause 14 are intended to strengthen the consumer and general citizen protections that the Bill has the opportunity to provide, should our amendments be accepted. Amendment 24 would stipulate that regulations coming from the Bill cannot create lower passenger and consumer standards than currently exist. This is important because, whether we are debating information rights, delay compensation or the powers conferred on the Secretary of State, the test has to be the same: does the provision leave the passenger better protected or leave the door open to an erosion of the standards that they currently enjoy? The amendment does not seek to load new obligations on to the Government but simply asks that when Ministers use the powers that the Bill grants them, they cannot use them to quietly lower the bar.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his comments. We are content not to press all the amendments, except amendment 25. The Minister has given some assurances about the Government’s future intentions, which are good but not quite enough. With the Chair’s permission, we would be a grateful for a Division on amendment 25.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an ‘adult requiring care’ means a person aged 16 or over who requires assistance or support from another person during the journey by reason of disability, illness or any other condition affecting their ability to travel independently.”— (Olly Glover.) This amendment requires regulations to prohibit airlines from separating family groups travelling under the same booking, ensuring that young children and adults requiring care are not seated away from an accompanying adult or carer. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 25, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert— “(2A) The regulations must include provision prohibiting a carrier from seating members of the same booking in such a way that any child under the age of 16, or any adult requiring care, is not seated adjacent to, or within immediate proximity of, at least one accompanying adult or carer included in that booking. (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), an ‘accompanying adult or carer’ means a person who is— (a) a parent or guardian of the child, (b) a carer responsible for the child or adult requiring care during the journey, or (c) any other adult who has legal responsibility for the child or adult requiring care, and who is included in the same booking as the child or adult requiring care.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on why, given that context, he thinks this amendment does not make sense.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to say a bit about the Conservative amendment 11, which would introduce an independent review stage before an appeal went to the High Court or the Court of Session. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that it is a sensible amendment. We are somewhat perplexed by the logic of the Government’s not being keen on it, given that in the Railways Bill the Government put in an extremely high bar for any legal action against a decision taken by Great British Rail or the Office of Rail and Road. Using the same principle, logic would suggest that the Government should welcome opportunities to avoid litigation and protracted court procedures—opportunities that, to us, would quite sensibly introduce an element of peer review to ensure that the enforcement action or notice taken by the CAA made sense before it got to the courts.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I of course do not actually think that; I am just suggesting that is how one could logically extend her argument, if we are to view all caps and limits as in fact being targets, or incentives to hit them.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady has always struck me as a master of the English language. I am sure she will therefore understand that the word “cap” does not refer to a target; it is an upper limit. There is no reason why it should induce an increase among those airports that do not feel the need for one, because those airports will have reached that decision for their own particular market. If she does believe that limits are targets, perhaps her party will withdraw its frequent opposition to such measures as 20 mph speed limits, because by that argument people only ever drive—or go—up to the cap, and therefore all other sorts of limits are harmless are well.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 8, page 7, line 16, at end insert— “(aa) after subsection (6) insert— ‘(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first— (a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected, (b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and (c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.’” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The amendment is in part about communities directly affected by noise and air pollution from airports, including those in the densely populated area around Heathrow, as well as around Gatwick, Luton and many other airports. However, the environmental impact of aviation affects us all. Despite the Government’s Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026, there remains a long way to go before the aviation industry has a credible plan for decarbonisation. The amendment would make sure that where directions are issued, an assessment is made of their impact, so that people have the opportunity to see the decision making and make their voices heard. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.”
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. Amendment 27 is intended to make sure that expansions of airports and changes to aviation and flight paths are done with, rather than to, communities, and that their significant environmental impact is taken into account. At this point, there would usually be chuntering from the Government Benches about we Liberal Democrats being nimbys. However, the amendment is intended to counter precisely such sentiments, which often originate from the feeling that major decisions on infrastructure and transport are taken apart from, and done to, the communities that are most affected.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have heard the debate; perhaps we need to have a whip-round to buy the shadow Minister a house underneath the flightpath and see if her view would remain the same then. I would like to press amendment 27 to a Division.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are not the only ones voicing concerns: as well as the lawsuit in New York, Colorado passed a Bill in May banning surveillance pricing and surveillance wages. We have concerns about the privacy of customers whose data is being scraped to price in this way. Tickets should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger, although of course we understand the need for demand-based pricing. We believe that the Government need to look into this issue more, to establish how widely it is occurring and bring in measures to ban the practice, which runs counter to consumer interests. This is a matter of fairness, transparency and privacy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is an example of the phenomenon of surveillance pricing: the strategy of a seller using personally identifiable online information to set prices. It is nearly impossible to know exactly when that is occurring and how widespread it is, but there is evidence that the airline industry is quite widely using those methods. Using a different device or incognito mode on a browser to book flights are well known methods to get around this, but they are not particularly customer-friendly, and not everybody will have the tech savviness to do that. The advance of artificial intelligence means that these types of systems are only set to become more advanced, likely in ways that we cannot currently imagine and without the necessary transparency for consumers to make an informed decision about what platform they buy from.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 3 would call on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ban the practice of surveillance pricing when purchasing airline tickets. Many people have been in this situation: they look at the details of the journey they wish to take via plane, but when they go to book it a few hours later, the price has skyrocketed. It can often seem that flight prices change constantly, with no real rhyme or reason. Information on the extent of surveillance pricing is limited, but there have been some recent suggestions that airlines are using such methods. Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in New York against JetBlue, claiming that it uses customers’ personal data to set ticket prices.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am partially reassured by the Minister’s answer. I do not think the vote would be an enormous nail-biter, so I am content to withdraw on this occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 4 Automatic Compensation “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce a scheme to establish automatic compensation for delays under Regulation (EC) 2004/261 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004. (2) The scheme must ensure that compensation for delays is automatically refunded to the original payment method, unless otherwise agreed by the passenger and airline, within 30 days of the flights’ planned departure date.”.— (Olly Glover.) This new clause would introduce automatic delay repay for UK flights.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A claims-based system disproportionately disadvantages those least able to navigate it—older passengers, disabled passengers, families with young children and those who may be less confident or have less access to digital services. An entitlement that can be realised only by the most persistent is not an entitlement equally available to all. Passengers should not have to fight for what the law already says they are owed. It should be paid to them in full as a matter of course, except of course in the minority of cases where the delay may not be clear and so on. Were I a betting man, I would predict the Minister saying that this legislation is not the appropriate place for this measure—if I have correctly anticipated that, perhaps he might say what he thinks of the idea and where else it might be explored.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“More than 45 million passengers departed UK airports between June and August of this year. Disruption over those three months is estimated to have cost in excess of £800 million. The consumer organisation Which? has found that airlines are retaining millions of pounds in unclaimed compensation, with thousands of passengers refused payment. Airlines already hold the information required: passengers’ identity, payment details and boarding records, and the precise arrival and departure times of the planes. As I mentioned, the rail industry has demonstrated through delay repay that compensation can be processed automatically and at scale, for clear consumer benefit.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 4 would introduce the concept of automatic delay repay to flights. The concept exists in the rail industry, although admittedly it is somewhat inconsistently applied, as we debated previously during the Railways Bill discussions, which I am sure we all remember with great fondness and nostalgia. At present, the law grants air passengers a right to compensation for significant delays, yet places the entire burden of securing that right upon the passenger. Passengers do not always find that a welcome experience. They must identify their entitlement, submit a claim and, in many cases, pursue it through dispute resolution or the courts. Anyone who has ever had to try to get compensation from an airline knows that it is often a long, hard-fought struggle to get what one is owed. The scale of the issue is considerable.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(2) The proposals under subsection (1) should include, but not be limited to, provisions that would— (a) facilitate airlines to share information on disruptive passengers; (b) require airlines to notify the Government of an incident involving a disruptive passenger; (c) alert participating airlines when a person in the database books a flight; and (d) provide airlines with an option of refusing to carry passengers flagged by the database.”— (Olly Glover.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a National Disruptive Passenger Database. Brought up, and read the First time .”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My apologies; I should have covered new clause 9 when speaking at the beginning—that was my oversight—but both the Minister and the shadow Minister have summed it up well. All I would add on that particular new clause is that, while I understand what hon. Members have said, we are going to have to do something to improve this issue, rather than just hoping that the marvellous aviation sector sorts it. These are very long-standing problems. Technology, and information technology in particular, have moved on. It should be easier to do these things well. The Minister keeps referring to clause 1—goodness me, the heavy weight of expectation really does sit upon it; it will perhaps be the most impactful clause 1 there has ever been in a Government Bill, the way he is talking it up. We can keep an eye on that in future.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am up and down like a jack-in-the-box. New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a national disruptive passenger database, for all the obvious reasons that we know of. Alas, when one is on a plane and there is a disruptive passenger, one tends not to have the luxury of moving to the next carriage, as one can on a train. One of the many advantages of rail travel is that fact that one has that freedom—although not always, of course, because trains are sometimes rammed or short-formed, and so on. I am not going to wang on for too long about this, because I believe that the Government have some good plans on this topic, and I will give the speaking time over to the Minister to hopefully tell us about them.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(5) Regulations made under this section must establish a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet the definitions of either ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’ or ‘British Standard Suitcase’.”— (Luke Taylor.) This new clause makes provision for a minimum standard for hand luggage and carry-on bags and establishes a cap on any fines or penalties that airlines may charge for luggage that does not meet those standards. Brought up, and read the First time .”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(3) Regulations made under this section must provide for a minimum size, both in terms of dimensions and weight, for both the British Standard Hand Luggage and the British Standard Suitcase, and require airlines to allow luggage which meets the definition of a British Standard Hand Luggage to be taken on board by passengers without charge. (4) The regulations made under subsection (1) may permit airlines to charge passengers who wish to carry a British Standard Suitcase aboard, however airlines may not impose a restriction on ‘carry-on luggage’ which would be smaller than the definitions of a ‘British Standard Suitcase’.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mrs McVey, with your generosity, we would like to press new clauses 8 and 11 to a Division. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For those reasons, we have tabled this passenger charter for air travel. It would provide targets on punctuality, reliability and improved onboard amenities, including in-flight wi-fi. It would also take steps to ensure that delay compensation is automatic and digital. The charter is ultimately designed to promote a customer-first approach in the aviation sector, just as we have sought to do for the railways. Poorly performing airlines such as Ryanair, which dismiss negative customer feedback as fake, could clearly use some statutory direction on how to treat their customers. We support the principle of redesigning the skies and recognise that they need updating, but we must ensure that, in doing so, we do not leave communities on the ground suffering a bad service. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on new clause 11.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“customer satisfaction survey earlier this year found that four in 10 customers experienced problems when contacting an airline with an issue or query. The survey also found that Ryanair was the worst short-haul airline for customer satisfaction, although it is interesting to note how many people continue to use it. That is one for the business and marketing students to ponder. In that survey, customers were asked to rate airlines on numerous factors, including whether the flight was on time, last-minute cancellations, how big the seat pitch was, seat comfort, how easy the booking process and boarding were, customer service, food and drink, cabin environment and value for money. Ryanair’s response was that the survey was “fake”—who does that remind us of?—and that nobody pays attention to these “manufactured surveys”.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One will endeavour to be brief; I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s ventures always succeed in that aim either. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam generally shows himself to be a champion of the aviation industry, yet his description of the experience perhaps undermines that brand. I want to speak to new clause 11, which would introduce a passenger charter for air travel. My hon. Friend has talked about a micro example of some of the challenges of customer service in the industry; new clause 11 is more about the macro—the wider picture. Airline customer service is too often not up to scratch, as we have discussed already, especially when problems arise. Which? research in 2024 found that airlines were the third-worst sector for overall customer service. Another Which?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given the somewhat concise nature of the Bill, for which we might be grateful in the Committee but may regret in future, we feel that Parliament needs a formal mechanism by which to judge whether the Government’s promises of strengthened rights, for instance at the baggage carousel, havematerialised. The new clause would help to ensure that passenger protections and standards are not weakened as a result of the Bill. If the Minister is not minded to agree, perhaps he will say how else this legislation can be reviewed and he and his Department held to account, so that the many high expectations of clause 1 are fulfilled and delivered in.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“First, I apologise: there was an error in my notes as to the groupings and I had new clause 11 in the previous one. That is entirely my error, and I apologise to the Committee for the confusion. The good news is that the speech on new clause 11 has already been done, and the one for new clause 10 is significantly more concise—good news all round, I would suggest. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, marvellous. New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report two years after the passage of the Act reviewing its impact on passenger protections and standards.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of a regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister in the Lords, the noble Lord Hendy, pointed to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement as the proper avenue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in a Bill. While we recognise that this new clause is something of a blunt tool, if the Government truly have no intention of using the powers in this Bill to facilitate airport expansion we see no reason why such a clear safeguard cannot be written into it. It is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad—we come back to the marvellous clause 1. The Bill touches everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making function. Local residents deserve the certainty that can only come from primary statute.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against vast, unscrutinised delegated powers that are potentially contained in this legislation. While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition of a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have received reassurances from Ministers in the Lords that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion and we take those assurances in good faith, but the time when British politics and our constitution, if that term can be used, can be relied upon in good faith has long gone and there is no substitute for legal guarantees. While we are glad that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Aviation Minister are still with us and hope to continue the stewardship of their Department for a long time, none of us knows the future and we do not know who will be in charge going forward. Without clear instructions written into the Bill, the public and local communities do not have reassurance that powers included here will not be used for airport expansion via the back door.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I know that you, Ms McVeigh, and the Committee will be delighted to know that this will be my final speech in this Bill Committee, because the last new clause will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The end is in sight. New clause 12 would prohibit any powers in the Bill from being used for the purposes of airport expansion. Airport expansion is an entirely valid debate to be had and, indeed, the Transport Committee is spending innumerable hours at the moment scrutinising the Heathrow expansion national policy statement. I know everyone here who is also on the Transport Committee is very much enjoying that task. The new clause would ensure that the efforts to advance airport expansion are handled appropriately, transparently and not through the back door.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗