Tim Roca MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends in the ministerial team for their assiduous work in preparing and bringing forward this Bill. He is no longer in his seat, but I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) for all the work he did as a Minister in government and a shadow Minister in opposition. I also thank the Members of the other place for their work in scrutinising the Bill ahead of its coming to us here. The Bill represents another example of how the Government are on the side of consumers. On taking office, the new Prime Minister launched a series of very practical, everyday fixes to improve consumer rights in a number of areas, including lowering costs and empowering consumers to take action when they have been inconvenienced. I see this Bill in that tradition, as another step on the path of improving consumer rights in aviation. By giving the Civil Aviation Authority direct enforcement powers and increasing transparency to ensure that passengers are always told who is operating their flight and how they can find redress, the Bill is another example of the Government rebalancing power back in favour of the consumer, and I applaud it. My constituency of Macclesfield is well served by Manchester airport. More than 500 jobs in my constituency are dependent on the airport, which is the third busiest in the UK. I understand that it is the busiest airport outside London, and it is certainly the global gateway to the north of England. Like many people, I fly out of Manchester myself. It is a great airport, and a great part of the economy of the north-west. Perhaps not uniquely— I may be proved wrong—its major shareholders are mainly the councils of Greater Manchester, which is a great example of sharing prosperity from an important economic asset. I thank all the staff at the airport for helping 30 million people to get through check-in, security and the departure lounge, and to fly to where they need to be mostly hassle-free, and I think we should acknowledge that. However, as I am sure is common across all airports, sometimes things go wrong, whether it is a bag that does not make it or a flight that is significantly delayed. Disruption can occur at any moment, and we have certainly seen that with the NATS events in the last 24 hours. Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill will give me and other passengers much greater confidence that, when things do go wrong, they can be put right. Given the changing nature of air travel and global trends, it is right that the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to act on behalf of passengers without having to pass further primary legislation, such as on baggage damage, liability for passenger insurance, ensuring price transparency and ensuring flights are accessible to all passengers, especially those who are disabled, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a powerful case. These new powers ensure that the Secretary of State can be a true advocate for passengers and quickly update the rules to ensure that there is appropriate compensation when things go wrong. I was much taken by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) about exploring an automated delay repay system, which I think has great merit. I certainly want to see the new British standard-sized bag when it finally emerges. For a moment, it sounded as though the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) had a particularly traumatic summer because of at least one airline. I look forward to the consultation that Ministers will bring forward within 12 months, and I will certainly urge my constituents who have written to me about their own experiences to respond to that consultation so that Ministers can act on their behalf. I particularly welcome the change in clause 4 to provide greater compensation for damaged or lost accessibility equipment on domestic flights. As has been said, a wheelchair is a precious and crucial asset for disabled people. They sometimes—too often—have to fight to get a mobility aid in the first place, and it can often be specialist and extremely expensive. It is therefore right that if an airline is careless enough to lose or damage an aid, the compensation owed to the person it has left inconvenienced in an incredible way is made properly and is appropriate for someone who is unable to navigate with the freedom they once had. I cannot imagine the level of inconvenience caused to people in those circumstances, so I am glad the consumer rights in this area are being strengthened. With the Bill giving the CAA the same consumer protection enforcement powers as the Competition and Markets Authority, passengers will now have a powerful new ally in the fight for compensation that is owed but is not as forthcoming as it should be. Beyond the consumer protections, I welcome the reforms the Bill introduces to the antiquated airspace management system of airport slots, schedules and allocations. It is particularly positive that the airspace changes will hopefully lead to reduced noise around airports for residents and decreased emissions through more efficient flying. These are sensible, long overdue reforms that help to make aviation more sustainable. Anyone who has been held in a stack while waiting for a landing spot can attest to the fact that a more efficient use of airspace to decrease the need for holding patterns is very welcome. It is good that the Government are reforming slots and schedules. We saw during covid that the current system is not flexible enough. Giving Ministers the power to adjust the rules, either in an emergency such as covid or to encourage competition between airlines, which is so important, it is a welcome step that will improve things for passengers. I will finish on the issue of airport drop-off charges, which has been raised by Members on both sides of the House. I ask that Ministers think carefully about it in view of the scrutiny in the other place. A number of residents in Macclesfield have raised it with me. Manchester airport operates a barrierless drop-off. That is great for efficiency, but constituents have complained to me that the signage is inadequate, the prices are too steep and the period to pay is not long enough. Certainly, the fines for those who do not pay within that short period are punishing. Manchester airport, through APCOA, levies a £100 fine if the charge is not paid within 24 hours of drop-off or pick-up. I simply do not believe that 24 hours is a long enough period for many people, including my constituents who have written to me on this issue. Many did not realise that they had to pay, not having seen the signage, which is inadequate. Some struggled with the online payment system, or the payment system rejected their car registration number. In one particularly egregious case, a constituent of mine was fined because their bank did not process the payment over a Sunday. There seems to be no reason why the payment period could not be increased and I do not see any reason why the third-party provider could not issue a written notice of the requirement to pay before a fine is levied. One gets the impression in these cases that the policy is designed to cause people to incur fines to increase revenue, rather than to encourage people to pay for parking in an orderly and appropriate way.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the right hon. Member, but I am not sure whether his point is relevant to the one I was making about the broad context of defence procurement. There has been great cross-party consensus on what we are doing with Ukraine, and we should ensure that that continues. I also want to comment on the defence nuclear enterprise. Under the DIP, we will be spending £45 billion over the forthcoming period on the incredibly important nuclear deterrent. It is right that we do that, but that amounts to 25% of the defence budget. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is in his place. The other week, I was reading his arguments at the time of the coalition Government, urging them to press ahead with the renewal of Trident, which they did not do. That cost us many years and has cost us many billions of pounds that we could be spending today on conventional forces. It means that we have tired Trident submarines heading out to sea beyond when they should be doing so, and we have crews on extended patrols of 150, 200 or 250 days. That is the cost of the decisions made at that time. I want to talk a little about ensuring that we do not fall into Russia’s trap. Of course, there is a significant threat from Russia, which is both conventional and hybrid—

• 8 Jul 2026 · Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes the point well. Indeed, in a recent interview my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) talked about how the recent attacks on Iran had destroyed a huge propaganda apparatus, which had contributed to 3% of total nationalist propaganda for Scottish separation from the United Kingdom. It is an important point. Following on from that, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak made the important point about strength being a foundation of deterrence. We are trying to deter war, not just by having capable armed forces but by having industrial capacity, well-stocked armouries, cutting-edge technology and a properly funded plan—because the stronger we are, the less likely conflict becomes. Every capability we field, every production line we expand and every drone we manufacture add to our deterrence, and that is incredibly important. At the beginning of the debate we talked about the credibility of getting to where we need to be. To be straightforward, it is my belief that we need to reach 3% of GDP by 2030. That is the minimum needed for us to show that we are committed to our plans and to our NATO allies in having the capabilities that we need. In fairness to the Government, they have made significant progress and we will be at 2.7% in 2027-28, which is the highest defence spend in three decades. The defence budget will also be 27% higher in real terms than it was at the start of the Parliament. Those are significant commitments that need to be recognised, but unfortunately, I am worried that they do not meet the strategic moment that we are at. The pace at which Russia might reconstitute, the lessons that are emerging from Ukraine over technology, the threats in the far east to our allies and our interests, and the demands placed upon us by NATO to meet certain targets mean that we have to move faster than the Government currently say. A spending review published in 2027 could, in theory, postpone most of the increase until the final year of the period. That would technically fulfil the commitment, but it would not reflect the urgency of the moment. There is a significant difference between spending 2.8% in 2028, 2.9% in 2029 and 3% in 2030, and remaining broadly flat and trying to make a leap—if we can prove that we can do that—at the end of that spending period. The Government deserve credit for changing the direction of travel from what it was in the past, but events have accelerated and so we need to accelerate our rearmament beyond those plans. There is no shortage of priorities, and the DIP was a significant document, as colleagues have described. I share their concerns about some of the autonomy in the Royal Navy. It is unlikely that we will have the new ships designed, tested and deployed within 10 years, and there will have to be service life extensions for the Type 45s. I worry about the lack or absence of—