International Maritime Law Changes
Keir Mather Excerpts(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I am making this statement to introduce updates to maritime legislation as a result of changes to international law, in order to fulfil a commitment to Parliament to make such a statement. The legislation comes into force from 1 January 2026.
Some domestic maritime secondary legislation includes provision for ambulatory reference to give direct effect in UK law to certain amendments to international maritime obligations. This means that where the legislation refers to a requirement of an international instrument, this reference will be ambulatory; in other words, it is a reference to the most up to date version of that requirement. This approach ensures so far as possible that the UK keeps up to date with its international maritime obligations.
Amendments have been made to international maritime instruments which will enter into force in the UK in 2026 by way of ambulatory reference provisions. The amendments are to the international convention for the safety of life at sea (SOLAS), and the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships (MARPOL) and to certain codes made under those conventions, as well as to the international convention on standards of training certification and watchkeeping (STCW). The UK is a signatory to SOLAS, MARPOL and STCW and the amendments have been agreed in the International Maritime Organisation, and all relate to enhancing maritime safety.
The amendments to SOLAS chapter II-1 introduce new safety requirements for lifting appliances and anchor handling winches. SOLAS II-1 is ambulatory by virtue of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246). The relevant IMO resolution is MSC.532(107). The amendments introduce enhanced design, maintenance, operation and testing standards for lifting appliances and anchor handling winches with effect from 1 January 2026.
The international code of safety for ships using gases or other low-flashpoint fuels (IGF code) was made mandatory internationally by chapter II-1 of SOLAS, which relates to the construction of ships. Chapter II-1 is implemented in the United Kingdom by the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246) and, as such, the implementation includes the IGF code. Amendments have been made to chapter II-1, along with changes to the IGF code, that affect ships constructed on or after 1 January 2026. These amendments will come into force on 1 January 2026 and can be found in IMO resolutions MSC.524(106), MSC.551(108).
Amendments to the qualification standards for inspectors of protective coatings are introduced by MSC.557(108) and MSC.558(108). These standards form part of the requirements under chapter II-1 of SOLAS. These amendments fall within scope of the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246). The amendments are textual updates to the qualification requirements for coating inspectors, replacing the reference to
“NACE Coating Inspector Level 2”
with
“AMPP Certified Coatings Inspector, FROSIO Inspector Level III or equivalent as verified by the Administration”,
reflecting the name change of the responsible professional body. This change ensures alignment with current certification standards and applies with effect from 1 January 2026.
Amendments to the international code on the enhanced programme of inspections during surveys of bulk carriers and oil tankers (ESP code) have been introduced via IMO resolution MSC.553(108). These standards form part of the requirements under chapter II-1 of SOLAS. These amendments take effect by virtue of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Cargo and Passenger Ship Construction and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 246) and apply to part A, annex 5, paragraph 2.2 and part B, annex 5, paragraph 2.2 of the code. The changes are minor amendments to the text for clarity and take effect from 1 January 2026.
The amendments to SOLAS chapter II-2 introduce new requirements for fire safety on ships including fire detection, fire suppression and containment of fire. SOLAS II-2 is ambulatory by virtue of the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection) Regulations 2023 (SI 2023, No. 568). The relevant IMO resolutions are MSC.520(106), MSC.532(107), MSC.550(108) and MSC.555(108). The amendments come into force from 1 January 2026 and introduce new requirements for ensuring the flashpoint of fuel oils, prohibition of the use of firefighting foams containing perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), new requirements for fire detection on cargo ships, and significant new requirements for fire detection, fire containment and fire suppression on roll-on/roll-off passenger ships along with corresponding amendments to the fire safety systems code.
The amendments to the IMO high speed craft code (1994 and 2000 revisions) align the requirements with SOLAS chapter II-2 regarding the maritime ban on PFOS, which is a persistent organic pollutant, in aqueous film forming foams, which are used as a firefighting medium on some ships. These amendments will come into force on 1 January 2026 and can be found in IMO resolutions MSC.536(107) and MSC.537(107). These will be enacted through the ambulatory reference provision in the Merchant Shipping (High Speed Craft) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022, No. 1219).
Amendments relating to SOLAS chapter III and the lifesaving appliances (LSA) code have been introduced via IMO resolutions MSC.535(107), MSC.554(107) and MSC.559(108). These provisions fall within scope of the Merchant Shipping (Life-Saving Appliances and Arrangements) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020, No. 501) and are therefore subject to the ambulatory reference provision. Resolution MSC.535(107) introduces new requirements for totally enclosed lifeboats
“installed on or after 1 January 2029”,
mandating the provision of a ventilation system capable of achieving a defined airflow for 24 hours, with technical specifications for opening and closing mechanisms across lifeboat types. Resolution MSC.554(107) strengthens performance standards for lifejackets by requiring them to reliably turn an unconscious casualty into a safe orientation in the water, removing any tolerance for failure in testing. It also sets out design safeguards for lifeboat and rescue boat release hooks to prevent inadvertent activation, and defines safe maximum and minimum lowering speeds for launching appliances used with survival craft or rescue boats. Resolution MSC.559(108), while not amending SOLAS chapter III or the LSA code directly, introduces consequential changes to the annual thorough examination and operational testing of lifeboats following the adoption of MSC.535(107). It requires verification of the condition and operation of the ventilation system as part of routine lifeboat testing. As MSC.402(96) is mandatory under SOLAS chapter III, these consequential amendments are binding under SI 2020, No. 501 and the associated ambulatory reference provision. These amendments take effect from 1 January 2026.
SOLAS chapter V focuses on measures which improve safety of navigation and is implemented in UK law by the Merchant Shipping (Safety of Navigation) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020, No. 673). To address the growing concern over container loss and bulk cargo damage caused by excessive vessel roll motions, the IMO has adopted a new requirement under resolution MSC.532(107). Effective from 1 January 2026, SOLAS regulation V/19.2.12 mandates the installation of electronic inclinometers on newly built container ships and bulk carriers of 3,000 gross tonnage and above to determine, display and record the ship’s roll motion. This regulatory advancement is expected to significantly enhance operational safety, reduce cargo-related incidents, and support more informed decision-making during adverse sea conditions.
The international grain code, which provides the mandatory standards for the safe stowage and shipment of grain in bulk, is made mandatory by SOLAS chapter VI on the carriage of cargoes and oil fuels, and is implemented in the UK by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Cargoes) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 637). This code is amended by IMO resolution MSC.552(108) to improve safety by making provision for a new class of loading conditions for ships with specially suitable compartments. This amendment enters into force internationally and in the UK on 1 January 2026.
The international maritime solid bulk cargoes (IMSBC) code provides the international regulatory framework for the safe stowage and shipment of solid bulk cargoes other than grain and includes mandatory carriage requirements specific to each solid bulk cargo covered by the code. The IMSBC code is made mandatory by chapter VI of SOLAS and is implemented in the UK primarily by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Cargoes) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 637). In order to ensure that the IMSBC code remains up to date and relevant to the cargoes being shipped, it is amended in the IMO every two years. The next edition of the IMSBC code will become mandatory on 1 January 2027 and can be used on a voluntary basis from 1 January 2026. Amendment 08-25 includes the addition of a number of new solid bulk cargoes in order to permit and facilitate their safe transport by sea, and amendments to some existing cargo schedules. These amendments were adopted by IMO resolution MSC.575(110).
The international code for the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gases in bulk (the IGC code) is the international standard for the safe transport in bulk by sea of liquefied gases. The code is made mandatory by SOLAS chapter VII on the carriage of dangerous goods and is implemented in the UK by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Harmful Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 636). Two amendments to the IGC code will enter into force internationally and in the UK on 1 January 2026. These are the acceptance of high manganese austenitic steel as a material of construction for gas carriers, along with consequential amendments, as adopted in IMO resolution MSC.523(106), and amendments which enable the use of other liquefied gas cargoes, in addition to methane, as fuel onboard gas carriers, which will facilitate efforts to decarbonise global shipping and reduce emissions. These amendments were adopted by IMO resolution MSC.566(109).
Protocol 1 of MARPOL sets out provisions concerning the mandatory reporting of incidents involving harmful substances. Protocol 1 is amended to reflect an amendment to SOLAS chapter V which makes it mandatory for ships to report the loss of freight containers, including containers containing harmful substances. The UK will implement these amendments through the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Harmful Substances) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 (SI 2024, No. 636). This amendment to MARPOL protocol 1 will ensure that the amendment to SOLAS chapter V does not result in duplicated reporting requirements for industry. This amendment was adopted in the IMO by resolution MEPC.384(81).
The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008 (SI 2008, No. 2924) implement the 1997 protocol to the international convention on the prevention of pollution from ships (MARPOL 73/78). The 1997 protocol provides for the establishment of international regulations for the prevention of air pollution from ships by adding annex VI to MARPOL 73/78. Annex VI includes a technical code on the control of emissions of nitrogen oxides from marine diesel engines (NOx technical code) and the amendments will update the procedures for controlling nitrogen oxide emissions from marine diesel engines. The code amendments will come into force on 1 September 2026 and can be found in MEPC.398(83).
The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) Regulations 2008 (S.L 2008, No. 2924), transpose the energy efficiency design index (EEDI), energy efficiency existing ship index (EEXI), carbon intensity indicator (CH), and ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP) regimes into UK law. These regulations implement the 1997 protocol to MARPOL 73/78, which established annex VI on the prevention of air pollution from ships. Annex VI includes regulation 26 of SEEMP. These amendments introduce clearer planning and reporting requirements to help ships reduce fuel use and emissions. SEEMP is now structured into three parts: part I covers operational energy efficiency measures; part II outlines fuel oil data collection procedures; and part III sets out a carbon intensity improvement plan linked to the ship’s carbon intensity indicator (CII) rating. Ships will be required to report fuel use by engine type, use of shore power, distance travelled with cargo, and any installed energy-saving technologies. Flag administrations must verify and approve SEEMP parts II and III, ensuring ships are actively working to improve their environmental performance. Amendments to SEEMP, adopted by IMO resolution MEPC.395(82) will come into force on 1 January 2026.
IMO resolution MSC.560(108) amends the mandatory standards of competence in personal safety and social responsibilities for seafarers in chapter VI of the STCW code to include mandatory training on prevention of and response to violence and harassment, including sexual harassment, bullying and sexual assault. The amendment is to table A-VI/1 which specifies the minimum standard of competence in personal safety and social responsibilities (PSSR). This is implemented through the ambulatory reference provisions in the Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022, No. 1342). Guidance has been issued to all UK-approved training providers to incorporate these amendments into courses delivered from 1 January 2026. Therefore, all new seafarers undertaking basic training after that date will receive the updated PSSR content.
Further information and guidance on all amendments referred to in this statement has been published by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and is available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS1184]
Railways Bill
Keir Mather ExcerptsTuesday 9th December 2025
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
May I begin by saying what a pleasure it has been to listen to this debate? My response is centred on a strong belief that if somebody takes the time to say what they think about our railway, for whom it should be run and in whose interests, they should be listened to, because it is going to make clear whose side they are really on. This Government’s loyalties are clear. We are proud to be creating through this Bill a united Great British railway run for and by the British people. Our ambitions are clear for all to see. We want to end the miserable era of Tory disruption and delay and make travelling on our railway simpler and fairer.
What reactions have we produced? What passions have we stirred? Many colleagues across the Chamber have spoken in support of the Bill’s provisions but asked meaningful and searching questions that it is our responsibility to answer.
Wendy Morton
I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. On the specific point of answering our questions, can he give us clarity on accountability? Where does accountability lie? Where will we as Members of Parliament see accountability for the actions of Ministers and mayors?
Keir Mather
I carefully noted what the right hon. Lady said in her speech. I will come to accountability, and if she thinks that I do not cover her point, she is welcome to come in again.
I will start with accessibility, which 11 hon. Members across the House raised, including my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for Yeovil (Adam Dance), for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) and for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) among others. The Bill sets out a passenger and accessibility duty, ensuring that GBR promotes the interests of passengers, including in particular the needs of disabled persons. I have heard the calls from colleagues across the House about the importance of the Access for All scheme. In our published accessibility road map, we commit to continuing that programme; work has already been completed to roll out step-free routes to 270 stations so far.
The Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) raised the important matter of the passenger watchdog. The watchdog will be in a unique position to understand the passenger experience through its research and investigation functions as well as its access to complaints and performance data. It will use that to advocate for passengers, set tough consumer standards for the railway and advise the Government and GBR.
Many hon. Members pointed to the critical importance of freight to UK growth. The Government are committed to supporting rail freight growth across the United Kingdom. Freight operators will benefit from a legal duty for GBR to promote freight. The sector will also be championed within GBR by a representative on its board with responsibility for freight. There is also a requirement for the Government to set a rail freight growth target for GBR, so insinuations and accusations from the Conservatives that freight does not sit at the heart of what GBR is designed to do are flatly wrong.
With Christmas coming, I am afraid that I need to turn to my naughty list. The Conservatives have painted a dystopian picture this afternoon: they have told us to imagine a railway where the needs of the passenger come last; one that is plagued by disruption and poor management, strikes and shutdowns. My answer could not be clearer: the British public do not need to imagine a rail service on its knees, because for 14 years they have been living with one.
Let me turn to the points raised by Opposition Members. First, on cost, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) asked whether we need to reduce the subsidy. Absolutely we do; hon. Members will not hear me say anything else. The way to do that is to ensure that somebody is finally in charge of running our railways in a cohesive and united nature, saving the £150 million that the public pay to private operators every single year. The cost of establishing GBR will account for just 1% to 2% of the operating budget for a single year. That, alongside the Government’s other rail reforms, could unlock up to £1 billion in efficiencies by the end of the decade, alongside the £600 million in savings for passengers in the fare freeze that is being introduced next year for the first time in 30 years.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) raised the important point of open access services, and a Back-Bench contribution noted that I get Hull Trains every single week to Selby. I know how important open access is, and I want to reassure the House that it will have a role as part of the establishment of GBR. The Government are not opposed to open access, and the idea that GBR is bad for open access is simply false. We believe that, under the right circumstances, GBR can in fact create more opportunity for all towns and all operators by reviewing the network holistically with a view to how it might work better under our new, reformed system with open access playing its part.
Graham Stuart
I am sure that Hull Trains will be grateful for the passionate way in which the Minister made its case. Would he be open to amendments to the Bill that would look again at that balance? As the Bill is currently drafted, it looks as if GBR can just squeeze out the open operators—it has all the power and they have none.
Keir Mather
The right hon. Member and I have a philosophical difference on the question of track access. It is critical, if we are establishing Great British Railways to manage access, that it has the full ability to do so. It will be regulated by the Office of Rail and Road to make sure that its access decisions are fair, but the provisions in the Bill are sufficient to make sure that open access can continue and continues to provide incredibly important support to communities such as mine.
I turn back to the point about accountability, which is incredibly important, to set out some of the ORR’s functions and to tackle some of the disinformation coming from Opposition Members. The ORR will continue to be the sector regulator and the Bill will enhance its monitoring role. It provides independent advice to the Secretary of State, it will enforce GBR’s licence, its industry obligations and its minimum standards, and it will work with the passenger watchdog to make sure that passengers are once again at the heart of our railways. The ORR’s accountability function is hardwired into the Bill.
Wendy Morton
To be clear on accountability, how and where can a Member of Parliament hold a directly elected mayor to account for his or her decisions when it comes to railways?
Keir Mather
I have no doubt whatsoever that the right hon. Lady is perfectly capable of holding her elected mayor to account on rail infrastructure within her constituency, but she will also be able to do so through the passenger watchdog.
Time is short and I must address the Conservatives’ reasoned amendment, which I believe fundamentally misunderstands the Bill. It claims the Bill does not grow rail freight when in fact it contains two specific duties that require GBR to do so. It fails to engage with the reality that the Bill places the ORR at the centre of GBR’s functioning and allows open access to continue to play a vital role on our railway. The amendment is, frankly, as intellectually stunted as it is ideologically blinkered, and I urge Members across the House to reject it.
I am disappointed to say that we have received the news throughout this debate that the Conservative party will vote against Great British Railways and say no to its only chance to right the wrongs that it has committed. Let me therefore spell out to the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats that if they decide not to vote for the Bill tonight, they will be working against the interests of passengers across the country and their right to have the railway that they deserve. The Conservatives and their former coalition partners will have to look their constituents in the eye and explain why they want to continue the insanity, bureaucracy and waste of 17 different organisations running our railway instead of one united service; why they want to deny passengers a one-stop-shop app with timetables, tickets and accessibility support literally in the palm of their hand; and why they want to waste the opportunity of changing ticketing to take advantage of the first freeze in rail fares for 30 years.
Siân Berry
To the credit of those on the Conservative Front Bench, one line in the reasoned amendment mentions the need for a duty to grow passenger numbers. A number of hon. Members across the House have mentioned that today. Will the Minister come back to the House on the question of a duty to raise passenger numbers?
Keir Mather
That is critical. GBR will be set up as an organisation to facilitate as many people as possible to use our railway. Wanting to grow passenger numbers is inherent in what we are doing, but we do not want to do that in a way that overly congests the railway and is not strategic. That is something we will work on. Parties will also have to explain why they want to waste the opportunity to take this reform forward.
In sum, I ask everyone in this House to support the Bill, to seize the opportunities and to show the public whose side they are really on. This Government know who the Bill is for and who we are for: we are for passengers and not profit; we are for the commuters, the football fans, the hen parties, the grandparents and the rail enthusiasts; we are for everyone who gives our great British railway its distinctly British personality. If Members across the Chamber want to join us in that mission, I look forward to seeing them in the Aye Lobby tonight. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seafarers’ Welfare
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Before I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), I pay tribute to Lord Prescott, whose unfortunate passing was just over a year ago. Beginning with his career as a trade union official in the National Union of Seamen, and then as Deputy Prime Minister and in his work on transport, he was a defiant champion of the rights of seafarers right across the country. He was—how shall I put it?—a salty sea dog to the end and passionately defended workers’ rights in a sector that he cared about so dearly.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock for bringing forward this important debate. I commend her for her thoughtful remarks and her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents, seafarers and those who support them.
Growth is this Government’s No. 1 priority. The maritime sector not only powers that mission, but is critical in delivering the goods and materials that people across the UK rely on in their everyday lives. As we approach Christmas, I hope we can take the time to appreciate our maritime workforce—their skill and hard work will mean that our tables and our stockings have everything we need for a very merry Christmas—while also recognising that lots of merchant seafarers will not be home themselves this Christmas, and the toll that takes on their families and their mental health. My grandfather on my mother’s side served in the merchant navy for 50 years, so my family is extremely cognisant of that.
I am delighted to hear about the incredible work of the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest in Tilbury in supporting those men and women. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock for supporting the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest and for highlighting its important work here in Parliament. The Seamen’s Rest has a long and fascinating history. It has always been there—for more than 180 years, I believe—to support seafarers and provide them with accommodation and welfare. I have not yet had the opportunity to visit the centre at Tilbury, but I am aware of the work that the Seamen’s Rest has done through its centres to ensure that hard-working seafarers have well-deserved facilities and support when visiting ports across the UK.
Keir Mather
In the Christmas spirit that we are experiencing in Westminster Hall today, how could I refuse? It would be wonderful to visit. I look forward to continuing to learn about the work of the Seamen’s Rest, not only in Tilbury but at its centres in Immingham, Felixstowe, Bristol and other places.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for inviting those from the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest to join us in the Public Gallery, because it gives me an opportunity to place on the record my thanks and gratitude to its chief executive, Alexander Campbell, for all his hard work to pilot his organisation. I thank him for the enormous difference he will make to seafarers’ welfare across the UK, not only at this time of year, but year round.
The Government are undertaking wide-ranging work to enhance the support that we give to seafarers’ welfare charities. We have grants that provide a scheme called MiFi, which is about giving wi-fi access to seafarers in the United Kingdom. We have a vehicle replacement programme for the Merchant Navy Welfare Board to ensure that seafarers can get to where they need to receive support, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency sits on the board of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board to provide a crucial link between these charities and Government.
I will go into more detail on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, but I want to acknowledge that we have more progress to make in the space of levies being paid when ships make port in the United Kingdom to contribute towards seafarers’ welfare. It is extremely encouraging to see how many ports have adopted that on a voluntary basis, but we always want to push to go further. She made an important point about international co-operation, and I was pleased—as I am sure was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—to meet Nautilus and the RMT only yesterday to discuss some of the obligations through the International Labour Organisation. I will come to that in greater detail in a moment.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke of the tragedies that have affected his constituency and reminded us of our obligation and duty to improve the welfare and safety of our seafarers—that is a duty for every generation lucky enough to have the privilege to serve in government. Being a native son of Hull, it would be remiss of me not to mention that we approach the anniversary, in January and February, of the triple trawler tragedy in 1968, when we lost three Hull trawlers, the St Romanus, the Kingston Peridot and the Ross Cleveland, with an enormous loss of life. That started a campaign in Hull for improved safety at sea, with dedicated radio equipment on every ship, which was pioneered by Lillian Bilocca, a pioneer in seafarers’ rights. She pushed Harold Wilson’s Labour Government to make those important changes for seafarers’ welfare, and we carry that legacy forward today.
Turning to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, as I said, it was a pleasure to meet the RMT yesterday. We have an urgent need to protect life at sea, and I join him in sending condolences to James Elliott’s family. I thank everyone in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary; they work so hard to keep our nation safe. I will be certain to pass on to the relevant Minister my right hon. Friend’s request for a meeting with the Ministry of Defence.
My right hon. Friend also made an important point about nationality-based pay. In June 2025, the Government published a post-implementation review that recommended an amendment to the regulations, which currently allow nationality-based differential pay. Officials are progressing this work and aim to publish a consultation in spring next year, and we look forward to the RMT’s contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) pointed to the incredible work of the RNLI, and I too will take the opportunity to champion its work. I also place on the record my thanks to the Port of London Authority for the work it does to encourage safety on the River Thames in the areas where it has a footprint. Robin Mortimer and Jonson Cox do a lot of work in that space. When I visited, they made important points about pilot safety and about minimising the health impacts of the strain on pilots as they go out to make sure the largest ships can dock in our country.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), despite having the second most landlocked constituency in the country—I think Selby might be somewhere on that list as well—raised some very important points. He spoke about having a competitive tax regime to encourage foreign direct investment and to encourage shipping operators to use the United Kingdom. The tonnage tax regime that we have in the United Kingdom is seen as competitive in attracting that investment.
I am glad that the shadow Minister recognised the wrongs that were committed during the P&O saga, but he also highlighted the positive work that there is to do in relation to people and skills. I believe that enshrining in the Employment Rights Bill the rest and fatigue management provisions he spoke of is integral. I hope that his passion for maritime allows him to overcome some of his other doubts and to support the Bill as it makes further progress through Parliament.
I now turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). We are expanding the scope of the Seafarers Wages Act through the Employment Rights Bill, which will include additional powers to regulate safety, including through roster patterns, fatigue management and training, as well as remuneration beyond just pay in UK waters. That will deliver on our promise to create a mandatory seafarers’ charter. We will be consulting on the use of those powers in 2026. In the light of the hon. Lady’s remarks and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, I am certain not to be remiss in ensuring that the consultation is as robust as possible and that our trade union colleagues are able to play their full part in it.
The Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest is one of the many charities that support seafarers both domestically and internationally, but that work is spearheaded by the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. Raising the standards of seafarer welfare is a priority for the Government. That is why earlier this year the Maritime and Coastguard Agency launched The Seafarers’ Charities Forum, which aims to boost welfare through the exchange of information between the MCA and seafarers’ charities. We hope that will enhance mutual understanding of current initiatives, regulatory developments and welfare programmes, as well as identify opportunities for strategic alignment and joint action to improve seafarers’ living and working conditions. I commend all who are involved in that important initiative.
The Government are committed to growth, but none of the growth opportunities that we have will be realised without high standards of welfare for seafarers, in the UK and internationally, which is why we are ambitious about strengthening their rights. As I said, the Employment Rights Bill will improve employment protections for seafarers with a close connection to the UK, and protect the pay and working conditions of those working on services calling frequently at UK ports. That will build on the voluntary seafarers’ charter that was launched in 2023, under the previous Government, and we are working with a number of major operators to roll it out across their services. That will really help to raise standards, but it is voluntary, which is why we want to seek powers in the Employment Rights Bill to have a mandatory charter.
On international engagements, we are proud to have supported the amendments to the maritime labour convention that were agreed in April, but there is more work to be done in that space, and we can do it.
I want to pause at this point to record the thanks of the House and, more importantly, of seafarers around the country and far beyond for an organisation whose work is pivotal to the welfare of seafarers: the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. The MAIB continues to provide an essential service to seafarers. Its reports, which are of the highest quality, have saved countless lives over the years and ensure that the sector learns the lessons of the regrettable incidents that do still occur.
The MAIB is a vital component in the constellation of organisations that support the sector and one to which I am proud to put my name, but I am equally proud of the other ways that my Department supports the sector. One example, which I have alluded to, is our continued support for the MiFi project, which enables seafarers visiting UK ports to connect to the internet so that they can remain in contact with friends and family in their home countries. I am also pleased that we continue to fund the Merchant Navy Welfare Board’s vehicle replacement programme to make sure that seafarers can get to where they need to go.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and other colleagues for drawing the House’s attention to the important but oft-neglected issue of seafarer welfare. Since becoming maritime Minister, I have been struck by the dedication and skill of those who work in the sector, and I believe that, working together with parliamentarians, colleagues across Government, industry partners and our wider social partners, we can make a positive impact on the lives of those who serve at sea. I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and I commend everyone who has taken the time to take part in this debate.
Grove Park Railway Station
Keir Mather Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on securing this important debate. She has made a powerful case for accessibility improvements at Grove Park railway station. Before I turn to those improvements in detail, I will briefly pick up on two things she mentioned that I think are worthy of due consideration.
First, my hon. Friend made a point about the station not being aesthetically what her constituents deserve. This is not something we often get the opportunity to speak about in the House, but building beauty into our railways is incredibly important to me. It should factor to a greater extent in our thinking about how the travelling public can engage with our railways and enjoy the process.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign. It was exciting to hear about the array of small businesses and community organisations that made her petition possible. It speaks to the fact that our railway stations sit at the heart of the local communities they serve—a point that was reflected powerfully in her speech. I know how deeply my hon. Friend cares about her local community and how tirelessly she campaigns for improved public transport that is safer and more accessible for everyone in it.
This debate, and indeed the petition that my hon. Friend presented to Parliament on 20 October, underline the very real concerns of passengers who rely on Grove Park station every day. For many residents, Grove Park is not simply a station; it is a gateway to work, education, healthcare and family life. As my hon. Friend clearly set out, though, for too many users, especially those with mobility challenges, parents with buggies, older passengers or anyone travelling with heavy luggage, this gateway does not offer the accessibility and, most importantly, the dignity that they expect. She is right to say that the public’s travelling experience must be safe, comfortable and inclusive. That is central to this Government’s commitment to a more accessible and passenger-focused rail network for all.
Across Britain, many stations were constructed long before modern accessibility standards existed. Although around 56% of stations are now step-free and around two thirds of journeys take place between such stations, we recognise that this is not enough. Everyone must have dignity as they travel across the United Kingdom. Accessibility is not an optional extra; it is a basic expectation of modern public transport. That is why we remain committed to delivering improvements through programmes such as Access for All, through our recently published rail accessibility road map and through our long-term reforms to create Great British Railways.
The rail accessibility road map sets out clear actions that will improve disabled passengers’ experience, from better-maintained lifts and clearer information to the quality of assistance provided at stations for every journey. These are an essential element to providing dignity and inclusion to all rail passengers. I regret that Grove Park station does not offer full step-free access to all platforms. For wheelchair users, people with mobility needs, parents with pushchairs and travellers with luggage, this is a real challenge and a hugely regrettable reality in 2025—a reality that I know my hon. Friend is working tirelessly to correct for the better on behalf of her constituents.
Lee Pitcher
I have Althorpe station in my constituency. We are trying to get more trains, which will mean more passengers using those trains. This is massively important to reduce carbon, and to get people to work and hospital appointments and so on. Access is really important, and there is no step-free access there. Does the Minister agree that improving access will increase the number of passengers who use our trains, and that it will benefit the environment too?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is a tireless champion for improved rail services for all in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. He makes an incredibly important point: if more people can access our railways and thereby the opportunities that access provides them—social lives, employment and the ability to give back to their local communities—good will create good. Improving accessibility for all is a virtuous circle.
In 2022, the previous Government sought nominations for stations across Britain to benefit from upgrades as part of the Access for All programme. A total of 310 nominations were received from train operators, strategic transport bodies and Transport for London stations. This did not include a nomination for Grove Park station. I recognise my hon. Friend’s frustration with the process that we inherited from the previous Government. The current limitations of the station and the benefits that step-free access would bring, which she set out clearly today, are exactly the sort of factors that I would expect to inform bids for future rounds of funding. When assessing potential projects, we look closely at station footfall, weighted by incidence of disability in the area, industry priorities, and the availability of third-party funding. Local factors—for example, proximity to hospitals or especially high numbers of interchange passengers—are also taken into consideration. I know that these factors are very important to my hon. Friend’s case as to why Grove Park station needs extra support.
I would like to highlight the significant investment we are putting in to make rail more accessible within my hon. Friend’s constituency to show where we are making progress. As she knows, significant upgrades to the nearby Hither Green station, which she has also campaigned on in her work to improve rail in her local area, are well into delivery and are progressing well. Those upgrades are due to come into passenger use in 2027, at which point Hither Green will provide a fully accessible rail hub for her constituents and the wider south-east London community.
I turn to other issues that my hon. Friend has highlighted in relation to Grove Park station. I reassure her that my Department takes the safety and security of passengers and rail staff incredibly seriously. British Transport police, which is responsible for policing the railway, works closely with train operating companies including Southeastern to create a safer network. I am pleased to say that Grove Park will benefit from an LED lighting update to the overbridge and platforms. The upgrade will improve lighting levels, security perception and CCTV-recorded images.
We have recently announced £17 million of funding to improve British Transport police’s access to railway CCTV. The Department expects that train operating companies will implement crime prevention methods where required, including by improving lighting and CCTV where necessary. The BTP’s designing out crime unit provides advice on crime prevention, including the type of CCTV technology to use and suitable placement at stations. I therefore reassure my hon. Friend that the safety and security of those who use our railways is a core priority for the Government.
Shelters and seating at train stations play a vital role in ensuring the comfort and wellbeing of passengers. The Department for Transport expects train operating companies to manage station amenities to ensure that they are safe, clean and fit for purpose. We monitor those standards through the service quality regime, which includes regular inspections of the condition and availability of assets such as seating and shelters to ensure compliance and to identify areas for improvement.
Southeastern is driving forward a multimillion pound station improvement programme, which has delivered benefits to over 100 stations since March 2024. This ambitious initiative includes deep cleaning, repairs, and enhancements that will refresh and modernise station amenities across the network. I am pleased to say that Southeastern has recently completed a deep clean at Grove Park, helping to improve the overall customer experience, but I am aware from my hon. Friend’s comments that there is much further to go.
Daniel Francis
Southeastern serves the stations in my constituency, like those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East, and those enhancements include a number of Changing Places toilets for people with disabilities who require them. I therefore reaffirm the point I made to my hon. Friend. The Changing Places consortium has a map that shows its toilets around the country, and Transport for London has an accessibility app that shows where lifts are working and which stations are accessible. Can the Minister look at how we can bring those two together in the Railways Bill so that stations can be truly accessible, with real-time information for passengers?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point on behalf of his constituents about improving accessibility for all in his constituency. Through the Railways Bill, and the creation of Great British Railways and the passenger watchdog, rail provision will need to have due regard to improving accessibility. Through the accessibility road map, the Government are also setting out the actions we are taking in the round to deliver a more accessible railway in the run-up to GBR becoming a reality. They will include a range of actions that I hope my hon. Friend will find productive, which will improve the experience of disabled passengers on existing lines, including the assistance they receive, their access to journey information, and improvements to how we maintain lifts, escalators and—as he so importantly mentioned—facilities such as toilets.
Let me close by again thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East and congratulating her on securing this important debate and on her tireless representation of her constituents’ needs. Upgrading Grove Park station is not just about infrastructure; it is about fairness, dignity and ensuring that every individual in Lewisham East can travel safely, independently and confidently. The concerns raised tonight of accessibility, safety, lighting, toilets, CCTV, seating and platform shelters are all fundamental to a modern and inclusive railway. This Government remain committed to improving accessibility across the network, supported by major investments in crime prevention, infrastructure upgrades and industry reform through the creation of Great British Railways. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue working with Southeastern, Network Rail, Transport for London and the British Transport police to ensure that Grove Park station is equipped to serve its community now and for many years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
In March, we published the maritime decarbonisation strategy, which provides the sector with the certainty that it needs to decarbonise. We support the Port of Dover’s plan to electrify short straits crossings, which I know the hon. Member discussed with the Secretary of State in September. Our colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are working on reform that will help to reduce grid connection delays.
Wera Hobhouse
UK ports are clear that large-scale electrification is essential for maritime decarbonisation, but the required grid capacity is severely lacking. The Transport Committee has urged the Government to provide planning authorities with clear guidance to facilitate grid and substation upgrades. Will the Department prioritise enabling ports to build up their grid infrastructure before they fall behind international competition, so that we can continue to lead on maritime decarbonisation?
Keir Mather
I agree with the hon. Lady on her ambition to decarbonise maritime. That is why, in my first week as maritime Minister, I announced funding of £448 million to decarbonise UK maritime. She is right to note that electrification and grid capacity are enormous issues. Department for Transport officials continue to work across the ports sector to ensure that we can improve the grid connection process, and DESNZ is working on reform of that process to free up 500 GW of capacity for crucial sectors such as ports.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The port of Falmouth has benefited from Government money for plug-in power, but it has been held back by the grid. The port is also trying to redevelop and expand, so that it can service the floating offshore wind sector, and bring in freight on the freight line that we lost 15 years ago. Will the Minister support the port of Falmouth in those aims, and will he visit?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is a champion for the port of Falmouth. I applaud the work that it is doing to achieve decarbonisation. It is incumbent on me to work with Ofgem and my departmental colleagues in DESNZ to ensure that we speed up the improvement of port capacity and connection to the national grid. I would be very happy to visit that port in the future to explore its fantastic work.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
We are starting to see train reliability stabilise, following a decade of decline. We are working with the rail industry on a performance restoration framework, with five clear areas of focus to recover performance to acceptable levels. These include timetable resilience, staffing, and keeping trains safely moving during disruptive events. Rail usage is up month on month: some 451 million journeys were made on Britain’s railways last quarter, which is a 7% increase on the same period last year.
Dame Nia Griffith
I declare my interest in rail travel, as I travel by train weekly between London and my constituency of Llanelli. Far too often, Great Western Railway trains between Paddington and south Wales are delayed or cancelled at short notice, causing significant inconvenience and distress to passengers, including those from my constituency. The cause is often cited to be problems in the London-to-Reading area. What more can the Minister do to ensure that GWR and Network Rail make a lot more effort to significantly reduce delays and avoid cancellations?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is a champion for her constituents and their right to get to where they need to. We are pressing Network Rail and Great Western Railway to improve reliability, which has at times fallen below expectations in recent periods, partly due to recent flooding issues. We expect Network Rail and Great Western Railway to work together to resolve these issues on this most critical route.
Jeff Smith
My constituents in Manchester are left constantly frustrated by delays and cancellations, not just on the west coast main line, which you know all about, Mr Speaker, but on our east-west routes, and on services all around Manchester. What are the Government doing, alongside partners, to drive improvements in services to our Manchester stations?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is championing the right of his constituents to use the train to get to where they need to. Alongside local stakeholders, the DFT created the Manchester taskforce in 2020 to identify solutions to performance problems throughout the city. The December 2023 timetable has delivered improvements in reliability of around 30%, and new infrastructure may enable more services to be introduced. My hon. Friend is fighting hard for his constituents on this issue, and I hope that my answer reassures him that we are moving in the right direction, but if he has any remaining questions or concerns, I encourage him to write to me.
Alison Bennett
My Mid Sussex constituents are frustrated by the number of cancellations, particularly on Thameslink services. One of the reasons for those cancellations is driver shortages; in particular, sickness rates are running at 15% to 20%. The operator has told me that it is now paying private healthcare providers, because NHS waiting lists are so long. Does the Minister think that is good use of my rail users’ fares, and will he make representations to colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, to make them aware that this is happening?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for her important question about the reliability of train services in her constituency. We recognise that the number of cancellations is completely unacceptable, and that train crew availability issues have been driving many of those incidents. The Department has commissioned work to understand in detail the impact of train crew availability on performance. Issues such as staffing levels, recruitment, training, overtime and sickness have an enormous impact, and I reassure her that we are working with officials in the Department for Transport and inter-departmentally with DHSC to make progress on this important issue.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
After leading a town-wide campaign to reinstate the direct Eastbourne to London Bridge service, I am delighted to say that it will return on 15 December. However, many passengers and staff on those trains, including Louise and Rhiannon, on-board supervisors whom I have met, are concerned about the amount of antisocial behaviour, and Southern rail’s lack of support for on-board supervisors in tackling it. What steps will be taken to keep passengers and staff safe from crime and antisocial behaviour on our train services?
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
This summer, the Department for Transport wrote to the rail regulator that the Government firmly believe that
“the arrival of competition will benefit users of rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.”
That was for international rail. Why do the Government believe that competition is good when travelling abroad but should be replaced with nationalisation here in Britain?
Keir Mather
On no subject is the hypocrisy of the Conservative party laid out more clearly than that of rail. We did not have a competitive rail system when the Conservatives were in charge; we had a fragmented and broken rail service that did not offer passengers the service that they deserved. By having Great British Railways, we can integrate track and rail services together to ensure that these services are run in the interests of passengers. Competition can of course continue through open access, but we want to centralise the service being provided in the interests of passengers right across the United Kingdom.
Jerome Mayhew
I am very interested to hear that mention of open access, because there is a risk with nationalisation that the organisation focuses on its own union-led interests, rather than the interests of passengers. That leads to bureaucratic inefficiency, delay and increased costs, and we may be seeing that already. South Western Rail was nationalised in May; since then, cancellations have been up by 50%, and delays have been up by 29%. c2c was nationalised in July; in September, it cancelled its online advance discount, making journeys more expensive, not less. Now, at TransPennine Express—the Secretary of State’s poster child for nationalisation—workers have voted for strike action. Is the Minister concerned that this Government do not have the backbone needed to face down demands from their union paymasters and put passengers first?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman should know that, through the Railways Bill, we are building a system that will ensure that passenger accountability sits at the very heart of how this railway operates. I would be grateful if he could illuminate to me how constituents of his and constituents across the country are served by the previous system, under which people could not get a train where they needed to go, were plagued by strikes and had ticketing systems that did not work. We are setting up, through Great British Railways, a tough passenger watchdog that can have minimum standards and statutory advice for the Secretary of State and put passengers back at the heart of our railways.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Passengers will be at the heart of Great British Railways, and it will have a statutory duty to promote the interests of passengers in decision making. GBR will also be required to consult the passenger watchdog when developing its integrated business plan and key policies and procedures that significantly impact on passenger experience.
Chris Vince
May I welcome the extension of contactless payment to Harlow Town, Harlow Mill and Roydon railway stations in my constituency? That is making travel simpler and ensuring the best value for passengers. How will the Minister ensure that GB Railways continues to ensure that passengers are at the heart of decision making? Will he personally join me in my campaign to ensure that there are less cancellations of trains to Roydon station in my constituency?
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?
Mr Speaker
I think that is slightly off the question. Minister, do you want to have a go at it?
Keir Mather
I will have a crack at it, Mr Speaker—thank you. The hon. Member is right to raise a number of issues that affect the experience of passengers on the railway. That experience is exactly what the passenger watchdog, which will be created through Great British Railways, is designed to protect. It will set minimum consumer standards that GBR and operators must meet as part of their licence conditions, but most importantly, that accountability will be public. The watchdog will publish reports and data on passenger experience and will be a statutory adviser to the Office of Rail and Road, which will carry out enforcement.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I thank the hon. Member for his continued advocacy for this issue on behalf of his constituents. Soon the Department will publish its integrated national transport strategy, setting the long-term vision for domestic transport in England. It will focus on creating a transport network that works well for people so that they can get on in life and make the journeys they need to make easily, wherever they live.
Joe Robertson
Does the Minister accept—and, indeed, do the Government accept—that public transport will never be truly integrated for the Isle of Wight while it continues to rely on unregulated, unlicensed ferry services that are owned by private equity groups making bumper profits? He would not accept that for any other community in the UK; why should the Isle of Wight be left in a different situation?
Keir Mather
Again, the hon. Member makes a powerful point on behalf of his constituents—it is right to be frustrated by the affordability and reliability of ferry services to the Isle of Wight. I agree that urgent action needs to be taken to resolve the issues that he and his parliamentary colleagues are campaigning on. That is why it is incredibly important that we get a cross-Solent chair in place quickly, so that they can grip this issue. Fundamentally, though, we must work together to get the data necessary to create a single version of the truth, so that we can assess how to deal with these problems in the round on behalf of the hon. Member’s constituents.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Government are committed to supporting aviation. [Interruption.] We are advancing airport planning decisions, modernising airspace and reviewing the airports national policy statement on Heathrow expansion. [Interruption.] To make sure that this growth is sustainable we have introduced a sustainable aviation fuel mandate and supported production through the advanced fuels fund, and are legislating for revenue certainty.
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Holden, you have had your question. You might want to go for a walk if you are going to carry on.
Lee Pitcher
As the work to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport takes off, the focus now turns to ensuring that it succeeds in the long run. A key part of that is building the next generation of pilots and aviation professionals. I am already working with training providers and we will hopefully launch “Pitcher’s pilot programme” for our young people. Will the Minister set out what steps the Department is taking, working across Government, to ensure that the next generation of aviation professionals is ready to take to the skies?
Keir Mather
I applaud my hon. Friend’s ambition to train the next generation of aviators. Government changes to the apprenticeship regulations now mean that aviation employers have greater flexibility, which recently enabled the launch of the Tui cabin crew apprenticeship, with more under development. Through our aviation industry skills board, the Department for Transport works with industry and across Government to address barriers to access. We also fund the Civil Aviation Authority’s outreach programme to attract the next generation into aviation careers. I reassure my hon. Friend that making sure more young people have access to careers that they are passionate about is a subject in which I have a keen personal interest.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The electric car grant is designed to ensure that consumers have confidence in their ability to buy an electric vehicle over the long term, benefiting from £3,750 off the cost of some models. Importantly, we are undertaking work to increase the number of electric charge points across the country, with an extra 100,000 on top of the over 80,000 that are already in use.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Keir Mather
I would be delighted to encourage local people to give it a try. I am delighted with the announced expansion of pay-as-you-go to 50 additional stations, including Aylesbury station, next month, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will offer her residents greater flexibility, convenience and the best price for their journey for on-the-day travel.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. The regulations, which were laid in draft before the House on 21 October 2025, set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of unmanned or uncrewed aircraft systems, including drones and model aircraft. The regulations will ensure that the regulatory requirements remain enforceable and that operators and pilots of UASs remain subject to appropriate penalties when they fail to comply with the regulatory framework.
I will start by providing some background information about the regulations. The Department for Transport commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to review the regulatory framework for UASs. The CAA carried out a public consultation for this purpose on proposals to simplify regulation, improve education for the users of UASs, improve safety and security, and provide options for support for the sector during the transition to the new regulations. The CAA worked closely with Government, industry and law enforcement partners in developing a number of policy recommendations. Together with the regulatory updates made through the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before the House on 21 October 2025, this instrument will implement the CAA’s recommendations and support a more future-proof, enforceable and robust UAS regulatory regime in the UK.
The draft regulations will revoke and replace existing offences for breaches of the UAS regulatory requirements, ensuring that the offences remain enforceable and facilitating the enforcement of new requirements. The instrument also makes consequential amendments to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 and the Police Act 1997.
The draft regulations set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of uncrewed aircraft, as set out in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft. That implementing regulation was directly applicable in the UK prior to EU exit. Following EU exit, the regulation was retained in an amended form in the UK and was subsequently amended further. It now forms part of assimilated law in the United Kingdom.
The implementing regulation is amended by the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025 to update the rules on UASs, simplifying the regulatory regime and ensuring a safe and secure airspace. The implementing regulation establishes a framework for the operation of UASs to ensure that they are used safely and regulated proportionately. This framework includes three risk-based categories of operation: “open”, or low-risk operations, “specific”, which carry a greater level of risk than the open category, and “certified”, which are the highest-risk operations. The implementing regulation includes requirements for registration and competency testing; it also provides for model aircraft operations in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations under a bespoke authorisation.
The offences in this instrument largely replicate offences set out in the Air Navigation Order 2016. The draft regulations also provide for penalties for these offences, largely replicating the penalty provisions in the 2016 order. Owing to the amendments made by the 2025 regulations, it is necessary to revise the offences by removing them from the 2016 order and remaking them in this instrument.
The regulations will ensure that the rules for drones and model aircraft are safer and clearer for current and future use, and for that reason I commend them to the Committee.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their comments. I also commend the work of businesses in Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, and thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the draft regulations.
I have taken into account both the points raised on regulatory equivalence, and we have heard a diverse range of ideological perspectives on alignment with the European Union. In most cases, the draft regulations offer alignment with the European Union; that is incredibly important for regulatory alignment that facilitates international trade and the export of drones produced in the United Kingdom, which is an important piece of the puzzle. That being said, there are areas where we may want to carve out a competitive advantage for the United Kingdom by going further, faster—particularly with hybrid remote IDs. It is important to learn lessons from the aviation regulations of others across the world, and we intend to do that. We will go further, faster if we can, but it is good to have regulatory alignment where possible to facilitate trade where it is needed.
On the transition period and people being adequately trained, the CAA is taking on a lot of work to make sure that people are in the right place. It has emailed all registered drone users—some 500,000 operators—and promoted the changes via Google Ads and promotional messages on social media to reach specific audiences. The CAA also updated the drone code and flyer ID test on 22 September, ahead of the peak renewals period for pilots needing to retake the online test.
The CAA is well resourced to engage with operating companies and has done so through the consultation. It will very much continue to do that, as we make sure that these regulations suit and reflect the lived experience of drone users, while avoiding some of the inadvertent slip-ups that occur when they use regulated airspace and so on. This is an iterative process in which the CAA will have to work hard to make sure that it is answering the concerns of drone users, but I have every confidence that it has the resources and capability to do so. I finish by thanking both Opposition spokesmen for their considered contributions to this debate, and I hope the Committee will support the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulation 2025
Keir Mather Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 October, and their purpose is to simplify marine equipment legislation by consolidating and combining regulatory changes into one piece of legislation, providing greater clarity for industry. The regulations also bring the standards and requirements for ballast water management systems within their scope, introducing a new equivalents provision and removing Government ships from the scope of the legislative regime.
In line with international requirements for ships to carry safety and counter-pollution equipment—collectively referred to as “marine equipment”—that has been approved by the ship’s flag administration, the United Kingdom implemented the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016, which gave effect to the EU directive on marine equipment. Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, the 2016 regulations were amended in 2019 to ensure that they would continue to operate effectively. Amendments were also made by the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) (UK and US Mutual Recognition Agreement) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which gave effect to the UK-USA mutual recognition agreement on marine equipment by providing for the mutual recognition of certificates of conformity for designated marine equipment, thereby opening up the large US market to UK manufacturers.
The draft regulations will revoke and replace the 2016 regulations and both sets of 2019 amending regulations, and will make three changes to the UK’s marine equipment regime. First, they will bring the type approval of ballast water management systems into the scope of the regulations. In 2022, the UK implemented new International Maritime Organisation requirements and standards for ballast water management systems through the Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022. Those regulations included the type approval requirements for those systems. Bringing ballast water management systems within the scope of the marine equipment regulations will make it easier for industry to find and adhere to the relevant requirements. It will also prevent divergence in the approval processes between these systems and other items of marine equipment.
Secondly, the regulations introduce an equivalents provision to allow, subject to certain conditions, non-UK approved marine equipment to be placed on board UK vessels in situations where UK-approved items are unavailable or unsuitable. The conditions ensure that the equipment, when placed on board, will provide an equivalent level of safety.
Thirdly, the regulations will remove Government ships from scope of the marine equipment regime. That is due to the broader change in approach to Government ships, triggered in part by the limited legislative powers available post-EU exit. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and in the absence of appropriate powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, that is being done using the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. That will facilitate the amendment of the regulations in future if required.
Since the UK’s departure from the EU, numerous engagements have been undertaken with stakeholders, including UK-approved bodies that are responsible for the approval of marine equipment, manufacturers, other Departments and maritime trade organisations. That provided an opportunity to influence the direction that the policy has taken. Once the policy direction had been developed, a six-week public consultation was carried out, during which respondents expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency published a consultation report including responses to comments received.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Minister is describing a really good example of draft regulations being shaped by responses to a UK consultation. Is that a Brexit benefit?
Keir Mather
Throughout the legislative process, both before and since Brexit, we have always worked hard on a departmental basis to engage with a broad range of stakeholders. We do so through this process as with any other, but if the hon. Member wishes to designate this as a Brexit success, I certainly will not stand in his way.
The MCA issues industry guidance through marine notices to assist the industry in understanding the requirements of the regulations, and new notices will be published alongside the regulations.
I have set out the purpose and scope of the regulations, which consolidate and simplify the UK’s marine equipment regime, thereby bringing clarity and confidence to the industry. The regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards while tailoring our legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU-exit context. I therefore commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for their contributions to this debate. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said that he supports defending the need to ensure that our regulatory regime in the maritime space is as modern as it can be, both to facilitate UK trade and to ensure the safety of our seafarers. Those are sentiments that we share across the House, and it is great to hear his support for those principles.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked me about discussions with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and the frequency and scale of requests for equipment that lies outside UK production. Wherever possible, we would of course like to see UK equipment being used on UK ships. I am happy to pick up with the MCA the question of the frequency with which it expects that non-UK manufactured equipment will be used on a case-by-case basis. However, it is my view, as a UK Government Minister, that wherever possible, we want to see British equipment being used on British ships.
The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire asked me whether the regime, which is meant to be used on a case-by-case basis, will be used not to undermine post-Brexit arrangements, but instead to pursue the safety of our maritime industry. That is absolutely the intention of the regulations. They exist to ensure that wherever possible, we have world-leading equipment in place to protect our seafarers. Modernising the regulations, in the context of leaving the European Union, to ensure that we can continue to work with European allies and to meet our British regulatory obligations is the purpose of the statutory instrument, and it is the modus operandi of what we are seeking to achieve today.
Finally, on the mutual recognition of standards with like-minded nations in the Asia-Pacific and elsewhere, we seek alignment wherever possible on the incredibly high regulatory standards that the United Kingdom seeks to set. Whenever I go on to have discussions with Maritime Ministers from other countries about the notion of regulatory alignment, I will make the case that the UK is a world leader in this space and that, wherever possible, alignment is preferred.
I believe that I have addressed everything that hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said, but if not, he can tell me afterwards and I will put it in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The draft order was laid before the House on Monday 8 September. Railway operators currently use a combination of enforcement regimes to recover unpaid parking charges at railway station car parks, resulting in inconsistency and complexity for both operators and passengers. Some rely on criminal enforcement set out in the railway byelaws, while others work with agents who rely on contractual arrangements with motorists. With the introduction of Great British Railways, my Department expects a consistent level of service to be offered across the network. Therefore, this order will bring car parks that are located on railway land within England and Wales into the scope of the same civil enforcement regime that applies to all other car parks on private land.
Previously, railway station car parks were excluded from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which I shall now refer to as POFA, because they were subject to the railway byelaws, which meant that unpaid parking charges could be enforced only under those byelaws. Schedule 4 to POFA facilitates the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle parked in private car parks. It sets out detailed requirements regarding the provision of notices and the appeals processes. However, railway station car parks are currently excluded from that regime.
This change will ensure a consistent, civil enforcement regime for all railway station car parks across the Great British Railways network. It will ensure that passengers have the same protection that they would have when parking in other car parks on private land, including access to an independent appeals service. An industry consultation showed support for amending the railway byelaws to remove criminal liability for parking breaches and instead using the civil enforcement regime set out under POFA.
These changes will standardise the approach to the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle parked in railway station car parks. To support this order, changes to the railway byelaws will be made at the same time to remove the criminal enforcement regime that is currently in place and allow this legislation to take effect. This shift from the criminal enforcement regime to the civil regime provides passengers with an independent appeals service and allows the same framework that applies to all other private car parks to apply to railway station car parks.
The order will ensure that unpaid car parking charges on railway land are recovered in a way that is clearer and consistent for both operators and passengers. With POFA now applying to railway car parks, this will also provide passengers with an independent appeals service that will be used by all train operating companies in England and Wales. I commend the order to the Committee.
Keir Mather
I thank the official Opposition spokesperson and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for their contributions. I will take each of their points in turn.
I recognise and agree that we are seeking to avoid excessive revenue and the unfortunate conduct that is perpetrated by some private providers of car parking spaces. Motorists should not have to operate in a climate of fear and uncertainty when they park their car, as they try to go about their daily lives, get to work, see their families and use our transport network. That is exactly what we seek to remedy through today’s changes.
The official Opposition spokesperson pointed to the need for proper process and proportionality. I will come to that in regard to the reviews to which he referred and the parking code of practice. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is consulting on a parking code of practice for the operation and management of private parking facilities. To the point made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, this will set an industry standard that will cover enforcement and signage requirements, and will encourage consistency across the industry. We have aligned the laying of this statutory instrument with that consultation, which will avoid train operating companies having to change their parking signs twice in regard to any regulations that we may pass.
A consultation was also held in 2020 relating to this specific provision with the devolved Governments, train operators, passenger rights groups and industry stakeholders. The feedback from that consultation indicated overall support for the proposed changes, and a working group was established with stakeholders to address specific concerns that were raised. Those have directly informed the provisions in this statutory instrument.
I echo and agree with the sentiments expressed by the Opposition spokespersons around the need to avoid excessive overreach in this space, to ensure proportionality, and to have clear and understandable codes of practice. This is something that we want motorists parking at railway car parks across the United Kingdom to benefit from. I think those aims are reflected in this statutory instrument, which is why I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
Keir Mather ExcerptsWednesday 15th October 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 View all Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 October 2025 - (15 Oct 2025)
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House; I could not have put it better myself. It is essential that whatever measures, on any matter, are brought forward by any Government—be it the current Government or any future Government—real people’s lives and the cost base be reviewed regularly, so that we are not making people poorer, or stopping people from being able to do what they want, be it go on holiday, travel for business or move goods around.
With that, I come to amendment 8 and the cost impact on passengers. The amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on passenger air fares. One of the most contentious areas surrounding the Bill, and indeed the Government’s whole approach to net zero, is: what does it actually cost real people? The amendment seeks to clarify that, and it gives the Government the opportunity—in theory, they should cheerfully embrace this—to lock in a claim that they profess to believe, namely that the Bill will have an impact of plus or minus £1.50 on air fares. The previous Minister repeated that statistic time and again on Second Reading and in Committee. The new Minister has the challenge today of either sticking with his predecessor’s assertion, backing the amendment and locking in protections for consumers, or admitting that this may well be more costly to air travellers.
It is worth noting that during the evidence stage of Bill Committee, none of the witnesses was willing to affirm the Government’s figure. In fact, some noted that the estimated price appeared low. For example, Jonathon Counsell from International Airlines Group stated:
“We think there are potentially some elements that have not been included in that calculation, but £1.50 per passenger feels quite low when you think the costs of the SAF itself will be nearer to £10.”––[Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 15 July 2025; c. 17, Q12.]
Consumers need peace of mind that the Bill will not cost them dear, and will not act as a financial barrier to the family holiday or any other trip, so failure to back the amendment can only mean uncertainty.
I turn to amendment 11, which is focused on transparency. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate, payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers. Valero, for example—one of the world’s largest renewable fuels producers—has contacted the Opposition arguing for the amendment, saying that it would offer a workable solution; it would support the development of new SAF production without significantly impacting the industry as a whole. The amendment would apply the levy equally to all jet fuel suppliers, providing a fair and transparent mechanism for supporting the broader SAF industry.
Just this week, I have been contacted by Virgin Atlantic, which is arguing that transparency safeguards must be in place to keep costs low for consumers. As organisations including the International Air Transport Association have highlighted, since the mandate came into effect in January 2025, fuel suppliers have been adding compliance risk premiums to the cost of mandated SAF, contributing to the price of SAF and doubling it for some carriers. That is to cover the eventuality that they do not meet the 2% mandate target and must pay the buy-out price for any missed volume. Virgin Atlantic has argued that to prevent SAF prices increasing further, the revenue certainty mechanism must have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure transparency over cost pass-through. There must also be a transparent process for refunds in the event of over-collections, and all revenues generated under the RCM should be ringfenced, rather than going into the general taxation pot.
Amendment 9 looks at British technology and intellectual property. It would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts. As I said from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, there is a historical reality that we need to confront, and the amendment would stop history repeating itself. The historical error that I refer to is this: a great many projects supported by grants from the advanced fuels fund use foreign-owned technology. It cannot be right that the British state, while arguing for domestic fuel security, funds overseas technology when we have incredible innovators and manufacturers right here.
Domestic fuel security must mean domestic fuel IP, manufacture and supply. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF, eSAF and local production, as is provided for by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of those products. That not only retains revenue in the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. The amendment tackles that head-on, and a failure to back it would be a failure to back United Kingdom innovators.
Lastly, amendment 10 is on technological choices. It states:
“The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”
I feel incredibly strongly about this amendment. It is on a matter that I have championed in this House for many years—in the last Parliament, during my time on the Transport Committee and, since July, from this Dispatch Box. The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and it is relevant to new clause 7 and amendment 12 in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley, both of which I have a great deal of sympathy for.
Governments of all political persuasions have professed to be technologically neutral. They seldom are. There is a natural tendency to pick winners and losers. We need to look through that lens, and ask ourselves what the Bill is promoting and using the levers of primary legislation to enable. The disappointing answer to that is the potential to bring alive SAF plants using technologies that have already been superseded—plants that would therefore be temporary at best. Stepping up something with no longevity, and with an estimated build cost of between £600 million and £2 billion, would be no small mistake.
Power-to-liquid solutions, otherwise known as eSAF or synthetic fuel—liquid hydrocarbons literally made out of air and water—are surely the better and sustainable future for aviation fuel. We had debates on Second Reading and in Committee about other solutions. I cannot imagine that anyone is ready to defend growing food to burn it, but equally, waste-derived fuels simply are not sustainable in the long term. Solid waste is not readily available; the primary source is local authorities, the majority of which are on contracts with energy-from-waste facilities and incinerators that have decades to run. Likewise, I am not sure there is enough chip oil in the country to meet our aviation fuel needs.
That leaves power-to-liquid solutions and eSAF. Many say that it is not ready; some say it is too expensive; but those of us on the Public Bill Committee heard loud and clear from Zero Petroleum that it is ready to scale right now. It just needs the green light from the regulators, and with scale will come affordability. Amendment 10 is in many ways a light-touch amendment to bring this debate to the fore. It does not close down other technological routes, but forces the Government to acknowledge the risk, both to the environment and in terms of cost, when choosing contracts under the RCM.
As other speakers have said, the Bill can still be improved. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments, which would improve the Bill, and to ensure a strong and affordable future for sustainable aviation fuel in our great United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Before I turn to the amendments before us, I would like to thank the many hon. Members who have made considered and helpful contributions. This legislation has been long in the making, and few have been more central in bringing it to fruition than my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who I would like to thank personally for his efforts throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages.
Iqbal Mohamed
The Minister mentioned a reduction of 6.3 megatonnes, but what is that as a proportion of the current emissions?
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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Mr Glover, is it your pleasure that new clause 1 be withdrawn?
International Rail Services: Ashford
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate. I commend her for her thoughtful remarks and continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents and the south-east more widely. She argued powerfully that the return of international services goes far beyond the borders of Kent. The East Sussex residents she represents will be grateful for her championing their cause.
The Rail Minister recently had the opportunity to speak at an event at Ashford International, organised by Kent county council and other local stakeholders, and heard clearly the powerful local case for making Ashford and Ebbsfleet gateways to Europe once again. I am glad that we have been able to continue the debate today in a mostly collegiate fashion.
Ashford International and Ebbsfleet International stations, along with the HS1 line, form a vital piece of infrastructure. They connect communities, support tourism and offer a low-carbon route to the continent. The potential of those two stations is clear for all to see, and the Government recognise the importance of capturing it. International rail services bring significant benefits. The recent report from the Good Growth Foundation, alluded to by many hon. Members, estimates that restoring those services to Kent could unlock up to £500 million annually for the south-east’s visitor economy. That is a substantial figure, underlining why the issue deserves serious attention.
Passenger demand for international rail has rebounded strongly since the pandemic. Last year, more than 11 million people travelled via international rail, which was an all-time high. This year, once again, record numbers are travelling internationally by rail, with the summer period being the busiest on record, reflecting growing demand for sustainable connections to Europe.
Yet, although demand has continued to rise, we have seen those services contract since the pandemic. The Government are committed to supporting the international rail sector to reach its full potential. Our approach is focused on enabling competition, which the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), will be pleased to hear, and on working with industry to unlock growth. Several operators have expressed interest in serving Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford International. That is encouraging, and my colleague the Rail Minister has invited them to engage with Kent stakeholders to explore viable solutions.
We welcome that new entrants are looking to challenge the status quo. Officials in the Department continue to engage regularly with those prospective new operators, and we believe that competition offers the best prospect for restoring services. It brings innovation, improves passenger experience and has the potential to drive down costs. The Department has made written representations to the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, as part of its access application consultation for depot capacity, to express our support for competition and the benefits it could bring.
We have recently secured agreements with European partners, including Germany and Switzerland, to work together to explore new international routes between our countries, and to address barriers for operators launching those routes. The conversations are promising, and they reflect a shared commitment to sustainable cross-border travel.
However, to deliver on that ambition, we must also address the practical barriers, and multiple hon. Members have recognised that chief among those is depot capacity. Temple Mills depot in London is currently the only facility that is used for international passenger rail maintenance. The independent report commissioned by the regulator found that there is very limited spare capacity, which is a significant constraint on competition. Officials are working closely with industry partners to explore long-term solutions. It will take time, but it is a priority for the Government.
There are also challenges on border safety, and we recognise that they are unique to operating cross-channel rail services. Juxtaposed border and security controls are essential for safety and compliance, but they introduce complexity and cost. The Government stand ready to work with operators and stakeholders to explore pragmatic solutions to re-establishing border controls at Kent stations, balancing affordability for operators while maintaining border security. Officials are also continuing to work closely on the matter with colleagues in the Home Office and Border Force, and my officials stand ready to engage with Kent representatives, potentially as part of a working group, to explore it in further detail.
I now turn to some of the points raised in the debate, beginning with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and the villages, who raised the challenges and the opportunities. Those include the challenge of capacity at St Pancras station, but also Eurotunnel’s free capacity. Increased capacity from international stations could help to realise the benefits of that free capacity.
My hon. Friend also spoke powerfully of the exasperation faced by her constituents due to the increased travel time and the lost opportunities for business development, investment and better connections to attract international investment from northern Europe and the rest of the continent. She also spoke powerfully of the more intangible benefits of international rail services, including her personal experience of feeling a connection with the continent and our European partners due to those all-important rail links.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) spoke powerfully about not just his constituents’ ability to access Europe but Europe’s ability to access his constituency, and about the enormous cultural and historical assets it can offer people across the continent. That was a point well made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) asked me to consider how to encourage the ORR to welcome competition. I am pleased to confirm that the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, has already undertaken that, and he has strongly outlined to the ORR that the DFT believes that increased competition is fundamental to accessing extra capacity for those services, to unlocking more economic opportunity for Kent, and to our connections into northern Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) said that rail services into northern Europe may be a “high-quality problem”, but she ably argued the counterpoint that the existing system, as it stands, holds back access for people who deserve to have affordable access to the European continent for work opportunities, business, tourism and leisure, and to be connected culturally to an area that she can see from her constituency. Having economic equity through our rail services, so that more people can access the benefits they provide, is incredibly important to the Department.
I was pleased to hear the contribution of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who spoke of the possibilities that greater international rail access could achieve for our entire country. It made me think of, back when I were a lad, when I got one of the first ever train services from my home city of Hull to London, and about the effect that had on my feeling of connection to the rest of the country. The possibility of giving those same opportunities, albeit enhanced, to young people from Yorkshire is very exciting.
My hon. Friend referenced Leeds to Lille. What about Harrogate to Hamburg or York to Ypres? The possibilities are endless. I am glad to see his ambition in fighting for God’s own county in these debates. Although there are significant operational challenges to realising some of his ambitions, I would encourage him to continue liaising with the Rail Minister.
Sojan Joseph
Does this debate show that it is not just an Ashford or Ebbsfleet issue? That was the presumption in the past, but it is much wider. The whole region benefits from international services returning to Ashford, at the same time as the rest of the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to address this important matter and grab the opportunity as soon as possible?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend’s point is very well made. What has struck me throughout this debate is the access opportunities for the constituents of every Member in the room. Members have also pointed to the importance of modal shift and the impact on freight and our decarbonisation ambitions. We have also heard about the impact on our international resilience and our ability to respond to the challenges in the channel with nimbleness and agility. These can all be enhanced by the prospect of increasing our international rail capacity, and those points have been very well made.
The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) gave us the welcome perspective of the case for Ebbsfleet, and he pointed ably to the unity of advocacy from Members of Parliament, businesses and local people. It would be remiss of us to forget Ebbsfleet’s role in this important debate.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) usefully outlined how, in this country, international rail thrived in the 1990s, and he provided a reasonable and ambitious perspective on how Ashford could facilitate its ability to thrive again.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), encouraged me to explore different opportunities to revitalise Kent’s economic connections to the economies of northern France. I would suggest that encouraging competitiveness between different potential providers in this space is exactly what will allow us to explore those opportunities, and to push and work constructively with them. That is why the DFT has been working hard to convene Kent county council, private providers and local residents to explore where those opportunities lie.
I am pleased to hear that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, has a personal stake in this debate as a proud Kent man—
Keir Mather
Please forgive me. I learn something new every day in this role.
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention how many debates have landed on some of these themes over the years as we have wrangled with these questions. It is earnestly hoped, from the Government’s perspective, that facilitating competition and greater access in this space will allow us to solve what have formerly been incredibly knotty and intangible problems.
Keir Mather
Well, I think it is important to note that this Government are not fixated on ideological dogmatism in this space. Where competition works and can offer tangible benefits to local people in Kent and across the United Kingdom, we will of course proceed with it.
Jerome Mayhew
I am very grateful and encouraged to hear that point made from the Dispatch Box. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the Government have written to the ORR advocating against every single open access application since coming into power? After all, open access is bringing additional competition to the wider network.
Keir Mather
Of course there is open access ability through these international rail links, which is an important thing to point to. What I find challenging about the assertions that the hon. Member made in his winding-up speech is the notion that some sort of perfect free market competition existed in our rail system prior to the Labour Government taking office. There was enormous dysfunction, which arose from an overly deregulated system.
Ms Billington
On competition and the former Conservative Government, I remind Members that they were the ones who brought Southeastern, which serves my constituency, into public ownership, because of the failures of the commercial process.
Keir Mather
I think the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, was right to say that competitive practices, where they work, should be encouraged, and that has been the focus of this debate. But the broader perspective, which came out in the debate around the Government in 2015 selling their stake in the operation of Eurostar, is that we lack the nimbleness to direct rail operations in a way that benefits passengers and local economies and ensures resilience. That is what the Government are striving to do in creating balance throughout our rail system.
I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and other colleagues for their continued and tireless campaigning on this matter. Their hard work has genuinely been instrumental in keeping the case for reinstatement firmly on the agenda, and their constituents benefit enormously from having MPs who are so determined to bring economic and travel opportunities to their part of the United Kingdom.
The Government support the reinstatement of international rail services at Kent stations as soon as it is practical for operators to do so. We support the growth of international rail, and we will continue to work constructively with all partners, be they local, national or international, to make that vision a reality. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for raising this important matter, and commend everyone who has taken the time to take part in this important debate.