HS2 Mitigation Projects: Inflation

Mike Kane Excerpts

Friday 14th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) on securing this debate, on standing up so resolutely for civil society institutions in his constituency and on speaking so eloquently about them.

High inflation, the pandemic, protester action, planning appeals, judicial reviews and lower productivity than expected have had a significant impact on the cost of phase 1 of HS2. The Government have been clear that we are committed to getting a grip on the spiralling costs. As part of that work, the Secretary of State for Transport has published the first HS2 report to Parliament under the new Government, setting out some of the immediate actions and interventions that we will take to regain control of HS2’s costs and bring the project back on track. For instance, Ministers have tasked the new chief executive officer of HS2 Ltd, Mark Wild, with producing an action plan to reset the programme and deliver the remaining work as cost-effectively as possible. We have also reinstated ministerial oversight of the project through a ministerial taskforce to ensure transparency and accountability. My Department will update Parliament as the important work of resetting the programme and reinstating oversight progresses.

[Joy Morrissey]

May I say, on behalf of two of the Buckinghamshire MPs, that we stand in solidarity in support for scrapping HS2 altogether? It is never too late for a real cost-saving Minister to scrap the whole thing.

[Mike Kane]

Well, it was the former Prime Minister who came to Manchester during the party conference to scrap HS2 from going from Manchester. I have never known quite such a political insult. It was supposed to balance up our country, yet we will have reduced capacity and there is an impact on Northern Powerhouse Rail. The handling of the project over a number of years has had effects both on the constituencies it is going through, as the hon. Member has so passionately extolled, and on those that are not getting it.

Let me get back to the point that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is here to talk about. Following discussions with St Mary’s in 2016, during the passage of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017, the church was given an assurance and commitment that the project would support it in improving its noise insulation. The assurance provided very clearly for a contribution up to a maximum of £250,000, with no provision for inflation. There are many other HS2 assurances on the public register, including commitments to fund particular works or activities. Some of those explicitly provide for index-linking; others do not. The one given to St Mary’s does not. It is worth noting that the House of Lords Committee set up to hear from petitioners against the Bill considered the case of St Mary’s, and took the unusual step in 2016 of reporting that the £250,000 offer was generous. Furthermore, I am pleased to report that, since the assurances were given, HS2 has made other improvements to its plans for noise mitigation in the locality of the church. That will reduce the amount of noise reaching the church in the first place.

Taking all that into account, it is not considered appropriate to increase the amount of public funding offered to the church or to increase any other financial mitigations that were fixed, not indexed, at the time they were agreed. There is no evidence that the sums are no longer sufficient. We have inherited a difficult situation on HS2, as the hon. Member said, and our priority now is to get a grip of the cost to the Government.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but does he accept, as a point of principle, that that was not an arbitrary amount of money offered to the church as a top-up for church funds, but was very specifically for noise mitigation purposes? If in 2025 the money promised in 2016 simply cannot deliver that, it is not fair on the church or the many other projects in a similar position. I know that it is not a problem of his making, but it is a problem that the Department for Transport, as the sponsoring body, now finds itself with.

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member is right. HS2 has clearly already put in some noise mitigation, but I hope he will hear me out for a second.

I understand that agreement has not yet been reached on the mitigation works to be undertaken at the church. As a result, according to the terms of the assurance, the funds cannot yet be released. I encourage the hon. Member, and particularly the parties of HS2 and the church, to focus their efforts on agreeing the works that can be carried out and a timeline for them to begin, so that the available funding can be released and stretch as far as humanly possible. I encourage the parties to get together and begin that negotiation.

I am a social member of Wythenshawe cricket club—although my playing days are long behind me—so I know the value that cricket clubs, and other sports and social clubs, provide not just in sporting terms but in the social glue of cohesion and solidarity. The hon. Member spoke eloquently about Wendover in his constituency. The deal that was asked for had an uplift to cover inflation. I understand that the request is currently with HS2, which is looking into the circumstances of the club and will respond in due course. I hope that he will get an answer very shortly; if he does not, he should please contact me. I will then let the Rail Minister know and we will follow it up. HS2 will have heard his impassioned plea that this historic and successful club does not miss out.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) raised road conditions. I am aware that HS2 Ltd has been working closely with Buckinghamshire council over the past few years to improve the way that such road repairs are managed. It has already allocated considerable resources to dealing with that problem. Road repairs are measured against the baseline road condition levels agreed at the start of the project. Either payments are made to councils at current prices or the repairs are undertaken by HS2 Ltd contractors, so they are not affected by inflation. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has been far more successful with East West Rail on the road repairs in his constituency.

I again congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Let me reiterate that transport is an essential part of the Government’s mission to rebuild Britain. We will continue to work with hon. Members and local leaders on ensuring that we get the delivery of infrastructure projects right. As I said, I welcome this debate, as it is vital that we continue to discuss our transport projects openly and transparently.

Question put and agreed to.

North Sea Vessel Collision

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the collision that occurred between two vessels off the east coast of Yorkshire yesterday. I want to begin by offering my sincere thanks to all those who are responding on the frontline, from His Majesty’s Coastguard to local emergency services. This is a challenging situation, and I know that I speak for everyone in this House when I say that the responders’ ongoing efforts are both brave and hugely appreciated. I also want to thank our international partners for their many offers of assistance to the UK and for the support from the maritime community.

This is a fast-moving situation, so let me set out the facts as I currently have them. At 9.47 am on Monday 10 March, the vessel MV Solong, sailing under the flag of Madeira, collided in the North sea with the anchored vessel MV Stena Immaculate, a fuel tanker sailing under the flag of the United States and operated by the US navy. The collision occurred approximately 13 nautical miles off the coast. Fire immediately broke out on both vessels and, after initial firefighting attempts were overwhelmed by the size and nature of the fire, both crews abandoned ship. Firefighting and search and rescue operations, co-ordinated by His Majesty’s Coastguard, continued throughout the day yesterday, pausing in the evening once darkness fell. Firefighting activity restarted this morning and I am pleased to say the fire on the Stena Immaculate appears to be extinguished, but the Solong continues to burn.

Although they became attached to each other during the collision, the Solong broke free of the Stena Immaculate late last night and began drifting southwards. Modelling suggests that, should the Solong remain afloat, it will remain clear of land for the next few hours. The assessment of HM Coastguard is, however, that it is unlikely the vessel will remain afloat. Tugboats are in the vicinity to ensure that the Solong remains away from the coast and to respond as the situation develops. I want to be clear that, while 1,000-metre temporary exclusion zones have been established around both vessels, maritime traffic through the Humber estuary is continuing.

The full crew of 23 on the MV Stena Immaculate are accounted for and on shore. One sailor was treated at the scene, but declined any further medical assistance. Thirteen of the 14 sailors of the MV Solong are accounted for. Search and rescue operations for the missing sailor continued throughout yesterday, but were called off yesterday evening at the point at which the chances of their survival had unfortunately significantly diminished. Our working assumption is, very sadly, that the sailor is deceased. The coastguard has informed the company, and it has been advised to inform the next of kin. Our thoughts are with the sailor’s loved ones at this time.

Regarding the cargo on the vessels, the MV Stena was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel, which was the source of the fire. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is working at pace to determine exactly what cargo the Solong is carrying. I am aware of media reporting about potential hazardous materials on board, but we are unable to confirm that at this time. However, counter-pollution measures and assets are already in place, and both vessels are being closely monitored for structural integrity.

A tactical co-ordination group has been established through the Humber and Lincolnshire local resilience forum. The marine accident investigation branch has deployed to the site and begun its investigation. The MCA is rapidly developing a plan to salvage the vessels, once it is safe to do so. The Department for Transport will continue working closely with the Cabinet Office, other Government agencies and the resilience forum on the response.

Colleagues across the House will appreciate that the situation is still unfolding as I speak. I will try to answer questions from hon. Members with as much detail as possible and with the latest information I have at my disposal. I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

Yesterday morning, shortly before 10 am, the container ship MV Solong collided with the oil tanker MV Stena Immaculate, which was at anchor in the North sea off the coast of Yorkshire. The Stena Immaculate was on a short-term charter to the US navy’s military sealift command and was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel. The Minister has not formally confirmed the cargo of the Solong, a Madeira-flagged vessel, but it has been widely reported that it was carrying 15 containers of toxic sodium cyanide. I listened to the statement carefully, but can the Minister confirm that that is now not his understanding?

The collision and the resulting spill are deeply concerning. However, before questioning the Minister on the Government’s response, I join him in paying tribute to HM Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the emergency services, and all others who helped to respond to the incident. As the Minister noted, the emergency services were on the scene swiftly and their actions saved many lives. Approaching fiercely burning vessels with a risk of explosion takes enormous bravery and we all commend them.

I am grateful for the confirmation that all mariners from the Stena Immaculate have been recovered without injury, and that 13 of the 14 crew members from the Solong have been brought safely ashore. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and colleagues of the missing member of that crew. I understand that the search for life has concluded, but can the Minister update the House on the efforts being made to recover that mariner?

Turning to the collision itself, the Minister confirmed that early investigations do not point to foul play, but will he commit to remaining vigilant to ensure that any indications of foul play are carefully investigated? Additionally, will he inform the House of the impact on the investigative process of the involvement of ships registered in both the US and Madeira? Have the Government contacted the respective Governments to ensure their close co-operation?

The Minister will be aware of the deep concern over the effect of the oil spill on the surrounding marine environment. Environmental organisations have warned of potentially devastating impacts of pollution from the tankers on the habitats and species in the area, including threatened seabird colonies, grey seals and fish, and nature-rich sites such as the Humber estuary, where conservationists have been restoring seagrass and oysters, could be devastated by this emergency. Has he been briefed by the Environment Agency on its response, and could he give us more details on it?

The Minister made reference to the drift of the Solong and the risk of it running aground without intervention. Can he update the House on the steps that will be taken to ensure that that does not happen? I understand that the marine accident investigation branch has begun a preliminary investigation into the emergency, and I am pleased that the Minister is working closely with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as it conducts an assessment on the counter-pollution response that may be required over the coming days. However, I seek assurances that the Government will engage closely with local communities, who will be concerned about the impact of the collision on their environment.

The incident involves multiple Departments spanning emergency response, environmental protection, maritime safety, defence and chemical transport regulation, and effective cross-Government co-ordination is therefore crucial. Will the Minister assure the House that such co-ordination is taking place and that Parliament will receive regular updates? It is, of course, too early to draw significant conclusions at this stage, but it is clear that something went terribly wrong in the handling of these two vessels. We will support the Minister in whatever action is needed to ensure the highest standards of safety on the high seas.

[Mike Kane]

The shadow Minister is exactly right: something did go terribly wrong. My thoughts and prayers are with the missing sailor’s family. The company has been informed, and his next of kin are being informed.

In response to the series of questions the shadow Minister asked, we know for sure that the Immaculate was carrying 220,000 barrels of Jet A-1 fuel, but we are yet to establish the cargo of the Solong; as soon as I know, I will make that information available to the House.

We will do everything to recover the body of the mariner. In a recent debate on emergency response services, we heard that though lives are lost at sea, some succour and comfort is given by the rescue services, who often bring people’s loved ones back to them for a proper funeral and burial.

Whether there was foul play is, I think, speculation; there is no evidence to suggest that at the moment. Through the MCA, we are in contact with our American and Portuguese counterparts and have liaised with them. On the counter-pollution measures that the shadow Minister mentioned, the MCA is standing by with marine and aerial counter-pollution measures, which it will use at the necessary time. However, the immediate concern is to put out the fire on the Solong.

The shadow Minister mentioned the issue of drift. The Immaculate remains anchored, so we are safe there; it is the Solong that is drifting at 2 nautical miles per hour. It is currently being shadowed by two tugboats, and the order will be given by SOSREP or the MCA to intervene as and when necessary to protect life onshore.

The shadow Minister is right about the marine accident investigation branch. We have deployed those assets to the scene. They are currently working with the local resilience forum, and I want to pass on my thanks to the Humberside resilience forum at this time. I can assure him that Government agencies are working together effectively and have been giving Ministers and the Secretary of State regular updates through situation reports as the night went on and the day continues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I endorse the Minister’s thanks to the frontline workers who have been involved, and his concern for and condolences to the missing mariner’s family. While we wait for the reports on how this appalling tragedy happened, which will have to be done, will the Minister confirm how routes are being managed while the Solong is drifting, and whether further protection of routes will be needed because of pollution in order not to delay further movement of shipping in these busy waters and to protect the welfare of seafarers in other ships?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for that question. It is an incredibly busy sea highway, as we all know. I had the great honour of visiting the command and control post of the Humber estuary on what was almost my last visit as shadow Maritime Minister just before the general election, and I pay tribute to the workers there for their hard work in dealing with this situation. I want to assure the Chair of the Transport Committee that the Immaculate was anchored; it is the Solong that is drifting. There is a 1,000-metre exclusion zone around both vessels. Other assets are currently allowed to traverse the Humber estuary. If that changes, I will make that information available during the day.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The scenes we have all witnessed in news reports are very concerning, and our thoughts are with all those affected and with the family of the crew member who remains unaccounted for.

This event reminds us of the risks and dangers faced by those who work in the maritime sector. These men and women often work long, challenging hours, keeping our country and economy going with little—if any—recognition, and we are hugely grateful to them. We are also indebted to the emergency services, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the coastguard for their tireless work through the night. I know they are doing all they can to limit the damage and the environmental impact, and have done so much to minimise the loss of life. While it will take time to establish what has taken place, it is clear that the Government need to take urgent steps to limit the damage and reassure local communities. I welcome the Government’s formation of the tactical co-ordination group and the work it is doing with other agencies.

I appreciate that the situation is still unfolding and that many questions cannot be answered at this stage. However, will the Minister say first what immediate steps the Government are taking to protect the environment along the east coast? Secondly, what is he doing to keep shipping routes open and safe? Thirdly, what is the Government’s plan to support fishing and other businesses that rely on waters that might now be contaminated?

[Mike Kane]

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to maritime workers. Just as they kept us fed, fuelled and supplied all the way through covid, they keep our nation fed, fuelled and supplied every day of every week. I cannot commend them highly enough.

I also join with him in paying tribute to the emergency services. This is difficult, hard work and they are doing an exceptional job in the circumstances. As I have said, the MCA is standing by with marine and aerial counter-pollution measures in place. Once we get the fire on the Solong out, we will begin to assess the situation and deploy them. It is vital that we keep shipping lanes in the Humber estuary open as best we can as this continues, which is why we have placed a 1,000-metre exclusion zone around both ships. Outside that, maritime vessels can operate normally—as normally as is possible in this circumstance.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his communication with me through this unfolding situation and everybody who has been involved in it. The situation is evolving minute by minute, and I pay tribute to the local RNLI, coastguard and emergency services for their rapid rescue response, and to the local community, who have been heavily involved in readying themselves for any potential ecological or environmental fallout from this incident.

As the Minister may be aware, Ernst Russ, which owns the Solong, has now put out a statement saying that it has been “misreported” that the hazardous chemical was on board the Solong, and that

“There are four empty containers that have previously contained the hazardous chemical,”

which it will continue to monitor. I wonder whether the Minister has had any success in tracking down the manifest for the Solong so that we can reassure my constituents and put their minds at ease as to exactly what was on that vessel. I would also like to know when the Minister is expecting the initial report from the marine accident investigation branch so that we can understand what on earth happened in this most extraordinary of events.

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend for keeping in contact with me throughout the night and this morning. Just before the election, we both visited the command and control centre in her constituency to see the excellent facilities in place. I pay tribute to the Humberside local resilience forum, which is made up of the police, the fire and rescue team, local authorities, the Red Cross, the NHS, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the clinical commissioning group, the Royal Navy, police and crime commissioners, the ambulance service, Border Force, environmental agencies, the Ministry of Defence, ABP Humber Ports, the Met Office and the UK Health Security Agency. Those teams are all working at pace to assess any risks to local people that may occur.

There have been many press reports on the manifest, but the facts are the facts. There were 220,000 barrels of A1 jet fuel on the Immaculate, and the MCA is working at pace to establish the cargo on the Solong, which sailed from Grangemouth. Hopefully, as soon as we have that information from the manifest, we will make it available to the House.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I join the Minister in saluting the heroic rescuers and mourning the loss of the seaman. Mr Speaker, you may share some of my frustration at the lack of communication with Members of this House regarding yesterday’s maritime disaster off the Holderness coast in my constituency. Apart from a brief phone call following my reaching out to the Secretary of State for Transport, I spoke to the leader of East Riding of Yorkshire council, the police and crime commissioner and local councillors. All were struggling to get information as to what was going on just miles off the coast. My constituents from Kilsney, Easington, Withernsea, Aldborough and beyond deserve better.

I must ask the Minister why it took so long for the local resilience forum to be set up. Is he confident that we have the proper structures of governance in place when a disaster such as this happens? How can we ensure that communications are improved? What work is being done to protect the puffins, wildlife and beaches in our area? And how can we ensure that the agencies responsible are held to account? Perhaps the Minister can comment on why he was missing in action yesterday. We would have loved to have heard not just from 24-hour rolling media but from a member of our own elected Government about what was happening with this terrible disaster.

[Mike Kane]

Mr Speaker, I was dealing with the situation—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] The Secretary of State made a statement. We stood up the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and, within minutes, a response was ongoing. The right hon. Member had a call from a member of staff of the Secretary of State within an hour or two of the incident. He was kept fully informed. The local Humberside resilience forum was established. We deployed assets for marine protection at the site. I am not sure what he is asking for, but I am very proud of our agencies—both local and national—that have worked at pace to get us to where we are currently.

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

I welcome the Minister’s timely statement and would like to associate myself with his praise for the swift response of the emergency services and the RNLI volunteers. Over recent years, fishermen along the east coast of Yorkshire, including Scarborough and Whitby, have battled to keep going against the background of the effects of the crustacean die-off. They are naturally extremely concerned by reports of jet fuel possibly leaking into the sea. I do appreciate that this is a fast-moving situation, but can my hon. Friend tell the House more about the counter-pollution measures that are in place and also how predicted weather conditions will affect the ongoing operation?

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Yes, I know that Members on the north-east coast from both sides of this House have been worried over a number of years about the crustacean die-off. There is a concern that jet oil could well be leaking into the sea, but every resource is being deployed by the MCA and other agencies to assess the extent of the pollution, and every resource will be deployed to clean up that pollution. I happen to be meeting fishermen organisations later in the week for separate reasons, so I hope to be able to update them with further information about their valuable trade at that time.

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

I have been in communication with Liberal Democrat councillors in the East Riding of Yorkshire and also the Liberal Democrat administration in Hull. Yesterday, the leader of the council, Mike Ross, raised the call for a rapid response from Government, and I really push the Minister to provide clarity on what exactly we should be seeing from a tactical co-ordination group and whether there is Government commitment to cover any environmental or economic impact. Moreover, what more support will we see down the line if there are long-term consequences as a result of the pollution?

[Mike Kane]

It is standard procedure to bring on board local resilience forums in any situation such as this. That has been done: the forum is up and running. I am grateful to all elected Members across the parties and hard-working councillors who will be involved in making sure that the best interests of the people of the Humber region are protected. We have currently deployed on site all the resources that are needed to contain the fire and to assess the environmental damage of any spillage. We will continue to make decisions in conjunction with the local resilience forum through the day and, I believe, for the rest of the week.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I wish to add my voice to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) given the very perilous position of the Teesside and North Yorkshire marine ecosystem following the environmental disaster we suffered in 2021. I ask the Minister to ensure that the response is not only around the Humber estuary, but that he reviews the environmental impact for the entire east coast as well.

[Mike Kane]

As I have said, the MCA’s counter-pollution assets are being deployed at the scene. The RNLI, search and rescue and aviation have all been on site, although search and rescue has been stood down. Both vessels were also carrying marine heavy fuel oil. That is a present pollution risk should either vessel sink or break apart.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement today and echo his comments about the missing sailor. I also add my thanks to all those who have been involved in the rescue operation, particularly those at the RNLI station in Bridlington. My constituents are rightly concerned about the potential environmental and ecological impact, not least because we have the biggest bird colony in mainland Britain, Bempton and Flamborough in Bridlington have the largest shellfish landing port in the UK, and we have around 5 million visitors to the area every year, enjoying the beaches from Bridlington down to Hornsea. Has the Minister yet had any assessment of the direction of any potential pollution and the role that currents and wind direction will play in where that pollution might eventually end up?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member is right to raise that. I had a conversation late last night on that subject with the Minister responsible for nature, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh). The Met Office has told us that theoretical models are used to plot potential movement of the smoke plume, which is similar to the way that it forecasts weather. Air quality monitoring can be done by onshore monitoring stations, such as the one at Immingham, which is closest to the site. The immediate concern is to stop the fire so that we can assess the pollution. As soon as the fire is out, inspectors can move nearer or move in to assess the extent of the spill—if there is a spill—and then we can begin to deploy the relevant resources to tackle that spill.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

My constituency is on the north-east coast, probably about 150 miles from this horrendous disaster. Can the Minister say whether there has been an initial assessment on how it happened and where the pollution might move to? Is there a potential threat to the coastline of the north-east of England?

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I have said, the Met Office is modelling the wind situation at the moment. We need to get the fire out on the Solong. Once that is done, we can make a further assessment of what is required and in which direction any pollution—if there is any—is moving, and we will deploy our assets to tackle that when we know that for sure.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is just over 32 years now since the MV Braer was grounded off Shetland, but for us the memories are still very fresh. We know exactly how those communities on the east coast of England who are braced for what may be coming will feel. We might not know what happened, but we can be pretty certain that at some time, somewhere, something of this sort was going to happen, such is the nature of shipping and how it is regulated and owned across the world.

In Shetland we have been warning for years of the dangers of tankers anchored right by our shoreline and of others entering areas that are marked on the chart as to be avoided, but it is next to impossible to get any agency to take ownership of that. I know that the Minister is concerned about this, so can we use this moment to take a serious look at how we protect our coastal and island communities?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his expertise in this area. He has raised with me the issue of tankers moored off Shetland and Orkney. I understand that the 1972 collision regulations state that there has to be proper sight and sound lookout and all other methods, so something has gone wrong. As difficult as it is to say, accidents always provide an opportunity to see how we can do things better. I hope that when the marine accident investigation branch comes back with both its initial and its substantive findings, which will come to my desk, we can learn the lessons of this accident.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I join others in praising the emergency services, and I also praise Martyn Boyers and his colleagues from Port of Grimsby East, who supported the emergency services. Obviously, the concern at the moment is extinguishing the fire, but there will be a potential longer-term impact on the local community, inasmuch as there will be pollution and the like on the beaches. Will the Minister and other Departments work closely with the council and other agencies to ensure that any support that is needed will be available?

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member has the Port of Immingham in his constituency, where the Immaculate was waiting to unload its cargo when a berth came available. I can assure him that the MCA is on stand-by. It has marine and aerial logistics in place to assess any potential pollution spill. If there is one, we will tackle it, but as I said, the priority is to extinguish the fire on the Solong .

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. We congratulate everyone involved. It is worth remembering the voluntary nature of so many of the emergency services and the RNLI. The volunteers from the RNLI Skegness rushed out of their homes and businesses to man the lifeboat, which was away for almost 11 hours, putting themselves in harm’s way with extraordinary bravery. We should never forget that.

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member should brace himself for what I am about to say: he acted with honour this weekend, relating to my circumstances, with his former party member, and I am grateful to him. He is exactly right. Our emergency services are second to none, as are our volunteers who help His Majesty’s Coastguard and the RNLI. These men and women risked their lives braving the seas, the winds, the temperature and the fog, to go and do what they could at the scene yesterday. I have nothing but the highest praise for them.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

My constituency has the Norfolk coast area of outstanding natural beauty and other vital habitats, including the Wash, as well as a fishing fleet. Given the location of the collision, there is local concern about the potential impact. When will a risk assessment be done on the potential risk of pollution down the east coast to Norfolk? What action is being taken to contain it? Will the Minister commit to keeping the public informed?

[Mike Kane]

MCA assets are being deployed currently to assess and monitor any potential environmental impacts of this accident. The hon. Gentleman is right that the area is richly biodiverse. The priority remains extinguishing the fire on the Solong, so that we can properly evaluate the situation. Once we get that done, we will use every resource possible to ascertain the extent of the pollution, and to clear it up.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Let me put on record my thanks and appreciation to the resilience team at North Norfolk district council and its staff, and the port of Wells for its response and preparedness. It is not instantly clear what areas will be affected, and with changing winds and weather conditions, pollution can change course. North Norfolk is 50 nautical miles away from the incident and is currently predicted to be unaffected, but we are keeping a close eye on what happens. Will the Minister confirm that he will keep all MPs along the North sea coastline updated on developments? Will he also confirm that if pollution is set to reach North Norfolk, my fishing communities will get as much notice as possible? They have well-rehearsed plans in place, but they need good notice in order to deploy them.

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member makes an important point about how interconnected our coastal communities are when it comes to this type of incident. Our officials are monitoring where the pollution is going; we are looking at wind direction. I am grateful for the fact that his local resilience team is stood up, and I am happy to keep all Members informed of the ongoing situation, when required.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Automatic identification systems and radar should mean that these sorts of things do not happen, even in dense fog, which is why many of us thought initially that this could well be a maritime 9/11-type event, or that a malign state actor could be involved. Fortunately, that appears not to be the case, but the event has exposed a vulnerability, and ships like the Stena Immaculate could be said to be sitting ducks. What audit will the Minister do of that vulnerability? Will he put in place what is practically necessary to prevent such occurrences?

[Mike Kane]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a very good question. In addition to having maritime responsibilities, I am the security Minister for the Department of Transport. We will learn any maritime security lessons from this incident, in terms of malign actors, and we will implement any recommendations.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Has the Minister been in contact with the Scottish Government, notably about the Solong’s port of origin? Clearly, it is in significant danger of sinking, and has containers on board. If any of those containers break loose and get washed up on shore, widespread and firm public information about the dangers of approaching any containers will be vital, given the hazardous substances in some of them.

[Mike Kane]

Responsibility for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is reserved to me, and it covers the United Kingdom. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s first question. On his second question, I do not want to speculate on the cargo of the Solong until I have the facts confirmed by officials, and I will then let the House know appropriately.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the clarity of his statement and his answers. Is it not extraordinary that there is such uncertainty about whether so deadly a cargo as sodium cyanide was being carried on one of the vessels? He said that tugs might have to intervene to prevent the vessel running aground on the shores of this country. Has he considered that if the fire is too dangerous for the tugs to approach, then in those extreme circumstances, the Royal Navy’s involvement might be necessary?

[Mike Kane]

We are a proud maritime nation, and we have the maritime skills to transport all sorts of hazardous substances, if need be, to our island nation. We have the skills, the people, the ports, and the shipping lines to do that. I ask the right hon. Member not to speculate on what was on the Solong, because that has not been established. There have been multiple press reports, and once I know for sure, I will inform the House appropriately. I remind the whole House that the United Kingdom is a world leader in maritime insurance. This is what we do. We trade, bringing goods and services across the world, and we insure those goods and services. We should all be proud of both our maritime sector and the insurance sector.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I too pay tribute to everyone involved in the emergency response. Does the Minister share my deep concern that more than 24 hours after this collision, we still do not know what the cargo was on the MV Solong? Surely the insurance industry ought to know that, at the very least.

On the pollution, I understand that this incident may have taken place in or close to two marine protected areas. Are those areas affected? What is the plan for cleaning them up? The Minister mentioned that pollution measures are in waiting, but have not been implemented, because the priority is reducing the fire, but I understand that the Stena Immaculate—the one with hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fuel oil—is no longer burning. What measures are being taken to tackle the pollution now? Speed is of the essence.

[Mike Kane]

I think the incident started at about 10 minutes to 10 yesterday, so we are only about 27 hours in. Within minutes, assets were stood up and the crews were brought safely home, except for one member of the Solong. We have assets in place to measure the pollution now, and those assets are being deployed where that is safe, but the priority remains getting the fire out on the Solong.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Several hon. Members have mentioned the effects on the marine environment, including endangered bird species such as puffins and kittiwakes, which are returning to colonies right now in places like the Isle of May in my constituency. What engagement is the Minister having with the charities and organisations who run those colonies? Secondly, following the question from the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) about the Scottish Government, if, as we fear, we see the worst- case scenario of pollution extending extensively, are there any plans for engagement between the Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency?

[Mike Kane]

The environment is absolutely at the front of our mind. Once we get the fire out, we will make those impact assessments and take the appropriate measures to clean up pollution, if there is any. The Department is working across Government and with the local resilience forums. In the days ahead, once we have the impact assessments, we will liaise with partner agencies on the best way forward on bird, marine and fish protection and the environment.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I join the Minister in paying tribute to all those emergency services that responded, but the unknown—the cargo of the Solong—is a major concern to many in the Chamber, and many who are working to deal with the incident. What engagement on this issue has the Minister had with the UN’s International Maritime Organisation, which has responsibility for the safety and security of shipping, and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by shipping? What steps will be taken to learn from it? Will we engage with the IMO to ensure that all cargo at sea is known by someone?

[Mike Kane]

We are in discussions with the owners of both vessels. We know that the Solong was sailing from Grangemouth, and that it had a mixed cargo of containers. That is the only information available to me, and that information is being analysed. We are trying to ascertain more. I do not have information for the House at the moment, but as soon as I do, we will make it known. As I said, the Stena Immaculate was carrying 220,000 barrels of A-1 jet fuel. We can begin to prepare contingency plans with the information that we already have about the vessel.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his full statement, and I associate myself with remarks made about the potential loss of life and the communities affected. I understand that the priority is dealing with the immediate incident, and that there will be a full investigation by the Maritime Accident Investigation Branch in due course. Given that the Royal Navy has deployed vessels to the North sea to monitor hostile states’ activities on and under the sea, will the Minister assure us that the Government and their agencies will undertake an assessment, so that we can be clear that there has been no foreign interference in this terrible accident?

[Mike Kane]

The answer is yes. The Ministry of Defence contacted me last night to say that it was ready and willing to be deployed, if required. So far, that has not been required, because we feel that there was no malign intent in this incident. However, as the hon. Member said, the Marine Accident Investigation Branch will investigate and give me its initial findings as soon as humanly possible. I will read its final report—it is my duty to do so as maritime Minister—and we will take the matter from there. The hon. Member was right to raise that point.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank all those who have responded; we owe them a debt. I also thank the Minister for his endeavours. I spoke to him yesterday about this. He has been assiduous and focused, and we in the House should put on record our thanks to him for all that he has done. Will he outline the steps that will be taken to investigate whether failings in visual observation, radar or the automated identification system led to this unexpected collision? How can we ensure that the long-term environmental effects of this devastating collision are dealt with in a co-ordinated manner?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Member. May I update the House? No sign of pollution from the vessels is observed at this time. Monitoring is in place, and should the situation change, the assets in place will be used as needed. That is the latest information relayed to me. The hon. Gentleman’s question is a matter for the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. We have extraordinarily dedicated officials on site; they were deployed yesterday. They will survey the two vessels and report back to me with initial findings when they can. There will be a final report for sign-off on my desk at some stage. I am grateful for his support.

Doncaster Sheffield Airport

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

Shakespeare said:

“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.”

I think it is all three in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). As a Lancastrian, I am feeling rather intimidated by the line-up of Members on the Benches behind me, but thank God I have the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on my side, even though he is sitting on the Opposition Benches.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme on securing this important debate about the economic contribution of Doncaster Sheffield airport. I also congratulate him on being appointed as Labour’s utilities business champion. My hon. Friend has a great CV, from working his way up in the water industry to delivering logistics and infrastructure, so he knows what he is talking about when it comes to aviation infrastructure. He may be Mr Doncaster, but our hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) is Mrs Doncaster. As the aviation Minister, I fear the Division Lobby some evenings, as I am rugby tackled day in, day out about getting Doncaster Sheffield airport reopened. My hon. Friends care about the future of the airport, their constituents and the wider South Yorkshire region.

I have listened very carefully to the considered comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, and by all the Members who contributed, and I will try to address most of them, but first I want to say a few words about Doncaster Sheffield airport. I know there was deep disappointment in South Yorkshire and beyond when the previous owners decided to close the airport at the end of 2022. That marked the end of a 17-year operation as a commercial airport, but before that it had a long and illustrious history as RAF Finningley. My hon. Friend mentioned Jean Lennox Bird, the first female RAF pilot in the UK. As we approach International Women’s Day, her contribution should not go unnoticed by the House.

The airport was well regarded by the people and airlines that used it, and it was frequently rated by Which? magazine as the best airport in the UK, with excellent customer service and passenger experience. Passenger numbers were continuing to grow prior to the pandemic, with more than 1.4 million passengers in 2019. From my many discussions with hon. Members from Doncaster and the Doncaster area—quite a few of them are sitting around me tonight—I know that its closure was deeply felt by the local community. I understand that the “Save Doncaster Sheffield airport” petition has had more than 100,000 signatures, which is impressive.

I am pleased to hear about the progress made in the airport’s reopening and the benefits that could bring, which I will come to shortly, but I want to set out the importance of aviation for the growth and prosperity of the nation. Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I grew up under an aviation runway in my home constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale East. Going to Manchester airport as a child and seeing the BAC One-Elevens, the Tridents and the Concordes, and even the space shuttle doing a low pass on the back of a jumbo jet in the mid-1980s, was inspirational for me, as it is for so many people as a career for the future.

As we keep saying, growth is this Government’s No. 1 priority. In her recent speech, the Chancellor was clear about the importance of the aviation sector in enabling that economic growth. Her speech invited proposals for a third runway at Heathrow and announced a new partnership between Prologis and East Midlands airport to build a new advanced manufacturing park, unlocking £1 billion in investment and jobs. That is a clear demonstration of how aviation can contribute significantly to the economy, through being a key enabler of international trade, investments and connectivity.

Aviation is also a major employer in its own right, as I see in my own constituency. In 2022, the air transport and aerospace sectors alone directly provided around 240,000 jobs across the UK, providing opportunities in every part of the country. Overall, in 2023 the air transport and aerospace sectors directly contributed over £20 billion to UK GDP. That is why aviation is a key component of the Government’s transport strategy, enabling economic growth and connectivity, and investing in sustainability by connecting people, places and business.

Regional airports such as Doncaster Sheffield airport have an important role to play. They serve our local communities—people are proud of them—and they serve business by supporting thousands of jobs in the regions and acting as a gateway to international opportunities, whether that is a family holiday or supporting major investment decisions. They also provide important connectivity, helping to connect communities across the UK and the wider world.

I have been interested in hearing about the South Yorkshire airport city vision, which has the reopened airport at its heart. It is proposed that a reopened Doncaster Sheffield airport could help to raise economic and social wellbeing in Doncaster, delivering employment and facilitating wider development, which could help to unlock growth for South Yorkshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme said, the council’s business case indicates that the airport’s reopening and wider development has the potential to support more than 5,000 direct jobs, boost the economy by £5 billion and provide wider welfare benefits of £2 billion by 2050.

I welcome the efforts of the council and the Mayors of Doncaster and of South Yorkshire to secure the future of the airport and the economic opportunities for the region. Significant progress has already been made, with the agreement of City of Doncaster council to lease the airport. The return of aviation activities in December last year was an important milestone, as was mentioned, as 2Excel landed the first aircraft there in three years. As the aviation Minister, I add my thanks and congratulations to it for sticking with the airport.

As my hon. Friend said, another important milestone was reached earlier this month, as Munich Airport International was appointed by City of Doncaster council to help to progress the airport’s reopening. There will be many more milestones and many more challenges, but, as the Chancellor set out in her recent speech, this Government will work with City of Doncaster council and the Mayor of South Yorkshire to support their efforts to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport as a thriving regional airport.

As well as the airport, this Government are committed to supporting all modes of travel in the region to support the local economy. Last November, South Yorkshire was allocated £17 million-worth of bus improvement plans and funding to support bus services. Just last week, the Mayor of South Yorkshire was informed that he would receive more than £5 million in the next financial year to invest in active travel, which is in addition to almost £9 million for South Yorkshire. In January, the Department announced funding for low-emission vehicles as part of the levy funding, as well as funding for zero-emission buses, proving the Government’s commitment to decarbonisation.

The South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority received £8.4 million of funding from the ZEBRA 1 programme for 27 electric buses and charging infrastructure. Furthermore, the Government are progressing planning and design work to support future delivery of our plans for northern rail connectivity, and we will set out details in due course. That will inform the work being undertaken, such as the development of Rotherham mainline station. I am also pleased to support South Yorkshire’s local transport priorities with an investment of £570 million through the city region sustainable transport settlements programme. That is a five-year deal with £5.7 billion of Government investment to improve the transport networks of eight city regions across the UK.

As part of our commitment to local transport, we announced in the autumn Budget that we will uplift funds and funding nationally in this area in 2025-26 by £200 million, helping to improve the local transport in our largest city regions and drive growth and productivity across the country. I mention that because transport is a rich tapestry, and having an airport as a hub is important. We know that the destinations that airports reach are dependent on public transport penetration time of within an hour, so improving public transport and active travel in this area will help Doncaster Sheffield airport to reach the markets it wants to reach in the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme also spoke about airspace at Doncaster Sheffield airport. Airspace modernisation is one of our manifesto commitments, and the Government are committed to its delivery. It remains a key aviation priority for the Department, which aims to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys to benefit those who use and are affected by UK airspace. We have seen great progress in airspace modernisation in the north, with airports now preparing for their public consultations. I know that officials and the Civil Aviation Authority will be working tirelessly to make sure that we reopen that airspace in the interests of Doncaster Sheffield airport.

Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which has been an opportunity for hon. Members to highlight the importance of Doncaster Sheffield airport to their constituents and regions. My officials and I look forward to continuing engagement with both South Yorkshire combined authority and City of Doncaster council to support their efforts to reopen this airport.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

14. What discussions she is having with airlines to encourage the operation of flights from airports outside London and the south-east.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

This Government are committed to growth, which regional airports support by serving their local communities, creating jobs, and acting as gateways to international opportunities. Heathrow expansion could give more regions access to a bigger international network through their local airports, thus boosting productivity further.

[Sarah Edwards]

In my constituency, the largest sectoral employer is logistics. Tamworth sits within the “golden triangle” for distribution, centred around the European rail link. Within this hub is East Midlands airport, which handles approximately 440,000 tonnes of freight each year, second only to Heathrow. What steps will the Minister take to fuel economic growth across the west midlands, reviewing capacity at our regional airports, including Birmingham?

[Mike Kane]

As my hon. Friend says, freight is hugely important for growth. That is why the Chancellor recently announced plans to build a new advanced manufacturing and logistics park at East Midlands airport, which will unlock up to £1 billion of investment and 2,000 jobs on the site.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

Heathrow airport is already the largest single-site payer of business rates in the country, paying approximately £124 million annually. To fund the Chancellor’s next spending spree, the Valuation Office Agency is currently revaluating airports in England and Wales, and any significant increase could impact Heathrow’s ability to fund airport expansion and a third runway. Is the Secretary of State aware of the latest estimate of how much Heathrow’s business rates will increase by?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

This was a policy cooked up by the Valuation Office Agency under His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs by the last Government. We have engaged with airports on this matter and asked them to continue to engage with the Valuation Office Agency.

[Gareth Bacon]

I notice that the Minister did not answer my question, so I will assist him. The estimate is that Heathrow’s rates bill will increase fivefold to £600 million annually, putting substantial additional pressure on Heathrow’s finances. In the light of that, will the Minister confirm the long-standing policy that the full cost of a third runway, including related works such as relocating, tunnelling or bridging over the M25, will be fully funded by the private sector and not by the taxpayer?

[Mike Kane]

The airports national policy statement from 2018, which was two Governments ago, made it clear that any proposal—we have not had a proposal come forward—should treat surface access appropriately, and that should be funded by the private sector where possible.

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

T3. Residents in Ashbourne have been left feeling hopeless and frustrated after waiting decades for a relief road. More than 700 heavy goods vehicles pass through the town each day, endangering local pedestrians, increasing pollution and causing significant congestion. Will the Minister meet me regarding the need to install a relief road for Ashbourne?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Department for Transport analysis carried out in 2017 showed that expanding Heathrow would displace 27,000 jobs from the UK regions to London by 2050, with 17 million fewer passengers using non-London airports. Does the Minister hope that the same analysis, if done now, would come to a different conclusion in order to ensure that UK economic growth really does benefit all UK regions and not just west London?

[Mike Kane]

The Government are committed to regional airports. I am proudly wearing my “Yes to R2” badge from when we built a second runway at Manchester airport in 2001. The position is quite the opposite of what my hon. Friend describes: under the 2018 airports national policy statement, the number of connections from Heathrow to regional airports was expected to increase if Heathrow expanded, increasing productivity in those regions.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Northern Trains runs one train per day on the Gainsborough-Brigg-Cleethorpes line. Does the Secretary of State agree that one train per day is pretty pointless? Will she arrange a meeting with the appropriate Minister for me and other affected MPs, so that we can discuss how to secure a better service?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware that large swathes of British Airways flights between London and Scotland are automatically cancelled when there are serious weather or technical issues at Heathrow. British Airways says that if the Secretary of State’s officials, the Civil Aviation Authority, Heathrow and airlines worked together, the number of cancellations could be minimised, even in those circumstances, so will she facilitate those discussions?

[Mike Kane]

The right hon. Member raises an important point. The resilience of the UK aviation sector is important, and key to its success, so we will facilitate any discussions to make sure we are always on an improvement trajectory.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Access for disabled people was a condition of opening up planning for the York Central development. However, I hear that the condition will be bypassed, and that planning will go ahead without disabled access being put in place. That clearly impedes disabled people. Can we ensure that difficult engineering work is undertaken before planning permission is granted?

Transport

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Written Corrections

[Mike Kane]

… I will turn back to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) on air ambulance provision by NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government. The sector has made an incredible contribution. I am led to understand that there are no current plans for officials to work with the Department of Health and Social Care or the NHS.

[Official Report, 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 76WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane):

[Mike Kane]

… I will turn back to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) on air ambulance provision by NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government. The sector has made an incredible contribution. My officials work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS.

Airport Expansion

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on Government policy on airport expansion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

I know that the hon. Member feels passionately about the issue of airport expansion, but I would like to make it clear that the press stories that have generated this urgent question are speculative and I cannot comment on their contents—[Interruption.] But we do have a world-class aviation sector in the UK. The Government are committed to securing the long-term future of the aviation sector, and we recognise the benefits of the connectivity it creates between the UK and the rest of the world. It is a sector that I am incredibly proud of. In 2022 the air transport and aerospace sectors directly provided around 240,000 jobs in the UK, of which just under 1,000 were in aerospace. In 2023 the air transport and aerospace sectors directly contributed around £25 billion to gross domestic product, of which around £14 billion was from the air transport sector and around £11 billion was from aerospace.

We have been clear that any airport expansion proposals would need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, are compatible with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments, and meet strict environmental standards on airport quality and noise pollution. There is currently no live development consent order application for a third runway at Heathrow airport, and it is for a scheme promoter to decide how it takes forward any development consent order application for that runway. The Government would carefully consider any development consent order application for the third runway at Heathrow, in line with relevant planning processes. The Secretary of State is currently considering advice on Luton airport and Gatwick airport expansions. As these are live applications, I cannot comment on them further today.

I understand the concerns of many Members of the House about how airport expansion may be compatible with our climate change targets. I would like to assure them that the Government have committed to delivering greener transport through sustainable aviation fuel and airspace modernisation. This will help meet the UK’s net zero targets, and it supports the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Airport expansion will need to be considered carefully alongside these commitments.

[Siân Berry]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his response. It is vital that Parliament is not sidelined when the Government form new policies, especially policies that could wreck our climate ambitions.

Does the Minister understand that expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be vastly irresponsible in the midst of approaching climate breakdown, and would literally be flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice? How can Ministers even be considering that, when 2024 was the year that we went over 1.5° warming—the limit that we committed to not breaking in the Paris climate agreement? How can Ministers see catastrophic wildfires in California, deadly floods in Spain last year, and devastating floods this year in the UK, and still pursue a wrong policy?

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero told the Environmental Audit Committee that

“any aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets”.

Can the Minister explain why we are hearing trailed announcements of multiple airport expansions, exactly in the month before new advice from the Climate Change Committee is delivered? The committee could not have been clearer in previous reports that without a framework to manage aviation demand, we should not expand airports. Has he seen research from the New Economics Foundation estimating that approving airport expansion plans for Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports alone will serve to cancel out the carbon savings of the Government’s clean power action plan?

The Government’s arguments that I have seen appear to rest on the idea that there are new technologies ready to go that will cut carbon emissions and allow large airport expansions. In reality, does the Minister accept that such innovations, many of which are still not ready for commercial use, cannot be relied upon? Will he act in line with the science and our climate commitments, do the responsible thing and rule out a reckless airport expansion policy?

[Mike Kane]

There is always a trade-off to be had, if applications come forward, between noise, carbon and growing our economy. We recognise that Heathrow has operated at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades, which has presented limited opportunities for growth in route networks and passenger numbers. We live in an interconnected world, where people want to visit their family members and do business across our planet. This Government have moved faster in the first six months than the previous Government did in 14 years, by introducing the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, so that 2% of all fuel sourced from 1 January this year must come from a renewable source. Where was the hon. Member when we introduced that in this House? It is one of the most forward-thinking, sustainable measures that we have brought to this place. In the next few months, as part of His Majesty’s legislative agenda, we will be introducing the revenue certainty mechanism to create a world-class SAF industry here in the UK. I hope to see the hon. Member supporting the Government from the opposition Benches as we clean up our transport sector, our aviation sector and our economy as a whole.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her question. The airports national planning framework under the last Government has not been updated for some time, and we will shortly bring forward proposals to do that as part of our package. While there is currently no development consent application for Heathrow, we have been clear that expansion proposals would need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, are compatible with our climate change targets, and meet strict environmental standards for air quality and noise pollution—the four tests.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

In recent days we have heard that the Chancellor is about to announce her support for airport expansion at Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow. His Majesty’s Opposition are supportive of airport expansion because we recognise the huge economic benefits that would bring. For Luton and Gatwick, as the Minister has said, planning processes are well under way, but the situation at Heathrow is rather different.

A completed third runway at Heathrow would undoubtedly bring economic benefits, which we would support, but delivering that will not be straightforward because there are major logistical barriers to its construction. Those include, but are not limited to: hundreds of thousands of additional people being brought on to Heathrow’s flightpath; the potential for significant disruption to the M25 and M4, which could harm the economy for years to come; the fact that a large incinerator is in the way and would have to be demolished; and the need to address local concerns about noise and air pollution. The uncertainties do not end there, because to date Heathrow has not applied for a development consent order, and neither has it confirmed that it intends to do so.

That all leaves the Minister with many questions to answer. What assessment has he made of the impact of building a third runway on the M25 and M4, which are two of the busiest motorways in Europe? How certain is he that any proposed plan will have the support of affected communities? What is the estimated cost, and who will pay not just for the runway construction, but for the massive additional work that will need to be done, including, among other things, rerouting motorways, demolishing the incinerator and rebuilding it elsewhere? Perhaps most importantly, what assurances can he provide that there will be an application for a development consent order?

I sincerely hope that the Minister can answer those questions, because if he cannot it will be clear that this is not a serious policy, but rather a panicked and rushed attempt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to distract attention from the state of the economy, which is currently withering under this floundering Labour Government.

[Mike Kane]

Well, the brass neck! The last Government crashed the economy, sending mortgages through the roof, and called an early election to avoid having to make difficult decisions. Transport policy should be enabling growth as a priority in this country, so that we can bring about the change that the British people voted for. For 14 years we had a Government who had become so sclerotic in aviation, and indeed maritime—that is also part of my brief—that no decisions were brought forward on decarbonising the maritime or aviation sectors, or making the difficult decisions that this country needs to make. As the hon. Member rightly says, there is currently no development consent order before us, and that is for Heathrow or a related party to bring forward.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

For me and for you, Mr Speaker, there is more than an element of déjà-vu in this debate. The Minister has said that what we have heard is speculative, but the Chancellor’s statements seem to be more authoritative than that. Has the Department provided the Chancellor with an assessment of where the 8,000 to 10,000 people in my constituency who will have their homes demolished or rendered unliveable will live if Heathrow expansion goes ahead? Has the Minister mapped for the Chancellor the flightpaths of the additional quarter of a million planes flying over the homes of people in those marginal seats of Uxbridge, Watford, Harrow and elsewhere? Has he advised the Chancellor on some of the figures that are being bandied about regarding the economic benefits, which seem to derive from Airports Commission figures that are out of date and that his own Department rubbished very thoroughly in recent years?

[Mike Kane]

My right hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for his constituents, but there is no DCO at the moment and we do not know the impact—that will be a matter for Heathrow or a third party to bring forward. I would like to hear a more full-throated support for our airspace modernisation plan, which will improve resilience, capacity and flexibility when it comes to aircraft noise over affected communities. When it comes to growth, my constituency, as you well know, Mr Speaker, has seen £2 billion of the Manchester MIX scheme at Manchester airport, with the development of the Hut Group and the most advanced Amazon fulfilment centre on the planet. We know that aviation brings growth and jobs. We know that there is a trade-off to be had, and we will have those conversations if a development consent order is brought before us.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

That last one floored me ever so slightly. “Delphic”, the hon. Member says—or ambiguous and obscure, which is slightly like Liberal Democrat policies on aviation. They are one foot in, one foot out, shake it all about. They say one thing to one community under a flightpath, and another thing about jobs to another community under a flightpath. Whatever I say will end up on the Focus leaflets, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot support growth, jobs, airspace modernisation and sustainable aviation fuels and then say to their constituents, “Look what this terrible Government are doing.” We have a firm plan for aviation in this country, and we are going to carry it out.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that plans for the third runway have gone cold over the past decade, since the airport commission? As he says, there is not even an application for a development consent order. Does he agree that there is no chance of spades in the ground this Parliament? If there were, that is when the problems would really start.

[Mike Kane]

For too long and on too many issues, this nation just has not made the tough decisions. When it comes to airport expansion, our world-class aviation sector, admired across the world, and decarbonising our sector, we are making huge progress—more in the past six months than in 14 years under the Tories. We will continue on our mission of renewing the national airport strategy, and will look at development consent orders as they become live. That is a quasi-judicial matter, and I cannot comment on Luton and Gatwick, as Members know. We will wait to see whether Heathrow or a related party brings forward a development consent order.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Manston airport in Kent in my constituency has been fallow and the subject of legal action for far too long, but that is happily now behind us. We hope and expect that within the next few weeks, there will be announcements on funding that will lead to the development of a state-of-the-art net zero airport in Kent. Manston does not appear to feature in the Government’s plans. Can the Minister assure me that his eye is on that ball, and that Manston will become part of the growth programme?

[Mike Kane]

I have spoken to the right hon. Member about Manston in opposition and in government. We wait to see what will be brought forward there, but it could be an exciting opportunity, particularly for cargo; we could have zero emission vessels shipping content into the port of London. We will wait and see whether the airport comes with a development consent order, and we will judge that on its merits.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I am old enough to have been there the last time this question was voted on. In the spirit of Gordon Brown and his tests over the euro, we applied tests of our own on capacity, carbon commitments, minimising noise and environmental impacts, and ensuring benefits for the whole UK. Can the Minister tell me whether those sensible tests still apply? Can he add another one, about costs to the public purse and deliverability, for my constituents, who will be the most affected? They want a better, not a bigger, Heathrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I re-emphasise that there is no development consent order for Heathrow at the moment. We know that for all airports, surface access is essential. The public transport penetration rate within an hour is key to the markets that airports can access from across the planet to support their growth. We have a world-class transport system in the south-east, but in any development consent order, Heathrow or its related parties will have to prove how we can get new people to that site.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

If, as we expect, the Chancellor announces her support tomorrow for a third runway at Heathrow, that will be a massive U-turn from the Prime Minister’s previous position, and it is patently clear that a third runway will fail all of Labour’s four tests—on growth across our regions, on climate, on air pollution, and on noise pollution. The economic and environmental cases are in tatters, and no airlines want to foot the bill for a third runway. Will the Minister concede that any such announcement would simply be virtue signalling by a Chancellor in search of growth where she will not achieve it, and would damage our environment and our communities at the same time?

[Mike Kane]

I support the Chancellor’s pursuit of growth. For too long, we have been stagnant, and we know that this area can provide growth. I have seen that in my constituency, as I have pointed out. Where was the hon. Member when we talked about sustainable aviation fuels? Where was she when we committed £63 million to the advanced fuels fund to help the SAF industry grow in this country? We have announced £1 billion for the Aerospace Technology Institute to look at zero emission flights. Would it not be great if, one day, a Minister could stand here and say that all internal flights will be zero-emission? I want to leave my successor, whoever they are, the opportunity to say that within the next decade.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall work at Heathrow or in its supply chain, and they will welcome the good-quality, well-paid jobs that airport expansion will bring. However, I have other constituents who worry about the environmental impact of any expansion. In taking any decision on this matter, will the Minister ensure that he balances the need for growth and for good-quality local jobs against the need to minimise air pollution and noise pollution?

[Mike Kane]

What a terrific question. [Interruption.] Well, it is. It hits the mark, in that there is a trade-off between noise, carbon and growing our economy for our people. Airports create high-paid, trade-unionised jobs, not just because of the aircraft that come in and out, but because of the ground handling services. We know that aviation communities are much better off because of the jobs that are created, and we have to balance the trade-off in the years ahead as we make tough decisions to grow our economy.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I remind the Minister that sustainable aviation fuel is not an answer to poor air quality, which is the main reason why attempted expansion at Heathrow has failed in the past. It is also the reason for the Chancellor’s trenchant opposition to the expansion of Leeds Bradford airport, which would affect her constituency. Having been around since the days of the terminal 5 planning inquiry, I find it clear that the business case for Heathrow expansion rests on significant costs being imposed on taxpayers. They would be expected to foot the bill for the impact on the M4 and the M25, and for the loss of a waste incinerator that provides energy for many local authorities. Can the Minister assure the House that any DCO for Heathrow that comes forward will be subject to no less rigour and no less consultation than those brought forward in the past?

[Mike Kane]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. SAF was stuck in the muck under the last Government; we waited years for announcements, and we have done more on that in six months than Tory Administrations did in 14 years. We are investing in cleaning up aviation fuel and funding technology on contrails, so that the air people breathe is always as clean as we can make it.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

In a spirit of cross-party collaboration, I praise the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for expertly outlining some of the logistical challenges of Heathrow expansion. It is a surprise and a shame that the Tories did not answer those questions before voting for expansion in 2018 when in government. Does the Minister agree that any future application for Heathrow expansion—we do not yet have one—must address and solve those key issues, look at those logistical challenges, and say how expansion is compatible with our climate commitments, and with local concerns about air quality, pollution, noise and congestion?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Our four tests remain, and they have to be passed. Again, we are speculating that a development consent order will come before us. I am sure that he, as a doughty campaigner for his constituents, will make his voice heard.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The economic benefits of the expansion of London airports remain unproven. On Heathrow, the Department for Transport’s updated appraisal report shows that the net present value of a third runway ranges from just £3.3 billion to minus £2.2 billion, while Heathrow’s finances are of severe concern, due to the significant debt that it has incurred. What new economic analysis have the Government considered that makes a third runway at Heathrow viable when considered alongside their commitments on climate, noise and air quality?

[Mike Kane]

I say again what I said earlier: capacity in London is at 76% on average, and at 95% at Gatwick and Heathrow. What is the Liberal Democrat answer to that? Do we not want people to fly across the world to bang the drum for British business? Do we not want them to visit their friends and family? Are the Liberal Democrats for constraining people’s flying? There are a lot of questions, but no answers from Liberal Democrat Members.

[Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)]

I voted against the framework for Heathrow airport in 2018 because I was not satisfied that the legislation before us would deal with air quality, noise, climate change and surface access issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow, we must satisfy ourselves in this House that those issues have been addressed, and that they cannot be set aside by developers once they have permission to go ahead?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those tests must be met, including through the development consent order. Just for the record, I voted for the framework in 2018, because I thought that it passed those tests.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Many of my constituents in Wetherby and Easingwold use Leeds Bradford airport, and the same will be true of the constituents of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). For years, I have wanted expansion of Heathrow so that morning flights from Yorkshire could come down to Heathrow airport, allowing transatlantic flights to be boarded in Yorkshire. May I urge the Minister, when considering the expansion of Heathrow, to always give firm attention to regional airports, especially Leeds Bradford airport in Yorkshire? It would allow the economy to grow significantly if people could check in at Leeds and get off in New York.

[Mike Kane]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Member, though it pains me to say it. We have five great northern runways stretching from John Lennon to Manchester, Leeds Bradford and Newcastle, and we should be focusing on regional connectivity in particular. On Leeds Bradford, my recollection is that because of the lack of decision making by the last Government, confidence was lost in its development. Let us see if we can get a framework for improving connectivity at Leeds Bradford, including for those in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood).

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I came to London yesterday by rail, as usual, and I must say that both Lumo and London North Eastern Railway are doing a fantastic job of getting people out of planes and on to trains between Edinburgh and London. [Interruption.] I always like to talk about trains. I am concerned that any increase in air capacity will take people off trains and help them make less sustainable transport choices. Will the Minister commit to speaking with the Rail Minister to understand any impacts of airport expansion on that service?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right: we have to join up the modes of transport. We have had a broken transport system as a result of 14 years of complete under-investment. Whether we are talking about rail connectivity to Glasgow, what will happen if a Heathrow development consent order comes forward, or just getting Northern trains working across the north of England, linking up Leeds Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle will be a key start to improving jobs and growth at those airports.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

In order to meet the problem of increasing demand for flights, what are the Government doing to improve rail connections with western Europe, including direct trains to Germany as well as Holland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I think that that involves fixing the problems with Eurostar. We are seeing others coming into that market, and European Union colleagues are running overnight long-distance train services, which are reducing the need for aviation across the continent and reducing carbon. We should be ambitious as a country that we can tap into that network. The right hon. Gentleman is right on this matter.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Newcastle International airport tells me that Heathrow expansion would mean increased access to global markets for north-east businesses, new destinations for north-east tourists and easier access to our brilliant north-east universities for students from around the world. More broadly, given that air travel’s 5% of emissions are dwarfed by road travel emissions, does the Minister agree that the important work that his Department is doing to promote electric vehicles and the work that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing on the decarbonisation of the electricity network is fundamental to demonstrating to my constituents that addressing climate change is not about saying no to travel and transport, but about saying yes to an economy that works for people and the planet?

[Mike Kane]

We have made tough decisions about the phasing out of internal combustion engines up to 2030. When I visited Newcastle airport, I saw a wonderful operation—it is also producing solar energy to power its operation. We need better connectivity between Newcastle and London, and I have raised that with carriers. If we are to develop our offshore wind, carbon capture and green energy technology, it must be linked up with the cruise industry, Newcastle airport and the great north-east coast that provides so many jobs, services and industries for people across our nation.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I have been enjoying the Minister’s lively presentation, but then I do not live under a potential new flightpath. Are the Government consulting their Back Benchers about the possibility of aviation and airport expansion versus net zero? If so, will they be advising them to clean up what they have said on this subject on the internet before it is hoovered up by the Opposition in preparation for the next general election?

[Mike Kane]

There has been a lot of AI news in the press today. I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that I grew up under a flightpath in my home town in Wythenshawe and Sale East. I grew up under the BAC-111s, the Tridents, the Concordes and the Guppys. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) agrees with me. I remember how dirty, noisy and smelly those planes were. Technology has come forward leaps and bounds, and the noise envelope around most of our airports has reduced considerably. Through our investments, we hope to improve the technology further under this Government and the next.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

This weekend, The Sunday Times featured a great cartoon by Morten Morland showing the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary tearing up a Whitehall office looking for the growth lever. I am a supporter of the Welsh freeports programme and airport expansion where there is environmental mitigation. Will the Minister please say more about the Government’s sustainable aviation plans and the use of low-carbon tech to help economic growth?

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for growth at our ports, which includes our maritime ports. There is £63 million for the advanced fuels fund and £1 billion for the Aerospace Technology Institute to look at net zero emissions. We have already introduced—it was almost the Government’s first act out of the gate; it came into force on 1 January—the SAF mandate, so this year 2% of all fuel will have to be from a sustainable source, and we will shortly legislate on the revenue certainty mechanism to kick-start the SAF industry in the UK. The Government could not have done more in the six months we have had in office.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

I note that the Minister did not mention noise pollution in his statement. As he grew up under a flightpath, I hope that he enjoyed the noise. Eight routes currently pass over my constituency, sometimes after midnight. My constituents struggle with the noise—one said that it was like having an uninvited dinner guest every night. It not only disturbs sleep but has profound health implications. With that in mind, is the Minister going to ignore the health impacts of a third runway?

[Mike Kane]

I cannot comment on the third runway because there is no development consent order before us, but the hon. Lady makes an extraordinarily valid point about noise. That is why the Liberal Democrats should get behind us and support airspace modernisation. We have an analogue system in a digital age, which was designed more for the days when Yuri Gagarin went into space than for today. We can give people under flightpaths more choice in future by differentiation, if we have a better system of airspace modernisation.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My local airport, Stansted, is a huge employer for residents in my constituency, and it is has led the way in developing sustainable aviation fuel. Does the Minister agree that sustainable aviation fuel is vital to achieving our decarbonisation targets?

[Mike Kane]

Sustainable aviation fuel is vital to meeting our climate targets. I commend Manchester Airports Group, which includes Stansted and East Midlands, and Manchester in my own constituency, on its work to decarbonise. It is ahead of the game. It flies one in six people in and out of the UK. When it gets it right, that represents a huge emissions reduction.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the many benefits of a third runway at Heathrow is that it would require the removal of one of the largest waste incinerators in the country? When this matter comes before him, will he ensure that there is no reprovisioning of this monster in a densely populated area, but that we see its deletion altogether so that we deal with waste in a truly sustainable way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

There is no DCO currently. If one comes forward, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will make his voice heard.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for repeating what we heard from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero at the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday: that no plans will be approved unless they are in line with the Government’s environmental commitments.

My hon. Friend cannot comment on Gatwick and Luton because they have a live DCO, and he cannot comment on Heathrow because it does not have a live DCO, which is handy. Let me ask him about something that he can comment on. What changes will we make to ensure that any airport expansion plans are in line with our environmental commitments? Can he explain more about what the offsets will be to ensure that the Government are able to meet the commitments that he has confirmed they will make?

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend for his chairmanship of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I was a proud member for many years, looking at the circular economy, which this Government are taking forward. The Government have committed to delivering greener transport, including through SAF, airspace modernisation and the other measures that I laid out. I am proud of that range of measures. The Front-Bench across this Department are decarbonising the transport sector further and faster in the first six months of this Government than in 14 years of the last.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The Minister has made a great deal of the position of my party on Heathrow airport. As he is such a fan of our Focus leaflets, I am sure he will know from my own that I have consistently raised airport noise, opposition to the expansion of Heathrow, sustainable aviation fuel and airspace management in this place. How will he make the airspace management plan fit with any forthcoming emissions and capacity management framework? We have yet to hear from the Government about that, but the Liberal Democrats consider it vital to the future sustainability of the air transport industry in this country.

[Mike Kane]

I am generally very grateful for the Liberal Democrats’ support for airspace modernisation. It is complicated and difficult. We are throwing our hat over the wall in trying to reach it. It will be easier in certain parts of our country than others, but we have already taken action. We set up the airspace modernisation design service. We are bringing the best and the brightest together. If we can make the planes fly in a straight line, we will use less carbon. It is the lowest of low-hanging fruit for carbon reduction in the aviation sector, and we are moving at pace on it.

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I welcome this Government’s commitment to the aviation sector. The closure of Doncaster airport on 30 December 2022, with the loss of 800 jobs and the smoothest access to flights in the country, was devastating. The reopening of the airport has been a long-fought campaign that has the backing of my constituents in Bassetlaw. Today, they will be saying: “Bring the flights and the infrastructure to our area.” Will the Minister put his shoulder to our campaign?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Without a doubt. People are proud of their airports. Mine was 80 years old a few years ago, and I saw people turn up in droves to show their pride in aviation in this country. I felt sorry for the people of Doncaster, Sheffield and the environs when they lost their airport. I commend the mayor, the council and the local MPs who have lobbied me relentlessly on this matter. The council now has a deal with the operator, and the first flight took off very recently. I wish them every luck with it, and they will have my full backing to do what needs to be done.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and others, I want to focus on the role of our regional airports. Surely the Minister would agree that the expansion of some of them could help the Government’s growth agenda and provide a boost to local economies. With improved rail connections, many of our regional airports could serve travellers to and from London. The work involved could be completed long before a DCO for Heathrow could be concluded.

[Mike Kane]

Airports near the hon. Member’s constituency will have a key part to play for workers across our nation with respect to the decarbonisation agenda and sustainable fuels, because Immingham sits within his constituency. That will be key to the UK’s plans to decarbonise our economy, along with good rail connectivity. Airports are a market within the private sector—planes want to go to particular places—but if we can expand and grow our economy across all our regions, as we hope to, I hope that this will be a golden age for all our airports.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was correct to say that this feels like déjà vu. Here we are again, debating huge transport infrastructure expansion in the south-east of England while constituents right across this country, especially in the north-east, think, “What about us?” Does the Minister agree that if expanding transport infrastructure in this country is the key to growth, that growth must happen everywhere?

[Mike Kane]

I agree. As I have said, airports that make the right decisions in the next few years on improving the airspace and improving their connectivity through surface access all have the potential to grow like my airport has grown exponentially. I urge Members to get behind their airports and support their growth and decarbonisation agendas.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Globally, half of aviation emissions are a result of flights taken by the wealthiest 1%. In the UK, 70% of flights are taken by the richest 15%. Is expanding aviation capacity not a matter of fairness? It will facilitate the very richest, who are already frequent flyers, to be able to fly more, while the noise, carbon emissions and air pollution impacts will be inflicted on the most ordinary people in society, including the poorest at home and around the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I think it was Woody Allen who said that 80% of success in life is turning up, and I must gently ask once again where the hon. Gentleman was when we were introducing the sustainable aviation mandate in this House. I hope he will be here when we introduce the revenue support mechanism in the months ahead and decarbonise our aviation sector.

I think people have the right to go on holiday at least once a year, to do business across the planet and to visit friends and family. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman’s policies are. If he wants to send them to me, I will put them on one of my Labour roses.

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), does the Minister agree that it is important to also support regional airports in the north, including Doncaster airport? The reopening of the airport is supported by all my neighbouring parliamentary colleagues. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), I am working with Doncaster council and the South Yorkshire combined authority to get this critical piece of transport infrastructure back. The growth agenda will be a success only if places like Doncaster feel it too. It is important that the people of Doncaster and South Yorkshire can take off once again.

[Mike Kane]

I have to say, my hon. Friend is so tenacious on this matter that I sometimes go pale when I meet her in the Division Lobby, because every day she asks after it. She is such a campaigner on it. I saw her go around party conference lobbying the industry and airlines to do what her constituents sent her to Parliament to do and to try to come up with a solution for her local airport. I can only commend her tenacity to the House.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Will the Minister confirm what compensating measures the Government will take, if airport expansion is to go ahead, to ensure adherence to carbon budgets? They must have already been agreed on by now.

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered approach in all these matters. I was pleased to receive him at the Department the other day to talk about a particular constituency issue that related to Gatwick. We do not have a development consent order, but noise and pollution are the tests to meet our climate commitments, and they will remain the tests. It will be up to the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and Members across this House to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on this matter.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The reopening of Blackpool airport for commercial flights is a top priority for my constituents, as I have raised previously with the Minister. Does he agree that we need to work with our regional airports to deliver the growth and the jobs we need in places such as Blackpool that were forgotten about by the previous Government over 14 years?

[Mike Kane]

What a breath of fresh air my hon. Friend was in his by-election, and he is now on these Benches, campaigning for his airport in Blackpool. I am really looking forward to visiting the airport and to my night out there—I hope that will come with fish and chips on the prom, as well.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The expansion of Heathrow feels a bit like the Schrödinger’s cat of expansion at the moment—it is both happening and not happening, depending on what one’s perspective is today. I realise that the Minister will not be tempted to comment on Gatwick either, as it is a live DCO process. Given that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), and the Minister have both asserted that growth is an inevitable consequence of airport expansion, can I ask the Minister what evidence he has to support that assertion?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I do not think I will take any lectures from Liberal Democrat Members about sitting on the fence. Theirs is the politics of licking their finger, putting it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, and then putting it in a leaflet. There is no development consent order for Heathrow yet. I am sure the hon. Lady will have her opportunity to raise her concerns at a later date in this place.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the Minister when he points out that any airport expansion has to be part of the overall picture of upgrading Britain’s broken transport networks. Bracknell sits on the Reading to Waterloo train line, which passes through Feltham, just south of Heathrow. Journey times on the line have not improved since the ’70s, and there is no direct connection to Heathrow. Will the Minister assure me that any plans to upgrade airports will be part of the overall picture of an integrated plan?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. I am not usually quite so divisive at the Dispatch Box, but we inherited such a broken system it is almost untrue, such are the things we are finding out about the sclerotic nature of the previous Government. The Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), is investing £1.6 million in fixing potholes, while the Minister responsible for buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has invested £1 billion in buses. We are moving fast. We are fixing things and we are delivering.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

As a fellow Greater Manchester MP, the Minister will undoubtedly know that Manchester airport welcomed 30 million passengers through its doors last year, and that 84% of those passengers came to and from the airport by car. He will rightly acknowledge the valid concerns across the House today about the impact of airport expansion on carbon emissions. The carbon footprint of Manchester airport comes only partly from air travel, as a lot of it comes from road travel. What update can the Minister give my constituents on surface access improvements at Manchester airport, so that they can get to and from the airport, whether as passengers or to work, by bus or by train?

[Mike Kane]

Well, the Conservatives built a road, but it just floods all the time—maybe we can start by dealing with that. The hon. Lady is right that Manchester airport is in my constituency. Mine is actually the most visited constituency in the north of England; in fact, 30 million people visited it last year alone, although they may not have stayed as long as I would have liked. The airport has been on an incredible journey, especially with its decarbonisation. I hope to meet the airport operators shortly to continue that journey with them.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is right that in this debate we all champion our local and regional airports, including Birmingham International. However, the reality is that no other airport is a serious rival to the long-haul hub capacity that Heathrow provides, and its exhaustion of that capacity is a block on growth in every region of the UK. Does the Minister agree that redirection of that pent-up demand to Schiphol and Dubai is no good for the national accounts and no good for the environment?

[Mike Kane]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a very good campaigner for his local airport and for the public service obligation flights out of that airport. Not making these tough decisions does not mean there is no carbon—it simply means that customers vote with their feet and go to Schiphol, Frankfurt or Charles de Gaulle to hub out to their destinations. We have to look at things in the round when we are talking about decarbonising the UK aviation sector.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Given the hugely contradictory evidence on whether expanding airport capacity will boost GDP growth, will the Minister explain how the Government can justify prioritising airport expansion over much-needed substantial investment in green travel and public transport, which would benefit the economy in the long term and benefit a far wider group of people in this country than the very small group of wealthy frequent flyers who will benefit from airport expansion?

[Mike Kane]

I am hearing that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches are against wealthy people and against our constituents flying, in some cases. There is no bigger champion of active travel in this House than me—except for my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell—and I hope to do a lot more on that when it comes to ports and airports. All people, regardless of their income, should have a choice about how they get around. We had a broken system over the past 14 years, which meant people had no choice. Now, they are getting better buses, their potholes are fixed, and we are investing more in active travel than ever before.

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) made an excellent point about hub airports. At the moment, there are 19 flights between my local airport in Newcastle and Heathrow, but 30 a week between Newcastle and Amsterdam. I dare say that some people from the north-east may wish to sample the unique delights of Amsterdam, some will certainly be using Amsterdam as a hub airport, instead of Heathrow. That is bad for our economy, bad for passengers, and, because it is further away than Heathrow, bad for the environment, too. Is it not right that we build hub capacity in this country because it is the best thing to do environmentally?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I also understand that you can have a good old party on the ferry from the port of Tyne to Amsterdam—I do not know whether my hon. Friend has taken it. He is exactly right. If we do not invest in a hub airport in the UK, people will go point to point outside the UK to transfer to the places they want to go to. That is worse for carbon emissions than us taking responsibility for the decisions we need to make to decarbonise our aviation sector.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the support the Minister has given to the Chancellor today. He has made it quite clear, if the speculation turns into reality, where he will stand on the issue. That is important, given the need for hub airports to export our goods, build business links and give people the personal freedom to travel across the world. But is he concerned, given the Energy Secretary’s obsession with net zero, the large number of Members who seem to be more concerned about long-term climate predictions, uncertain as they may be, than the immediate needs of growth and jobs in this economy, and the potential for lengthy court battles because of our statutory commitments to carbon dioxide reduction, that no investor will look at these projects but will instead continue to look at hub airports in the rest of Europe?

[Mike Kane]

I thank the right hon. Member, who I know is a campaigner on this. I keep a close eye on all matters of connectivity to Northern Ireland. Investor confidence in aviation is huge: investors are queuing up and looking for opportunities. We must ensure those opportunities come with jobs and growth, but also that they are clean and decarbonise our sector. I say stick with the plan. We will decarbonise the grid and our UK economy, but we can grow it at the same time—the two things are not contradictory.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that it would be irresponsible to kick the can down the runway on airport expansion and other major infrastructure when this country is desperate for growth? We need a Government willing to take the tough decisions to overcome the blockers and get things built in the national interest and in the interests of citizens all around our country.

[Mike Kane]

I cannot agree more. The Government’s defined mission will be growth. The aviation sector is one where we can grow the economy, because it provides the connectivity and the high-skilled, trade unionised jobs that support families and careers right across our country.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Before the Minister asks me where I was during the sustainable aviation fuels debate, I was here. Having 22% SAF by 2040 still means 78% fossil fuels in aircraft fuel—an awful lot. My constituents are impacted by Bristol airport expansion. I meet regularly with my local group Stop Bristol Airport Expansion group. They want to know what impact assessment has been made of the cumulative effect of the additional carbon emissions that will be created by all the proposed airport expansion plans taken together.

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Member. She is actually right, and well done to her for being there during the SAF debate and supporting the Government.

At the moment, the technology does not exist to fully decarbonise aviation. We are looking at hydrogen, we have the advanced fuels fund and we are investing £1 billion in the ATI, but, as the Prime Minister announced recently when he went to Merseyside, we are investing billions in carbon capture and other technology to offset those emissions. That is what we will have to do in the near future, but I envisage a day when we will have aircraft in our skies, particularly internally in the UK, with zero emissions coming out of their tailpipes.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to growth. I also welcome their commitment to taking the difficult decisions required to generate it. We know that any conversations about a third runway will focus on the south, but I would like to ask about the north. May I ask the Minister, in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, if the project is approved, what will be done to ensure that all regions benefit from the proceeds of the growth generated?

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and, even from this Lancastrian, for his chairmanship of the APPG for Yorkshire. I will say a couple of things. We have five great northern runways, and we need to begin to improve their capacity and connectivity. That is key to regional economic growth. Hopefully, whoever comes forward with the DCO for Heathrow will, as they have in the past, look at spreading the wealth and at logistic hubs right not just around our country, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

My local communities, including Flamstead, Markyate and Wheathampsted, are already plagued by Luton airport and very worried about expansion. If the Minister cannot answer questions about evidence for a positive impact on growth and the economy, can he at least guarantee that the Government will listen to their own climate experts and have a framework in place before any airport expansion?

[Mike Kane]

Yes, is the answer. We will come forward, very shortly, with a policy framework. We have not had one for many years. It is more than time to update it—the hon. Lady is right.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s answers—they have been both confident and progressive, which is encouraging for me as the MP for Strangford. My constituents have expressed some concern about the impact on the environment of the potential expansion, but it has been highlighted to me that building for planes to land, so they do not have to circle, is highly beneficial for the environment. Will the Minister confirm that our environmental obligations have been fully considered in any decisions that are made for the potential expansion of Heathrow? Will there be—I know the Minister will say yes, but I want him to say it on the record—more domestic connections with Belfast International and Belfast City airports?

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member is such a doughty campaigner that I think he had an urgent question in the House a few weeks ago when his plane was cancelled! “Well done,” is all I can say. That day we had a really good question and answer session on connectivity in Northern Ireland. We have two great airports in Belfast, and Derry/Londonderry’s airport serves the north-west. His first question is about planes flying in a straight line—an obscure piece of policy, which is in our manifesto, called airspace modernisation. We can cut up to 10%, 20% and, I am told in the case of some easyJet flights, even 30% of carbon emissions by just getting planes to go in a reasonably straight line and not circle around. It introduces resilience at airports and makes the passenger experience much better. I hope those on the Opposition Benches will support the policy when it comes to this place.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his very full answers to questions, which mean I am now on the seventh or eighth version of my question. [Laughter.] There are two points I would like to explore. First, on emissions, SAF will only ever be a transitionary fuel. What effort are the Government making to engage with industry to develop truly zero-carbon power plants, and harness our incredible industry and our companies that can take advantage of the opportunity to lead the real zero-carbon hydrogen electric power plants? Secondly, on noise, the Minister mentions airspace modernisation, which will mean some residents facing greater noise frequency and impacts. Does he agree that the answer to the first question, on next generation power plants, is actually the answer to the second question on noise? Please, will he give us a proper answer on what the Government are doing to take advantage?

[Mike Kane]

That is the problem when a new Member is called last, but he is agile—mentally on his feet—to get that in. We are investing in hydrogen zero-emission technology, with £1 billion for the ATI. I hope the hon. Gentleman is sat on the Opposition Benches in the months ahead when we implement the revenue certainty mechanisms, so we can kickstart a new age of SAF production in the UK that will bring jobs and growth right across our great country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his responses.

Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025

Mike Kane Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey—as constituency neighbours, we share runway 2 between us. In fact, I was on speed dial with your predecessor and another neighbour, the former Chair of the 1922 Committee—I was probably the most powerful Back-Bench Labour MP in the place at the time. I thought that would get more of a rise—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I thank hon. Members for being here for the consideration of the draft regulations. Let me respond to the hon. Member for Orpington, in particular, by saying that the Department will write to industry and stakeholders now to make them aware of the provisions that are coming into force. The airport slot co-ordinator will take into account the new entrants as part of the co-ordination activities for winter 2025. There is no indication of a pandemic, but the hon. Member is right that we do not know what is around the corner. There are press reports today of bird flu in the UK, and we have seen reports of monkeypox. As he rightly said, the regulations will help with resilience. We will monitor the legislation and ensure that it is implemented is through the course of normal activity within the Department.

In response to the hon. Member for South Antrim, let me say that when the measures providing slot alleviation because of covid-19 were introduced, they did not apply to Northern Ireland. There were no slot co-ordinated airports there, and because the measures were temporary and lasted for six months—or one scheduling session—at a time, after which they needed to be reviewed, the Northern Ireland authorities were happy with that approach. However, the position is now different. The new measures are permanent, and it made sense to apply them throughout the whole of the UK.

[Mike Kane]

That is great, and I am sure that if the Minister in Northern Ireland is not happy then the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will ask an urgent question in the House before we know it.

I thank Members again for their consideration and for their questions. To conclude, the regulations will make two permanent changes to regulation 95/93, as the hon. Member for Orpington said, reducing barriers to entry at UK airports and making the slot allocation system more resilient. They are putting the UK on the front foot, and ensuring we build on the lessons learnt from covid-19.

Question put and agreed to.

Coastguard Helicopter Services

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, as we have become great friends over our time in Parliament. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), to the House and the Front Bench—even if it is only in a temporary capacity. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on bringing this debate to the House again—I think I was on the Opposition Benches on the last occasion.

As the right hon. Member eloquently said, His Majesty’s Coastguard and our dedicated search and rescue services have continued to provide a superb response to save lives at sea and around our coast. It is great to hear that reflected by all Members in the Chamber today. Recently, we have seen all our emergency services working together to respond to the recent storms that have affected millions of people. Whether rescuing people from flooding or helping them find shelter from the snow and ice, our search and rescue teams have continued to respond both day and night in often the most atrocious weather. I formally thank all the members of our search and rescue teams for their continuing commitment and dedication to helping any person in need of rescue or assistance.

I am delighted to announce that, following the review commissioned by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency into the proposed changes to the readiness states of the search and rescue helicopters based in Sumburgh and Stornoway, agreement for their readiness states to be maintained at 15 minutes by day and 45 minutes by night has been reached. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) will be delighted.

[Mr Carmichael]

I can only thank the Minister; that is exceptionally welcome news, and is exactly what we would have expected of him. I expected no less.

[Mike Kane]

The chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will write to the relevant right hon. and hon. Members this month to advise them of the maintenance of the readiness states of those bases. I appreciate that it has taken some time for the final approvals to be granted; that is due to the complexities of the service provision.

In a previous debate, in November 2023, the intent and scope of the review was advised to the House. That included new data modelling to look at changes in operational requirements since the original contract was let. It also acknowledged that service demand may have been impacted by the recent pandemic, and reflected the demand on the coastguard services associated with the increased accessibility of the coastline and remote areas, which include the beautiful Shetland Islands and Outer Hebrides. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is not in his place, but he raised the case of his constituent, Nigel Gordon. As the Minister, I extend my sympathies to Nigel’s family.

Notification of the intent to maintain the current readiness states was sent to the aircraft operators, Bristow Helicopters Ltd, in December 2024 and will be enacted under the conditions agreed in the second-generation search and rescue aviation contract. The MCA and Bristow Helicopters continue to work closely together to implement the new service, which will make the most of technological advances, ensure that we retain a world-class search and rescue service, and align the readiness states of all UK search and rescue helicopter bases. The revised readiness states will be implemented as part of the transition timeline, which is expected to take place in October 2026 in Sumburgh and in January 2027 in Stornoway.

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will appreciate the ongoing work of the MCA and my Department to implement these changes, which include significant additional investment achieved by my Department to support our vital maritime and coastal services during these challenging financial times. The changes demonstrate the continuing commitment of His Majesty’s Coastguard and my Department to continue to provide this vital lifesaving service, which builds on more than 40 years of experience in providing a search and rescue helicopter service in the Scottish islands.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has reminded the House of the work of this vital service to support our seafarers and the wider UK economy. We have seen some notable rescues over the years, which included the tragic loss of one of the aircrew during the successful rescue of the crew of the Green Lily in 1997. The ultimate sacrifice of Billy Deacon, the winchman of the Sumburgh-based coastguard search and rescue helicopter, will always be remembered across the service. The Billy Deacon search and rescue memorial trophy was established to commemorate his sacrifice. The award, which was presented this year on the 27th anniversary of his loss, recognises the unique bravery of our winch paramedics and winch operators.

I am immensely proud of the work of all our search and rescue teams and, as has been mentioned, both our full-time officers and volunteers continue to support the service. I ask the House to pay tribute to all the crews of search and rescue teams and their vital work, and to remember those who have been lost while trying to save others.

The second-generation search and rescue aviation contract is a £1.6 billion investment by my Department to ensure the continued provision of a world-leading fleet of advanced search and rescue aircraft. No bases have been closed, and all current helicopter bases will continue to provide a 24-hour search and rescue service. Additionally, two seasonal bases will be constructed—one in Scotland and one in northern England, which will operate for 12 hours a day from April to September.

The additional seasonal bases enhance the UK-wide service, providing additional cover in the busier summer months. Their introduction will not impact the tasking of current bases: the search and rescue aircraft will continue to be tasked with aeronautical rescue by the joint rescue co-ordination centre, as they are today, to meet the requirements to prioritise saving life. We have invested in enhanced, innovative technologies to improve our search and rescue response to help to reduce the time taken to search for missing persons. The technologies will be rolled out during the transition of the current bases to meet new service provisions under the contract.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised the issue of helicopter support for the movement of patients. Search and rescue helicopters may be asked to support our ambulance services to assist in moving critically ill patients to higher levels of care. These requests will be considered where capacity exists and no other means of transport are available and only if the request meets the legal requirement to be appropriate, compliant and achievable within the air operations certification. In accepting these requests, there must be no impact on the provision of primary search and rescue operations. However, the support is not guaranteed and should not be relied on by the health service; the movement of patients remains the responsibility of ambulance services.

[Dave Doogan]

The Minister rightly acknowledges the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about the use of search and rescue helicopters for ambulance services, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in extremis; it is not their job but they can do it. That happens in Scotland despite NHS Scotland funding two air ambulances and two fixed-wing aircraft, which is not the case in England. Is the Minister aware of any Government plans to introduce NHS-owned and operated airborne ambulance services to protect coastguard services in England?

[Mike Kane]

Speaking of what Scotland provides for its NHS, I recently visited the CAELUS project in Aberdeen. Drone technology has been enhanced to carry blood supplies very quickly in order to help patients right across that great nation. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman with a more detailed answer to his question in a moment.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned that he was managed on a recent visit to a helicopter base. In my time of knowing him, I have always personally found him unmanageable, as I am sure the crew did on his visit. I am glad to say that the dispute with Bristow was successfully settled in the summer. I have kept in close contact with the British Airline Pilots’ Association on the matter, both in opposition and in government. It is not for a Minister to intervene in disputes of that nature, but I am glad that the parties reached a settlement.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland also mentioned logistics. Logistics is a growing worry within my brief, particularly across aviation and somewhat in maritime. Since the pandemic, we just do not have enough parts being produced. Airlines in Scotland are having to buy planes only to mothball them to get parts for their existing stock. I keep a watching brief on logistics and I talk to the MCA director about it. My advice is that the AW189 is a proven, tested and capable aircraft for search and rescue across the world, and there are more of them in service than the old S-92s, so there are fewer supply chain issues with the newer helicopters.

I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) for his contribution. There are some statistics that I would have liked to read out, but I do not have the time in my speech. That was powerful personal testimony about his wife. I know it was some time ago, but I wish her all the best. He asked about NHS helicopter landing pads. We had something called the Derriford incident recently. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch sent some advice, and we are currently reviewing all those pads across the nation to ensure that they are safe for the future of all services.

I will turn back to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) on air ambulance provision by NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government. The sector has made an incredible contribution. I am led to understand that there are no current plans for officials to work with the Department of Health and Social Care or the NHS.

Finally, I will turn to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am glad that he called me a close friend. I now know that he relaxes—I never knew that was the case. He watches westerns on a Sunday; I now know when to disturb him with a phone call. I see him as some latter-day John Wayne, climbing into his saddle and going out into the tundra of cacti deserts. The way he approaches his politics in this House always shows “True Grit”. [Hon. Members: “Ohh!”] Come on, it was a belter! I pay tribute to his service in Northern Ireland, and thank him for his personal testimony about the young men that were lost at sea. My heartfelt condolences go to their families. He will know, as I do, that burying our dead is a corporal act of mercy. Finding the dead and bringing their bodies back to their families is, in my opinion, an essential element of search and rescue. The hon. Member is right to raise that and it shows his character that he, as the constituency MP, personally went to visit those families.

In closing, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for securing this debate. I again pay tribute to all our search and rescue services, across the UK, for their selfless dedication to saving lives 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

2. If she will review the UK’s participation in the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service programme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

The Department for Transport is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to consider options for the UK’s access to a navigation system of this type, which lapsed following Brexit. This work is ongoing, and no decision has been made at this time.

[Graham Leadbitter]

I also welcome the Secretary of State to her new role, and I look forward to working across party boundaries where possible. EGNOS is a satellite enhancement system for GPS. Prior to Brexit, Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, which is headquartered in my constituency, had been working with National Air Traffic Services on developing the use of the system, and invested a lot of time and effort. It would increase mapping accuracy and, vitally, enable planes flying lifeline air services to land in a broader range of circumstances, improving service and reliability. As the Minister said, that work has stalled since Brexit, but the Government can re-engage with the programme should they choose, as it is open to non-EU members. Will the Minister commit to doing that?

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting this on my radar. [Interruption.] Too early? [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t give up the day job.

[Mike Kane]

It is an important issue. We are considering the costs and benefits of all options, and it is very good particularly for regional airports. We are working with the EU to identify areas where we can strengthen co-operation for mutual benefit, but it is still too early to discuss that specific area in detail. I hope to come back to the House at a later time with a more considered view.

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

3. What steps she is taking to help improve road safety for vulnerable road users.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to support the use and production of sustainable aviation fuels.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

The SAF mandate, which is one of the first pioneering policies of its kind, came into force on 1 January 2025 to build domestic demand for SAF. We are also growing UK supply through the advanced fuels fund, and we are committed to introducing a revenue certainty mechanism in the King’s Speech to encourage investment in UK SAF production.

[Gregor Poynton]

I thank the Minister for his response. This UK Government are indeed working at pace to position the UK as a global leader in the rapidly growing SAF industry, which is vital for decarbonising aviation and our aviation industries, and for growing our economy. Will he commit in the forthcoming sustainable aviation fuel Bill to bringing forward the timeline for the revenue certainty mechanism to the end of this year or perhaps early 2026? Accelerating that measure, which has wide support, will give investors the confidence they need to back the 10 potential SAF facilities across the UK, including in Grangemouth, which is near my constituency.

[Mike Kane]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a huge campaigner for Grangemouth. We have committed to bringing forward the revenue certainty mechanism. We have already legislated for a 2% fuel mix in the SAF mandate, which came into force on 1 January this year, and we look forward to the Bill coming before the House when parliamentary time allows.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that he has a deep interest in Northern Ireland, so may I ask a similar question? Northern Ireland wants to provide the necessary aviation fuels and has the ability to do so. What progress has he made in his discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can be part of the future of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is always better together?

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member is a doughty champion of air travel and SAF in Northern Ireland. Through the advanced fuels fund, we have 13 projects and we are currently investing well over £100 million across the UK to see what comes forward in the market, and I hope that Northern Ireland will be integral to that process.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

May I, too, wish the Minister a very happy birthday?

Estimates suggest that the SAF mandate provisions and the revenue certainty mechanism will still leave a shortfall, with a family of four facing over £300 extra to fly on holiday by 2040. That is a clear concern for consumers, as well as the airline industry. Net zero should not come at an additional cost to consumers or undermine freedoms—in this case, the freedom to fly. The test must surely be how to defossilise, decarbonise and allow people to do the same at the same cost. What steps is the Minister taking in conjunction with the Treasury to close the financial gap between incentives in the mandate and the actual increased cost of switching to SAF for the end consumer?

[Mike Kane]

I think the good will ended with “happy birthday.”

I remind the shadow Minister that a little over 12 months ago, in one of his better videos, the then Prime Minister came out into Downing Street, looked at the sky and lauded the policy he wanted when we saw Virgin Atlantic’s 100% SAF trip across the Atlantic. This was the previous Government’s policy but, because of the sclerotic nature of that Government, we are only now getting on with implementing both the SAF mandate and the revenue support mechanism. As the shadow Minister knows, a regular review point is baked into the legislation so that we can revisit targets, if required.

[Greg Smith]

Of course, there is always another way. Much of the debate so far on SAF has been about fuels made from feedstocks and waste products. Unlike fuels that require feedstock, whose input costs will only ever go up, the industrial process that creates power-to-liquid synthetic aviation fuel will actually see its production costs reduce, with some predicting cost parity between the production of these synthetic fuels and the extraction and production of fossil fuels within a decade. Does the Minister agree that synthetics offer a much better long-term solution, and will he reprioritise the Government’s approach to SAF away from transitional solutions and towards synthetics?

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Gentleman runs his car on synthetic fuel, so I know his passion. There are many ways to get to SAF. The SAF mandate is supported by industry, and there is a real opportunity to establish a plethora of production. We can create thousands of new well-paid jobs while protecting the pound in the holidaymaker’s pocket.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

9. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of compensation for rail passengers in Cheltenham due to the impact of the Old Oak Common station development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

T7. Since Brexit and the reinstatement of duty-free shopping, UK travellers have spent nearly 50% more on their duty-free shopping, all in the EU. Not a penny has supported jobs or investment in Scottish airports, or those in the wider UK. Does the Minister agree that a way to repatriate those sales and support the travel sector to invest in jobs at international gateways would be introducing arrival duty free, and will he work with the Treasury and the travel sector to achieve that?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

Changes made during the pandemic crippled airport duty-free shopping. I will get the hon. Member a more detailed letter on the matter.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

York’s advanced digital and advanced rail cluster can really boost our economy with the innovations that it is bringing, as well as providing 5,500 jobs in York. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how we can bring it into her strategy for developing the rail industry?

MV Ruby: Safety

Mike Kane Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the season of good will.

First and foremost, I want to say that I am proud of this nation. I think I am prouder of this nation than the hon. Gentleman is. The United Kingdom has a proud seafaring heritage, and we are the home of the International Maritime Organisation. We uphold the rule of law in this country, and we treat seafarers with respect and dignity. We fulfil our legal obligations, and we proud to be pioneers in the maritime industry. These principles informed how we handled this situation.

The MV Ruby left Great Yarmouth on 1 December with no cargo onboard and is now at the Port of Tyne, where she is undergoing repairs. The ship left Great Yarmouth with uncontaminated cargo on 16 December for onward voyage to the Ruby’s original intended destinations. Throughout this situation, my Department and other authorities exercised their duties for the safety of the UK and its population, and for that of the ship and her crew. I stand by all the decisions and actions that we took, and I note that everything has been resolved successfully. We were always confident that that would be the case.

I will briefly set out the background. The MV Ruby is a Maltese-flagged vessel that was damaged during a storm on 23 August 2024, not long after leaving port in northern Russia. The vessel entered UK waters on 24 September 2024 under international legal provisions that allow for the right of innocent passage through territorial waters. She went to anchor in order to refuel, but at anchor she posed a number of potential risks to UK interests—namely, the safety of navigation for other vessels. We were also worried about the safety of the crew, their welfare and the safety of the ship.

There were no sanctions issues in relation to the ship, her crew or her cargo, and she was insured by Lloyd’s of London, which is internationally regarded as having the highest standards for its clients and strong requirements for the insurance companies that conduct business there. The vessel is class certified by Det Norske Veritas, which is one of the 12 world-renowned classification societies within the International Association of Classification Societies. That demonstrated to us that the vessel was operating well within the recommended industry guidelines.

Before entering the Port of Great Yarmouth, the Ruby had been at anchor for a month. The ship was damaged, and the crew were struggling to get basic supplies. At this point, media reporting focused on the perceived Russian connections of the Ruby, as her origin port was in Russia. This made potential suppliers fear Russian exposure and reputational damage, which further impacted the quality of life on board. Beyond this humanitarian aspect, the extent of the damage to the hull was unknown, and the practical and environmental consequences of the vessel sinking in UK waters, with all her cargo and fuel on board, would have been unthinkable.

Given all this, and where safety requirements were met, there was no reason to deny access to port. The Secretary of State’s representative for maritime salvage and intervention, SOSREP, supported the ship’s management company in convening conversations with UK ports to identify an appropriate port for the offloading of this cargo type and a yard where she could then be repaired.

The ship’s management company made a commercial decision to enter a UK port for repairs. This was because the conditions in the bay of Biscay, which the vessel would have had to traverse, can be extremely rough at this time of year. The crew of 19 on board had already suffered through the original storm and subsequent weeks on board a damaged ship. Offering her refuge in port helped to manage all these risks, and at that point, there was no indication of concern about her cargo.

Ammonium nitrate, for a bit of background, is a compound typically used in fertiliser that the UK regularly imports. In 2023, over 200,000 tonnes of ammonium nitrate were handled at UK ports, and the port of Great Yarmouth is one of the many ports experienced in handling this type of cargo. Once at port, the cargo was safely offloaded for several days before any potential contamination was identified.

The Health and Safety Executive was alerted to the potential contamination on Monday 11 November, as the port identified evidence of seawater and hydrocarbons —fuel oil—on the outside of the bags. When it was identified that seawater and hydrocarbons were present on the outside of some of the remaining bags, all movement of cargo in the affected hold was stopped, and the relevant authorities were notified.

HSE undertook a risk assessment, and its findings were actioned by the port and the ship operator. The port’s harbourmaster made the decision to issue a direction under the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, following the guidance provided by the HSE at a cross-agency meeting, and classified the vessel as a dangerous ship. SOSREP was engaged and worked with the ship, the port, the MCA and the HSE to ensure that the ship and the crew were safely removed from port.

The ship was removed from port on Saturday 16 November, and the affected cargo was discharged at a pre-identified location at sea. The master of the ship took the view that, in the light of deteriorating conditions at sea and the unacceptable risk to the crew of the potentially contaminated material remaining on board as the sea became rougher due to the incoming weather front, disposal should commence that evening. The cargo believed to be contaminated represented under 2% of the total volume being transported.

Discharging the potentially contaminated cargo at sea, about 300 metric tonnes, was not an exercise undertaken lightly. As would be expected, there was careful and thorough examination of all the alternative options. A full assessment of the environmental implications and safety risks was also undertaken. The work was overseen by environmental experts and the relevant regulators. The East of England environment group was convened for the purposes of this incident and was comprised of experts from: the Food Standards Agency; the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; the local authority; the Marine Management Organisation; the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Natural England; the Environment Agency; and the inshore fisheries and conservation authority.

The location chosen for disposal was identified as the least sensitive in terms of habitat, flora, fauna and fisheries. The site is an existing aggregate extraction area, involving mechanical activity on the seabed. We have been assured by scientific experts from both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the East of England environment group that ammonium nitrate is not a persistent chemical and, with sufficient dilution, will dissipate without leaving a trace.

As would be expected, DEFRA is now going through the standard procedure of notifying the relevant international authorities of the discharging event, as the British Government treat our duties to the natural environment with the highest seriousness.

Where safety requirements are met, there is no basis for the UK Government to refuse entry into port in those circumstances. After the potentially contaminated cargo had been discharged, the port and ship operator followed the usual processes to enable the MV Ruby to return to Great Yarmouth with advice from the MCA, HSE and environmental regulators. Allowing the ship to return ensured crew welfare and enabled the normal transfer of its remaining cargo. I must emphasise that there was no evidence that any of the remaining cargo was potentially contaminated, and this was borne out by events. No further contamination was found.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

If there was no potential contamination and if all the processes were fully followed, as the Minister is indicating, then presumably the Government will have no problem ensuring that all that documentation is made available and public, in a transparent and open way, so that we can have no doubts about that, and any lessons that need to be learned, will be learned.

[Mike Kane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and wish him a happy Christmas as well; we share the same dry cleaner, Mr George, who regularly asks after the hon. Gentleman. I say to Reform Members that the way this matter is being raised is a playbook: assertions, which are often outlandish or simply wrong, are made that are designed to appeal to malcontents; victimisation comes in that playbook, because they habitually cast themselves as the victim of dark forces, conspiracies and cover-ups, always wanting to know where and when, and to have transparency; they expect others to accept the premise of their questions, but then belittle the officials and workers who have worked extraordinarily hard, often in difficult circumstances in our seas. By belittling those officials and workers, Reform Members are trying to make people believe those officials are wrong and they are right. I think there should be little bit more dignity in the approach taken by Reform Members in this matter.

I have had correspondence with officials at Norfolk county council and Great Yarmouth borough council, as well as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who is no longer in his place. I would like to offer my personal gratitude and thanks to the officials at the Health and Safety Executive, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Peel Ports in Great Yarmouth for their co-operation and diligent work throughout the period. I also thank the captain and the crew of the ship for their co-operation during this episode.

I am pleased that, by following the expert advice, this episode has concluded safely and successfully. Our ports, and the men and women who work in them, are invaluable assets to our nation, but we can all be guilty of failing to fully recognise the vital role they play in the life of our island nation. I would like this debate to record the respect and gratitude this House has for them and their work. Our Christmases will be a lot merrier thanks to them all.

Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the staff and the House, and a blessed new year as well.

Question put and agreed to.