Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

Debate between Jim Shannon and Keir Mather

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Keir Mather]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution and for the points he made earlier, which I will address. I am pleased to say that I have met the GMB and spoken to it about the increase in its membership resulting from this decision, and I am happy to work with it on an ongoing basis. The right hon. Member’s suggestion speaks to a recognition of worker status. I will identify later what I believe are some drawbacks of that approach, but he is welcome to intervene again at that point to address anything else.

I want to address some of the specific points that have been made. First, let me pick up on what the right hon. Member said about not being allowed to meet in his coastguard centre, which I find very concerning. That was echoed in a couple of comments by hon. Members across the Chamber, and I would be grateful if they could share those instances with me so that I can form a fuller picture of those experiences when they occur.

The right hon. Member spoke specifically about the impact on his rural and island constituency—a point that was made eloquently by many Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies. A CRO in this country volunteers an average of three and a half hours a month, but many will volunteer 35 hours a month, especially in rural or island constituencies where they have to respond to the frequent call-outs that the right hon. Member described. I am very cognisant of that disparity, but also of the differences in experience that underpin how CROs are approaching this matter.

The right hon. Member raised serious points about consultation and engagement from the MCA. We take complaints incredibly seriously and have well-established processes and policies in place to review and investigate concerns. He mentioned sharing some anonymous testimony with me, and I would be grateful if he did so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) mentioned death in service and injury benefit. The CRS injury benefit compensation scheme is for volunteers. It provides and, importantly, will continue to provide compensation for loss of earnings where a volunteer member of the CRS is injured or develops an illness or disease as a result of an authorised duty. That includes provision for compensation for dependants in the event of death. I am glad that my hon. Friend has allowed me to put that point on the record.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) asked a specific question about HMRC disturbance allowances. I am happy to take that away and write to her on the specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) is right to point to the fact that, although CROs work on a volunteer operating model, these are people responding to emergency situations who wear the badge of a Government agency and do phenomenal work, and they should be perceived as such. In that sense, she is right to say that it does not do justice to the scale of their contribution.

A number of points were made about how the retained firefighter model could map on to CRO status. The work of retained firefighters has a number of characteristics that might cause severe complications for CROs were the model to be mapped across, which hon. Members should be cognisant of. Retained fire service people are employees; it is important to bear in mind that they have contractual limitations, such as to live a certain distance from the station. They also have to respond within five to seven minutes, depending on the station, to an emergency. That would create very a different system around mutuality of obligation for the CRS. Those are important considerations to bear in mind.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked specifically what engagements have taken place, so I will list them for him. I know that there has been a debate about whether the engagement goes far enough, and about the character of the consultation, but for the benefit of the record, there have been two town halls, a virtual meeting, a recorded video and five updates on CRS online, alongside a pattern of regular engagement on other issues such as equipment assurance, training, exercising and post-incident follow-up.

Another important issue that was raised is the modelling of the potential impacts. An impact assessment combined incident demand, CRS survey data, demographic and employment information, and financial analysis to identify where potential reductions in CRO availability are most likely to occur.

[Jim Shannon]

I know that the Minister is responsive to our requests, so will he take the time to speak to the regions, particularly Northern Ireland? We have the same issues, but we sometimes feel at a distance.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about CROs across the United Kingdom feeling that their voice is heard. I will take that point away and ensure that it informs my engagement going forward, but, for the benefit of the House, I want to speak a little more about the modelling of potential impacts.

The risk assessment also focused on which workforce groups may be most affected and where any resulting loss of capacity would pose the greatest risk to operational resource and service delivery. The individual circumstances of CROs are diverse, and it would not be possible to model all the possible ways that 3,000 people could respond to the changes. Since the announcement was made, 29 CROs have left the service. Three of them stated that they did so because of the change, although that is not to say that others did not do so, nor that they have not reported it—I would not want to argue that. I hope that that information is useful.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and others made broader points about operational resilience. I reassure them that His Majesty’s Coastguard has contingency plans and measures in place and continues to draw on the full UK search and rescue system, including aviation assets, the RNLI and independent lifeboats.

Turning back to the situation we face today, as many Members will know, on 14 January the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that changed the status of CROs. For many years, the MCA provided the option of hourly remuneration to recognise the impact of such important work. I note that such an arrangement was not, and is not, typical for the voluntary sector. Although not all CROs chose to claim that remuneration, because the MCA had provided regular payments to CROs following call outs and because the remuneration was beyond reimbursement for their expenses, the court deemed them to be workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

That judgment has fundamentally changed the nature of the role of CROs. Those who had signed up on the basis that they were volunteers and could be a CRO alongside their primary employment are now suddenly classed as workers, meaning that they could be subject to liabilities and responsibilities that they did not sign up for. To be clear on what the change could mean, worker designation could push CROs into new tax brackets or put them in breach of primary employment contracts, if they are not allowed to undertake other paid work. We have worked hard and expressly to avoid those threats to people continuing to work as CROs. The judgment clarified the law, which must now be upheld.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Keir Mather

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I know my hon. Friend is producing a report on this critical matter and I would be very glad to meet her to discuss its findings. We ought to take every opportunity to ensure that people understand the impact of UV on their skin health, so I look forward to meeting her to discuss those findings further.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for that answer and the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for bringing this issue forward. She always brings forward incredible issues for us all to be aware of. The figures for skin cancer in Northern Ireland are rising, and she has brought UV index alerts to the Minister’s attention. It is important that he takes action after discussing the matter with the hon. Lady, but after that meeting will he convey his thoughts to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that Ministers there do the same thing that the hon. Lady wants? If she wants it, then, in my opinion, we should support her.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member is right to say that skin cancer affects people across the United Kingdom and we need to work as one United Kingdom to deal with it. I will certainly take what I learn from my meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East and reflect it through to colleagues in both the Department of Health and Social Care and the devolved Administrations, including in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Keir Mather

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

You have elevated me to heights I did not even know I could reach, Mr Speaker.

I thank the Minister for that answer to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). Not a week passes without some of us getting complaints about accessibility, yet equality law is clear. What are the Government doing to ensure that there is accessibility at all train stations for all disabled people that meets equality legislation? Quite clearly, at this moment in time it does not.

[Keir Mather]

In the Government’s published accessibility road map, we have pledged to continue the Access for All programme. That is alongside the fact that step-free routes, which the hon. Gentleman mentions, have already been rolled out to 270 stations so far. The Railways Bill, which is still making its way through this place, contains a legal duty to promote the interests of passengers with disabilities so that accessibility can be at the heart of our railway.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jim Shannon and Keir Mather

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather]

I am very pleased to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituents are benefiting from contactless payment, but he is right to urge us to go further in ensuring that GBR improves passenger experience and delivers on the priorities of the travelling public. We are committed to improving ticketing further through expanding pay-as-you-go beyond the stations at which it is already in use. Through the long-term rail strategy and its general duties, GBR will be incentivised to support innovation and deliver for passengers right across the country, including in Harlow.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I use the railways every Monday, Thursday and on other days in the week. The things that passengers look for, as well as those I talk to who come over here from Northern Ireland, are price, punctuality, space and comfort. Can the Minister assure us that those things are central to the Government’s obligation to the passenger? Let me add another factor. When it comes to safety, sometimes pedestrians stray on to the tracks, thereby holding up the trains. What is being done to ensure that security is taken into account?

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Keir Mather

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.