Andrew Cooper

I am pleased to speak in support of this Bill this afternoon. The UK has been, and continues to be, a proud, open and outward-looking nation: a nation of traders, travellers, adventurers and explorers—and, increasingly, a nation of people wondering why it costs quite so much to drop somebody off at an airport. The 302 million passengers who passed through UK airports last year, whether for work or for a week in the sun, relied on an aviation sector that is safe and efficient and that treats passengers fairly. For everyone else who may not be regular aviators, it is important that we are in the best possible position to support economic growth, hand in hand with efforts to decarbonise the sector. For my constituents in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich, the aviation sector is a key source of employment. We are home to Jet2’s retail operations centre and close to two major international airports, the Airbus manufacturing site in Broughton and aviation fuel production facilities in Ellesmere Port. We once again find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to legislate to mitigate the haphazard and chaotic manner in which we left the EU. Aviation is one of the clearest examples of an industry where co-operation across borders is not an optional extra but an absolute necessity. Rules governing safety, consumer rights and the operation of our airspace cannot sensibly be considered in isolation. Regardless of individual views on Brexit, I hope there is an agreement across the House that Parliament has a duty to make the system work effectively, and that protecting the rights of travellers must be at the heart of that effort. One area where the Bill is especially welcome is its focus on disabled passengers. The principle it establishes is an important one: that disabled people should be able to access air travel on an equal basis with everyone else. But this is not simply a question of physical disability; it also concerns neurodiversity, mental health conditions and passengers whose needs may not always be immediately visible. As the parent of a neurodivergent child, I know that for many neurodivergent travellers, airports can be overwhelming environments. That is why facilities such as the Sunflower room at the now-closed terminal 1 at Manchester airport were so valuable. Having used that space myself, and spaces like it at other airports, I know at first hand that they provide a quiet space for passengers who find the main airport environment overstimulating. It is quite a good example of what thoughtful accessibility can look like. It is a relatively cheap and simple intervention, but for someone who might otherwise find the experience of travelling through an airport to be so overstimulating that it becomes a barrier to flying at all, it can make an enormous difference. Manchester airport did genuinely good work on this issue in terminal 1, which I hope will be replicated in due course in terminal 2. Many airports also recognise the sunflower lanyard, which helps passengers with non-visible disabilities to avoid some of the busiest and most overwhelming parts of the terminal. I would certainly like a similar approach to be adopted across the aviation sector and for such innovations to become the norm. As the Government undertake their consultation on this area, I hope that Ministers will study examples of best practice and consider whether such facilities could provide a blueprint for airports across the country. I am also pleased that the Bill addresses practical issues that disabled people face all too often. Everyone in the House will have heard distressing stories of disabled travellers being left on aircraft long after other passengers have disembarked because assistance was unavailable, or because wheelchairs and mobility aids were lost, damaged or mishandled. Those are not minor inconveniences; they can severely affect a person’s independence and, frankly, their dignity. For that reason, I particularly welcome the removal of the liability limit when wheelchairs, mobility aids and other medical devices are lost or damaged on domestic flights. That sensible and necessary reform recognises the essential nature of such devices and the impact that such occurrences can have on passengers who rely on them. The Bill also provides an opportunity to reflect on the wider passenger experience, including drop-off charges and getting to the airport. For those living in my constituency, the Manchester airport western link, first proposed by British Rail in the 1990s, would represent an important opportunity to improve connectivity and make everyday journeys easier. Better access to the airport would not only improve the experience of individual passengers and airport employees, but support local businesses, attract investment and strengthen links between Mid Cheshire and international markets. As Members may know, Manchester airport currently charges between £5.50 for five minutes and £25 for half an hour for someone to be dropped off directly outside the terminal. I accept that airports need to manage congestion and that we want people to use public transport where they can, but any charges must be fair and proportionate, particularly where passengers do not have a realistic alternative—and for my constituents there is no alternative, despite the airport being less than 10 miles away. If a review is to take place, I ask the Minister to ensure that it considers whether passengers—particularly disabled passengers and those with additional access needs—genuinely have a realistic alternative to paying the charge. Drop-off charges are one of the issues on which constituents have some of the strongest views, and it is important that any review should reflect their experiences. I also welcome the provisions in the Bill relating to airspace modernisation and the potential benefits of increased capacity, reduced delays and more efficient flight routes. However, technology and redesigning airspace can only take us so far if there are not enough trained air traffic controllers to operate the system. There have been shortages of air traffic controllers across Europe, and because the aviation system is so interconnected, problems in one country can quickly cause disruption elsewhere, as we have unfortunately seen this week. From a passenger perspective, it makes little difference whether a delay is caused by an airline, an airport or air traffic control—if they are still sitting in the departure lounge three hours later, the impact on their journey is exactly the same. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what the Government are doing to address the talent pipeline for air traffic controllers and whether there is sufficient workforce capacity to support the growth in aviation that the Government wish to see. Overall, I welcome the Bill because it seeks to create a more effective and responsive regulatory framework, while strengthening protections for disabled travellers represents a significant step forward in ensuring that air travel is more accessible, dignified and inclusive. I look forward to seeing the consultation process develop and to working constructively to ensure that the legislation delivers real improvements for passengers across the country.