Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Keir Mather

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I have already made a commitment to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) to keep the House fully informed about any next steps that are taken, but my hon. Friend raises a broader point about how CROs have been engaged throughout this process. There are some fundamental truths that I keep coming back to. One is that remuneration takes place because it allows CROs to carry out the work that they do. They do not do it for the money, but it allows them to carry out this vital public service. Another truth is that it is not always possible to reflect the scale of the contribution that CROs make. I was in Southampton the other day and spoke to around 15 CROs. They were talking about the system not recognising when they take the van for an MOT or douse down the equipment after somebody has been rescued from mud. Ultimately, it is about fairness and recognition, and that is what I want to do my level best to inject into this process.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for her doggedly determined support for her CROs. She is absolutely right to do what she is doing. I would be pleased to engage with the evidence sessions that are taking place next week, and I look forward to seeing the findings from them. She is right to point to the fact that CROs have decades of experience. I spoke to a CRO in Southampton just the other day who had served, including through the MCA, for the best part of 50 years. We cannot afford for that experience to slip through the cracks. She also mentions that CROs often have to respond to the most tragic of circumstances, when unfortunately it has not been possible to save people. Remuneration does not obscure that fact or make it better, but it is a way of recognising the enormous contribution that CROs make. That point about fairness and due regard for the contribution that CROs make has to run through the centre of what comes next.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The full impact on search and rescue capability and operational capacity has been considered through this process, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to point to the fact that it is critical that we continue to interpret what CROs are telling us about what the impact will be, and that we rationalise that with how we project demand to flow over the summer and into September.

I missed something in the previous question. On the very serious issue of whistleblowing, may I ask the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) to please write to me about that specific instance? The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), who I am currently answering, is right to raise these very important issues.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his answers this afternoon. I remind Members that large slogans are not appropriate and perhaps Members might do up their jacket so I cannot see any. If I had spotted the one he is wearing, I would not have called the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart).

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Keir Mather

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member raises a very important point. We need to ensure that the benefits of the Act are felt across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, and that includes engaging with our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I turn to new clause 2. We do not anticipate a substantial impact on SAF production in the event of a decline in UK bioethanol production. The bioethanol market is a global one, and we do not currently foresee any supply issues. Furthermore, the recommendations in new clause 2 are already under way and duplicate measures can already be found in the SAF mandate. In July, a total of £63 million was awarded to 17 projects via the advanced fuels fund. That includes projects that use bioethanol, municipal solid waste and green hydrogen as feedstocks, among other sources. The Chancellor also announced in the spending review 2025 that we will continue to support SAF production throughout the spending review period. The SAF mandate also includes a formal review mechanism embedded in its legislation, with the first review scheduled to take place within five years.

New clause 3 would also duplicate measures that already exist in the SAF mandate. The mandate awards more certificates per litre to SAF with higher greenhouse gas savings, which will encourage SAF developers to continuously improve on their greenhouse gas savings. This will be monitored through the formal review mechanism, with the possibility to update legislation as required.

I hope that this reassures the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that, in many respects, the concerns he outlines are allayed by existing measures in the Bill. I therefore urge him not to push his new clauses.

New clause 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the legislation within a year of it being passed. Such a report would not show the full economic impact of these measures. Contracts will need to be negotiated, signed, plants built and SAF produced and sold before economic impacts are released. Transparency on reporting in relation to the Act’s economic impact can be achieved through regular updates to the House. Therefore, I do not see the new clause as being effectual, if he wishes to evaluate the economic impact of the RCM. I therefore ask him not to move his new clause.

New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), would require the Secretary of State to introduce a regulation requiring airlines to make an annual report on their use of SAF, both in absolute volumes and as a percentage of overall fuel used. I welcome transparency on carbon emissions to help consumers make informed choices. However, we will be providing data on the supply of SAF under the mandate, including what proportion of the total aviation fuel supply is SAF. Furthermore, many airlines already provide public information on their decarbonisation efforts, and I therefore do not believe this new clause is necessary and ask the hon. Member not to move it.

New clauses 4 and 7, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) respectively, relate to power-to-liquid obligations. On new clause 4, the Government have already committed to keep mandate targets under review. The existing legislation enables the Secretary of State to amend obligations under the SAF mandate, subject to consultation with those affected and scrutiny by Parliament. Allowing amendments to the obligations without consulting appropriate parties could be detrimental to our shared ambition of increasing the use of SAF. On new clause 7, the legislation that gave effect to the SAF mandate already makes provision for a review no later than 2030. Given that the mandate has been in place for less than 12 months and the PtL obligation does not come into effect until 2028, it would not be helpful to review earlier than planned. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to move their new clauses.

Amendment 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, would put a requirement on the counterparty to report on the effect of the introduction of the RCM on air travel prices. This was spoken to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). The Government are committed to delivering value for money in the RCM scheme by controlling the scale and number of contracts entered into, and through the prices negotiated in each contract. The impact on air fares are likely to rise or fall by less than the cost of a cup of coffee. The costs of the scheme and the impact on ticket prices will be kept under continual review. Passengers should also benefit from the lower prices generated from the lower project risk and reduced cost of capital for SAF producers. Therefore, the Bill and the measures in it will not limit people’s ability to fly. Given that, I ask the right hon. Member not to move the amendment.

I turn to amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, and to amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley. The decisions on the specifics of contract allocation will be made during the contract allocation process. There will be a fair and transparent allocation process that evaluates the key costs, benefits and risks of each project. That will be developed over the coming months and will be subject to consultation with stakeholders. These amendments would reduce the Government leverage in negotiations by setting criteria in advance and would likely reduce value for money in the contracts signed, which I am sure all of us would seek to avoid. I therefore ask that these amendments are not moved.

Finally, I turn to amendment 11, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay. In May 2025, the Government published the response to the consultation on funding the SAF revenue certainty mechanism. It confirmed that a variable levy on aviation fuel suppliers would be introduced, and this was included in the contents of the Bill. The Government plan to consult imminently on the detailed design of the levy, but this amendment would pre-empt stakeholder responses, which will be considered in any design decisions. I therefore ask the right hon. Member not to press the amendment.

I hope that my responses have provided the explanations and reassurances that colleagues were seeking. The Bill is a crucial step towards establishing a SAF industry in the UK and driving investment, growth and jobs across our great country. Once again, I urge the House to give the Bill its full support.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Mr Glover, is it your pleasure that new clause 1 be withdrawn?