Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

No piece of legislation can deal with all the emissions that we are facing through challenges in the aviation sector. That is why we have this comprehensive package of measures to make decarbonising aviation while allowing passengers to fly at an affordable rate a reality.

The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke with his usual fervent passion in support of his constituents. The National Wealth Fund stands ready to encourage investors to join us in finding a long-term industrial future for Grangemouth, standing ready to invest £200 million once an investable proposition has been identified.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) raised the unfortunate closure of Vivergo. The Government have been working with the plant to understand the financial challenges that it has faced over the last decade, but I would like to reassure her that we do not anticipate supply issues in bioethanol provision. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester for his decided and confident support for the measures in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) said that the market was too nascent, but I encourage him to look at the detail of the Bill. He will see that that is exactly the problem we are seeking to solve through this legislation, by allowing SAF producers to scale at pace and pursue those innovative technologies. He also spoke about Britain as an aviation leader. The RCM is a first-of-its-kind global initiative to allow SAF producers to produce the fuels we so desperately need. He also encouraged me to sort out decarbonisation challenges in maritime. I draw his attention to the fact that the UK Government announced £448 million of funding to decarbonise the maritime sector only a fortnight ago.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) has Jaguar Land Rover within his constituency and is a passionate advocate for both the automotive and aviation sectors there. He spoke about the urgent need to encourage people to fly—to enable them to access the rest of the world, to see their families and to pursue business opportunities. That is something that we are passionate about championing through the Bill.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) was pleased to see that the Bill was supported across the House. I can only hope that he is correct in his prediction. We shall see. I note that there are no representatives from the Green party here today to focus on these important measures to decarbonise aviation. Hon. Members from across the House can take from that what they will. The hon. Gentleman was right to outline the broader work that is required to decarbonise aviation, including airspace modernisation, but also to talk up our fantastic UK aviation sector and the hard work that it is undertaking to pursue decarbonisation.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) pointed to the very important fact that we are endowed with key infrastructure, such as pipelines, pioneered by firms like Exolum, the research facilities in his constituency to which he pointed and the pioneering work of Bristol airport. We need to develop a market to facilitate that infrastructure further. The 70% cut in emissions through SAF is an exciting proposition indeed.

There are a number of Government amendments that I would like hon. Members to consider. Government amendment 6 allows for levy regulations to require the Secretary of State to assist the designated counterparty by collecting information and sharing it with the designated counterparty. It will also allow for the regulations to be used to impose requirements on a person to provide information to the Secretary of State. It is a technical amendment that will ensure that the information required to calculate individual levy contributions is provided at sufficient frequency, while not creating additional administrative burdens for industry.

Government amendment 1 allows the Secretary of State to direct a Government-owned company to provide assistance for the purpose of identifying to whom revenue certainty contracts should be allocated. The allocation process for RCM contracts will be fair and transparent to give confidence to any applicants. In other renewable schemes, contract allocation is often carried out through an auction process. The allocation process for contracts for difference for renewable electricity is carried out through the National Energy System Operator, or NESO, which is an operationally independent, publicly owned body.

That type of approach to allocation may also be suitable for RCM contracts, so the amendment will allow the Secretary of State to direct a body like NESO to support in the allocation process. The final decision on allocation, however, remains with the Secretary of State. Without the amendment, the same allocation process could be pursued, but that would need to be done on a contractual basis through a procurement process, which would add unnecessary cost and complexity to the process. The amendment avoids those unnecessary impacts. I therefore commend it and all other Government amendments to the House.

I would ask that new clauses 1 to 3, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, be withdrawn. They were introduced in identical form in Committee, and my remarks will closely reflect the points my predecessor made then. The amendments seek a review of the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism within the next 12 months. I am afraid that that is not reasonable, as the revenue certainty mechanism triggers only once SAF is being produced, and even at pace, that is some years off. It will take time to build SAF plants, initially starting with a contract allocation round with SAF producers. Therefore, we will not see sufficient developments in the next 12 months to warrant a review of the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism. I agree, however, that it is important to have parliamentary scrutiny to measure the impact of the Act and to propose actions if necessary. The SAF mandate already includes a review clause to assess the impact of the statutory instrument, with the first review scheduled within five years. That is in line with comparable schemes.

With regard to new clause 1, I can reassure the House that work is being carried out at pace across Government on the future of our refineries. Commissioning a separate report, as the new clause proposes, risks a delay to future decisions and any subsequent benefits that may be realised. Overall, we expect low-carbon fuel production to support up to 15,000 jobs across the country and to make a contribution to the economy of up to £5 billion by 2050.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Minister, and wish him well in his new role and in all that he does. The legislation extends to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so what discussions have been taking place with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can see its benefits—to both employment and the wider economy—in Northern Ireland?

[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.

International Rail Services: Ashford

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of returning international rail services to Ashford. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. When the channel tunnel first opened in 1994, it was rightly celebrated as a triumph of engineering and ambition. It showed that Britain was open for business, and our communities in Sussex and Kent continued their centuries-old role as gateways to Europe in a new modern form. When the international rail terminal was built two years later, Ashford became a hub of opportunity, with trains running directly to Paris—including to Disneyland—Brussels and beyond. One of my earliest memories when I was about five years old is boarding the Eurostar to France from Ashford International. I loved going on what I then called the “yellow-nosed train” and having a whole continent on our doorstep.

Today, however, Ashford International is a ghost station. During the pandemic, Eurostar decided that its trains would no longer stop at Ashford between London and Paris—or anywhere else for that matter—making the service much less accessible for those of us halfway along the track, like my constituents down on the south coast and the constituents of many other Members who are here with us today. The terminal at Ashford has been completely abandoned. The announcements and signs when people go through the station may still say “international”, but the two international platforms stand completely unused and empty. It was strange to be back in the terminal this summer, with the abandoned check-in desks and the seats wrapped in plastic, but what struck me was that everything is still there—ready to go. It is an absolute no-brainer to get Ashford back into use.

Earlier this year, I, along with many Members in this room from both sides of the House, met the chief executive of Eurostar to stress the importance of her company returning international services to Ashford. I reminded her that Ashford International terminal was opened with significant taxpayer investment, and that Eurostar has not only a business case to return these services, but a moral responsibility to the areas that it promises to serve. Her answers were lacking, and the truth is that Eurostar used covid as an excuse, having run down the service at Ashford International for years before the pandemic, with fewer trains stopping there.

It was clear from our conversation that Eurostar has failed to do any kind of serious business assessment of Ashford’s potential, and it instead prefers to pile passengers into an already-packed St Pancras terminal. Anyone who has taken the train from St Pancras recently can tell us how chaotic the check-in is. Why add more passengers to a terminal that is already stretched to its limits, as Eurostar says it plans to do?

For our constituents in Sussex and Kent, using the Eurostar now takes much longer than it used to, and it costs more. My constituents in Hastings, Rye and the villages have to travel up to St Pancras from Ashford, only to come back down the same line. It is particularly depressing to pass through the deserted terminal just before entering the channel tunnel—sometimes people even see their car that they parked there earlier. A one hour 50 minute journey from Ashford to Paris now takes upwards of four hours for my constituents, and even longer if they are coming from Hastings or Rye. The cost of the journey has doubled, and for some it has tripled or quadrupled, because they have to factor in the cost of an overnight stay in London for an early morning train. It is expensive, it takes longer, and it does not make any sense.

Local residents and businesses also understand that international services from Ashford were more than just a transport link; those services meant a huge amount to our local economy, our connectivity and our identity as a region. Many local businesses in my constituency of Hastings and Rye have raised with me the lost link at Ashford International. One local hotel owner said she has seen fewer guests coming from Europe since losing the link. Another business that trades extensively with Europe finds it harder to do those deals without the clear connection from Ashford. It has a real impact on our local economy. As another local company said to me,

“when the trains stopped, so did a lot of our business.”

The now abandoned terminal was once a gateway between Britain and Europe, full of promise for investment, tourism and stronger ties with our closest European neighbours. It is now a symbol of decline and neglect, leaving tens of millions of taxpayers’ pounds sitting idle. It is communities such as the ones I represent in Hastings, Rye and the villages that have suffered the consequence of that decision. The visitor economy has been slower to recover from the pandemic than in other areas, and the indefinite cut-off from international rail has hit tourism.

We do not have to accept that decline. A recent report by leading think-tank, the Good Growth Foundation, found that reopening the station could bring in an extra half a million visitors a year to Sussex and Kent. That would bring in more than £2.5 billion to our local regional economy over the next five years. It would cut hours off a trip from Hastings to Paris or Paris to Hastings, and provide a massive boost to our region.

The Labour Government are serious about delivering for our area. We are building prosperity in towns and cities that have been starved of investment for too long. The Labour Government will not allow our communities in Sussex and Kent to fall behind any longer. Eurostar should not have a monopoly on this track, which is why I have urged the rail regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, to allow rival operators to run on the line. The Government have been clear with potential new operators that this neglect cannot continue, and their willingness to restore services at Ashford will weigh heavily on how the regulator views the decision.

Just this weekend, Italian train operator FS—Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane—publicly affirmed its commitment to reopening Ashford International station, a ringing endorsement of our area and of Britain as a place to invest. Other operators have left the door open to bringing back trains to Ashford International. I urge them to make the same firm public commitment as FS in their plans.

In response to the prospect of competition, Eurostar has argued to the Office of Rail and Road that there is no space in the depot to accommodate other operators. It is clear those objections are less about capacity and more about protecting an unfair monopoly. I urge the regulator to grasp this opportunity for growth; its decision will be a key test of whether regulators can live up to our Labour Government’s call for a pro-growth regulatory regime.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate and I wish her well in her campaign. Although this issue obviously does not affect my constituents in Strangford, I am here to offer my support to ensure that she achieves her goals, and I am sure the Minister is standing by to give her the green light. Does she agree that the soaring cost of air travel is a factor precluding many from visiting other cities and towns? Does she also agree it is imperative to have strong rail services to allow people to visit our constituencies and see the historical, retail and environmental beauties they have to offer? That cannot happen without a decent service to all areas, in particular to the hon. Lady’s constituency of Hastings and Rye.

[Helena Dollimore]

I totally agree that having good, international rail travel is important, not just because it is often cheaper and easier, but because it is better for the environment. At a time when we need to consider climate change, we must have more options for people to travel to our closest European neighbours. Since Eurostar stopped the service at Ashford International, many people in our constituencies are not making the journey to St Pancras because it takes too long and costs too much. They are instead driving and taking the channel tunnel, or parking at Gatwick and taking a flight. We know it will be better for the environment to have services restored at Ashford International.

There is also an important point about resilience. The hon. Member said that the issue under discussion might not affect his constituents too much, but actually we are in a time when air travel could be disrupted—we saw the ash cloud interruption a decade ago, which caused huge disruption—and we do need back-up options for travelling internationally. We have recently seen a number of incidents in the channel tunnel in which unexploded world war two bombs have caused massive disruption, and the fact that we have only two places on the line—the Gare du Nord and St Pancras—where passengers can be decanted during major interruptions is a significant risk to the line’s resilience. Opening up Ashford and providing more resilience on the European line would also improve services and resilience for our country.

As I said, I urge the regulator to grasp the opportunity to support ending Eurostar’s monopoly when it makes its decision. That is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss. In Hastings, Rye and the villages, we know how much our area has to offer and how much we could gain from the restoration of international service. Thousands of my constituents have signed my petition calling for that vital link to be opened again, and I will keep working with the Labour Government and train operators to push for that to happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

I convened an extraordinary meeting of the UK bus manufacturing expert panel on 28 July, attended by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Transport, metro mayors and mayoral combined authorities, to accelerate the panel’s key priorities of establishing a bus order pipeline and strengthening local value within public sector procurement. I will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on the issue. I know my hon. Friend has worked absolutely tirelessly for his constituents in this area.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill passed yesterday, with many of the good things that we all wish to see happening here in the mainland, especially improving the frequency of bus services and addressing social inclusion for those who cannot get buses. Will the Minister share the good things that the Government are doing here with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, so that we in Northern Ireland can get some of the advantages that people have here?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will continue to have active engagement through the interministerial group and will be delighted to share the excellent work this Government are doing to re-empower local areas and their bus services.

Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for all his work on this important set of issues. He is absolutely right to say that full accessibility is about more than simply level access, and also that information about accessibility at different rail stations is vital to whether travellers will be able to travel, particularly if they are visiting somewhere outside their home area. I support his campaign for better information.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Mr Jim Shannon to speak on the accessibility of railway stations in the Dulwich and West Norwood constituency.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) is right to bring this topic forward; I spoke to her beforehand. I believe that the Government need to provide what she is trying to achieve for her constituency in every constituency, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), clearly outlined. There is something wrong when rail staff cannot be in place to help with accessibility without people having to ring 24 hours ahead. Does the hon. Lady further agree that this has to form part of our rail obligations, wherever that may be in the United Kingdom? What is right for her constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood is right for everywhere else, including my constituency. Does she agree that the Government must focus on a strategy that gives equality to those who are disabled in our communities?

[Helen Hayes]

I am honoured to be intervened on in an Adjournment debate by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I thank him for his intervention. He is right that adequate staffing at railway stations is a really important part of making stations accessible. All too often, disabled passengers have to endure unacceptably long waits when there is a failure in communication. The railway operating companies need to continue to improve their service so that not only the stations but rail travel itself is fully accessible and disabled passengers can get the support to which they are entitled.

All our stations should be accessible, and it is therefore important that the Government work to increase the funding available and make changes to the criteria for Access for All funding. Currently, the Access for All programme prioritises stations with high levels of footfall and the availability of third-party funding—usually through local development—as well as proximity to a hospital or major interchange and non-specific rail industry priorities. The majority of the 10 stations in my constituency are busy but would not rank among the highest footfall locations in the country. They do not have significant development sites in close proximity or other third-party sources of funding available. They are not next to a hospital and we cannot account for non-specific rail industry priorities.

Pavement Parking

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I commend the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing the debate.

Pavement parking is a nationwide issue that impacts constituencies across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Every week I receive numerous complaints regarding people parking irresponsibly. To give a quick local perspective, people are often permitted to park on the pavement unless specific restrictions apply or unless doing so causes an obstruction—that is how it is done back home. If people do the wrong thing, they get an £80 ticket; if they pay it within three days, it is £45.

I quickly want to make the case for those who have guide dogs. I did a walk with one of the guide dog people some time ago, with a mask across my eyes, and it was very difficult to understand what was happening.

In Northern Ireland, we have had a “think before you park” campaign to raise awareness of the risks of pavement parking and the impact it can have on people with disabilities, those with mobility issues and parents with prams. That is why road markings and signage are important. Perhaps the Minister could do more to encourage local councils to ensure they are displayed clearly so that people can understand them.

There is much to be done on this issue. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister can do to persuade other regional and devolved Administrations—including my own—to ensure that pavement parking is addressed for everyone across the United Kingdom.

Pony and Trap Racing: Regulation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The debate is about the regulation of pony and trap racing on public roads but, to be more specific, there is no regulation and it is sorely needed. If someone wants to organise a cycling competition or road race in the UK using the main roads, there are regulations to follow. There are licences they need to get and authorities they have to consult, which means that cycling races are routinely organised safely and with minimum disruption to the community hosting a race. None of that is true for pony and trap racing. I suggest that the Government need to introduce regulations for pony and trap racing along the same lines, primarily because of road safety, but also because of the significant policing resource that these unofficial races eat up.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward. She is right to highlight it. The reason is quite simple: there is no doubt that there are significant safety risks that come along with it, especially for young drivers. As an example, in 2023 on the Antrim Road in Belfast, Northern Ireland, a teen lost control of what is referred to as a sulky cart, resulting in a collision with a car and causing serious injury. Does the hon. Lady agree that for the safety of drivers, pedestrians and indeed the animals themselves, there must be greater discussion with the devolved nations on guidance for pony and trap racing, especially on our public roads?

[Sarah Green]

I agree. These races happen in my constituency on a fairly regular basis and I have similar stories to share. One such race took place this weekend. Residents of Chalfont St Peter and Gerrards Cross have their weekends disrupted by pony and trap racing events, also known as sulky racing, far too often. During these events, the A413, a stretch of busy dual carriageway, becomes an unauthorised racetrack. The races attract not just competitors and their support vehicles, but spectators who gather to watch them and place bets on the outcome.

To be clear about what I am referring to, pony and trap racing is a form of horseracing where two-wheeled carts are pulled by a single pony that thunders down a stretch of public road. These events can involve multiple traps racing each other or a single vehicle completing a time trial. Those taking part in these races in my community gather at a section of the A413 and run a series of races along the straight stretch of dual carriageway. The immediate danger is posed to those already using the dual carriageway. While the races are taking place, support vehicles follow the ponies and traps. Those are larger vehicles, usually 4x4s or pick-up trucks, which sometimes have a horse box with them. They drive next to each other and block both lanes of the carriageway, creating an illegal rolling roadblock to allow the race to take place.

Blue Badge Eligibility

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered blue badge eligibility for cancer patients and people with life-altering illnesses.

The issue that brings us here today was brought to my attention by Elli Hodgson, a local journalist with the Kent Messenger newspaper. Her paper recognised that cancer patients and others with life-altering conditions were being denied the vital accessibility afforded by the current blue badge scheme, because they do not fall within the eligibility criteria—namely, having an enduring and substantial disability, typically defined as likely to last at least three years.

Cancer treatment such as surgery and radio and chemotherapy can have significant side effects, including extreme fatigue, pain and mobility restrictions. Mental health can also be undermined by the fact that patients are often in a personal battle with life and death. Sometimes those impediments might not last for three years, but they can still reduce access to essential services during treatment and recovery. In many situations, the effects of the disease and treatment last longer than three years. Indeed, under the Equality Act 2010, the Government rightly recognise cancer as a disability from the point of diagnosis for the remainder of a person’s life.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand about issue, which comes up regularly in my constituency office, so I commend her for securing this debate. Does she not agree that certain illnesses should have an automatic blue badge entitlement? Saying that someone has nine months to live rather than six months because of cancer or a terminal illness does not take into account the havoc that is also caused when someone has fatigue and breathing problems. The current system is much too stringent and puts pressure on GPs to write in support of something that really is a no-brainer and should not be necessary at all.

[Helen Grant]

As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I agree with him that certain illnesses should have an automatic entitlement, because at the end of the day we should be making it easier for people who are going through hell, rather than harder and more complicated.

It is not just the three-year rule that is out of step for people with shorter-term conditions. Blue badge applications take 12 to 15 weeks to be processed, which is far too long in terms of cancer timelines, and rejected applicants cannot reapply for six months. Again, that is incompatible with cancer treatments, where debilitating physical effects can quickly arise. So today I speak on behalf of the many thousands of cancer patients and people with life-altering conditions whose lives could be made so much easier if they had access to a fairer blue badge system.

The issue came to the Kent Messenger’s attention through the experience of an employee, a lady called Sandy Burr, who is with us in the Public Gallery today. Sandy was diagnosed with skin cancer in 2024. She applied for a blue badge when she found out that her toe needed to be amputated. Not long after the operation, she was rushed back into hospital with breathing difficulties. Doctors found blood clots in her lungs, causing embolisms. She is now undergoing immunotherapy, which has additional debilitating side effects. All those issues further impact how far Sandy can walk with her crutches. Sandy’s blue badge application has been refused by Kent county council, and she told me that the rejection felt like a kick in the teeth. She said that her mindset was focused on being brave and trying to stay alive, and she did not feel she had any extra fight in her to deal with the rejection or to appeal.

Another lady, Bev Evans, also shared her story with me and the Kent Messenger. Bev fell downstairs and broke her neck in 2020. She now suffers permanent injury and has extreme mobility issues. She, too, has been rejected for a blue badge by Kent county council on two separate occasions. No reasonable explanation was given. Applications are made online, and in Bev’s case the computer just said no, because it thought she might get better within three years. It did not say why it thought that. Bev cannot walk without crutches and has no realistic prospect of a full recovery.

Condition of Roads: Cheshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I am grateful to have secured today’s Adjournment debate on an issue that affects communities across the country: the condition of our roads. Although I will focus on the situation in Cheshire and in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, and on what I believe is a failure by local authorities to get to grips with the issue, I will begin by setting the context and reflecting on the broader systemic problems with how we repair and maintain our road network.

The Public Accounts Committee recently published a report on the condition and maintenance of local roads in England. It shows that this problem is widespread; that the Department for Transport does not have a good grasp of the real condition of local roads in England; and that funding arrangements to local authorities are likely to be pushing them to focus spending on short-term, reactive work. In my view, this reactive rather than proactive approach to road maintenance in Cheshire urgently needs to change. Instead of neglected routes being identified and tackled, particularly in rural areas, we see a pattern of piecemeal catch-ups on individual potholes rather than long-term, cost-effective repairs that offer real value for money.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate; I spoke to her beforehand. I am reminded of the old wee rhyme that my mother used to say to me: a stitch in time saves nine. Does the hon. Lady agree that a pothole repaired in time can save lives? The Government must be more proactive in ensuring that we deal with the small issues and save money before they become costly, large issues.

[Aphra Brandreth]

That is exactly the point I am making—the hon. Gentleman says it very well. As I outline the issue in more detail, I urge the Minister to consider how local authorities might be encouraged to take a more strategic, preventive approach. I have lost count of the number of times that frustrated residents have asked me why a white circle of paint has been drawn around one pothole, while another right next to it is left untouched because it does not meet the criteria for repair. We all know that within a week or two a team will have to return to fix the one that was missed.

Road Safety Powers: Parish and Town Councils

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

That is an excellent point that I had not considered, so I will tack it on to the end of my speech. I welcome that intervention. There will be a lot of interventions tonight, but I say to the Minister that perhaps we could have some sort of deal whereby if she gives in to my demands 30 minutes in, we will not take the debate to the full two and half hours that we could have.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Sam Rushworth]

How could I not?

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. We do not have parish councils in Northern Ireland, but councils have an important role. They are not the enforcers of road safety like the police, but they have an active role. It is clear that local knowledge—the thing the hon. Gentleman is referring to—is imperative when considering wide-ranging road safety issues. Does he agree that joined-up thinking between branches of Government is essential to improve safety and ensure that people power always wins?

[Sam Rushworth]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s point about joined-up thinking. I will make some brief progress in my speech, because at the heart of what I am asking for is for town and parish councils to be listened to. I meet them so often, and they are the most local level of government and the closest to people who live in those neighbourhoods. Time and again they ask for the same basic things and they are not listened to. I will give some examples.

The village of High Grange in my constituency has two 60 mph country lanes that run either side of it. I am speaking tonight on behalf of the children who ask, “Mam or dad, can I go across the road to the park?”, but whose parents do not feel safe letting them cross that 60 mph lane to get there. I speak also for the pensioners on the other side of the same village who want to get across the road to the allotments, but who do not feel safe crossing over.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

During the passage of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill in the other place, we committed to writing to all local transport authorities asking them to pause the installation of a specific kind of floating bus stop, where passengers get off the bus straight into a cycle lane or an island. That is because they have been identified through research as problematic for people, particularly those with vision issues. We have already done work with Active Travel England and Transport for London to identify a design standard. Fundamentally, this Government believe in accessible transport for everyone, and that is exactly our ambition.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

If we are to deliver local bus services, we must deliver buses that are efficient and technologically modern to ensure we can meet those targets. With that in mind, will the Minister assure the House that any action taken by Government to provide buses and local bus services will support bus manufacturing across all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, in particular, Wrightbus in North Antrim?

[Simon Lightwood]

Absolutely, and that is why I was so proud to chair the first bus manufacturers expert panel in March. That is a year-long project with bus operators, bus manufacturers and mayors across the country to try to forge a smooth pipeline of orders to support our fantastic UK manufacturers.