Grove Park Railway Station
Keir Mather Excerpts(5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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 week, 6 days 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(2 weeks, 6 days 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(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 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
(1 month, 2 weeks 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(1 month, 2 weeks 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.
Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks 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 Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to discuss the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 16 July—my first statutory instrument in my new role. I look forward to many exchanges with the hon. Members for Mid Buckinghamshire and for Wimbledon in rooms like this. Let us hope that they are all on as sunny a morning as this one.
UK airspace and airlines are among the safest in the world. Even with that success, we are not complacent: the Government are committed to maintaining and improving the high safety standards in aviation. The UK is committed to ensuring that technical requirements remain up to date and in line with international standards and best practice. The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for developing and advising the Government on amendments to the technical requirements and regulations.
This statutory instrument has four objectives, three of which relate to the continuing airworthiness regulation, which ensures that the maintenance and repair of aircraft is conducted safely. First, the instrument will make amendments to the continuing airworthiness regulation regarding the release of aircraft parts into service. Currently, for all components added to an aircraft, the maintenance organisation is required to issue a form 1, which certifies that the parts are safe to be released to service—a long and technically complex process. The instrument will allow approved design organisations to release components for service by making a less onerous declaration of maintenance; this declaration can be used only for parts that have a negligible impact on the safety of the aircraft, such as a pilot’s document holder. These amendments will complete the introduction of a policy that was introduced by the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2023 to the initial airworthiness regulation, and will help to reduce the burden on maintenance organisations.
Secondly, the instrument will rationalise parts of the continuing airworthiness regulation by combining similar requirements in one location, making the regulations easier to follow. The instrument will also reintroduce an amendment regarding qualification requirements for maintenance staff that was erroneously omitted.
Thirdly, the instrument will rationalise and correct references and errors in the continuing airworthiness regulation arising from the Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the 2023 regulations and the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
Lastly, the instrument will amend articles 62 and 69 of the basic regulation. Under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, the CAA has always had the ability to delegate its functions or tasks to third parties, known as qualified entities. A similar power existed under a previous version of the basic regulation and was used when the CAA considered that the relevant skills sat outside the CAA—for example to delegate to the Office for Nuclear Regulation the authorisation of the carriage of dangerous goods such as radioactive materials—or when a third party was better placed to assess an issue than the CAA or able to better protect the public. For example, the meteorological obligations resting with the CAA are delegated to the UK Met Office.
However, following changes to the 2018 basic regulation, those delegation powers could no longer be used by the CAA for aviation safety tasks. The instrument will amend articles 62 and 69 of the basic regulation in a way that reactivates the CAA’s power to delegate aviation safety tasks. The CAA intends to use these powers to delegate to qualified third parties the training and examination of drone pilots, as well as the assessment of drones’ flightworthiness. This is similar to the CAA’s approach to pilot training for fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft. By delegating those powers, the CAA will be able to support the sector to develop and grow new technologies more quickly, supporting growth and innovation.
We must continue to ensure that aviation remains among the safest forms of travel, as the safety of aviation and the travelling public is a high priority for this Government. The draft regulations represent a further step in ensuring that that remains the case. I commend them to the Committee.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his constructive tone in engaging with me on the important issue of aviation safety. He asked how the CAA will put the powers to use. It intends to use them to delegate to qualified third parties the training and examination of drone pilots, as well as the assessments of drones’ flightworthiness. As the shadow Minister alluded to, that is incredibly important for growth opportunities and innovation in the UK aviation sector. It is important to have such a delegated power to accredited third parties with the expertise necessary to undertake the work.
The shadow Minister asked whether we are confident in the CAA’s ability to delegate these powers effectively. We are. The CAA has a strict accreditation regime when it delegates these powers. We will be working very closely with it as it implements the draft regulations.
Lastly, the shadow Minister asked me to comment on the powers gap that emerges from changes made as a result of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act. We will still have the power to make statutory instruments that relate to these measures, under both the affirmative and negative procedure, until the middle of next year, when that will change. We are exploring options to make regulations that are clearer and easier to follow; I can update the shadow Minister on that in due course. The CAA retains the right to use emergency regulation if it thinks that there is a pressing need to do so. I hope the shadow Minister feels that I have answered his questions, but if he requires any further information, I will be happy to respond in writing.
I thank Committee members for their consideration. The safety of aviation and travel in public remains an absolute priority for this Government. The Department for Transport is committed to ensuring that aviation remains safe. The draft regulations represent a further step in doing so.
Question put and agreed to.
Civil Aviation Authority Annual Progress Report
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
This Government are committed to accelerating the airspace modernisation programme, as a key enabler to unlocking economic growth through expanding the aviation sector.
The impacts of our outdated airspace are felt by both the sector and passengers, and it is vital that we deliver modernisation of UK airspace to reduce flight times, improve reliability of services, and deliver on our climate and environmental obligations. Modernisation does not stop at conventional passenger aircraft but will also enable the integration of emerging aviation technologies, future-proofing our skies for the next generation of aircraft and making meaningful contributions towards our net zero targets.
Since the start of this Government, we have seen considerable progress on a number of elements within the airspace modernisation strategy. Some of our most significant developments include:
The announcement of the formation of the UK airspace design service, which will deliver holistic and modernised airspace design for the complex London terminal airspace by taking forward airports’ airspace change proposals in a co-ordinated manner.
The successful conclusion of the consultation on the scope and funding model for the UKADS. This will help deliver a step change in how airspace change is delivered, and work is under way to establish the UKADS so it can be operational this year.
The intent to create a new UK airspace design support fund to cover relevant costs of the sponsors of eligible UK airport ACPs that are outside the scope of UKADS.
Progress being made by the 20 airports advancing their ACPs as part of the terminal airspace redesign element, with almost all of the London airports now progressing on to stage 3 of the process, including Heathrow and Gatwick.
The deployment of Pairwise at Heathrow, which has enabled an innovative new way to safely reduce the separation of aircraft upon landing, improving efficiency and reducing delays at Britain’s busiest airport.
Work progressing well on enabling the full integration of UK airspace, including supporting the safe integration of new airspace users, like drones. Following the completion of extensive research projects and stakeholder engagement, the development of an electronic conspicuity concept of operations, outlining the requirements to enable integration, is complete and under review.
The publication of part 3 of the strategy, consisting of the deployment plan, in July 2024, outlining the delivery milestones for the projects in progress or due to commence over the next 7 years.
The airspace modernisation annual progress report, produced by the Civil Aviation Authority, is a requirement by the Secretary of State for Transport and provides details of the progress made within the programme, as well as the policy development work carried out by the CAA against each of the AMS’s elements. This report covers the period from January to December 2024.
It provides a clear overview of the progress that has been delivered across the nine delivery elements and the multiple projects within each one. It also illustrates areas of delay or concern, and what mitigations and measures are in place to reduce them. The full report is available on the CAA website.
This annual progress report, as with previous ones, will be filed in the Library of each House as a record of the work conducted by the CAA during the period of 1 January to 31 December 2024.
[HCWS920]
UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions
Keir Mather Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
In March 2025, the Department for Transport published the maritime decarbonisation strategy, which set out the pathway for our domestic maritime sector to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and included policies and regulations to drive emissions reductions. Research and development is needed to ensure that clean maritime technologies are available at scale as early as possible at an affordable price for the sector to adopt. Supporting UK R&D builds on UK expertise and innovation—a guiding principle of the MDS.
Since 2022, the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions—UK SHORE—programme in the DfT has allocated £240 million R&D funding to develop clean maritime technologies. UK SHORE has funded more than 200 projects leveraging over £110 million direct private investment. This funding has benefited all UK nations and regions, supporting over 500 organisations including over 250 SMEs. UK SHORE has enabled the sector to develop electric and efficiency solutions for various vessel types, like ferries, cargo vessels and offshore wind vessels, and progressed zero and near zero greenhouse gas emission solutions, such as hydrogen, ammonia and methanol. Further R&D is required to develop solutions to maturity and increase commercial viability.
That is why I am pleased to announce that we intend to fund £448 million of R&D investment for UK SHORE between 2026 and 2030. Building on the successes to date, the second phase of UK SHORE will further accelerate the technologies necessary to decarbonise the UK maritime sector and meet MDS aims through R&D, and capture economic growth opportunities by cementing the UK as a place for maritime innovation. Subject to business case approval, this will unlock innovation and investment potential in UK technologies, in UK businesses, at UK ports and in UK shipyards.
Today, I am providing our proposed outline of the future UK SHORE programme to allow industry to plan the next five years of clean maritime innovation. In collaboration with Innovate UK as a delivery partner, UK SHORE will:
Accelerate the commercialisation of developed technologies, including through a future round of the zero emission vessels and infrastructure competition—ZEVI2—to be launched in 2026. This will fund the build and commercial trial of clean maritime solutions.
Develop emerging technologies through to being ready for market, including through a seventh round of the clean maritime demonstration competition—CMDC7—to be launched in 2026, focusing on real-world demonstration projects concluding in 2030. This will be followed by two more rounds to be launched between 2027 and 2029.
Support early scientific research of novel technologies through the ongoing work of the Clean Maritime Research Hub until at least 2028 in collaboration with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Enable development of whole system solutions and penetration of international markets through international R&D. This includes participation in the global Eureka research programme to conduct pre-deployment trials.
We will also focus efforts on tackling the barriers to the scale up of the technologies and companies supported through this funding, working with Innovate UK, across Government, the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank.
Through supporting UK businesses to accelerate technologies through to market-readiness, UK SHORE will advance competitive advantage in clean maritime solutions while complementing wider UK strengths in R&D like automotive, battery systems and hydrogen propulsion. The work to scale up UK technologies and penetrate international markets will strengthen the UK supply chain, increase exports and bolster international leadership. Finally, UK SHORE will aim to continue investment in each devolved Administration and all regions of the UK, supporting growth in coastal communities and manufacturing heartlands.
[HCWS921]