Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) for promoting this short but important Bill. I wanted to get further into Newcastle United’s Inter-Cities Fairs cup win in 1969, but I do not think today is the day.
I thank all who have contributed to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for his chairmanship of the APPG for space. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and for Crawley (Peter Lamb). I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), for his support as well. He mentioned puns—I attempted a pun in the House the other day, and Mr Speaker reminded me to stick to the day job. I will not try to emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South.
This industry is so important, and it will be going forward. It has already been said that it contributes £19 billion to the UK economy, and it is already employing 52,000 people right across our land. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the Government’s full support. We have economic growth at the heart of our agenda, and we are taking steps to support major infrastructure and to reduce bureaucratic red tape in regulatory frameworks to better support innovation and growth in the UK.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Minister talks about economic growth. I recently met a Mongolian lady working at the Satellite Applications Catapult, which exists to grow the UK space sector. We have heard about Buzz Aldrin and Buzz Lightyear—I am afraid I have a pun coming. With that in mind, will the Minister set out in further detail, perhaps at the Dispatch Box now, how he foresees the Bill giving the space sector the rocket boosters it needs to go to infinity and beyond?
Mike Kane
Today is 4 July and there will be fireworks across the pond, but we want rocket boosters under our space industry. Most of Europe is landlocked—or I should say space-locked—which provides the UK with a unique opportunity to be a launchpad for satellites produced all around Europe. That is the market that we are going for.
The industry has made it clear that holding unlimited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK spaceflight industry. If the Government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors might move to jurisdictions that have more favourable liability regimes where operator liability is limited, or that provide guarantees to meet all claims or those above the operator’s limit of liability, such as the US or France. For those reasons, we are pleased to support the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With the leave of the House, I call John Grady to wind up.
Gravesham: River Crossings
Mike Kane Excerpts(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) for securing this important Adjournment debate on the impacts of river crossings on her Gravesham constituency. She said that the charter for the river and her town was from 1401—I think it was Henry IV, having taken over from Richard II. The whole Shakespeare play was about rebellion, and I feel rebellion on the Back Benches at the moment because of how important this subject is to both my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham and for Thurrock (Jen Craft).
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham has been a true champion in this field. She has made a number of representations to me, as she has mentioned, and to other ministerial colleagues calling for the reinstatement of the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry services, which ended in March 2024 due to a lack of funding. I appreciate the efforts and passion that my hon. Friend and her sister across the river, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock —fearsome sisters, I would say—have displayed in supporting these services, which can provide a quick link between Kent and Essex across the Thames estuary, in particular providing an alternative when there are problems on the Dartford crossing, as has been pointed out. I recognise that the ferry provided a useful link across the estuary and was very popular with regular users. It was particularly useful to those travelling to their respective workplaces, and provided an alternative to car journeys via Dartford.
As my hon. Friend well knows, there are a number of key industries and employment sites in north Kent and south Essex that play an important role in both regional and national economies. We know that the Thames gateway is going to be a massive driver for economic growth in the UK, with both the Amazon plant and CLdN there. We have other ambitions for the estuary in terms of becoming a clean energy superpower and driving growth in the maritime sector.
I thank my hon. Friends for their work with the maritime sector as it affects their constituencies. I am sure that they will acknowledge that ferry services run on a private sector basis to meet commercial demand. Any decisions to provide funding for local ferry services is ultimately a matter for local partners. Where local ferry services form part of local transport options, it is for the local transport authorities to consider such decisions in line with devolution. It is for local authorities to decide their transport priorities and where to allocate budgets.
There have been successful examples of ferry services receiving local funding, including Mersey Ferries in Liverpool and Woolwich Ferry in London, which are both funded and operated by the local transport authority. To support local transport authorities, the Government have been clear on their transport priorities, with capital funding to support local bus services, improvements to active travel and the maintenance of local roads.
Jen Craft
On that specific point, my hon. Friend and I have asked in the past whether it would be possible to use some of the bus funding, which has received an uplift, to fund the Tilbury ferry. The answer has been that it would not be possible, because it is not a bus—it is fairly obvious that it is not a bus. Will the Minister perhaps consider reclassifying the Tilbury ferry as a river bus?
Mike Kane
No, we cannot use those moneys in that way, but that does not stop us talking in the future with Department officials and the private sector about the river to see what is the art of the possible. Let us hold that in abeyance, and I will say a little more about that at the end of my speech.
The Government are exploring all viable funding options for the lower Thames crossing. That includes private finance options, which would use public seed funding to unlock investment. A road users charge will help finance the lower Thames crossing and reduce the burden on the public purse for major infrastructure projects. The road user charging regime for the lower Thames crossing has not been set, so I urge my hon. Friends to make their representations to the Secretary of State, the Roads Minister and me on this matter as it pertains to their local constituencies.
Dr Sullivan
When we consider the private companies and contractors that may come forward, the ask here is whether we could extract a social value—a social good—from the funding for the Tilbury-Gravesend crossing.
Mike Kane
I recently met the chief executive of Thames Clippers, which I think owns the pier, and that model has been pursued in other parts of the country, so, again, it is worthy of exploration with me and my officials.
Across the financial period 2025-26, the Department has allocated Kent county council nearly £40 million to support its local highway network, over £23 million to support the improvement of bus services, and £5.7 million to support active travel improvements. That is a significant uplift under this Government. In the same financial period, the Department has allocated Thurrock council nearly £3 million to support its local highway network, £2 million to support the improvement of bus services and over £350,000 to support active travel improvements.
In addition, the Chancellor recently confirmed in the spending review that the £3 bus fare cap, which was expected to finish at the end of the year, will be extended until at least March 2027, benefiting both local authorities. However, there is limited revenue funding for the local authorities, and it will be for them to decide which services to prioritise. I urge all partners in the region and the Members of Parliament who have spoken eloquently here today to work together constructively to find appropriate local transport solutions, including river services. I have asked my officials at the Department for Transport to work closely with local partners to identify any funding opportunities that could become available to help support local plans.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that I hope one day she will be able to visit the Three Daws public house once again. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham for securing this Adjournment debate and for being a doughty champion on this matter in her constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
NATS Technical Failure of August 2023: CAA Report
Mike Kane Excerpts(4 days, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
The Civil Aviation Authority has today published a report on the progress made in relation to the 34 recommendations that were made in the independent review’s final report into the NATS technical IT failure of August 2023.
I would like to express my gratitude to the CAA, NATS, airlines and airports for the progress they have made in responding to the recommendations that were made by the independent panel. Today’s report confirms the positive approach that has been made in responding to the recommendations by all stakeholders.
NATS has delivered its recommendations, with many of these already having been confirmed as completed by the CAA. The CAA expects to have completed validation of all recommendations made to NATS during the summer. Airlines and airports have committed to reviewing their practices for communicating and assisting their passengers during periods of disruption. The CAA is reviewing these plans and will monitor compliance through an extended compliance programme, along with establishing an industry code of conduct. The CAA will continue to hold airlines and airports to account for how they meet their obligations to consumers.
The CAA is making good progress in responding to its recommendations. In particular, it has focused its efforts in response to the panel’s recommendations relating to the expansion of its work on improving industry compliance and the rights of aviation consumers. The CAA will commence a programme of work related to the next price control review period for NATS (NR28), which will directly address a number of the recommendations made by the panel.
My Department remains steadfast in our commitment to delivering on the recommendations that the panel has made for Government, and we will make the required legislative reforms on which this is dependent when parliamentary time allows, to ensure that air passengers have the highest level of protection possible.
The CAA will provide a further report on progress with the recommendations towards the end of the year. The expectation is that most of the recommendations made by the panel will have been validated and completed by the end of 2026.
[HCWS758]
Transport
Mike Kane Excerpts(5 days, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane
We have also announced £185 million through safer roads funds to invest in the 99 most risky A roads, and we have made clear commitments on rail cost base and subsidy.
[Official Report, 25 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1208.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane):
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
We are unlocking growth through the power of aviation by progressing airport planning decisions and driving airspace modernisation, including through the new UK airspace design service. We have also invited proposals for a third runway at Heathrow, which will have benefits across the UK and could result in billions of pounds invested in our economy. To help the sector grow in a sustainable way, we have introduced the sustainable aviation fuel mandate and a Bill for a SAF revenue certainty mechanism.
Alison Taylor
Has the Minister had discussions with the Scottish Government on how best to use the substantial increase in the Scottish budget to support the aviation sector? In particular, what do the Government plan to do to make up for the lack of investment in connectivity around Glasgow international airport in my constituency?
Mike Kane
My hon. Friend is a champion for Glasgow airport, and as she knows, Scotland needs investment in transport and infrastructure of the kind we are now seeing across England and Wales. The Scottish Government will receive the largest real-terms settlement since devolution began in 1998 as a result of this month’s spending review. I hope this budget increase will be put to good use.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It was good to see Doncaster regional airport recently attract £30 million from this Government. The public service obligation flight route between Newquay airport and Gatwick is a vital regional connection between Cornwall and the capital, but with the current service ending in July, it is now up for renewal. Will the Minister please meet me as a matter of urgency to ensure that this vital link remains in place?
Mike Kane
Public service obligations are vital for connecting the UK economy, and I think we currently have three. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the one affecting his constituency.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
Everyone should be able to travel with dignity and ease, which is why we launched the aviation accessibility task and finish group last year. I expect to be able to provide an update soon, when that group publishes its findings. As my hon. Friend has mentioned, the Civil Aviation Authority’s airport accessibility performance report 2024-25 demonstrates that improvements are still required in some areas.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Devon and Torbay combined county authority will receive just £40 million between 2026 and 2030 in local transport grant funding—less than half the amount awarded to York and North Yorkshire and a fraction of the billions given to the city regions, despite Devon having the longest road network in the country. A large local operator says that just £1 million a year would make a transformational change in Devon, where rural deprivation is well hidden. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issues facing the bus network in Devon and the Government investment that is needed?
Department for Transport
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you cannot speak from the Chair, may I say what a doughty champion you are for the reopening of Manston airport, in your constituency?
First, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing the debate and for the work they have done on the Transport Committee. I am grateful for all Members’ important, interested and varied contributions, and will try to address as many as humanly possible—there were an awful lot of questions in many of them. I know that Members are anxious for news on specific schemes in their local areas, but I will not be able to announce any new decisions today. We will make announcements in due course through the usual processes.
Let me address the comments made by the Transport Committee Chair about how spending is linked to the Department’s strategic objectives. Our spending is wholly orientated towards delivering this Government’s missions and our plan for change. At the heart of our approach is harnessing transport to drive growth, as better transport will connect people and opportunities and ensure that businesses can grow and thrive. That is why we are investing in vital public transport services, repairing our road networks, transforming our railways and providing unprecedented investment for local leaders to invest in their priorities. Five out of the first 10 Bills in this Session were on transport—we did not have five transport Bills in 14 years under the last Government. We are moving at pace.
In the financial year 2025-26 alone, we are delivering £1.6 billion for local road maintenance, £1.3 billion for local transport in our big city regions and over £1 billion for bus services. We are also providing more than £420 million for our smaller cities, towns and rural areas, as has been mentioned today. Our investments will help to drive growth in every part of the country and raise living standards for everyone.
We are supporting the transition to net zero and an economy powered by clean energy, with more than £200 million to accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle charge points this year. We are investing in active travel infrastructure to improve the health of the nation, with an additional £150 million of investment in cycling and walking infrastructure in this financial year alone. We are supporting bus services and capping fares to connect people to jobs and to boost opportunity. We are also supporting safer streets by making public transport safer—including, most importantly, for women and girls. Across our work, we are making sure that every penny of taxpayers’ money is put to good use, from greater efficiency within the Department to getting to grips with the spiralling costs of HS2 and bringing that project back on track.
Although this debate concerns the estimates for 2025-26, I note that only two weeks ago, the Chancellor set out how our ambitions for the transport sector will last the whole of this Parliament. With the settlement we have received for 2026 onwards, we will deliver increased local transport investment in England’s towns and cities, prioritising funding in the north and the midlands and giving local areas more control over how the money is spent. We will improve everyday journeys across this country and invest in the critical national infrastructure needed to connect our cities and our towns in the long term, enabling economic growth. This will ensure that transport plays its part in delivering the plan for change and a decade of national renewal.
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her speech. She asked me a number of questions about when we will publish the outcome delivery plan. This will be done by all Departments, co-ordinated through the Cabinet Office, later this year. She asked about subsidiarity, and what happens if mayors do not use the money and new powers we have given them on the things that we want to do, citing active travel as an example. Even with subsidiarity, mayors have to deliver against Government outcomes and objectives, and we hope to work with them in a spirit of co-operation to ensure that that is done right.
My hon. Friend asked what our bus reform and £1 billion investment was meant to achieve. We introduced the new £3 fare cap on single bus fares in England outside London, which has had the cap for a long time, ensuring that millions of people have access to affordable fares and better opportunities to both go to college and work and to see friends and family.
With UK SHORE, we have moved fast with the decarbonisation plan, and the research and development funding for this will continue. We have worked internationally with the International Maritime Organisation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across our planet. We have also announced £185 million through safer roads funds to invest in the 99 most risky A roads, and we have made clear commitments on rail cost base and subsidy.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the former Rail Minister, is a doughty champion for Aldridge station—well done to her for that. The money was reallocated by the current mayor to cover the costs of schemes implemented by the former mayor that did not have the funding. She also talked about buses; I have already mentioned the £1 billion that we have invested in better buses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who cannot be in his seat at the moment, is an astonishing champion for Bradford. May I pay tribute to him and to Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, the leader of Bradford city council, for their work in this area? The £2.1 billion train line and bus station investment is transformative. Some £35 million of Government money will see an additional five daily services to London, and we will be making announcements in the next few weeks regarding Northern Powerhouse Rail and how important it is to connect the cities of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester and Liverpool.
Wendy Morton
While the Minister is still talking about rail services, I just want to ask about Aldridge station to be absolutely clear about the situation. When the money for the station was allocated, it was ringfenced. It was his Government who decided to move the money from capital to revenue, so it is simply unfair to blame it all on Andy Street; it is not right.
Mike Kane
I thought the former mayor was quite a talented individual and he was succeeded by another talented individual, who has had to make tough choices around funds that were committed but never implemented under the previous Government. Promise after promise was made, but with no delivery whatsoever. None the less, the right hon. Member should carry on campaigning.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) rightly talked about buses. I have already mentioned the amount of funding that we are putting in there, and the £616 million for active travel, which has been mentioned by a number of Members, on top of the £300 million that was allocated last year. I had a great time last Easter cycling with my wife around the hon. Member’s constituency on Rebellion Way, which is a wonderful piece of Sustrans infrastructure.
Steff Aquarone
I thank the Minister for coming to North Norfolk; he is welcome at any time. Having experienced at first hand the reality of rurality in my constituency, does he agree that we need to look at alternative models for rural public transport?
Mike Kane
We are giving back control of buses to local authorities—as difficult as it is in some circumstances. It is a £1 billion commitment. People in rural economies need to get about just as much as people in cities and we are committed to making sure that that happens.
Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). I cannot wait to visit and to ride on the No. 65 bus. She is a doughty campaigner for her constituency. She also talked about two Labour Governments working hand in hand to bring rail investment to Magor and Undy station, and I am glad that she has had correspondence with the Roads Minister on the safety of the M48.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) rightly talked about HS2. He highlighted the need to connect our maritime industries on the south coast with the rail network, so that we can take maximum advantage of both maritime and rail to get that freight off our roads.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) summed it up when he spoke about the collapse of Galley Hill Road, which I thought was a metaphor for transport under the last Government. We have committed to the Lower Thames Crossing, with an initial investment of £590 million, and we will be making announcements on that in due course. We have also put in £54 million to fix potholes in Kent. The Government are showing that we are committing to the Lower Thames Crossing, with announcements to come, and are fixing the roads, and yet not one Reform Member came to this debate. Let us remind the people of Kent day in, day out about Reform’s lack of commitment to improving their lives compared with what we are doing.
I was with the predecessor of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) at the British Ports Association. Do they only elect Scottish Members to the Surrey Heath constituency? I noticed that even some of the mannerisms were the same. The hon. Member made some important points about evidence-based transport systems. I think we are demonstrating that we are not a cultural, woke Government but are looking policy data to drive our decisions about how we best connect this country up. He also talked about road safety. Our manifesto included a commitment to long-term connectivity for transport across the country. That will be coming, so I hope he gets involved in the debate when it comes forward.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage talked about HS2. We have accepted James Stewart’s recommendations about the cost overruns, although the hon. Member was right to highlight them. He also asked about how our railways and maritime industry can work together. Green shipping corridors will be key to the future of shipping, but the grid capacity in our coastal communities is not up to scratch. He knows that and we know that, and that is why we made manifesto commitments on our grid capacity. I note that we have already made announcements about greater European train connectivity, but I understand the point he makes about depot constraints; the Government are looking at that as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) is a real champion for Cornwall. I was glad that we could announce £4.1 million for Cornwall alone in 2025-26 in addition to the £201 million —which, as he mentions, is four times greater than the last settlement. We hope to see things improve in that wonderful part of the country.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) always astonishes me. He is like some latter-day Hilaire Belloc in his pinstriped suits and polka-dot tie. He was so positive about the Government that I thought he was going to cross the Floor for a second; we will give him time. He mentioned being disappointed about some areas, but we have done more to decarbonise transport this year, more for buses than any Government have done for a generation, and more for active travel in one year than any Government for a generation.
Mike Kane
Under this Government, Active Travel England gets settlements that go forward. I have to say that I thought the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip—the former Prime Minister—was actually very good in this space, but the announcements he made were then all pared back. Local authorities need to have long-term continuing investment to connect routes and get people walking, wheeling and cycling. My constituents die of type 2 diabetes, hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—all things that can be fixed by more of us walking, wheeling and cycling. Active travel is key to the Government’s health mission as well as to our transport mission.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for his contribution. He mentioned that the settlements for West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the west midlands were similar to those from 2023. Yes, they are, but this Government are delivering on these settlements. We had so many promises from the last Administration, but we are delivering.
We will take no lessons from the Opposition on the costs of Great British Rail, which I think the nation is proud of, given that we were left to clear up the debacle of the overrun costs of HS2—a project that was cut by the previous Prime Minister while he was at the Tory party conference in Manchester. It was the most astonishing decision, and the most astonishing place to announce it. As a proud trade union member, I am glad that the trade unions have come to the table this past year. After years of industrial strife, we are solving the disputes, particularly in the railway industry, and services are beginning to improve.
On long-term investment, I gently remind the shadow Minister that he voted for Prime Minister Liz Truss’s Budget, which left us with a £22 billion black hole. We have been tackling that as well as setting out our ambition for the future. We are fixing the foundations of our transport system to deliver the Government’s priorities. Our funding settlement for 2025-26 enables us to press ahead with reforming our bus and rail services, to get to grips with the maintenance backlog, to empower local leaders to deliver, and to build transformative new routes for the country. The settlement announced earlier this month will build on that; it will drive progress on the Government’s missions, and improve transport for people and businesses across the country.
I thank hon. Members for contributing to the debate. I am grateful for the important work of the Transport Committee, and look forward to continuing to work with it. I commend the estimates to the House.
Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill
Mike Kane ExcerptsWednesday 18th June 2025
(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill 2024-26 View all Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Grady
I do not want to cause some sort of inter-university fight first thing in the morning.
The purpose of the Bill is to help push forward vital investment in the UK’s space sector, which is vital for economic growth and also for the defence of the UK and Scotland. The UK, Scotland and Glasgow have great opportunities in the sector, which already employs more than 52,000 people with 126,000 jobs across the supply chain. It is worth over £18.9 billion to the economy. It is now possible to launch satellites from the UK, and Glasgow, my home city, builds more small satellites than anywhere outside California.
Clause 1 amends two sections of the Space Industry Act 2018 to provide legal certainty that all spaceflight operator licences must include a limit on the amount of an operator’s liability to the Government under section 36 of the Act. Section 36 provides for spaceflight operators to indemnify the Government in certain circumstances and the current risk for spaceflight operators is that claims from the Government exceed the carefully assessed insurance that is put in place by the spaceflight operators, following significant regulatory oversight by the Civil Aviation Authority. The current legislation does not require the Government and the CAA to cap operators’ liability; the Bill changes that, in essence by changing “may” to “must”.
Investors are unwilling to invest in companies that hold unlimited liability. It is not generally possible to insure against an unlimited liability in the space insurance market and there is very limited capacity in this specialist sector. The UK Government have a clear policy that licensees’ liability will be capped, but the issue for investors is that this is set out in a policy document and not in statute. This means that the Government and regulators could change the policy with comparative ease, which could mean that investors would find that they had exposure to unlimited liabilities. That deters future investment.
The issue is causing investors real concern and investors in the space industry have raised it with Government many times. It is a long-standing unresolved issue, on which I believe there is cross-party consensus. All our competitor nations limit liabilities or provide a state guarantee for launch activities of the type that take place from their territory. That puts the UK at serious risk of competitive disadvantage at a time when we are trying to grow the economy and focus on this important sector. The Bill, and these two simple clauses, confront the problem and make the UK, Scotland and, of course, Glasgow a much more attractive place to invest in space.
Clause 2 deals with the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill consistently, as one might expect, with the 2018 Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Christopher, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East for promoting this short but important Bill. He is without doubt a doughty champion for the space industry in his great city of Glasgow.
From the contributions we heard on Second Reading and this morning, we know how beneficial the Bill will be to many businesses in the UK’s thriving space sector, which contributes over £17.5 billion to the UK economy and directly employs more than 48,000 people. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the full support of the Government. The Government have economic growth at the heart of their agenda and this speaks directly to that. With 16% of UK GDP depending on satellite services, there is no doubt that the space sector is important to us as a nation, as my hon. Friend pointed out. The Bill, while advocating a minor change to legislation, will provide the sector with the legal certainty it is looking for to boost investor confidence and stimulate further growth in the UK economy.
The UK space sector is bolstered by being a member of the European Space Agency. Britian does better because of that key partnership. In the last quarter of 2024, UK businesses’ net revenues from the ESA were £80 million higher than our contribution. That is a record for any member state. As my hon. Friend pointed out, we now produce more satellites in this country, second only to California in the USA.
The Government recognise the question of liability insurance is of utmost concern. The industry has made clear it that holding unlimited liabilities will have an adverse effect on the UK spaceflight industry. If the Government did not limit a spaceflight operator’s liability, spaceflight companies and investors might move to other jurisdictions with more favourable liability regimes, where operator liability is limited and states provide guarantees to meet all claims or those above the operator’s limit of liability. That is why the Space Industry Act contains powers to limit a spaceflight operator’s liability when carrying out spaceflight activities from the United Kingdom. It is Government policy that the regulator should use those powers and specify a limit on operator liability in the licence.
The Bill is therefore fully consistent with Government policy. Furthermore, it improves the Space Industry Act by meeting a key request from industry to provide legislative certainty that spaceflight operators will not face unlimited liability when operating from the UK. For those reasons, we are pleased to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Hydrogen-powered Aviation
Mike Kane Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. It was also a pleasure, as a young councillor, to serve under your leadership of Manchester city council in the early ’90s. As I said in a debate the other day, you were chairman of the airport that last built an international runway in the UK—the only one in 80 years. I learned a lot in that period, and I am always grateful to you.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) on securing an excellent first debate in Westminster Hall and thank other hon. Members for their contributions. Famously, my hon. Friend is a pharmacist by training and by trade; he actually lives in a village called Pill, which is probably the strongest case of nominative determinism I have come across in my political career. He is also a doughty champion for Bristol airport. He never fails to tackle me about the issue in the Lobby or the Chamber. The airport plays a crucial role in providing connectivity and enabling growth in the south-west, and I welcome the leading role that it has played in developing hydrogen, such as the recent Project Acorn trials, which demonstrated the safe use of zero emission ground handling equipment in an airside environment.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions on the SAF Bill last week. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), spoke well about his passion for this issue, and mentioned that hydrogen fuel produces only water vapour. It is good for the environment, jobs and airports. It can help general and commercial aviation.
Upon coming into government, I had to take some tough decisions. The Jet Zero Council, established under the last Government, was reasonably ineffective. It hardly met and it was unwieldy; people said that it had become a talking shop with limited outcomes. I made big decisions to refocus it, narrow it down and ensure that it had tangible outcomes.
For all the groundwork that the Opposition spokesperson said that the last Government laid, we have had to make tough decisions. We are the Government that introduced the mandate for SAF, which came into law on 1 January this year, and in the first Session of this Parliament we are making decisions about the revenue certainty mechanism. I am grateful to all hon. Members who are supporting that, but we should have been doing this years ago. We now have a Government who are committed to making progress, and we will continue doing so.
As the Secretary of State noted when introducing the Bill last week, the Government recognise the key role of the aviation sector in driving growth, and
“we will not accept false trade-offs that pit aviation’s growth against our commitments to net zero.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 1031.]
I want to see a future in which more passengers and goods fly while we transition to a greener aviation sector. In addition to introducing the SAF Bill, the Government have already established a SAF mandate, as I have said. The mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism will provide much-needed support to SAF producers, stimulating investment in domestic production, which we all want to see, by reducing financial risk and uncertainty for those producers and supporting the UK to become a world leader in sustainable fuel production. As I said in last week’s debate, the world is looking to us and asking us about our revenue certainty mechanism, because we are leading the world in that field.
As we all know, we are also acting to modernise our airspace. Earlier this month, we released a response to the consultation on a new UK airspace design service—UKADS—and support fund. UKADS will make flightpaths more direct and efficient, reducing unnecessary emissions and supporting flights with fewer delays.
Let us get to the subject in hand. I recognise the clear potential of hydrogen as a zero emission aviation fuel and what it could contribute towards greener aviation. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said in his customarily excellent speech, it produces zero CO2. He is right that it is costly, but we know that the costs will become competitive as we scale up. He speaks well of Spirit in his constituency and the workers who work there in this field. I pay tribute to him and them for what they do in Northern Ireland.
Given our world-leading aerospace sector, we should seek to capture in the UK the jobs and growth benefits emerging from these technologies. The Government have already acted to support the use of low-carbon hydrogen in aviation through the SAF mandate, with eligible hydrogen rewarded through the provision of tradeable SAF certificates. Innovation led by the sector is key, and I welcome the work by Airbus and GKN on hydrogen technology in the south-west and the support provided by academia, such as by Bath University. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young); the south-west is well placed in the R&D world for this technology. Given her work as a former leader of the council and her expertise in the tech sector, I welcome her valuable contribution to the debate.
We will continue to co-invest with industry on a range of R&D projects, which a number of Members raised, including the development of hydrogen aircraft technology through the Aerospace Technology Institute programme that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) mentioned. As announced in the spending review, we will invest more than £3 billion in the next four years in the advanced manufacturing sector on zero emission vehicles, batteries and aerospace technologies. I join him in congratulating Cranfield Aerospace Solutions, which I visited while in opposition, on its work.
The Government will further set out our approach to the advanced manufacturing sector in the modern industrial strategy later this month. That will benefit from the UK-US trade deal signed today, under which there will be zero tariffs on UK aerospace trade with the United States. I am aware that aircraft developers are moving at pace, with ZeroAvia announcing plans last month for a manufacturing base in Glasgow. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) for mentioning it and for being a doughty champion for East Midlands airport near his constituency. He is right to mention the geopolitical situation. There are many reasons why we should make these changes, but energy security is one of them, given that we are in an increasingly uncertain world. He brings his previous tech experience to the debate, and I congratulate him on his contribution.
The wider sector should prepare for the adoption of this new technology and, to support those whole-system changes, the Government, the aviation and aerospace sector, and academia must work together. The Jet Zero Taskforce that I have established is a key focus for that collaboration, and I am pleased to co-chair the expert group alongside the Minister for Industry. Importantly, one of the task and finish groups of the Jet Zero Taskforce is reviewing barriers to the commercial operation of hydrogen aircraft. The group will report on its findings in the autumn, and I look forward to considering them closely.
As the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate said, regulation is critical. Improving regulation in the UK, and ensuring that it enables growth and does not unduly hold back investment, is an essential part of the Government’s growth mission and of delivering on the plan for change. For that reason, in March the Chancellor announced that in the current financial year the Department for Transport will fund the Civil Aviation Authority’s hydrogen in aviation regulatory challenge. This work is helping the CAA to collaborate with innovative companies through regulatory sandboxes, in order to develop a proportionate regulatory framework for them.
Finally, I will touch on the production of low-carbon hydrogen, which is essential not only for aviation but for the wider economy. We have strong domestic expertise and favourable geology and infrastructure to develop a thriving low-carbon hydrogen sector in the UK. We are delivering real projects to kick-start the UK’s hydrogen economy, as demonstrated by the recently signed contracts for projects that were successful in the first hydrogen allocation round.
Later this year, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will publish a refreshed hydrogen strategy to ensure that hydrogen achieves its unique role in the Government’s clean energy superpower and growth missions. Just last week, the Government announced over £500 million to develop the UK’s first regional hydrogen transport and storage network, boosting industrial regions such as Merseyside, Teesside and the Humber.
The week of the international Paris air show is an important time to reflect on the progress that we are making towards a greener aviation sector. I therefore reiterate my ambition on this important matter, as well as my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset for securing today’s debate and to other hon. Members for contributing to it.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
Mike Kane ExcerptsWednesday 11th June 2025
(3 weeks, 3 days 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I thank nearly all Members—no, all Members—for their consideration of the draft Bill and for their valuable contributions to this debate. I am grateful to the Opposition for their questions and scrutiny, and we will make sure as a House that we get this right for our nation.
I fully concur with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), that the Liberal Democrats have not been boring today, and I am grateful for their support in this matter. Having worked with the Liberal Democrats in the past, I know that they are always with you in the room until the fight breaks out, so let us see how we get on over the next period.
Max Wilkinson
Will the Minister congratulate innovators such as my constituent James Hygate, who was recently awarded an OBE for his work on green fuels? Over genteel tea and cake—as the House can imagine, this happens all the time in Cheltenham—he told me of his plans to turn human faeces into SAF. He is an innovator at the leading edge, and he says that the Minister might be able to work with his friends in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to solve some of the problems that we have with sewage in our rivers, by taking it out at source. Is the Minister considering that as part of this legislation?
Mike Kane
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and join him in thanking James Hygate OBE for his work in this area. On the serious point about waste, I sit on the small ministerial group for the circular economy. It is a big part of what this Government are trying to do, and we will see how that work progresses.
The UK stands at the forefront of global efforts to decarbonise aviation. When this Government came into power, we acted immediately by laying the statutory instrument for the SAF mandate, which has been in place since 1 January. We have established the UK airspace design service, a programme of work that will modernise the airspace above us by decarbonising and supporting cleaner flights with fewer delays. We are now the first legislature on the planet to introduce a revenue certainty mechanism, and the world is looking to us. I hope that this House can get behind us.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We cannot help but be excited about the Bill because of its potential to deliver. The Minister is a good friend of us in Northern Ireland, and a good friend of all of us in this Chamber and across this great nation. There are innovative people in Northern Ireland who have the technology, and they wish to play their part. Is it the Minister’s intention to ensure that everyone across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has the opportunity to feed into SAF and to gain the benefit from it?
Mike Kane
I am always delighted to answer questions from the hon. Gentleman, who represents a place that I love dearly. I have responsibility for maritime travel, and we see Artemis Technologies decarbonising our maritime sector. We have refineries in Belfast. I spoke to a major chief executive whose family emigrated to Canada from Belfast and who is very fond of the city. We expect him to talk to his companies about applying for the contracts when we eventually let them do so, and that will be key.
I have a lot of questions to get through. The £1.50 that the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) mentioned could be £1.50 more or £1.50 less, but I am happy to hand over £1.50 to him now, if he wishes. That is not going to have an impact on people’s ability to fly to destinations, as he rightly said. I think people flying for their annual holiday is key to the British way of life, and I do not want to damage that whatsoever. That analysis comes from Department for Transport business team itself.
Many of the questions were about going faster. I must gently point out that we were promised four plants by 2025 by the last Government, but I am not going to get into that. We could not go any faster—this is still the first Session—and we had to introduce the mandate and we are now introducing part 2, which is the RCM. So I would say we are going at as fast a pace as humanly possible.
We are neutral on when the contracts are bid for, so I say to those worried about waste or HEFA streams that these contracts change over time, and we will see what bids come in. The hon. Member for Orpington also mentioned large plants, and he will have seen Members—mainly those Government Members behind me—from our industrial north, south Wales and other places queuing up to get advanced, high-manufacturing facilities with well-paid, trade-unionised jobs. As we advance this, we are working with the industry on the strike price.
The Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), said this is not a silver bullet, and it is not, but it is part of the package—airspace modernisation, sustainable aviation fuels, carbon pricing, carbon capture technology and zero emission flight—that this Government are pursuing to decarbonise aviation in our country, and we are investing £1 billion in the Aerospace Technology Institute to do that.
My hon. Friend also mentioned Heathrow, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has shown great leadership in this space—along with other Members, officials and the industry—has pointed out that the expansion of Heathrow is accounted for in the sixth carbon budget. I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for his thanks to me for getting on with what is part of a package of decarbonisation, as he rightly pointed out.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) is a doughty champion for Bristol airport—he mentions it every time I meet him in the Tea Room—and a champion for hydrogen. I look forward to visiting his airport and to replying to his Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) takes any opportunity he has to plug the Universal theme park. He spoke about his support for Luton airport, and how it will be a gateway for regeneration in his area. On how the approach differs from those of other markets, we are the first ones to do it. If we get this done in the next few weeks, we will be the only legislature on the planet to have done so, and the world is looking to us to move this forward.
Coming to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), there was a bit of an arms race between Members, if they do not mind my saying so, about who loves their airport the most—Teesside, Norwich, East Midlands and on it went. I think we should have an independent competition for who loves their airport—
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Stoke-on-Trent does not have an airport, but we do use Manchester airport quite a lot, so while the Minister is sitting next to the Transport Secretary on the Front Bench, could he put in a word for a direct train link from Stoke to Manchester airport, so we can all enjoy his airport as much as he does?
Mike Kane
Personally, I disagree with my hon. Friend, because I think Stoke has a great airport—it is in my constituency, and it is called Manchester airport.
I can assure the House that I am not going to take any lessons on date nights from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor). [Laughter.] But it is great to hear his expertise in this area. We do value that expertise in the House and I hope he makes the Public Bill Committee. He mentions ZeroAvia, which I worked with in opposition and in government, and how well it is doing with zero emission flights. He may have to run that equation past me again—I did not pick it up the first time.
What a doughty champion for Doncaster Sheffield airport my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) is. It was great to hear the Chancellor mention it in her statement today.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), the transport spokesman for the SNP, welcomes the Bill. It is really good to see how the military and our armed services are getting in on the decarbonisation agenda. The RAF Lossiemouth, in his patch, is showing good practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) talked with passion about Grangemouth near his constituency. In direct answer to his question, we have no plans to review the HEFA cap. This is about security in a fragile geopolitical situation and also about competitiveness. I remind him and my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) that the Government are considering EY’s report and recommendations regarding the refinery. The national wealth fund stands ready, and we encourage investors to come forward and secure the long-term future at Grangemouth.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) is right. This industry produces well-paid, unionised jobs often in industrial areas that have been deindustrialised. I thank her for her work chairing the APPG for the wood panel industry, and I am happy to accept her offer to speak to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) is another doughty campaigner for Norwich airport and its sustainable aviation hub. She is pushing that so hard. I was glad to meet her recently and I hope to visit Norwich in the near future. She talked about the jobs and apprenticeships that go with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth —I will refine my remarks on Jim Ratcliffe; as a Manchester City fan, I had better be careful that I do not say anything out of turn—is right to talk about deindustrialisation. I saw that in east Manchester growing up in the ’70s, with the chemical and the mining industries. We are only now getting over that in parts of our great city. I just remind him that if we do this right, we are looking at 15,000 jobs and £5 billion to the economy by 2050.
I once tried a joke in the House and Mr Speaker said, “Don’t give up the day job.” I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) of that advice. At every opportunity, he raises the work he does with Stansted airport. He ended his speech really strongly, saying that the country should be ambitious in this field. I completely concur.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) talked about her love affair with East Midlands airport and how important it is to freight. I have had roundtables with the freight industry on how we grow our freight industry in the UK. If I can get to her airport’s 60th birthday celebrations, I will.
I wondered where my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) was going with that police story. And then we got into a very geeky arms race with the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). He is right to say that aviation, while a small emitter now, becomes a much larger emitter, or the largest, by 2040. That is why it is imperative that we do this now—another call to arms to go faster.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) said he was a supporter of the airport near his constituency. Alfana, Arcadia, Iogen and a plethora of companies could bid for contracts in the region and support a manufacturing renaissance. Just to remind him about carbon capture, which he mentioned, the Prime Minister recently announced £22 billion of Government money to research carbon capture and technology at Stanlow.
In the arms race for who loves their airport most, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) talked about hydrogen, wind, solar and clean energy.
Reform Members are not present, which is key because—[Interruption.] Oh, they are here now. Reform promises that it is going to re-industrialise these areas, but without a financial plan that adds up. This Government are actually getting on with it, and we will continue to get on with it.
This Government have demonstrated that we are committed to supporting our world-class aviation sector through what we have done in the first short few months of this Government. We have the third biggest aviation market on the planet, which is world class and competitive, and we want it to remain that way. We want more people to be able to fly, and we want them to do it sustainably, and that is why the transition to SAF is not a mere aspiration, but an imperative. I recognise that there will be challenges, but SAF will have our unwavering support, which is why we are backing it in the Bill, and I am grateful for the support around this Chamber today.
The revenue certainty mechanism will help new SAF plants to get off the ground, supporting good, green jobs in places like Teesside. Our SAF policies are helping to create the right environment for companies like Exolum, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), which pipes the sustainable fuel to Heathrow, Gatwick and, of course, the UK’s fastest-growing airport, Manchester.
The Bill is delivering on our growth and clean energy missions and on our manifesto commitment to secure the aviation industry’s long-term future through promoting SAF. I urge this House to give the Bill its full support, and I stand ready to work with Members across this House on that. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill:
Committal
The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 22 July.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Heidi Alexander.)
Question agreed to.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Heidi Alexander.)
Question agreed to.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(a) provisions by virtue of which persons may be required to make payments, or to provide financial collateral, to a designated counterparty, and
(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Heidi Alexander.)
Question agreed to.
National Policy Statement for Ports: Proposed Revision
Mike Kane Excerpts(1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
Today, I am laying before Parliament the draft amended national policy statement for ports.
The extant NPSP was designated in 2012. It sets out the need for development of ports in England, and at reserved trust ports in Wales, currently Milford Haven. The NPSP provides guidance for applicants in preparing, and for the Secretary of State in determining, applications for development consent orders for seaport applications.
The previous Government announced a review of the current NPSP in a written ministerial statement in March 2023. In light of our missions and priorities, this Government continued that review and have decided to amend the document.
Today, I have launched a public consultation on a draft revised NPSP, along with an appraisal of sustainability and a habitats regulations assessment. These are subject to a public consultation period of eight weeks and to parliamentary scrutiny in parallel. My Department is also publishing port freight demand forecasts for the United Kingdom as a whole, to which the draft NPSP refers. The documents are available on gov.uk.
I will place copies of the public consultation document, the appraisal of sustainability, and the habitats regulation assessment in the Library of the House. The public consultation will close on 29 July 2025. The relevant period for parliamentary scrutiny will be from 4 June to 14 November 2025.
The review of the NPSP is proceeding in parallel with our wider programme of planning reforms, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently before this House, designed to expedite and facilitate decision making, and stimulate growth and green energy transformation.
[HCWS681]