Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Smith and Keir Mather

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

What a weekend, Mr Speaker! Ministers will be hovering by the phone on Monday or Tuesday. What a visual display of success or failure there will be, as the number of holidaymakers heading to the continent ramps up for the summer season. The Government have had two years on this. Multiple Select Committees in the previous Parliament warned that the technology would not be ready, and that the introduction of the system would be a disaster. How on earth have we got to a situation where the Secretary of State is making last-minute dashes to the European Commission and the French Government to try to get a few extra kiosks—for which the technology does not even work—as holidaymakers face chaos this weekend?

[Keir Mather]

That is a very theatrical question from the shadow Minister on the scale of the challenge that we face. I can confirm that the meetings that we are having on EES, both in Government and with our counterparts, are to ensure that we get this right, ahead of the peak period. We have supported the port of Dover and Eurotunnel with £3.5 million each in preparation for EES, and earlier this week, we announced £20 million in funding, subject to the completion of relevant checks, to further support border infrastructure at the port of Dover. We are taking a sober, sensible and non-theatrical approach to getting this right.

[Greg Smith]

I have always enjoyed my exchanges with the Minister. As the nation learned devastatingly last night, trying to defend a single position for a prolonged period does not always have a happy ending. If we get the chaos that is predicted for holidaymakers and freight operators this weekend, will the Government go to the European Union and the French Government and demand that the system be shut down and paused until the technology can be got right?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I can confirm that I have been clear with Ministers in Government, and that Ministers have been clear with French and EU counterparts, that they should do all they can to avoid disruption, including using the existing flexibilities in EES regulations. We are not being complacent and asking for things retrospectively; we are taking the right steps now to ensure that our juxtaposed controls are prepared. There is £3.5 million to prepare for EES operations, both for the port of Dover, and for Eurotunnel and St Pancras.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Debate between Greg Smith and Keir Mather

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this urgent question, and Mr Speaker on granting it. There is deep concern across the whole country about the Government’s decision, which particularly affects our coastal communities. That was demonstrated clearly by all Members in the Westminster Hall debate last week, during which the Minister said that he would reflect on what he had heard. He has repeated that today, but from the answers he has given so far, I suggest that he reflects a little harder and with more urgency.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for his tireless work in highlighting these issues. The problem is not speculative; the data revealed by The Times from the MCA survey is clear: this change will decimate the coastguard. The survey showed that across all regions, between 25% and 58% of those who responded said a volunteer model would lead them to quit or reduce their hours, including 56% in the south-east and southern England regions, which cover the busiest stretches of coastline in the UK. A decrease in the number of coastguard officers of this scale would put people’s lives at risk. It is that simple.

Despite knowing that this decision was coming for months, there appears to have been a complete failure by the Department to appreciate and anticipate its impact. Why is that? Why was the impression given that even though it was a tough decision, the coastguard would be able to carry on as normal and there was sufficient support for the changes? Can the Minister explain who within the Department and the MCA knew about the revelations in The Times this week? Why was the MCA allowed to share information with Members in what can only be described as a questionable manner? The data is the data; it is not part of some sort of package.

The first responsibility of Government is to protect the public, but in this matter I fear that they have failed. As we look ahead and approach the height of summer, protecting our waterways is critical, so will the Minister answer a simple question: what will he do urgently and immediately to solve the problem?

[Keir Mather]

On what I am doing personally to solve the problem, the reason that those consultation sessions are not going ahead this week is that I am honouring the commitment I made to the House last week in the Westminster Hall debate in responding to the number of concerns expressed by Members of Parliament about the operational implications of the decision that was taken. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised serious concerns and questions were asked about parliamentary engagement with CROs. Allegations were made that MPs were not granted proper access to engage with CROs prior to the decision being taken. Those things are all of serious concern to me, and that is why this pause has gone ahead.

I question what the shadow Minister says about the data standing alone in the operational judgment that was made. I reiterate that a package of measures enables us to make a decision. It is based on impact assessments, operational evidence and the surveys that he references. The surveys only form a constituent part of that process. The salient point remains that it is right to reflect on the concerns that have been raised across this House and to consider long-term options that will ensure that CROs feel valued and that operational capacity is retained in every part of the United Kingdom, including our rural areas. That is what I am committed to doing.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Debate between Greg Smith and Keir Mather

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House; I could not have put it better myself. It is essential that whatever measures, on any matter, are brought forward by any Government—be it the current Government or any future Government—real people’s lives and the cost base be reviewed regularly, so that we are not making people poorer, or stopping people from being able to do what they want, be it go on holiday, travel for business or move goods around.

With that, I come to amendment 8 and the cost impact on passengers. The amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on passenger air fares. One of the most contentious areas surrounding the Bill, and indeed the Government’s whole approach to net zero, is: what does it actually cost real people? The amendment seeks to clarify that, and it gives the Government the opportunity—in theory, they should cheerfully embrace this—to lock in a claim that they profess to believe, namely that the Bill will have an impact of plus or minus £1.50 on air fares. The previous Minister repeated that statistic time and again on Second Reading and in Committee. The new Minister has the challenge today of either sticking with his predecessor’s assertion, backing the amendment and locking in protections for consumers, or admitting that this may well be more costly to air travellers.

It is worth noting that during the evidence stage of Bill Committee, none of the witnesses was willing to affirm the Government’s figure. In fact, some noted that the estimated price appeared low. For example, Jonathon Counsell from International Airlines Group stated:

“We think there are potentially some elements that have not been included in that calculation, but £1.50 per passenger feels quite low when you think the costs of the SAF itself will be nearer to £10.”––[Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 15 July 2025; c. 17, Q12.]

Consumers need peace of mind that the Bill will not cost them dear, and will not act as a financial barrier to the family holiday or any other trip, so failure to back the amendment can only mean uncertainty.

I turn to amendment 11, which is focused on transparency. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate, payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers. Valero, for example—one of the world’s largest renewable fuels producers—has contacted the Opposition arguing for the amendment, saying that it would offer a workable solution; it would support the development of new SAF production without significantly impacting the industry as a whole. The amendment would apply the levy equally to all jet fuel suppliers, providing a fair and transparent mechanism for supporting the broader SAF industry.

Just this week, I have been contacted by Virgin Atlantic, which is arguing that transparency safeguards must be in place to keep costs low for consumers. As organisations including the International Air Transport Association have highlighted, since the mandate came into effect in January 2025, fuel suppliers have been adding compliance risk premiums to the cost of mandated SAF, contributing to the price of SAF and doubling it for some carriers. That is to cover the eventuality that they do not meet the 2% mandate target and must pay the buy-out price for any missed volume. Virgin Atlantic has argued that to prevent SAF prices increasing further, the revenue certainty mechanism must have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure transparency over cost pass-through. There must also be a transparent process for refunds in the event of over-collections, and all revenues generated under the RCM should be ringfenced, rather than going into the general taxation pot.

Amendment 9 looks at British technology and intellectual property. It would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts. As I said from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, there is a historical reality that we need to confront, and the amendment would stop history repeating itself. The historical error that I refer to is this: a great many projects supported by grants from the advanced fuels fund use foreign-owned technology. It cannot be right that the British state, while arguing for domestic fuel security, funds overseas technology when we have incredible innovators and manufacturers right here.

Domestic fuel security must mean domestic fuel IP, manufacture and supply. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF, eSAF and local production, as is provided for by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of those products. That not only retains revenue in the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. The amendment tackles that head-on, and a failure to back it would be a failure to back United Kingdom innovators.

Lastly, amendment 10 is on technological choices. It states:

“The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”

I feel incredibly strongly about this amendment. It is on a matter that I have championed in this House for many years—in the last Parliament, during my time on the Transport Committee and, since July, from this Dispatch Box. The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and it is relevant to new clause 7 and amendment 12 in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley, both of which I have a great deal of sympathy for.

Governments of all political persuasions have professed to be technologically neutral. They seldom are. There is a natural tendency to pick winners and losers. We need to look through that lens, and ask ourselves what the Bill is promoting and using the levers of primary legislation to enable. The disappointing answer to that is the potential to bring alive SAF plants using technologies that have already been superseded—plants that would therefore be temporary at best. Stepping up something with no longevity, and with an estimated build cost of between £600 million and £2 billion, would be no small mistake.

Power-to-liquid solutions, otherwise known as eSAF or synthetic fuel—liquid hydrocarbons literally made out of air and water—are surely the better and sustainable future for aviation fuel. We had debates on Second Reading and in Committee about other solutions. I cannot imagine that anyone is ready to defend growing food to burn it, but equally, waste-derived fuels simply are not sustainable in the long term. Solid waste is not readily available; the primary source is local authorities, the majority of which are on contracts with energy-from-waste facilities and incinerators that have decades to run. Likewise, I am not sure there is enough chip oil in the country to meet our aviation fuel needs.

That leaves power-to-liquid solutions and eSAF. Many say that it is not ready; some say it is too expensive; but those of us on the Public Bill Committee heard loud and clear from Zero Petroleum that it is ready to scale right now. It just needs the green light from the regulators, and with scale will come affordability. Amendment 10 is in many ways a light-touch amendment to bring this debate to the fore. It does not close down other technological routes, but forces the Government to acknowledge the risk, both to the environment and in terms of cost, when choosing contracts under the RCM.

As other speakers have said, the Bill can still be improved. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments, which would improve the Bill, and to ensure a strong and affordable future for sustainable aviation fuel in our great United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

Before I turn to the amendments before us, I would like to thank the many hon. Members who have made considered and helpful contributions. This legislation has been long in the making, and few have been more central in bringing it to fruition than my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who I would like to thank personally for his efforts throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages.