partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I will speak to my amendments 51 to 54. I have a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer and give more clarity and certainty on. On amendment 51, part 3 gives the Home Secretary a very broad power to make regulations introducing core protection. The delegated powers memorandum says it is to bring the statute book in line with the new definition of protected status, but clause 21(3)(c) lets regulations confer rights and impose obligations on those claiming or holding protection, and clause 21(3)(e) lets them treat convention and humanitarian grants differently. In my view, that goes well beyond updating definitions. Could the Minister explain that? If the powers are to deliver entitlements in restoring order and control statements, which is obviously the 30-month protection, 20-year route to settlement, no family reunion, new work and study route, then Parliament should see them during the passage of the Bill. Changing refugees’ entitlements matters for how they rebuild their lives and integrate, and for the wider points around the economy and social cohesion. That needs proper scrutiny, not a negative procedure SI. In reference to amendments 51 and 52, if regulations will change entitlements and obligations, can the Minister set out what exactly those changes will be? If not now, will they be set out before the Bill leaves the Commons? How will those changes meet the desired outcomes and will there be further impact assessments to understand the implications of them? Amendment 53 is about the five-year leave and settlement. Since March 2026, refugees have been granted 2.5 years instead of five. The Home Secretary insists on a minimum 20-year route to settlement, up from five. Amendment 53 would restore an initial grant of at least five years and eligibility for settlement after five years. Reviews every 30 months and a settlement route that feels out of reach makes it harder to focus on learning English, training and work. People invest in their future when they know that they have one here. The Refugee Council estimates there will be up to 1.1 million reviews in the first decade, at a cost of up to £725 million. That would add additional pressure to the Home Office, which cannot yet decide claims well the first time. The Government say that they were inspired by Denmark, but in some ways it is far more restrictive. Most of Europe grants around five years and then settlement, but Denmark allows settlement after eight years for restricted conditions.

   Hansard source
2. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I understand the point the Minister is making about targeting resource efficiently, but can she elaborate on exactly what that looks like in practice? There are lots of nice words about efficiency, but until we know what that entails, it is quite hard to believe.

   Hansard source
3. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tom Gordon

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I welcome the fact that the Minister says details will be set out in future immigration regulation, but there is no clarity in the Bill for people now. I asked her a number of questions about eligibility, whether the family would move on to that route together and what that actually looks like. Can she say anything about that at this stage?

   Hansard source
4. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

   Radiotherapy Satellite Units

   9. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the availability of radiotherapy satellite units.

   Hansard source
5. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

   Radiotherapy Satellite Units

   In south Cumbria, only 29% of cancer patients get radiotherapy. That is the lowest proportion in the country, and only 27% of them get that treatment within the 62-day target. That is all because my constituents have to travel to the excellent but far-too-distant Rosemere cancer unit at Preston, which involves daily gruelling round trips of up to four hours for weeks on end, effectively excluding many from treatment. This awful, unequal access costs lives. Will the Minister set out a plan for delivering new satellite radiotherapy units in areas such as mine, and will he meet me and our local hospital’s trust to help us to deliver our long overdue radiotherapy satellite unit at Kendal?

   Hansard source
6. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

   Topical Questions

   T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tim Farron

   Topical Questions

   The only way that children can be tested for metachromatic leukodystrophy and given lifesaving treatment is if their older sibling is diagnosed, at which point it is too late to save the older sibling’s life. That was the case for my constituent Nicola, whose daughter was diagnosed when she was already symptomatic. She died at the age of 13. Nicola’s younger son was able to be diagnosed and treated only because of his late sister’s illness. This cruel tragedy could have been avoided if the Government added MLD to the infant heel prick test. When will the Secretary of State do that? Will she meet MLD families and me so that she can hear from them at first hand about the desperate need for this change?

   Hansard source
8. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Tessa Munt

   Point of Order

   On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I submitted a written parliamentary question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 28 April. I am awaiting a response. I think I have been pretty patient. Could you give me some advice on exactly what I can do to elicit a response?

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Steve Darling

   Topical Questions

   The fire service and the Care Quality Commission have now served legal notice against the tower block at Torbay hospital, and more than 100 beds are under threat. With that new information, this is now a crisis at Torbay hospital. Will the Minister please meet me and other Devon MPs to help navigate this crisis?

   Hansard source
10. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Steve Darling

    Business without Debate

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today at oral questions, the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), gave the impression that I had already had a discussion with her in respect of a fire notice and a Care Quality Commission notice, when in fact those notices had not been issued at the time I met her on 9 September. I am concerned that the Minister could have inadvertently misled the Chamber. I would welcome some guidance from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this matter.

    Hansard source
11. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Olney

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for her excellent opening speech. I hope she will not mind my saying that I experienced a certain sense of déjà vu during it, because, although she put things excellently, as she always does, this is not something I have not heard before. I very much hope that the Minister was listening. The Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed a third runway at Heathrow because the case for expansion has never added up. With the proposed economic benefits declining by 90% in the past decade, an operational second runway at Gatwick in the pipeline, and the Climate Change Committee’s recent statement that a third runway would be incompatible with the UK’s net zero targets, there is simply no case to be made for expansion any more. Despite the former Chancellor’s framing a third runway as part of the UK’s growth agenda, the Treasury’s analysis puts the third runway’s net value to UK residents at between minus £23.4 billion and minus £62.5 billion over 60 years. Heathrow is already in over £17 billion-worth of debt. The headline cost of a third runway, which the Government assert will be completely privately funded, stands at £49 billion, but that does not take into account over £100 billion of carbon abatement costs, nor the billions of pounds required for investment in the surface access upgrades that are needed. I was also reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) about the impact of the third runway plans on the M25 and the huge economic impact that will have across a vast swathe of the south-east. If the additional passengers cannot even travel to Heathrow, that rather defeats the purpose of adding capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made the point that we lack so many connections across the south-east that it is already incredibly difficult to travel to Heathrow. That is not just from Surrey; my constituency does not have a direct link, despite Richmond being a mainline station in south-west London. The lack of access will not just affect passengers; it will also reduce access to employment, severely limiting some of the economic benefits that we have heard about. It simply will not be possible for people to access the airport to take up the jobs. That is not to mention that Heathrow will seek to recoup its investment by passing on the cost to passengers. That will, of course, increase the cost of flying, as we have heard from a number of contributors to the debate, which will dampen demand. The Government recently spent £3 million on a banker to advise on the strength of the economic case for Heathrow; those of us here in the Chamber could have saved them the bother. With the Government seeking to find savings in the upcoming Budget, we can also save them the effort: there is no viable financial case for expansion. The introduction of nearly 300,000 more flights a year will have unavoidable environmental and social consequences. The Government’s commissioned aviation night noise effects study identifies that residents exposed to higher levels of aircraft noise are twice as likely to experience severe sleep disturbance. Many of the MPs in this room will have heard about those impacts directly from their constituents. We had a good community meeting across Richmond borough—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and I attended—and some of the stories we heard were particularly harrowing, especially from young people suffering from learning disabilities and additional needs such as autism. The impact of night flights and aircraft noise on those people is unendurable. Those indicators are widely accepted to correlate with an increased risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease as well as poor mental wellbeing. People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared with people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise. The flightpaths for a third runway have not even been designed yet, so how can the Government produce a viable noise impact assessment and reassure residents who are not already exposed to aircraft noise that a third runway will not impact them? I did not plan to mention this, but I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and his impactful description of what it means for not only the people whose homes are on the proposed site of the third runway, but for those whose homes surround it, and his powerful case about the effect it will have on their lives. On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding these additional flights to our skies will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. The Government have previously used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from the expansion of Heathrow, although they seem to have scaled back that argument more recently. Heathrow is already the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 to 9 megatonnes of CO2 into our environment every year. The Climate Change Committee’s recent conclusion that expansion is not compatible with the UK’s climate commitments presents the Government with a clear choice: to pursue a third runway at Heathrow or to take the climate crisis facing us seriously. It seems an easy decision to me. Does the Minister agree with the Climate Change Committee’s verdict that the current plans for a third runway are not compatible with the UK’s climate change commitments? The Prime Minister’s recent comments that distanced the Government’s support from a third runway were a step in the right direction, but he needs to go further, back his own convictions and categorically oppose expansion. I anticipate that the Tory spokesman, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), will reflect his party’s recent conference commitment to expanding Heathrow. That shows not only its lack of interest in the wellbeing of London and Londoners but its susceptibility to big business lobbying in the face of hard economic facts. Will the Minister advise the Prime Minister that the third runway proposal is not fit for purpose and put an end to this white elephant once and for all?

    Hansard source
12. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Sarah Olney

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    Would the right hon. Gentleman like to say more about those economic benefits, given that the Treasury’s figures show that the likely economic impact of Heathrow expansion is between minus £25 billion and minus £63 billion over 60 years?

    Hansard source
13. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Rachel Gilmour

    Northern Ireland Troubles Bill

    I have many veterans in my constituency, some of whom have come to talk to me, and I would like to quote from one, a chap called Michael Kingscote: “There must come a point at which the country says to those who served: ‘You did your duty. The state sent you there. The state must not abandon you decades later.’” I believe that is the very point.

    Hansard source
14. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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—

    Hansard source
15. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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. 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. 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.

    Hansard source
16. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
17. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

    Hansard source
18. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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.

    Hansard source
19. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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. (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.

    Hansard source
20. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

    Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL] (First sitting)

    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. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on why, given that context, he thinks this amendment does not make sense.

    Hansard source
21. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    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. 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.

    Hansard source
22. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    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.

    Hansard source
23. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    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. 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.

    Hansard source
24. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    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.

    Hansard source
25. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 3 would call on the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to ban the practice of surveillance pricing when purchasing airline tickets. Many people have been in this situation: they look at the details of the journey they wish to take via plane, but when they go to book it a few hours later, the price has skyrocketed. It can often seem that flight prices change constantly, with no real rhyme or reason. Information on the extent of surveillance pricing is limited, but there have been some recent suggestions that airlines are using such methods. Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit was filed in New York against JetBlue, claiming that it uses customers’ personal data to set ticket prices. That is an example of the phenomenon of surveillance pricing: the strategy of a seller using personally identifiable online information to set prices. It is nearly impossible to know exactly when that is occurring and how widespread it is, but there is evidence that the airline industry is quite widely using those methods. Using a different device or incognito mode on a browser to book flights are well known methods to get around this, but they are not particularly customer-friendly, and not everybody will have the tech savviness to do that. The advance of artificial intelligence means that these types of systems are only set to become more advanced, likely in ways that we cannot currently imagine and without the necessary transparency for consumers to make an informed decision about what platform they buy from. We are not the only ones voicing concerns: as well as the lawsuit in New York, Colorado passed a Bill in May banning surveillance pricing and surveillance wages. We have concerns about the privacy of customers whose data is being scraped to price in this way. Tickets should cost the same for each similarly seated passenger, although of course we understand the need for demand-based pricing. We believe that the Government need to look into this issue more, to establish how widely it is occurring and bring in measures to ban the practice, which runs counter to consumer interests. This is a matter of fairness, transparency and privacy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

    Hansard source
26. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    I am partially reassured by the Minister’s answer. I do not think the vote would be an enormous nail-biter, so I am content to withdraw on this occasion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 4 Automatic Compensation “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, introduce a scheme to establish automatic compensation for delays under Regulation (EC) 2004/261 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004. (2) The scheme must ensure that compensation for delays is automatically refunded to the original payment method, unless otherwise agreed by the passenger and airline, within 30 days of the flights’ planned departure date.”.—(Olly Glover.) This new clause would introduce automatic delay repay for UK flights. Brought up, and read the First time.

    Hansard source
27. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

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

    Hansard source
28. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    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. 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. 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.

    Hansard source
29. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    My mistake.

    Hansard source
30. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    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. I shall not push these new clauses to a vote, as we do have a few more to get through; I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 5 National Disruptive Passenger Database: Duty to publish proposals “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish proposals for a National Disruptive Passenger Database. (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.

    Hansard source
31. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    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.

    Hansard source
32. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    We have heard enough. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 8 Passenger Luggage Minimum Sizing: Duty to produce regulations “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament regulations providing for ‘British Standard’ luggage for Air Travel. (2) The regulations specified in subsection (1) must set out the following definitions— (a) ‘British Standard Hand Luggage’, namely a hand bag or personal item form of carry-on luggage; and (b) ‘British Standard Suitcase’, namely a form of large carry-on bag. (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’. (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.

    Hansard source
33. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

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

    Hansard source
34. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    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? 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”. 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. 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.

    Hansard source
35. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

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

    Hansard source
36. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    First, I apologise: there was an error in my notes as to the groupings and I had new clause 11 in the previous one. That is entirely my error, and I apologise to the Committee for the confusion. The good news is that the speech on new clause 11 has already been done, and the one for new clause 10 is significantly more concise—good news all round, I would suggest. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Yes, marvellous. New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report two years after the passage of the Act reviewing its impact on passenger protections and standards. Given the somewhat concise nature of the Bill, for which we might be grateful in the Committee but may regret in future, we feel that Parliament needs a formal mechanism by which to judge whether the Government’s promises of strengthened rights, for instance at the baggage carousel, havematerialised. The new clause would help to ensure that passenger protections and standards are not weakened as a result of the Bill. If the Minister is not minded to agree, perhaps he will say how else this legislation can be reviewed and he and his Department held to account, so that the many high expectations of clause 1 are fulfilled and delivered in.

    Hansard source
37. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Olly Glover

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

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I know that you, Ms McVeigh, and the Committee will be delighted to know that this will be my final speech in this Bill Committee, because the last new clause will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. The end is in sight. New clause 12 would prohibit any powers in the Bill from being used for the purposes of airport expansion. Airport expansion is an entirely valid debate to be had and, indeed, the Transport Committee is spending innumerable hours at the moment scrutinising the Heathrow expansion national policy statement. I know everyone here who is also on the Transport Committee is very much enjoying that task. The new clause would ensure that the efforts to advance airport expansion are handled appropriately, transparently and not through the back door. We have received reassurances from Ministers in the Lords that the Bill is not intended to be a vehicle for airport expansion and we take those assurances in good faith, but the time when British politics and our constitution, if that term can be used, can be relied upon in good faith has long gone and there is no substitute for legal guarantees. While we are glad that the Secretary of State and, indeed, the Aviation Minister are still with us and hope to continue the stewardship of their Department for a long time, none of us knows the future and we do not know who will be in charge going forward. Without clear instructions written into the Bill, the public and local communities do not have reassurance that powers included here will not be used for airport expansion via the back door. For the communities who live daily with the noise and emissions of a flight path, verbal comfort is an insufficient shield against vast, unscrutinised delegated powers that are potentially contained in this legislation. While the Government maintain that slot co-ordination itself cannot increase capacity, it is undeniable that slots are the strategic levers that manage how expanded capacity is utilised. If the Government proceed with their publicly stated ambition of a third runway at Heathrow by 2035, the regulatory framework we build today will be the one that governs those new movements. We cannot allow the rules of the game for slot allocation to be rewritten by secondary legislation without a statutory requirement for community consultation and mandatory environmental and noise impact assessments. The Minister in the Lords, the noble Lord Hendy, pointed to the forthcoming review of the airports national policy statement as the proper avenue for such scrutiny, but scrutiny of a statement is a far cry from a legal duty in a Bill. While we recognise that this new clause is something of a blunt tool, if the Government truly have no intention of using the powers in this Bill to facilitate airport expansion we see no reason why such a clear safeguard cannot be written into it. It is a necessary boundary, because the Bill’s reach is so broad—we come back to the marvellous clause 1. The Bill touches everything from airspace redesign to the CAA’s new rule-making function. Local residents deserve the certainty that can only come from primary statute. We must ensure that the redesign of our skies and the reform of our airports are anchored in democratic consent and environmental transparency, not left to the administrative discretion of a regulator or the temporary reassurances of a Minister.

    Hansard source
38. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Munira Wilson

    Heathrow Airport Expansion

    It is a pleasure to see you in the chair today, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for securing this important debate and for so clearly laying out the case against Heathrow expansion. I begin by declaring my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on airport communities. Hon. Members who support a third runway would likely say it is appalling that we have been debating this issue for 20 years, or 40 years in the case of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who started his campaign as I turned five. Those Members are right; it is appalling that we have been discussing it for so many years. Every time a new Government raise the prospect of a third runway, communities in west and south-west London feel this is an albatross around their necks that they cannot get rid of. It is time to put this issue to bed once and for all. The evidence is clearer than ever that Heathrow expansion is a white elephant that would have devastating consequences for our environment, as well as our local communities. The economic case simply does not stand up. I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for repetition in my speech of what has already been said, but it is important that the Minister hears, across parties and across London, the strength of feeling against this project. When I last spoke on this issue in the Chamber, I pointed out that the Government had provided little evidence to support their claims of the benefits of a third runway. Since then, the Government have published the Heathrow expansion national policy statement—HENPS as we like to call it. Rather than provide evidence, if anything it has made even clearer that the case for expansion is simply not credible. In the space of 21 months, since the former Chancellor announced Government support for expansion, the promise of GDP growth has been downgraded from 0.43% to just 0.05% by 2056. That is a decrease of 90% since an announcement was made in a speech about growth—just to send a signal to the City, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington laid out so clearly. The same can be said about jobs. The former Chancellor promised 100,000 jobs, but 61,000 are promised in the HENPS, and the Department for Transport explicitly acknowledges that this is likely to mean the redistribution of labour, not new jobs. That is supported by research conducted by the New Economics Foundation, which suggests that two thirds of jobs will be displaced from other parts of the UK. As our new Prime Minister said, Heathrow expansion traps investment in London and the south-east, and the regions of the UK will suffer for it. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to growth in every postcode, perhaps the Government should bring forward a national aviation strategy, rather than continuing to pursue Heathrow, to allow aviation policy with that regional growth mission. I and many others have warned since the beginning that the affordability of the scheme is questionable at best. A third runway is a huge infrastructure investment that would require the relocation of London’s busiest motorway, the M25, with all the ensuing congestion, chaos and pollution. Will the Minister tell us in his closing remarks what work his Department is doing with National Highways to assess those impacts? With a price tag of £49 billion and rising, it is our duty as Members of Parliament to raise questions about where that money will come from, especially as the figure does not include surface access improvements, particularly for public transport. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) that I strongly support the southern rail link, and the case has already been made to build and invest in it. As he said, his constituents cannot get to the airport from Woking. Believe it or not, I am only a few miles from it in Whitton, near Twickenham, and there is not a direct link for me and my constituents to get there either, so there is already a case for public transport investment. However, there is no mention of that in the HENPS and no costing for it, so I hope the Minister will elaborate on the Government’s expectations for surface access improvements and how they will be funded. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said, no one wants to see another HS2, with spiralling costs and delays. That is why last week it was so galling, after months of questioning Ministers and being told that they had full confidence in the expansion being solely privately funded, to see reports in the press that the Government were hiring bankers to advise on: “The financeability and financial deliverability of Heathrow expansion”. Minister, why are the Government doing this and why now? Given that they have commissioned these bankers to make the assessments, how exposed is the public purse? It is grossly irresponsible. After the summer we have just had, it is clearer than ever that climate change is having a serious impact on the quality of life in this country—on our health, economy and public services. At the same time, the Government propose to expand the single largest polluter in the UK, to the tune of carbon emissions equal to the entirety of Birmingham. The Climate Change Committee made that clear in its advice to the Government, arguing that expansion is incompatible with our climate commitments. That same morning, the Minister for Local Energy and Jobs said on the radio that it was only advice and could be ignored. I hope the Minister will say whether he accepts the Climate Change Committee’s expert advice and what the Government actually intend to do with it. This is an opportunity to press pause, look again at all the evidence and listen to the voice of local communities. Indeed, the Prime Minister has said that this should be a decision for Londoners. Londoners will suffer most in terms of the health and noise impacts. Expansion could mean that up to 3.4 million people will be exposed to harmful levels of aircraft noise, but, as others have said, we cannot even be sure who, as airspace modernisation is happening at the same time, which makes it impossible to consider the scale of the impact properly. More evidence continues to come out. The aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude survey studies done by Professor Charlotte Clark on behalf of the Department for Transport have stated clearly that the harmful impacts of noise occur at a lower level than previously understood. That is not something, as proponents of Heathrow expansion like to say, that one can get used to. Furthermore, expansion means that 10,000 extra tonnes of nitrogen dioxide will be produced a year. the HENPS simply does not have adequate protection for that, and it is deathly silent on the issue of ultrafine particles that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke so knowledgably about. It is crucial that any decision on a third runway is undertaken with evidence leading the way. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent comments, and I hope he is not equivocating without thinking. I look forward to receiving a reply to my letter to him about the issue, which I sent on the day that he became Labour leader back in July. The evidence is clear. Millions of Londoners are clear. We do not want a third runway at Heathrow. While the Conservatives have made clear that they are very happy to ignore the evidence and the voice of local communities and railroad this scheme through, come what may, I hope that the Prime Minister will instead stand by his convictions, as he has promised to do time and again, and take a third runway off the table once and for all, for the sake of taxpayers, our planet and our local communities, whose health and wellbeing risk being blighted by this project.

    Hansard source
39. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Munira Wilson

    Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

    rose—

    Hansard source
40. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Lib Dem·Munira Wilson

    Kinship Carers: Statutory Paid Employment Leave

    I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Earlier this month I attended a kinship event in Whitton in my constituency for Kinship Care Week. I met a local woman who had worked as a probation officer in the Ministry of Justice for 20 years. She stepped up suddenly—overnight—to take care of her best friend’s daughter when her best friend was no longer able to do so. The Ministry of Justice had no policy on kinship leave. It was only thanks to her very sympathetic boss that she was able to take a combination of sick leave and annual leave, which allowed her to have some paid and some unpaid time off. Does the hon. Lady agree that both the public and private sectors need to offer statutory paid leave for kinship carers, as a number of leading employers wrote in a letter to the Business Secretary last week?

    Hansard source