Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Review of the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a report reviewing measures to encourage the supply of materials for sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an assessment of the impact of the closure of bioethanol plants on the ability to encourage overall increases in sustainable aviation fuel production;

(b) options for mitigating any adverse impacts on the availability of supply of sustainable aviation fuel by the closure of bioethanol plants;

(c) recommendations for any necessary Government action to promote a stable supply of bioethanol for sustainable aviation fuel.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report outlining measures to encourage the supply of materials for SAFs, including considering the impact of bioethanol plant closures on encouragement to increase supply.

New clause 3—Increasing greenhouse gas saving potential of sustainable aviation fuel—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report which sets out a strategy for increasing the greenhouse gas emission saving resulting from the promotion of sustainable aviation fuel production in the United Kingdom.

(2) The report required under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to—

(a) proposals for incentivising the research and development of sustainable aviation fuels that maximise greenhouse gas emission savings;

(b) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, the minimum required greenhouse gas emission reduction in order for a sustainable aviation fuel to be issued a SAF certificate;

(c) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, minimum ratios for renewable content in blended sustainable aviation fuels, for the purpose of more quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(3) Twelve months after the publication of the report required under subsection (1) and within every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report which—

(a) sets out progress against the strategy; and

(b) makes any necessary adjustments to the strategy as a result of developments in the sustainable aviation fuel industry.

(4) In this section, “SAF certificate” has the meaning given in article 2 of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.”

New clause 4—Reporting of Sustainable Aviation Fuel targets—

“(1) The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024 is amended as set out in this section.

(2) In paragraph (3), after sub-paragraph (5) insert—

“(5A) The Secretary of State may vary the table in paragraph (7) in order to increase the obligation in any given year.”

(3) In sub-paragraph 33(2)(c) leave out “, and”

(4) After sub-paragraph 33(2)(d), insert “and

(e) consider whether the SAF obligation set out in the table in sub-paragraph 3(7) of this Order should be increased for any given year, and if so, set out steps the Secretary of State will take to effect such an increase.”

(5) After paragraph 33(2) insert—

“(2A) A copy of a report published under this article must—

(a) be laid before Parliament; and

(b) be sent to the relevant select committee of each House of Parliament.

(2B) In sub-paragraph 33(2A)(b), “the relevant select committee” is—

(a) in the House of Commons, the Transport Committee, provided that—

(i) if the name of that Committee is changed, reference is instead taken to mean the new name, and

(ii) if the functions of that Committee with respect to Sustainable Aviation Fuel become functions of a different committee of the House of Commons, reference is instead taken to the committee by whom the functions are then exercisable;

(b) in the House of Lords, any such Committee as the Chairman of Committees may appoint.””

New clause 5—Air travel providers’ use of sustainable aviation fuel: reporting requirements—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a requirement for air travel providers to report annually on their use of sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must specify—

(a) that the annual reports include figures for sustainable aviation fuel usage which can be easily understood, including expressed as—

(i) an absolute volume, and

(ii) proportion of all aviation fuel used; and

(b) that the annual reports are accessible to members of the public including by being made available on their websites.

(3) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the negative procedure.”

New clause 6—Economic Impact of the Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the Act.

(2) This report must include, but shall not be limited to—

(a) the impact on the UK’s aviation fuel industry;

(b) the impact on the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel supply including the impact on all small, medium and large producers and potential importers of sustainable aviation fuel;

(c) the impact on international and domestic tourism in the UK; and

(d) the impact on passenger air fares.

(3) The report required by subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within one year of this Act being passed.”

New clause 7—Targets for power-to-liquid aviation fuel usage—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the power-to-liquid aviation fuel targets as set out in section (3) of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.

(2) The review carried out under subsection (1) must only consider—

(a) the effectiveness of the existing power-to-liquid aviation fuel target and;

(b) whether the target should be increased.

(3) In carrying out the review under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) producers of power-to-liquid aviation fuel;

(b) airlines;

(c) experts in sustainable aviation fuel production; and

(d) any other persons the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(4) A report setting out the findings of the review must be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

Government amendment 1.

Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) 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.”

Government amendments 2 to 5.

Amendment 11, in clause 6, page 4, line 19, leave out from “pay” to end of line 22 and insert

“to the designated counterparty in each month a standardised levy on their relevant disposals of aviation fuel products in the preceding month that must be publicised on invoices expressed in pence per standard litre.”

This amendment requires 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.

Government amendment 6.

Amendment 8, in clause 12, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty to report on—

(a) the impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the proceeding 12 month period;

(b) a projection of the expected impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the following five year period.

(4) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph 3(a) before Parliament.”

This amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact that the revenue certainty mechanism has on passenger air fares.

Amendment 9, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty, where a venue certainty contract would result in a new production facility, to prioritise entering into any such contracts with producers that will use UK owned technologies in that facility.”

This amendment would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts.

Amendment 12, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(3) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make a direction under subsection (1) which requires the designated counter party to prioritise entering at least one revenue certainty contract with a producer of Power to Liquid sustainable aviation fuel if doing so will allow for at least one plant to reach Final Investment Decision by 31 December 2026.”

Government amendment 7.

[Olly Glover]

Global demand for aviation continues to grow; it is projected to be two or three times bigger by 2050. In 2024, there was a record rate of increase in carbon emissions, according to the World Meteorological Organisation, and there was a new daily record for global aviation emissions in July 2025. Nearly half of all the carbon emissions to date from aviation have occurred since 2000.

Sustainable aviation fuel has been talked up for years as the solution, yet there has been a poor track record of unambitious targets not being matched by delivery. For example, in 2010, Boeing announced the target that 1% of aviation fuel globally should come from SAF by 2015, and in 2019, the International Air Transport Association set out hopes of reaching 2% by 2025, but today, globally, the figure is just 0.3%. The UK’s published figure this year of 1.29% is better, but it nevertheless shows how far we have to go.

The Conservative Government promised back in 2022 to have five commercial UK SAF plants operational by 2025, but there is still only one. It is therefore right of the Government to have introduced legislation to attempt to make sure that the latest set of SAF targets move from fantasy to realistic, credible and deliverable plans, although these will ultimately need to transition us towards the development of truly zero-carbon flight technology. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for their contribution to the Bill Committee, and I hope that Members from across the House will consider the Liberal Democrat amendments.

New clauses 1, 2 and 3 all increase the chances of the intention behind the Bill being realised. New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to assess and report on the potential for disused oil refineries and similar industrial sites to be used for the production of sustainable aviation fuel. New clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to assess the measures being taken to encourage the supply of materials for production of sustainable aviation fuel, and has a focus on bioethanol plants. That is especially important in the context of the expected closure of the Vivergo bioethanol plant near Hull, following the Government’s decision not to provide it with financial support.

New clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the development of a strategy for analysing and maximising the potential of sustainable aviation fuels to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

I also speak in support of two new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), both of which would improve the Bill by providing greater rigour and scrutiny of progress towards sustainable aviation fuel targets. New clause 4 would give the Secretary of State the power to increase SAF production obligations where necessary, and to ensure that reports on progress are laid before Parliament and relevant Select Committees. New clause 5 would introduce requirements for air travel providers to report on their use of sustainable aviation fuel, and to provide annual reports to the public via their websites. Collectively, new clauses 1 to 5 would strengthen the Bill and increase its credibility when it comes to SAF production and reporting on progress.

The Government’s SAF mandate requires just 22% of aviation fuel to be sustainable by 2040. That compares poorly with the European Union’s target of 32% by 2040. It is hard to square an objective of net zero aviation by 2050 with just 22% of fuel being sustainable a decade earlier, unless we put in place measures alongside SAF to cut emissions and make climate-friendly flight a reality. We urge the Government to clarify their plans for achieving their targets, particularly as hope for SAF progress is being used to state that Heathrow and Gatwick expansion are compatible with our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, the Prime Minister promised that certain papers would be published as soon as they could be, but he did not give a time. Has there been any indication of when those papers will be published? We are still waiting for them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. While that is not a matter for the Chair, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he said.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Regional Transport Inequality

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Catherine Atkinson, who will speak for about 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. There is an immediate four-minute time limit.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British buses.

Within my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) are two sites of the UK’s largest bus manufacturer, Alexander Dennis, which employs around 400 people in Falkirk, with thousands more jobs dependent on the buses created at Falkirk. Manufacturers will welcome new clause 38 and the certainty that it gives by consolidating the provisions of the Bill in Scotland.

Bus manufacturing in Britain has been in difficulty in the past year, partly due to the failure of the previous Government to deliver on their pledge of 4,000 British-built, zero emission buses by 2024. In the end, they supported just over half that number, with just under half being bought from abroad. The Tories funded too few buses and got far too many of them from elsewhere in the world.

Then there was a second policy failure, this time by the Scottish Government’s recent ScotZEB 2 programme, which saw less than one fifth of its buses come from Scotland’s only bus manufacturer and more than three times more come from China. Standing up for Scotland—aye right! Both the Conservatives and the Scottish National party did not take the protection of the domestic bus manufacturing sector seriously, and their failure has jeopardised hundreds of jobs in my constituency and potentially thousands in the supply chain across the country.

All this is to say that the future of a domestic industry that we will need if we want to see a green, clean, safe and effective bus network is contingent on legislation that supports the effective domestic procurement of buses and enables local authorities to make decisions that are right for their area and put the passenger first. The Bill does an excellent job of delivering on those priorities, with a streamlined and more flexible franchising process, stronger powers for grant funding from local authorities, and local authorities able to order in bulk, as in the case of the Bee Network in Manchester.

The Bee Network was bolstered by 254 buses ordered from and built in Falkirk. I will never miss an opportunity to remind the House that the Bee Network’s buses were reliant on the skills and craftmanship of bus manufacturing workers in Falkirk, more than they were reliant on any other place. That is thanks in no small part to the instincts and political foresight of the Mayor of Manchester to work in the national interest—instincts that will be empowered across the country by the provisions in the Bill. If only we had the same foresight from the Scottish Government, who must now deliver on their commitment to a prospective rescue deal for Alexander Dennis workers following the excellent engagement and flexibility of our Transport, Cabinet Office and Scotland Office colleagues.

It is welcome that, following consultation, the ban on registering non-zero emission buses for local services will start no earlier than 2030, as moving too fast on the necessary transition to zero emission vehicles would create a degree of risk for domestic manufacturers in the current market. This year, the industry reported that 35% of ZEV buses purchased in the country by local authorities and operators will come from China, compared with 10% only two years ago. That is an alarming share to have been taken out of our domestic manufacture. We must address that before we throw ourselves head-first or too fast into building an exclusively clean, green and foreign fleet across the country.

While I am sympathetic to the well-intentioned environmentalist calls in amendments 62 and 63 from the Green party to accelerate the non-zero emission buses ban, that approach would risk creating a situation in which authorities and operators would likely be compelled to buy from abroad, further undermining the competitiveness of our domestic industry, on which my community relies. I would more than welcome Green Members’ engagement with the all-party group to discuss how the House can align British industry with the laudable intention of those amendments. The UK timeline will align with the transition in Scotland, as I mentioned, as is addressed in the Secretary of State’s new clause 38 and amendments 46 to 48.

Accelerating our ambition beyond what domestic capacity allows would create a risk that local authorities and operators would be compelled in the long term to buy an unsustainably high proportion of their fleet from abroad, from manufacturers who have received decades of state subsidy elsewhere. I repeat the ask of my all-party parliamentary group for Ministers to use the work of the bus manufacturing expert panel to map out a fully funded and coherent pipeline of zero emission bus orders that can be met by our world-leading domestic manufacturers, and provide the certainty that the sector—especially workers in Falkirk this week—needs before the ban comes in in 2030.

As I mentioned, Falkirk has already seen the benefit of local authority-controlled bus networks, with Labour-controlled Liverpool and Manchester combined authorities making clear strategic commitments to partner with UK manufacturers and ordering significant numbers of buses from Alexander Dennis. Considered strategic and small-p political local leadership can often make more effective policy decisions than the private sector or—I acknowledge—lazy franchisers, who all too often simply look to the cheapest price rather than considering our national, industrial and economic interests.

More authorities operating like that, in tandem with the upcoming changes to the local authority procurement framework, could see us not just protect jobs in Falkirk in the short term but materially enable an expansion of the industry. That is essential to delivering the socially positive outcomes clearly articulated by hon. Members in new clause 45 and amendments 7 and 16, to mention just a few. We cannot forget the social benefit of an industry that provides an additional 3.25 jobs per job hired in manufacturing. The benefits are seen in quieter and smoother journeys, but also in jobs created and protected, taxes paid and communities strengthened.

The Bill seems on the whole to be about building up the powers of our local authorities, but it also gives us an opportunity to build up the bus manufacturing industry while we set our minds to the task of improving local transport. The Bill on the whole is better for passengers, better for local authorities, and hopefully better for British workers. With the Bill we can deliver a transport system that is clean, affordable and reliable and a bus manufacturing industry that thrives for decades to come. First stop, Falkirk.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate five-minute time limit, I call Tom Gordon.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I will start by speaking to new clause 2, which stands in my name and is supported by over 70 colleagues from across the House. It calls for the removal of time restrictions imposed on disabled bus passes.

Under the English national concessionary travel scheme, eligible disabled people are entitled to free local bus travel. The policy rightly recognises that, for a variety of reasons, disabled people rely on public transport to access healthcare, work and education, as well as for family and community purposes. The policy also recognises that disabled people are more likely to require financial support, as they face disproportionately higher costs of living. Yet from 11 pm to 9.30 am on weekdays, that entitlement becomes void, dependent instead on whether travel authorities choose—or even can afford—to extend the benefit. Disability Action Yorkshire, a charity in my constituency, first highlighted the absurdity of the restriction to me last year. Since that meeting, I have been campaigning to have the time restrictions removed. I have met and received support from a number of charities that work with disabled people, including Transport for All, Whizz Kidz, Bus Users UK and the RNIB. The consensus is clear: the current restrictions have huge impacts on the everyday lives of disabled people. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to remove the time restrictions imposed by the ENCTS, allowing disabled passengers to travel for free, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, regardless of their postcode.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank my fellow members and the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee for the work they did; I felt work on the Committee was very constructive from the different Opposition Members. It followed some very constructive amendments that were made and agreed in the other place, too, including on villages and vision zero for road danger. I was sad to see so many good ideas defeated and removed in Committee. I think this issue crosses party boundaries; it should be about practicalities, not party politics.

On road danger, I am pleased to have tabled new clauses 41, 42 and 43, with support from members of the RMT, which seek to improve safety through driver support and wellbeing. These measures are all necessary to achieve vision zero for road danger for our buses.

I am full of support for new clause 2 and other measures that seek to remove time restrictions on concessionary bus passes. Having these time restrictions is a major disincentive to working. The Government cannot keep dodging this contradiction in their stated policies, and must act to enable disabled people’s mobility and enact real equality.

Young people, too, have received attention with the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and in Liberal Democrat measures. I myself have tabled new clause 44, which seeks simply to enact a policy that is already in place in Scotland in order to give free bus travel to anyone under the age of 22.

Today, however, I want to advocate mainly for clean air, as the promoter of the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill—Ella’s law—and for toilet access to be taken seriously by Government in relation to buses. My amendments 62 and 64 would help to fix those policy gaps. The clauses in the Bill on zero emission buses seem to block the highest ambition by not setting the earliest date for a mandate on new procurement of zero emission buses until 2030. That is a really long time still to be buying dirty, diesel-powered buses. It is extremely poor when dirty air is a killer, and when in certain streets and hotspots—often where the least advantaged live—cleaner buses can make a real difference and it is in the gift of public authorities to deal with it. I believe that the Mayor of London and Transport for London began procuring zero emission buses only as long ago as 2021. Given that some London routes are very long indeed, such buses could be introduced in other areas much sooner. With the right help and investment, the infrastructure could be built and good, green jobs could be filled, as implied by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank). I have yet to hear good reasons from Ministers why the clause is so tragically unenterprising.

Another vital issue of equality is ensuring that access to toilets features in local transport plans for bus infrastructure and facilities. This is the ideal time for me to be talking about this topic; I apologise to Members who have also been in the debate for a while. As Age UK said in January in its delightfully named “Lifting the lid” report, for older people, those with health conditions and many others, the availability of public toilets can determine whether they feel able to leave their homes. It is basic equality of mobility.

My Green colleagues on the London Assembly are famously very persuasive. Working with groups including Age UK, they have gained consensus and won investment, and targets have been set for toilet access on the tube network—toilets should be no more than 20 minutes of travel time away. The Minister talked about creating more accessible stopping places. That kind of standard access to essential toilet facilities on bus routes would enable mobility, and it is so achievable. I hope that Ministers will listen and take these proposals forward in their work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We have had an interesting debate with around 25 to 30 speakers, and some themes have developed from it. A number of speakers mentioned disability access, particularly issues with floating and shared-border bus stops for those who are visually impaired or blind. Other speeches focused on concessionary travel during rush hour and concessionary companion passes. We also heard a number of descriptions of local bus needs in right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, particularly focusing on rural needs.

I want to pick out two or three speeches for commendation, starting with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke in support of amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34. He highlighted a concerning failure by his Liberal Democrat county council, so if we want to improve bus services, we know where the Liberal Democrats can start. I commend the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who put his name to and championed new clause 47, which aims for companion passes to form part of the concessionary travel scheme.

I would like to mention the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), because he had a tiny pop at the Conservatives, particularly about new clause 10 relating to antisocial behaviour. I think this requires a bit of explanation. It was right of him to highlight that the position of His Majesty’s Opposition has changed on this measure, and I will explain why. When we discussed new clause 10 in Committee, the hon. Member will recall—if he does not, he can always refer to Hansard—that I was very sympathetic to the objective of his new clause, but, as I now accept, I took a rather narrow objection to its drafting. The new clause adds a description to a non-exhaustive list and is therefore technically not required, because the definition was already employed. The definition is one of nuisance, and audible antisocial behaviour is, by definition, nuisance. It was the lawyer in me coming out, and I was being slightly otiose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I completely agree, and unlike the Conservatives, we actually got it funded.

I thank hon. Members for the new clauses and amendments on the provision of socially necessary services. Clause 14 requires areas with enhanced partnership schemes to specify a process that will apply when a local transport authority wants to change or cancel a socially necessary local service. In franchising areas, existing legislation and measures contained in the Bill set out a detailed procedure governing changes to a franchising scheme. That includes changes to services specified in a scheme. Careful consideration has been given to the Bill’s measures, ensuring that there is an appropriate balance between consultation and burdens being placed on local transport authorities. The consultation requirement proposed by new clause 32 would be duplicative.

On amendment 2, when the Bill was debated in the other place, my noble Friend the Minister for Rail made a statement to the House to officially confirm that medical and educational establishments come within the definition of essential goods and services. My Department is also producing bespoke guidance for LTAs, which will emphasise that point.

The desired effect of amendment 5 is already sufficiently covered by the Transport Act 2000. On amendment 6, following the spending review settlement, LTAs will be allocated a significant amount of support through the bus fund to decide where they can invest in their services. My Department has committed to ensuring that funding is fairly allocated. The amendment runs contrary to the Government’s aims. Amendment 7 is contrary to the Government’s view that local leaders are best placed to make decisions on how they spend their funding. Restricting the range of choices for how a local authority does that would therefore go against the spirit of the Bill.

On amendment 8, the Department already publishes bus data through the bus open data service. That provides timetable, bus location and fares data for local bus services across England. The Department also publishes bus statistics through gov.uk. The majority of the statistics are updated annually, with information on bus fares made available quarterly. Providing further information directly to Parliament is therefore not necessary.

Amendment 60 would create practical challenges and may not provide the benefits the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) is seeking. The needs of communities evolve over time. Services that previously ran may have been integrated into other bus networks through changes intended to make the bus route better reflect current needs. I also note that the amendment does not work because an operator cannot amend or cancel an already cancelled service. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask hon. Members to withdraw those amendments.

Amendment 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), with the support of the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), would include training on domestic abuse, as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, in the mandatory training for bus staff on crime and antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for Wimbledon tabled the same amendment in Committee. In Committee, I said that clause 34 captured domestic abuse because it is already a criminal offence. However, I must clarify that there is no specific criminal offence of “domestic abuse”. Under existing legislation, if someone commits a criminal offence and that behaviour also satisfies the definition of domestic abuse under section 1 of the 2021 Act, it is treated as an aggravating factor in the commission of the underlying offence, and that can also be considered during sentencing.

The definition of “abusive behaviour” in the 2021 Act includes physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, and psychological, emotional and other abuse. The measures in the Bill already account for abusive behaviours that are also criminal offences. However, that is unlikely to be the case for parts of the definition from the 2021 Act—namely economic abuse, or psychological and emotional abuse, which may not be criminal offences. Those abusive behaviours are less likely to be apparent, and I do not consider it reasonable to expect bus staff to be able to identify instances of such behaviour in the course of their duties. Should an incident escalate to a criminal offence that would cause a victim or potential victim to fear for their personal safety, it would be covered under the Bill. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw amendment 14.

On minimum service levels, I thank the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) for tabling new clauses 22 and 45 respectively, and those who sponsored the new clauses. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley)—I always look forward to her reminder about Sunday services in Shrewsbury, and hope that those days are numbered given the Bill’s progress. The Bill will empower local areas across the country, including by giving them the tools to decide where to run services and their frequency. The Government expect local transport authorities to consider the transport needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts, as set out in the Transport Act 2000. I clarify for the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire that section 108 of that Act requires an LTA to develop policies that meet the transport needs of persons living, working, visiting or travelling in the authority area.

If an area chooses to franchise its bus services, it must consider lots of factors to determine the right level of service needed to support its communities. That level is likely to be different in different areas. Similarly, when an LTA considers an enhanced partnership, a lot of work is undertaken to understand the service level that the local area requires, and it will then work with operators to investigate how best to proceed. [Interruption.] I believe that I am being hastened on. [Hon. Members: “More!] I have never been so popular.

Finally, let me address the amendments on zero emission buses. In developing the Bill, we have taken into account the need to provide the industry with sufficient notice before the measure comes into effect, and with reassurance that it will not happen suddenly. We have also considered the impact on bus manufacturers. A significantly earlier date could impact on bus operators and passengers. The costs of decarbonising sooner could lead to reduced services, increased fares and an increase in car use. With that, I bring my remarks to an end. I thank Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 38 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Extend eligibility for disabled bus passes

“The Secretary of State must remove the time restrictions on the use of concessionary travel passes for disabled people within the English National Concessionary Travel Scheme.”—(Tom Gordon.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove time restrictions on the use of disabled concessionary travel passes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The result of the Division is as follows: the Ayes were 69, the Noes were 400.

Department for Transport

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

(3) a further sum, not exceeding £20,121,455,000, be granted to His Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Keir Mather.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that point, but I understand why he is keen to raise it.

In conclusion, I would say that for too long and in too many places a degraded bus network has been symbolic of wider national decline, with each poor service reinforcing a sense of things not working as they should. That ends now. This Bill represents a brighter future for bus travel. For the first time in 40 years, we are taking back control of our buses, transferring power from operators to local leaders and from Whitehall to the town hall, where it belongs. I truly believe that the transport needs of my constituents in Swindon are different from those of passengers in Scunthorpe or Southend. That is why buses will rightly look and feel different across the country, reflecting the identity and priorities of local areas.

This Bill is just the start of the journey. Throughout its passage and following Royal Assent, we will continue to work with the bus industry, passenger groups and colleagues in both Houses as we set out further regulations on the standards that we and millions of daily passengers expect. Better buses are around the corner, with increased reliability, greater accountability and services that passengers can finally depend on. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Road Maintenance

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, the views take your breath away. Sadly, so do the potholes when your car hits one—not just when it happens, but when the repair bill arrives. According to the RAC, the cost of pothole damage to vehicles is around £600 on average, with more severe repairs costing considerably more. Potholes do not just damage cars; they damage people. One constituent has told me that when his disabled father is driven to the doctors or to hospital appointments, it is almost inevitable that they hit a pothole on the way, which causes him pain. Another Scarborough constituent told me that the journey she needed to take to York hospital to attend the pain clinic was too painful because of the quality of the roads, and that she therefore stopped making it, despite being in a huge amount of pain.

The Conservative-run North Yorkshire council says that keeping our roads in the best condition for the money it has is one of the biggest challenges it faces, and that is why it is brilliant that the York and North Yorkshire combined authority will soon be receiving its share of the Labour Government’s record £1.6 billion road maintenance funding. This is the biggest one-off road maintenance funding settlement that councils have ever been given. For Mayor Skaith in York and North Yorkshire, it is £62.1 million, an increase of £16.6 million. Of course, I have spoken to the Mayor about the importance of ensuring the quality of repairs in my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby.

Maple Drive in Scarborough is home to Northstead community primary school. It is a very busy road and it is littered with potholes, which are regularly reported to the council using its online tool. Workmen duly arrive to fill the potholes, but my constituents report that they soon reappear, bigger than before, leaving Maple Drive looking like a patchwork quilt—but, it has to be said, not a particularly attractive one. It is vital that we abandon the patch-and-run approach and focus on permanent and innovative repairs, especially given the cold and increasingly wet winters we encounter on the coast.

I welcome the caveat attached to the money, which means that the combined authority will need to publish annual progress reports and prove to the public that the work is being done to a high standard. After years of Conservative neglect, drivers in Scarborough, Whitby and the villages can, thanks to this Labour Government, look forward to smoother, safer local roads.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With the leave of the House, I call shadow Minister Jerome Mayhew.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you give me some advice? Where the Minister has misquoted me and refuses to give way, what steps can I take to correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I think that is a matter of debate, and it is now on the record.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As the Secretary of State said earlier, this Government inherited crumbling roads with local highway authorities struggling to stay on top of an ever-increasing backlog of maintenance. Of course, there are many reasons for that, including the weather and the increasing volume and weight of traffic using our roads, but it is abundantly clear that the funding provided by the previous Government was simply not enough to allow local authorities to deal with the problem.

No one knows this better than Karen Shore, our Labour candidate in Runcorn and Helsby, who served for many years as the cabinet member for highways on her local council. As she and we remember, the Tories made promises for 14 years but, in reality, any funding uplifts were short-lived and never fully materialised. It is perhaps not surprising that the Conservative Benches have been so empty during this debate.

This Government are determined to ensure that things will be different, and we will do better.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for bringing this short but crucial Bill before the House. I commend him for delivering such a brilliant and informative speech and for managing to cling on for as long as he did; some would call him the “Rocket Man” of Parliament. I thank all other Members who have spoken in the debate. Speaking of stars, I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) a very happy birthday for yesterday; I hope he had a stellar time.

I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the full support of the Government. Before I begin, let me outline some general observations about the UK and spaceflight. The UK’s approach to launch positions the UK as a leading international partner in the space sector, ensuring Europe’s independent access to space. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has responsibility for co-ordinating civil space policy, working closely with Departments across Government to ensure that space services can support their needs and that space science and research can act as an enabler across the economy, while building strong links with the wider science ecosystem. To achieve our ambition, Government have invested more than £57 million through the LaunchUK programme to grow new UK markets for small satellite launch and sub-orbital spaceflight.

The UK has one of the most advanced and trusted modern space regulatory frameworks in the world. On 8 October, the Secretary of State for DSIT announced the new Regulatory Innovation Office, to reduce the burden of red tape and speed up access to new technologies that improve our daily lives. The RIO has made space one of its top priorities, and we look forward to working with it on our wider regulatory reforms to enable innovation.

This Government are implementing a series of space regulatory reforms stemming from the recommendations published in the space regulatory review in May 2024. The Government have worked with the sector to determine a prioritised approach to the reforms, to maximise the growth and innovation potential for the sector.

One recommendation involves the implementation of a regulatory sandbox to stress-test the regulatory framework for enabling rendezvous proximity operations. The sandbox commenced in October 2024, with stage 1 due to be complete in March 2025, providing vital recommendations to enable the growth of these novel missions and to strengthen the UK’s capabilities.

We are also exploring financial tools, incentives and market access schemes that promote sustainable activities and encourage self-investment, inward investment and support a level playing field for UK companies. Alongside the regulatory reform package, work is under way to develop a range of new innovative regulatory measures to support the growth of the UK sector, new mission types and to incentivise the uptake of space sustainability measures.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, the Bill will amend two sections of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all spaceflight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the 2018 Act. This short, but crucial Bill will go “far, far away” to encourage much-needed investment into the sector.

Before I outline why the Government fully support the Bill, and boldly going where no man has gone before, I will briefly outline some of the UK’s achievements in spaceflight. On 9 January, the UK made history by conducting the first ever orbital launch attempt from UK soil through Virgin Orbit at Spaceport Cornwall, demonstrating the UK’s growing launch capability and position as a leading spacefaring nation. In December 2023, SaxaVord spaceport on the Shetland Islands became the UK’s first vertical launch site to receive a spaceport licence. In January 2025, Rocket Factory Augsburg became the UK’s first licensed vertical launch operator. The UK’s approach to launch positions the UK as a leading international partner in the space sector.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, Scotland makes a vital contribution to the wider UK space ecosystem. Scotland’s space sector is home to advanced satellite manufacturing capabilities, and has a fast-growing satellite launch market. In fact, Glasgow builds more small satellites than anywhere outside of California. The UK is now the second-most attractive destination for commercial space investment after the United States.

This Government have made clear that unlocking growth is vital to rebuilding the UK and supporting high-tech jobs, which unlocks investment and improves living standards across the country. We are capitalising on the UK’s excellence in science and innovation to ensure our world-class research translates to commercial success, rebalancing the system and setting up the financial services sector to innovate, grow and seize the opportunities for investment in business, infrastructure and clean energy across Britain.

The space sector is hugely valuable to the UK’s economy. It is worth more than £18.9 billion and directly employs more than 52,000 people. It supports more than 126,000 jobs across the supply chain and at least £346 billion of the UK’s GDP is supported by satellite services, such as navigation, metrology, communications and Earth observation. It is now possible to launch satellites from UK spaceports, rather than relying solely on overseas sites to launch UK-built satellites into orbit.

As I previously mentioned, in January 2023, Virgin Orbit conducted an historic first launch from the UK at Spaceport Cornwall. In December 2023, SaxaVord spaceport in the Shetland Islands became the first licensed vertical launch spaceport. This year, we hope to witness the UK’s first vertical launch by German company Rocket Factory Augsburg, with more to follow. Growing our launch capability is already creating high-skilled jobs and opportunities in communities right across the UK, as well as catalysing investment across the supply chain.

The Government are investing in new launch companies such as Orbex, which has built factories in Scotland, creating hundreds of new jobs, ready to take advantage of the new opportunities that the Government have created. SaxaVord spaceport anticipates that by 2025, the spaceport site could support a total of 650 jobs in Scotland, including 140 locally and 210 across the wider Shetland region. Other launch operators, such as Skyrora, a UK company based in Glasgow, are thriving. It has indicated that it will conduct its first sub-orbital launch from the UK in the near future.

The UK’s space industry already supports an industrial base of over 1,500 space companies. It provides high-skilled, high-quality jobs across the UK, with over 77% of employees holding at least a primary degree. Building on the success of the UK’s space sector, the Government will continue to support business through a stable policy environment, strengthening our economic institutions and giving investors the certainty they need to fuel growth. The Government recognise the important contribution that the space sector makes to ordinary people’s lives. Growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, and the Bill has the potential to drive growth within the sector by encouraging further investment.

It is important that the UK builds on the successes of an already thriving and dynamic space sector. The Government are delivering our plan for change with investment and reform to deliver growth. We will ensure, through the measures that we are taking to deliver growth, that the UK becomes a leading provider of commercial small satellite launchers in Europe by 2030.

To achieve our ambition, the Government will continue to support spaceports and launch operators to grow new UK markets for small satellite launch and sub-orbital spaceflight. The Government are committed to making improvements to both the Space Industry Act 2018 and the space industry regulations to ensure that our legal framework and regulations remain effective and internationally competitive. The UK has one of the most advanced and trusted modern space regulatory frameworks in the world.

Let us explore for a moment what liabilities are covered by the 2018 Act. There are two types of liability covered. Section 34 places a strict liability for injury or damage caused to persons or property on land or water in the UK or in the territorial sea to the UK—or on an aircraft in flight over such land, water or sea—by a craft or space object being used by an operator carrying out spaceflight activities in the UK. The uninvolved general public suffering injury or damage can bring a claim against the operator without having to prove fault. Section 36 places a liability on the operator carrying out spaceflight activities to indemnify the UK Government, or a person or body listed in section 36(2), for any claims brought against them for loss or damage caused by those activities. Therefore, UK nationals have the same easy recourse to compensation and protections as foreign nationals have under the UN liability convention.

The Government recognise that the question of liability and insurance is of utmost concern to the space sector. In response to a consultation on the then draft space industry regulations in 2020 and a call for evidence to inform orbital liability and insurance policy in October 2021, the industry made it clear that holding unlimited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK’s spaceflight industry. The industry has advised that it is impossible to obtain insurance for an unlimited amount, and therefore impossible to obtain insurance that will provide full coverage of an operator’s liability to indemnify the Government and their liability to uninvolved third parties. Furthermore, potential liabilities for spaceflight are not easily quantifiable. If the Government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors would instead look to more favourable regulatory regimes in other countries where Governments share the risks involved by limiting an operator’s liability or by offering state guarantees, such as in the United States or in France.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East explained, there are powers in the 2018 Act to limit a spaceflight operator’s liability when carrying out spaceflight activities from the UK. The Act enables commercial spaceflight activities, which include launching a spacecraft and operating a satellite in orbit, for example, or other activities such as the operation of a spacecraft and management of a range to be carried out under licence in the United Kingdom. The Act sets out the broad licensing and regulatory framework for carrying out such activities and is underpinned with more detailed provisions in the Space Industry Regulations 2021.

The 2018 Act currently provides powers for the regulator to specify a limit on the amount of the operator’s liability in the licence, but does not make it mandatory. Currently, section 12(2) provides that an operating licence may specify a limit on the amount of a licensee’s liability to indemnify under section 36. Current Government policy is that the regulator should use those powers to specify a limit on operator liability in the licence so that no operator will face unlimited liability.

The Government fully support the Bill and its further progress. It is consistent with our policy that all spaceflight licences should have a limit on liability, so it will not impose any more liability or risk on UK taxpayers than the current policy. The Government also recognise the value that industry ascribes to legislative certainty on this matter. The space sector continually expresses its concerns about the use of the word “may” in section 12(2 of the Act. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for the Bill, which, by amending section 12(2), will meet a key request from the sector.

As a the Member of Parliament for Wakefield and Rothwell, let me end by paying tribute to the proud Yorkshireman and inter-cosmic former captain of the USS Enterprise, Patrick Stewart—“Star Trek: The Next Generation” being far the best iteration in the Star Trek franchise. I will leave the House with this: “Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the UK Government. Our continuing missions: to kick-start economic growth and make Britain a clean energy superpower; to seek out and break down barriers to opportunity and take back our streets; and to boldly build an NHS fit for the future.” Make it so!

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The Member in charge of the Military Action Bill gave instruction earlier today that he wishes to defer it until Friday 4 July.

Improving Public Transport

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Dyke]

The point is that if prices go up any further, patronage on buses will go down, and in rural areas we travel further and longer. It is difficult to incentivise people to use buses in rural areas, so we need to get this right, and increasing fares will not encourage more people to get out of their cars and on to public transport.

Local authorities have a duty to outline routes that cannot run commercially but are vital to improving social outcomes or supporting economic activity, but there is no duty on them to fund those routes. After the general election, there were suggestions that the Government would create safeguards to make it harder for routes to be cut, and the better bus Bill is the perfect opportunity to deliver that. The previous Government committed to delivering guidance on the meaning and role of socially necessary services, expanding the category to include economically necessary services. But unsurprisingly, they failed to provide it, leaving much-needed bus routes in danger. I hope the Minister will take this up and provide some guidance.

Improving public transport is essential. The Government have stated their intention to improve it but so much remains unclear, especially for rural areas, which see poor services and high costs. Unfortunately, without investment and smart choices, that will continue to be the reality. The reversal of these trends is crucial, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Alex Mayer to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natasha Irons]

There you go. As a Londoner who grew up with a well-integrated, well-run and efficient public transport system, I know when I raise issues around under-investment from the Government into our services, there will be colleagues who represent constituencies such as the one my husband grew up in who have to wait an hour for a bus to the nearest town and who will have little sympathy for this whinging Londoner.

However, fourteen years of failure from the previous Government have left public transport in every part of our country failing to keep pace with the needs of the people who rely on it. On their watch, cancelled train journeys rose to a record high; passengers have had to navigate 55 million different types of ticket options; and buses are driving 300 million fewer miles per year compared with 2010. For our corner of south London, the previous Government’s mismanagement led to cancelled schemes, failed projects and accessibility for passengers being ignored.

Croydon is London’s most populated borough with a projected population growth of 7.9% by 2041. In my constituency last year, East Croydon station had over 20 million journeys passing through its gates, making it the 21st most used station in Great Britain. For my constituents, using East Croydon station means dealing with congestion, antisocial behaviour and a failed footbridge project that is now known locally as “the bridge to nowhere.” The project, originally designed to improve accessibility to the station, has been beset by delays and caused endless frustration for residents. After a decade of inaction and local taxpayers’ money going into the project, Network Rail has now downgraded its plans and removed direct access to platforms, which has caused more frustration for passengers and more congestion at the station, adding insult to injury for my community.

Under the previous Government, the Croydon area remodelling scheme—a scheme designed to address congestion on the Brighton main line and upgrade Croydon’s train stations—was shelved. As that scheme is no longer going ahead, Norwood Junction station in my constituency, which is the 79th busiest station in Britain, will not get the investment that it desperately needs—no improvement to platforms, no improvement to services and no improvement to accessibility—and the addition of a new lift has been deemed too complicated by Network Rail without the scheme’s wider improvements.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving public transport across every part of our country, to putting passengers first, and to working with our regional mayors, not against them. Not only does that mean more regions of our country will benefit from public control of bus networks and from train services with fewer delays, but for my constituency it means a Labour Government working with a Labour mayor to finally give us the trams that we so desperately need. Yes, I am fortunate to be a Londoner who has had access to all the public transport that I could possibly need, but with a Government who invest in every region, we can do so much more.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

We come to the final Back-Bench speech.

Taxi Licensing: Deregulation Act 2015

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

Taxi licensing enforcement is funded by licence fees. However, with the ongoing race to the bottom for licence issuing standards, local authorities are unable to enforce externally issued licences. Any measure to allow local authorities to enforce would simply stretch enforcement budgets beyond sustainability. Does my hon. Friend agree that the solution has to be guided by the principle that drivers should operate in the areas in which they are licensed?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind Members that interventions should be short.

Transport

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) on his maiden speech. My hometown of Thatcham was recorded in “The Guinness Book of Records” in 1990 as the country’s oldest continuously inhabited settlement, dating back some 3,000 years, although it is not quite a parliamentary seat. I pay my respects and tribute to his sister. I will also reference my sister and her reliance on the NHS.

I have been in the Chamber for many maiden speeches, and I have been impressed by them all. I congratulate them on sharing their passions and their local knowledge.

Newbury has returned a Member of Parliament since 1835 but, following the recent boundary changes, the constituency has lost the south bank of the Thames at Streatley and villages including Compton, West Ilsley and, pertinent to me, Hampstead Norris, the village of my grandparents, but I know they are safe in the stewardship of the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). However, we have retained our market towns of Newbury, Thatcham and Hungerford, alongside our beautiful villages of Lambourn, Peasemore, Inkpen, Hermitage, Chieveley and Cold Ash, where I went to primary school, to name but a few.

My constituency has a proud racing heritage, with Lambourn training some of the world’s best racehorses and Newbury hosting one of the most prestigious horse races in the calendar. In Hungerford you can spend the afternoon antique shopping, and in Thatcham you can visit one the largest inland reed beds in southern England, home to internationally important species.

We are also home to Vodafone, one of the global leaders in telecommunications. Xtrac in Thatcham supplies Formula 1 components, and Stryker is one of the world’s leading medical technology companies. Away from cutting-edge technology, we also have: traditional craftsmanship at companies like Benchmark in Kintbury, which has been building and designing furniture for over 40 years; delightful country homes like Welford Park, which is home to “The Great British Bake Off”; and one of the most unique and beautiful theatres in the country, the Watermill at Bagnor.

And, of course, we are supported by many great charities: Greenham Common Trust, the Community Furniture Project, Eight Bells for Mental Health, local alms houses and, sadly, West Berkshire food bank and Newbury soup kitchen, which are needed to help a growing number of local residents. We also enjoy being surrounded by the area of outstanding natural beauty and 200 of the most precious chalk streams in the country.

In giving our maiden speeches, we all like to claim the beauty of our own area, but the author Bill Bryson has it spot on and may be able to stop future disagreements in the Chamber. In “The Road to Little Dribbling” he writes:

“There isn’t a landscape in the world that is more artfully worked, more lovely to behold, more comfortable to be in than the countryside of Great Britain. It is the world’s largest park, its most perfect accidental garden… All we have to do is look after it.”

As a member of a political party with a proud heritage of standing up for the environment, I can assure hon. Members and my constituents that I will do my bit in this place to make sure that we do look after it. The decision that I believe will conclude this debate, given the cross-party support, will contribute to that ideal. I welcome the proposed changes.

As the Member for Newbury, I will uphold our traditions and protect our environment, because without them the Newbury constituency would not be what it is—a balance between our environment, our traditions and our ability to innovate. These were also supported by my predecessors.

My immediate predecessor Laura Farris—strangely, I saw her in Central Lobby just before coming to the Chamber—delivered meaningful change in this House on sexual abuse and violence against women. She secured new laws on sexual violence in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and campaigned for tougher sentences for fatal domestic abuse. It is a further credit to her that the handover to me was as smooth as one could have hoped for. I wish Laura and her family all the best for the future, and I am sure she will continue to make a difference.

Richard Benyon, now Lord Benyon, served Newbury from 2005 to 2019 and has always been open and approachable, offering me some early advice when I was first elected. The Liberal Democrat David Rendel held the seat following a then record-breaking by-election—my party is rather good at those—from 1993 to 2005, and I ran with him in my home ward back in 2007, starting my electoral journey in West Berkshire.

All three predecessor cared deeply about Newbury and West Berkshire, as I do, too, but in new times there are new challenges. The Royal Berkshire hospital in Reading is in great need of replacement, and I look forward to a swift review of the new hospitals programme. The West Berkshire community hospital in Newbury is willing to do more so that diagnostic services can be provided locally. Without the NHS, my sister, Michelle, would not be here today. We need to cherish it, fund it and modernise it.

Despite our apparent wealth, we have pockets of poverty in Newbury. As I alluded to earlier, we are seeing an increase in the use of food banks and soup kitchens, the cost of living is still hurting and the proposed removal of the winter fuel allowance will compound that problem even more, despite our best efforts to get those who are entitled on to pension credits. House prices have soared and are now over 10 times the average salary, increasing demand for rented homes and adding pressure to housing waiting lists. The ability to have a warm and secure home is the foundation of a settled life. Children learn better, crime is lower and community cohesion is stronger when people have a settled community. I have worked in the social housing sector for the last 14 years. We must do more to deliver much needed homes for social rent.

I wish to conclude my speech by giving a small round of thanks. First, I thank my constituents for entrusting me with the honour of representing us here, and my local team for engaging in so many positive conversations on the door steps. I will endeavour to pay back their support with my deeds in the House. To my wife, Gemma, and my children, Oliver, James and Eleanor, I say thank you for your constant support and love that has allowed me to fulfil my dream of being the Member of Parliament for my home.

As a 16-year-old, I arranged a visit to Parliament. As we were being shown around the Chamber, we came past the Opposition Front Bench and a school friend cheekily sat down. I will not use parliamentary privilege to name him but he encouraged me to do the same. You will be pleased to hear that I declined, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I said that I would sit there if I ever got elected. Well, 25 years later, I can now rightly take my place on the famous green Benches, so some dreams do come true.

As the son of a trade union official, I suspect I was always going to end up in a role where I could speak truth to power. I thank my father, Raymond, for instilling in me a sense of fairness and a belief that we can make change happen. My mother, Geraldine, and step-father, Colin, have supported me in every election I have stood in—I thank them for being there for me, keeping me honest and reminding me that it is nice to be important, but it is more important to be nice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call James McMurdock to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[James McMurdock]

To my wife, the mother of my children, who in a crowd of powerful women stands as the most glorious of all, you are my strength, my light and I love you with all my heart. To my father, brother and late grandfather, who fought for this land and spent his last years in peace in the constituency I now represent, and to the rest of my big, wonderful, eclectic family, thank you for mocking me so ruthlessly that my feet will never leave the ground.

If hon. Members will forgive me, I will now fulfil a dream nearly a quarter of a century in the making and end by misquoting the immortal words of Ali G —“R-E-S-P-E-C-T.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Minister Mike Kane.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I am grateful for small mercies; the Liberal Democrats are supporting this move. I thank the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) for his time in the Department and in this role.

To my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race), I say very well done. What an excellent and considered maiden speech he made. The personal testimony about his mother and his sister was really poignant. That speech will stand him in good stead. I was, however, a bit perturbed to hear about the former Member for Exeter, who was a passionate advocate of sustainable aviation in this place, whistling the tune to “The Great Escape” while out canvassing. A day probably does not go by in this place without one of us whistling “The Great Escape”. I was once taught by a sage old Whip that most MPs spend their whole life trying to get here and then the rest of the week trying to get away. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter again that that was a really great, well-considered maiden speech, and I wish him all the very best for his years ahead on these Benches.

That speech was followed by another very well-considered maiden speech from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon). I do not think that anyone can beat the fact that he has the home of “The Great British Bake Off” in his constituency. That is amazing and no Member can beat that. When it comes to our beautiful chalk streams such as the ones in Newbury, or to our skies, it is our sacred mission to protect our environment for future generations. That is why we must keep talking about decarbonisation, which is what we are doing here tonight. I say very well done to the hon. Member and I wish him well for the future.

Finally, let me come to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock). I, too, pay tribute to his predecessor, Stephen Metcalfe. My first speech in a Bill Committee up in a dusty corridor was terrible and he wrote me a note saying, “Really well done, Mike”, and I still have that note on my wall today. What a lovely, lovely man he is. I congratulate the hon. Member, who raised the subject of childbirth and early maternal care, which we should come back to a lot more in this House in the future; there is still a lot more to do in that area. He may be a latter-day Wat Tyler, with the peasants’ revolt quote, but on a personal level I hope that there is not a great rising of Reform. However, I wish the hon. Member the best for his career in this place.

I thank Members again for their consideration. For those questions where it has not been possible for me to provide a response today, I ask Members please to let me know and I will write to them. SAF presents a key opportunity to decarbonise UK aviation and secure a long-term future for the sector. These draft regulations demonstrate how we can capitalise on this opportunity. Mandating the use of SAF has the potential to generate significant greenhouse gas savings, and ultimately play a pivotal role in achieving net zero. I commend this order to the house.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 24 July, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

We now come to the next item of business. I call the Minister to move the motion.