Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Keir Mather Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House; I could not have put it better myself. It is essential that whatever measures, on any matter, are brought forward by any Government—be it the current Government or any future Government—real people’s lives and the cost base be reviewed regularly, so that we are not making people poorer, or stopping people from being able to do what they want, be it go on holiday, travel for business or move goods around.

With that, I come to amendment 8 and the cost impact on passengers. The amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on passenger air fares. One of the most contentious areas surrounding the Bill, and indeed the Government’s whole approach to net zero, is: what does it actually cost real people? The amendment seeks to clarify that, and it gives the Government the opportunity—in theory, they should cheerfully embrace this—to lock in a claim that they profess to believe, namely that the Bill will have an impact of plus or minus £1.50 on air fares. The previous Minister repeated that statistic time and again on Second Reading and in Committee. The new Minister has the challenge today of either sticking with his predecessor’s assertion, backing the amendment and locking in protections for consumers, or admitting that this may well be more costly to air travellers.

It is worth noting that during the evidence stage of Bill Committee, none of the witnesses was willing to affirm the Government’s figure. In fact, some noted that the estimated price appeared low. For example, Jonathon Counsell from International Airlines Group stated:

“We think there are potentially some elements that have not been included in that calculation, but £1.50 per passenger feels quite low when you think the costs of the SAF itself will be nearer to £10.”––[Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 15 July 2025; c. 17, Q12.]

Consumers need peace of mind that the Bill will not cost them dear, and will not act as a financial barrier to the family holiday or any other trip, so failure to back the amendment can only mean uncertainty.

I turn to amendment 11, which is focused on transparency. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate, payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers. Valero, for example—one of the world’s largest renewable fuels producers—has contacted the Opposition arguing for the amendment, saying that it would offer a workable solution; it would support the development of new SAF production without significantly impacting the industry as a whole. The amendment would apply the levy equally to all jet fuel suppliers, providing a fair and transparent mechanism for supporting the broader SAF industry.

Just this week, I have been contacted by Virgin Atlantic, which is arguing that transparency safeguards must be in place to keep costs low for consumers. As organisations including the International Air Transport Association have highlighted, since the mandate came into effect in January 2025, fuel suppliers have been adding compliance risk premiums to the cost of mandated SAF, contributing to the price of SAF and doubling it for some carriers. That is to cover the eventuality that they do not meet the 2% mandate target and must pay the buy-out price for any missed volume. Virgin Atlantic has argued that to prevent SAF prices increasing further, the revenue certainty mechanism must have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure transparency over cost pass-through. There must also be a transparent process for refunds in the event of over-collections, and all revenues generated under the RCM should be ringfenced, rather than going into the general taxation pot.

Amendment 9 looks at British technology and intellectual property. It would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts. As I said from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, there is a historical reality that we need to confront, and the amendment would stop history repeating itself. The historical error that I refer to is this: a great many projects supported by grants from the advanced fuels fund use foreign-owned technology. It cannot be right that the British state, while arguing for domestic fuel security, funds overseas technology when we have incredible innovators and manufacturers right here.

Domestic fuel security must mean domestic fuel IP, manufacture and supply. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF, eSAF and local production, as is provided for by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of those products. That not only retains revenue in the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. The amendment tackles that head-on, and a failure to back it would be a failure to back United Kingdom innovators.

Lastly, amendment 10 is on technological choices. It states:

“The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”

I feel incredibly strongly about this amendment. It is on a matter that I have championed in this House for many years—in the last Parliament, during my time on the Transport Committee and, since July, from this Dispatch Box. The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and it is relevant to new clause 7 and amendment 12 in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley, both of which I have a great deal of sympathy for.

Governments of all political persuasions have professed to be technologically neutral. They seldom are. There is a natural tendency to pick winners and losers. We need to look through that lens, and ask ourselves what the Bill is promoting and using the levers of primary legislation to enable. The disappointing answer to that is the potential to bring alive SAF plants using technologies that have already been superseded—plants that would therefore be temporary at best. Stepping up something with no longevity, and with an estimated build cost of between £600 million and £2 billion, would be no small mistake.

Power-to-liquid solutions, otherwise known as eSAF or synthetic fuel—liquid hydrocarbons literally made out of air and water—are surely the better and sustainable future for aviation fuel. We had debates on Second Reading and in Committee about other solutions. I cannot imagine that anyone is ready to defend growing food to burn it, but equally, waste-derived fuels simply are not sustainable in the long term. Solid waste is not readily available; the primary source is local authorities, the majority of which are on contracts with energy-from-waste facilities and incinerators that have decades to run. Likewise, I am not sure there is enough chip oil in the country to meet our aviation fuel needs.

That leaves power-to-liquid solutions and eSAF. Many say that it is not ready; some say it is too expensive; but those of us on the Public Bill Committee heard loud and clear from Zero Petroleum that it is ready to scale right now. It just needs the green light from the regulators, and with scale will come affordability. Amendment 10 is in many ways a light-touch amendment to bring this debate to the fore. It does not close down other technological routes, but forces the Government to acknowledge the risk, both to the environment and in terms of cost, when choosing contracts under the RCM.

As other speakers have said, the Bill can still be improved. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments, which would improve the Bill, and to ensure a strong and affordable future for sustainable aviation fuel in our great United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

Before I turn to the amendments before us, I would like to thank the many hon. Members who have made considered and helpful contributions. This legislation has been long in the making, and few have been more central in bringing it to fruition than my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who I would like to thank personally for his efforts throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The Minister mentioned a reduction of 6.3 megatonnes, but what is that as a proportion of the current emissions?

[Keir Mather]

No piece of legislation can deal with all the emissions that we are facing through challenges in the aviation sector. That is why we have this comprehensive package of measures to make decarbonising aviation while allowing passengers to fly at an affordable rate a reality.

The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke with his usual fervent passion in support of his constituents. The National Wealth Fund stands ready to encourage investors to join us in finding a long-term industrial future for Grangemouth, standing ready to invest £200 million once an investable proposition has been identified.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) raised the unfortunate closure of Vivergo. The Government have been working with the plant to understand the financial challenges that it has faced over the last decade, but I would like to reassure her that we do not anticipate supply issues in bioethanol provision. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester for his decided and confident support for the measures in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) said that the market was too nascent, but I encourage him to look at the detail of the Bill. He will see that that is exactly the problem we are seeking to solve through this legislation, by allowing SAF producers to scale at pace and pursue those innovative technologies. He also spoke about Britain as an aviation leader. The RCM is a first-of-its-kind global initiative to allow SAF producers to produce the fuels we so desperately need. He also encouraged me to sort out decarbonisation challenges in maritime. I draw his attention to the fact that the UK Government announced £448 million of funding to decarbonise the maritime sector only a fortnight ago.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) has Jaguar Land Rover within his constituency and is a passionate advocate for both the automotive and aviation sectors there. He spoke about the urgent need to encourage people to fly—to enable them to access the rest of the world, to see their families and to pursue business opportunities. That is something that we are passionate about championing through the Bill.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) was pleased to see that the Bill was supported across the House. I can only hope that he is correct in his prediction. We shall see. I note that there are no representatives from the Green party here today to focus on these important measures to decarbonise aviation. Hon. Members from across the House can take from that what they will. The hon. Gentleman was right to outline the broader work that is required to decarbonise aviation, including airspace modernisation, but also to talk up our fantastic UK aviation sector and the hard work that it is undertaking to pursue decarbonisation.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) pointed to the very important fact that we are endowed with key infrastructure, such as pipelines, pioneered by firms like Exolum, the research facilities in his constituency to which he pointed and the pioneering work of Bristol airport. We need to develop a market to facilitate that infrastructure further. The 70% cut in emissions through SAF is an exciting proposition indeed.

There are a number of Government amendments that I would like hon. Members to consider. Government amendment 6 allows for levy regulations to require the Secretary of State to assist the designated counterparty by collecting information and sharing it with the designated counterparty. It will also allow for the regulations to be used to impose requirements on a person to provide information to the Secretary of State. It is a technical amendment that will ensure that the information required to calculate individual levy contributions is provided at sufficient frequency, while not creating additional administrative burdens for industry.

Government amendment 1 allows the Secretary of State to direct a Government-owned company to provide assistance for the purpose of identifying to whom revenue certainty contracts should be allocated. The allocation process for RCM contracts will be fair and transparent to give confidence to any applicants. In other renewable schemes, contract allocation is often carried out through an auction process. The allocation process for contracts for difference for renewable electricity is carried out through the National Energy System Operator, or NESO, which is an operationally independent, publicly owned body.

That type of approach to allocation may also be suitable for RCM contracts, so the amendment will allow the Secretary of State to direct a body like NESO to support in the allocation process. The final decision on allocation, however, remains with the Secretary of State. Without the amendment, the same allocation process could be pursued, but that would need to be done on a contractual basis through a procurement process, which would add unnecessary cost and complexity to the process. The amendment avoids those unnecessary impacts. I therefore commend it and all other Government amendments to the House.

I would ask that new clauses 1 to 3, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, be withdrawn. They were introduced in identical form in Committee, and my remarks will closely reflect the points my predecessor made then. The amendments seek a review of the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism within the next 12 months. I am afraid that that is not reasonable, as the revenue certainty mechanism triggers only once SAF is being produced, and even at pace, that is some years off. It will take time to build SAF plants, initially starting with a contract allocation round with SAF producers. Therefore, we will not see sufficient developments in the next 12 months to warrant a review of the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism. I agree, however, that it is important to have parliamentary scrutiny to measure the impact of the Act and to propose actions if necessary. The SAF mandate already includes a review clause to assess the impact of the statutory instrument, with the first review scheduled within five years. That is in line with comparable schemes.

With regard to new clause 1, I can reassure the House that work is being carried out at pace across Government on the future of our refineries. Commissioning a separate report, as the new clause proposes, risks a delay to future decisions and any subsequent benefits that may be realised. Overall, we expect low-carbon fuel production to support up to 15,000 jobs across the country and to make a contribution to the economy of up to £5 billion by 2050.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the Minister, and wish him well in his new role and in all that he does. The legislation extends to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so what discussions have been taking place with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we can see its benefits—to both employment and the wider economy—in Northern Ireland?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member raises a very important point. We need to ensure that the benefits of the Act are felt across the length and breadth of our United Kingdom, and that includes engaging with our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I turn to new clause 2. We do not anticipate a substantial impact on SAF production in the event of a decline in UK bioethanol production. The bioethanol market is a global one, and we do not currently foresee any supply issues. Furthermore, the recommendations in new clause 2 are already under way and duplicate measures can already be found in the SAF mandate. In July, a total of £63 million was awarded to 17 projects via the advanced fuels fund. That includes projects that use bioethanol, municipal solid waste and green hydrogen as feedstocks, among other sources. The Chancellor also announced in the spending review 2025 that we will continue to support SAF production throughout the spending review period. The SAF mandate also includes a formal review mechanism embedded in its legislation, with the first review scheduled to take place within five years.

New clause 3 would also duplicate measures that already exist in the SAF mandate. The mandate awards more certificates per litre to SAF with higher greenhouse gas savings, which will encourage SAF developers to continuously improve on their greenhouse gas savings. This will be monitored through the formal review mechanism, with the possibility to update legislation as required.

I hope that this reassures the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that, in many respects, the concerns he outlines are allayed by existing measures in the Bill. I therefore urge him not to push his new clauses.

New clause 6, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the legislation within a year of it being passed. Such a report would not show the full economic impact of these measures. Contracts will need to be negotiated, signed, plants built and SAF produced and sold before economic impacts are released. Transparency on reporting in relation to the Act’s economic impact can be achieved through regular updates to the House. Therefore, I do not see the new clause as being effectual, if he wishes to evaluate the economic impact of the RCM. I therefore ask him not to move his new clause.

New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), would require the Secretary of State to introduce a regulation requiring airlines to make an annual report on their use of SAF, both in absolute volumes and as a percentage of overall fuel used. I welcome transparency on carbon emissions to help consumers make informed choices. However, we will be providing data on the supply of SAF under the mandate, including what proportion of the total aviation fuel supply is SAF. Furthermore, many airlines already provide public information on their decarbonisation efforts, and I therefore do not believe this new clause is necessary and ask the hon. Member not to move it.

New clauses 4 and 7, tabled by the hon. Member for West Dorset and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) respectively, relate to power-to-liquid obligations. On new clause 4, the Government have already committed to keep mandate targets under review. The existing legislation enables the Secretary of State to amend obligations under the SAF mandate, subject to consultation with those affected and scrutiny by Parliament. Allowing amendments to the obligations without consulting appropriate parties could be detrimental to our shared ambition of increasing the use of SAF. On new clause 7, the legislation that gave effect to the SAF mandate already makes provision for a review no later than 2030. Given that the mandate has been in place for less than 12 months and the PtL obligation does not come into effect until 2028, it would not be helpful to review earlier than planned. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to move their new clauses.

Amendment 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, would put a requirement on the counterparty to report on the effect of the introduction of the RCM on air travel prices. This was spoken to by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). The Government are committed to delivering value for money in the RCM scheme by controlling the scale and number of contracts entered into, and through the prices negotiated in each contract. The impact on air fares are likely to rise or fall by less than the cost of a cup of coffee. The costs of the scheme and the impact on ticket prices will be kept under continual review. Passengers should also benefit from the lower prices generated from the lower project risk and reduced cost of capital for SAF producers. Therefore, the Bill and the measures in it will not limit people’s ability to fly. Given that, I ask the right hon. Member not to move the amendment.

I turn to amendments 9 and 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, and to amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley. The decisions on the specifics of contract allocation will be made during the contract allocation process. There will be a fair and transparent allocation process that evaluates the key costs, benefits and risks of each project. That will be developed over the coming months and will be subject to consultation with stakeholders. These amendments would reduce the Government leverage in negotiations by setting criteria in advance and would likely reduce value for money in the contracts signed, which I am sure all of us would seek to avoid. I therefore ask that these amendments are not moved.

Finally, I turn to amendment 11, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay. In May 2025, the Government published the response to the consultation on funding the SAF revenue certainty mechanism. It confirmed that a variable levy on aviation fuel suppliers would be introduced, and this was included in the contents of the Bill. The Government plan to consult imminently on the detailed design of the levy, but this amendment would pre-empt stakeholder responses, which will be considered in any design decisions. I therefore ask the right hon. Member not to press the amendment.

I hope that my responses have provided the explanations and reassurances that colleagues were seeking. The Bill is a crucial step towards establishing a SAF industry in the UK and driving investment, growth and jobs across our great country. Once again, I urge the House to give the Bill its full support.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Mr Glover, is it your pleasure that new clause 1 be withdrawn?

International Rail Services: Ashford

Keir Mather Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) for securing this important debate. I commend her for her thoughtful remarks and continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents and the south-east more widely. She argued powerfully that the return of international services goes far beyond the borders of Kent. The East Sussex residents she represents will be grateful for her championing their cause.

The Rail Minister recently had the opportunity to speak at an event at Ashford International, organised by Kent county council and other local stakeholders, and heard clearly the powerful local case for making Ashford and Ebbsfleet gateways to Europe once again. I am glad that we have been able to continue the debate today in a mostly collegiate fashion.

Ashford International and Ebbsfleet International stations, along with the HS1 line, form a vital piece of infrastructure. They connect communities, support tourism and offer a low-carbon route to the continent. The potential of those two stations is clear for all to see, and the Government recognise the importance of capturing it. International rail services bring significant benefits. The recent report from the Good Growth Foundation, alluded to by many hon. Members, estimates that restoring those services to Kent could unlock up to £500 million annually for the south-east’s visitor economy. That is a substantial figure, underlining why the issue deserves serious attention.

Passenger demand for international rail has rebounded strongly since the pandemic. Last year, more than 11 million people travelled via international rail, which was an all-time high. This year, once again, record numbers are travelling internationally by rail, with the summer period being the busiest on record, reflecting growing demand for sustainable connections to Europe.

Yet, although demand has continued to rise, we have seen those services contract since the pandemic. The Government are committed to supporting the international rail sector to reach its full potential. Our approach is focused on enabling competition, which the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), will be pleased to hear, and on working with industry to unlock growth. Several operators have expressed interest in serving Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford International. That is encouraging, and my colleague the Rail Minister has invited them to engage with Kent stakeholders to explore viable solutions.

We welcome that new entrants are looking to challenge the status quo. Officials in the Department continue to engage regularly with those prospective new operators, and we believe that competition offers the best prospect for restoring services. It brings innovation, improves passenger experience and has the potential to drive down costs. The Department has made written representations to the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, as part of its access application consultation for depot capacity, to express our support for competition and the benefits it could bring.

We have recently secured agreements with European partners, including Germany and Switzerland, to work together to explore new international routes between our countries, and to address barriers for operators launching those routes. The conversations are promising, and they reflect a shared commitment to sustainable cross-border travel.

However, to deliver on that ambition, we must also address the practical barriers, and multiple hon. Members have recognised that chief among those is depot capacity. Temple Mills depot in London is currently the only facility that is used for international passenger rail maintenance. The independent report commissioned by the regulator found that there is very limited spare capacity, which is a significant constraint on competition. Officials are working closely with industry partners to explore long-term solutions. It will take time, but it is a priority for the Government.

There are also challenges on border safety, and we recognise that they are unique to operating cross-channel rail services. Juxtaposed border and security controls are essential for safety and compliance, but they introduce complexity and cost. The Government stand ready to work with operators and stakeholders to explore pragmatic solutions to re-establishing border controls at Kent stations, balancing affordability for operators while maintaining border security. Officials are also continuing to work closely on the matter with colleagues in the Home Office and Border Force, and my officials stand ready to engage with Kent representatives, potentially as part of a working group, to explore it in further detail.

I now turn to some of the points raised in the debate, beginning with my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and the villages, who raised the challenges and the opportunities. Those include the challenge of capacity at St Pancras station, but also Eurotunnel’s free capacity. Increased capacity from international stations could help to realise the benefits of that free capacity.

My hon. Friend also spoke powerfully of the exasperation faced by her constituents due to the increased travel time and the lost opportunities for business development, investment and better connections to attract international investment from northern Europe and the rest of the continent. She also spoke powerfully of the more intangible benefits of international rail services, including her personal experience of feeling a connection with the continent and our European partners due to those all-important rail links.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) spoke powerfully about not just his constituents’ ability to access Europe but Europe’s ability to access his constituency, and about the enormous cultural and historical assets it can offer people across the continent. That was a point well made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) asked me to consider how to encourage the ORR to welcome competition. I am pleased to confirm that the Rail Minister, Lord Hendy, has already undertaken that, and he has strongly outlined to the ORR that the DFT believes that increased competition is fundamental to accessing extra capacity for those services, to unlocking more economic opportunity for Kent, and to our connections into northern Europe.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) said that rail services into northern Europe may be a “high-quality problem”, but she ably argued the counterpoint that the existing system, as it stands, holds back access for people who deserve to have affordable access to the European continent for work opportunities, business, tourism and leisure, and to be connected culturally to an area that she can see from her constituency. Having economic equity through our rail services, so that more people can access the benefits they provide, is incredibly important to the Department.

I was pleased to hear the contribution of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who spoke of the possibilities that greater international rail access could achieve for our entire country. It made me think of, back when I were a lad, when I got one of the first ever train services from my home city of Hull to London, and about the effect that had on my feeling of connection to the rest of the country. The possibility of giving those same opportunities, albeit enhanced, to young people from Yorkshire is very exciting.

My hon. Friend referenced Leeds to Lille. What about Harrogate to Hamburg or York to Ypres? The possibilities are endless. I am glad to see his ambition in fighting for God’s own county in these debates. Although there are significant operational challenges to realising some of his ambitions, I would encourage him to continue liaising with the Rail Minister.

[Sojan Joseph]

Does this debate show that it is not just an Ashford or Ebbsfleet issue? That was the presumption in the past, but it is much wider. The whole region benefits from international services returning to Ashford, at the same time as the rest of the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to address this important matter and grab the opportunity as soon as possible?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend’s point is very well made. What has struck me throughout this debate is the access opportunities for the constituents of every Member in the room. Members have also pointed to the importance of modal shift and the impact on freight and our decarbonisation ambitions. We have also heard about the impact on our international resilience and our ability to respond to the challenges in the channel with nimbleness and agility. These can all be enhanced by the prospect of increasing our international rail capacity, and those points have been very well made.

The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) gave us the welcome perspective of the case for Ebbsfleet, and he pointed ably to the unity of advocacy from Members of Parliament, businesses and local people. It would be remiss of us to forget Ebbsfleet’s role in this important debate.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) usefully outlined how, in this country, international rail thrived in the 1990s, and he provided a reasonable and ambitious perspective on how Ashford could facilitate its ability to thrive again.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), encouraged me to explore different opportunities to revitalise Kent’s economic connections to the economies of northern France. I would suggest that encouraging competitiveness between different potential providers in this space is exactly what will allow us to explore those opportunities, and to push and work constructively with them. That is why the DFT has been working hard to convene Kent county council, private providers and local residents to explore where those opportunities lie.

I am pleased to hear that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, has a personal stake in this debate as a proud Kent man—

[Jerome Mayhew]

Kentish.

[Keir Mather]

Please forgive me. I learn something new every day in this role.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention how many debates have landed on some of these themes over the years as we have wrangled with these questions. It is earnestly hoped, from the Government’s perspective, that facilitating competition and greater access in this space will allow us to solve what have formerly been incredibly knotty and intangible problems.

[Jerome Mayhew]

A good Conservative approach.

[Keir Mather]

Well, I think it is important to note that this Government are not fixated on ideological dogmatism in this space. Where competition works and can offer tangible benefits to local people in Kent and across the United Kingdom, we will of course proceed with it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am very grateful and encouraged to hear that point made from the Dispatch Box. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the Government have written to the ORR advocating against every single open access application since coming into power? After all, open access is bringing additional competition to the wider network.

[Keir Mather]

Of course there is open access ability through these international rail links, which is an important thing to point to. What I find challenging about the assertions that the hon. Member made in his winding-up speech is the notion that some sort of perfect free market competition existed in our rail system prior to the Labour Government taking office. There was enormous dysfunction, which arose from an overly deregulated system.

[Ms Billington]

On competition and the former Conservative Government, I remind Members that they were the ones who brought Southeastern, which serves my constituency, into public ownership, because of the failures of the commercial process.

[Keir Mather]

I think the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, was right to say that competitive practices, where they work, should be encouraged, and that has been the focus of this debate. But the broader perspective, which came out in the debate around the Government in 2015 selling their stake in the operation of Eurostar, is that we lack the nimbleness to direct rail operations in a way that benefits passengers and local economies and ensures resilience. That is what the Government are striving to do in creating balance throughout our rail system.

I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye and other colleagues for their continued and tireless campaigning on this matter. Their hard work has genuinely been instrumental in keeping the case for reinstatement firmly on the agenda, and their constituents benefit enormously from having MPs who are so determined to bring economic and travel opportunities to their part of the United Kingdom.

The Government support the reinstatement of international rail services at Kent stations as soon as it is practical for operators to do so. We support the growth of international rail, and we will continue to work constructively with all partners, be they local, national or international, to make that vision a reality. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for raising this important matter, and commend everyone who has taken the time to take part in this important debate.

Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Keir Mather Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to discuss the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 16 July—my first statutory instrument in my new role. I look forward to many exchanges with the hon. Members for Mid Buckinghamshire and for Wimbledon in rooms like this. Let us hope that they are all on as sunny a morning as this one.

UK airspace and airlines are among the safest in the world. Even with that success, we are not complacent: the Government are committed to maintaining and improving the high safety standards in aviation. The UK is committed to ensuring that technical requirements remain up to date and in line with international standards and best practice. The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for developing and advising the Government on amendments to the technical requirements and regulations.

This statutory instrument has four objectives, three of which relate to the continuing airworthiness regulation, which ensures that the maintenance and repair of aircraft is conducted safely. First, the instrument will make amendments to the continuing airworthiness regulation regarding the release of aircraft parts into service. Currently, for all components added to an aircraft, the maintenance organisation is required to issue a form 1, which certifies that the parts are safe to be released to service—a long and technically complex process. The instrument will allow approved design organisations to release components for service by making a less onerous declaration of maintenance; this declaration can be used only for parts that have a negligible impact on the safety of the aircraft, such as a pilot’s document holder. These amendments will complete the introduction of a policy that was introduced by the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2023 to the initial airworthiness regulation, and will help to reduce the burden on maintenance organisations.

Secondly, the instrument will rationalise parts of the continuing airworthiness regulation by combining similar requirements in one location, making the regulations easier to follow. The instrument will also reintroduce an amendment regarding qualification requirements for maintenance staff that was erroneously omitted.

Thirdly, the instrument will rationalise and correct references and errors in the continuing airworthiness regulation arising from the Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the 2023 regulations and the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

Lastly, the instrument will amend articles 62 and 69 of the basic regulation. Under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, the CAA has always had the ability to delegate its functions or tasks to third parties, known as qualified entities. A similar power existed under a previous version of the basic regulation and was used when the CAA considered that the relevant skills sat outside the CAA—for example to delegate to the Office for Nuclear Regulation the authorisation of the carriage of dangerous goods such as radioactive materials—or when a third party was better placed to assess an issue than the CAA or able to better protect the public. For example, the meteorological obligations resting with the CAA are delegated to the UK Met Office.

However, following changes to the 2018 basic regulation, those delegation powers could no longer be used by the CAA for aviation safety tasks. The instrument will amend articles 62 and 69 of the basic regulation in a way that reactivates the CAA’s power to delegate aviation safety tasks. The CAA intends to use these powers to delegate to qualified third parties the training and examination of drone pilots, as well as the assessment of drones’ flightworthiness. This is similar to the CAA’s approach to pilot training for fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft. By delegating those powers, the CAA will be able to support the sector to develop and grow new technologies more quickly, supporting growth and innovation.

We must continue to ensure that aviation remains among the safest forms of travel, as the safety of aviation and the travelling public is a high priority for this Government. The draft regulations represent a further step in ensuring that that remains the case. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his constructive tone in engaging with me on the important issue of aviation safety. He asked how the CAA will put the powers to use. It intends to use them to delegate to qualified third parties the training and examination of drone pilots, as well as the assessments of drones’ flightworthiness. As the shadow Minister alluded to, that is incredibly important for growth opportunities and innovation in the UK aviation sector. It is important to have such a delegated power to accredited third parties with the expertise necessary to undertake the work.

The shadow Minister asked whether we are confident in the CAA’s ability to delegate these powers effectively. We are. The CAA has a strict accreditation regime when it delegates these powers. We will be working very closely with it as it implements the draft regulations.

Lastly, the shadow Minister asked me to comment on the powers gap that emerges from changes made as a result of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act. We will still have the power to make statutory instruments that relate to these measures, under both the affirmative and negative procedure, until the middle of next year, when that will change. We are exploring options to make regulations that are clearer and easier to follow; I can update the shadow Minister on that in due course. The CAA retains the right to use emergency regulation if it thinks that there is a pressing need to do so. I hope the shadow Minister feels that I have answered his questions, but if he requires any further information, I will be happy to respond in writing.

I thank Committee members for their consideration. The safety of aviation and travel in public remains an absolute priority for this Government. The Department for Transport is committed to ensuring that aviation remains safe. The draft regulations represent a further step in doing so.

Question put and agreed to.

Civil Aviation Authority Annual Progress Report

Keir Mather Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

This Government are committed to accelerating the airspace modernisation programme, as a key enabler to unlocking economic growth through expanding the aviation sector.

The impacts of our outdated airspace are felt by both the sector and passengers, and it is vital that we deliver modernisation of UK airspace to reduce flight times, improve reliability of services, and deliver on our climate and environmental obligations. Modernisation does not stop at conventional passenger aircraft but will also enable the integration of emerging aviation technologies, future-proofing our skies for the next generation of aircraft and making meaningful contributions towards our net zero targets.

Since the start of this Government, we have seen considerable progress on a number of elements within the airspace modernisation strategy. Some of our most significant developments include:

The announcement of the formation of the UK airspace design service, which will deliver holistic and modernised airspace design for the complex London terminal airspace by taking forward airports’ airspace change proposals in a co-ordinated manner.

The successful conclusion of the consultation on the scope and funding model for the UKADS. This will help deliver a step change in how airspace change is delivered, and work is under way to establish the UKADS so it can be operational this year.

The intent to create a new UK airspace design support fund to cover relevant costs of the sponsors of eligible UK airport ACPs that are outside the scope of UKADS.

Progress being made by the 20 airports advancing their ACPs as part of the terminal airspace redesign element, with almost all of the London airports now progressing on to stage 3 of the process, including Heathrow and Gatwick.

The deployment of Pairwise at Heathrow, which has enabled an innovative new way to safely reduce the separation of aircraft upon landing, improving efficiency and reducing delays at Britain’s busiest airport.

Work progressing well on enabling the full integration of UK airspace, including supporting the safe integration of new airspace users, like drones. Following the completion of extensive research projects and stakeholder engagement, the development of an electronic conspicuity concept of operations, outlining the requirements to enable integration, is complete and under review.

The publication of part 3 of the strategy, consisting of the deployment plan, in July 2024, outlining the delivery milestones for the projects in progress or due to commence over the next 7 years.

The airspace modernisation annual progress report, produced by the Civil Aviation Authority, is a requirement by the Secretary of State for Transport and provides details of the progress made within the programme, as well as the policy development work carried out by the CAA against each of the AMS’s elements. This report covers the period from January to December 2024.

It provides a clear overview of the progress that has been delivered across the nine delivery elements and the multiple projects within each one. It also illustrates areas of delay or concern, and what mitigations and measures are in place to reduce them. The full report is available on the CAA website.

This annual progress report, as with previous ones, will be filed in the Library of each House as a record of the work conducted by the CAA during the period of 1 January to 31 December 2024.

[HCWS920]

UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions

Keir Mather Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

In March 2025, the Department for Transport published the maritime decarbonisation strategy, which set out the pathway for our domestic maritime sector to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and included policies and regulations to drive emissions reductions. Research and development is needed to ensure that clean maritime technologies are available at scale as early as possible at an affordable price for the sector to adopt. Supporting UK R&D builds on UK expertise and innovation—a guiding principle of the MDS.

Since 2022, the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions—UK SHORE—programme in the DfT has allocated £240 million R&D funding to develop clean maritime technologies. UK SHORE has funded more than 200 projects leveraging over £110 million direct private investment. This funding has benefited all UK nations and regions, supporting over 500 organisations including over 250 SMEs. UK SHORE has enabled the sector to develop electric and efficiency solutions for various vessel types, like ferries, cargo vessels and offshore wind vessels, and progressed zero and near zero greenhouse gas emission solutions, such as hydrogen, ammonia and methanol. Further R&D is required to develop solutions to maturity and increase commercial viability.

That is why I am pleased to announce that we intend to fund £448 million of R&D investment for UK SHORE between 2026 and 2030. Building on the successes to date, the second phase of UK SHORE will further accelerate the technologies necessary to decarbonise the UK maritime sector and meet MDS aims through R&D, and capture economic growth opportunities by cementing the UK as a place for maritime innovation. Subject to business case approval, this will unlock innovation and investment potential in UK technologies, in UK businesses, at UK ports and in UK shipyards.

Today, I am providing our proposed outline of the future UK SHORE programme to allow industry to plan the next five years of clean maritime innovation. In collaboration with Innovate UK as a delivery partner, UK SHORE will:

Accelerate the commercialisation of developed technologies, including through a future round of the zero emission vessels and infrastructure competition—ZEVI2—to be launched in 2026. This will fund the build and commercial trial of clean maritime solutions.

Develop emerging technologies through to being ready for market, including through a seventh round of the clean maritime demonstration competition—CMDC7—to be launched in 2026, focusing on real-world demonstration projects concluding in 2030. This will be followed by two more rounds to be launched between 2027 and 2029.

Support early scientific research of novel technologies through the ongoing work of the Clean Maritime Research Hub until at least 2028 in collaboration with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Enable development of whole system solutions and penetration of international markets through international R&D. This includes participation in the global Eureka research programme to conduct pre-deployment trials.

We will also focus efforts on tackling the barriers to the scale up of the technologies and companies supported through this funding, working with Innovate UK, across Government, the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank.

Through supporting UK businesses to accelerate technologies through to market-readiness, UK SHORE will advance competitive advantage in clean maritime solutions while complementing wider UK strengths in R&D like automotive, battery systems and hydrogen propulsion. The work to scale up UK technologies and penetrate international markets will strengthen the UK supply chain, increase exports and bolster international leadership. Finally, UK SHORE will aim to continue investment in each devolved Administration and all regions of the UK, supporting growth in coastal communities and manufacturing heartlands.

[HCWS921]

Oral Answers to Questions

Keir Mather Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister—welcome.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

This year, our Department will publish the integrated national transport strategy outlining our long-term vision for transport in England. It will set out how the transport sector, Government and local leaders should work together to improve people’s everyday journeys however they choose to travel, including how people access ports and airports. We look forward to providing more information in due course.

[Joe Robertson]

I welcome the new maritime Minister to his place—it comes to something when Isle of Wight ferry company Red Funnel is operating ferries that are older than the new Minister. Will he speak to his new colleague in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Minister responsible for English devolution, to ensure that the new Mayor for Hampshire and the Solent actually has regulatory or licensing powers over transport across the Solent? If the Government create a new local leader without any powers over integrating the island that I represent, as the Member for Isle of Wight East, into the mainland, they will have failed to deliver any form of genuine integrated local transport for my constituents.

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Member speaks with passion about the state of ferry services in his constituency. It is an issue that I am keen to engage with him on further; I know the former maritime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), was very engaged in this work, too. I am looking to meet the hon. Gentleman next week, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), to take this conversation forward. On stakeholder engagement with the ferry operator itself, that local engagement is something I will be taking part in through the Department. I look forward to engaging with the hon. Gentleman as I take that process forward.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

8. What steps she is taking to support the bus sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to support the aviation sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

Our airports are gateways to the world for the British people and for investment into the UK from across the globe. The Government are committed to supporting the aviation sector as a central part of our growth mission. We are progressing airport planning decisions and modernising airspace; we invited and received proposals for Heathrow expansion, encouraging billions in investment; and to support sustainable growth we have introduced the sustainable aviation fuel mandate and the Bill on revenue certainty.

[Alan Gemmell]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his new position. I spent the weekend in the bonny town of Ayr for the Ayr show, celebrating the aviation sector’s contribution to my constituency and the wider west of Scotland economy. That contribution includes companies such as BAE, Collins Aerospace, GE Caledonian, NATS, Spirit AeroSystems and Woodward, the turnaround of Prestwick airport, and the commitment of defence scale-up Aeralis to build the first British-built jet in 50 years at Prestwick. Does the Minister agree that we need to continue to support our aviation sector to create well-paying jobs at Prestwick and across the UK?

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend has championed Prestwick airport and the aviation sector in his constituency, and I agree with him that aviation is vital to the UK’s industrial and regional prosperity. In 2022, air transport and aerospace supported around 240,000 jobs nationwide. The Government remain committed to backing the sector to deliver high-quality, well-paid jobs from Prestwick to communities across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

12. What recent progress she has made on the development of policy on pavement parking.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

19. What steps she is taking to support the sustainable aviation fuel industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

The Government are supporting the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel industry through the SAF mandate, the advanced fuels fund and new legislation introducing a revenue certainty mechanism. We are working with industry to cut emissions, to boost UK production, to create high-quality green jobs and to attract investment while ensuring value for money.

[David Davis]

I congratulate my parliamentary neighbour on his accession. It is good to see his talents recognised.

Much of the technology currently used in sustainable aviation fuel is of foreign origin. Part of the reason for that is that no Government body directly supports the development of core technologies used for that, supporting only the development of production facilities. The Aerospace Technology Institute, for example, should be able to invest in research and development programmes to develop sustainable fuel, but is currently not permitted to do so. Will the Minister look at allowing that, so we can accelerate the development of our own technology in this area?

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that through the ATI programme, the Department for Business and Trade co-invests with industry in research and technology development in the UK to maintain and grow the UK’s competitive position in civil aerospace. In addition, we fund the UK SAF Clearing House to help fuel producers navigate the testing and approval requirements for non-fossil fuel-based jet fuel. It co-ordinates testing and qualifications of SAF, helping to remove barriers to new fuels coming to market. Plus, the advanced fuels fund has allocated £198 million, with a core aim of overcoming technological risk for early-stage projects to support UK SAF production. If the right hon. Member wishes to discuss any other aspects of this policy, I will be very glad to meet him.

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

On the subject of aviation, the beautiful Isle of Barra airport in my constituency has had to cancel 14% of its flights in the last year on the beautiful beach runway. This is not, on the whole, due to bad weather or tides, but because the Brexiteering Tories withdrew us from the European satellite navigation system, which allows flights to land in low visibility and bad weather. Will the new Minister celebrate his role by meeting me on the beach to discuss rejoining—perhaps not the European Union but at least the European geostationary navigation overlay service, EGNOS?

[Keir Mather]

What an attractive proposition from my hon. Friend—and so early in my tenure in this position. He raises an incredibly important matter, and it would be remiss of me not to give it the full attention it deserves, and therefore I will respond to his specific questions further in writing.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

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

Road Safety: North Yorkshire

Keir Mather Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to use the first Adjournment debate that I have secured to speak about the crucial issue of road safety in North Yorkshire.

I have now been in Parliament for seven months, and some of the most transformative change that I have witnessed in this place has happened when Members have responded to genuinely pressing local need, using every mechanism available to them to fight for their constituents. This is one such case. In my rural constituency, dangerous drivers and inadequate speed-calming measures mean that residents in the communities I represent live in fear. Sadly, according to data provided by the House of Commons Library, there were 36 fatal casualties in Selby and Ainsty between 2018 and 2022. That is second only to the figure in Skipton and Ripon, where 46 fatal casualties occurred during the same period.

The root causes of the issues in my area are clear. Selby and Ainsty has numerous arterial, high-speed roads that pass through village communities with inadequate traffic-calming measures, and rural lanes and streets that were never designed for the motor traffic that we see today. When those infrastructure challenges are combined with the actions of dangerous and reckless drivers, they can have truly lethal consequences.

In the village of Hambleton last month, a person tragically lost their life in a very serious collision. They were attempting to cross the A63, a dangerous main road through the village on which cars travel at unsafe speeds, even though it is surrounded by residential new-build estates and very close to a local school. This was not an isolated incident—there have been numerous accidents on this specific stretch of road—but despite the work of local residents who have set up a road safety action group, the danger remains. I should be grateful if the Minister could provide some advice about what measures are at the community’s disposal and can be pushed so that action is taken—action that I will certainly continue to fight for in this House.

I want to make something very clear: in North Yorkshire, too much of the debate on road safety has been wrongly co-opted into a wasteful, irresponsible and distracting culture war by the Conservative party. It holds a majority on North Yorkshire Council and the executive position for highways, and has 10 of the county’s 12 MPs. If the Conservatives wanted to do something about road safety in my constituency and across the county, they could do so. Instead, they have spent recent months jumping at shadows, fighting anti-motorist policies that do not exist and opposing 20 mph blanket bans that have never been proposed.

All the while, communities in the Selby district are crying out for political representatives who will take the issue of road safety seriously. What is too often forgotten is that when motorists step out of their cars in a village like Cawood or a town like Sherburn in Elmet, they are local people who want to enjoy their communities in safety and with their family. Rather than fomenting divisions that do not exist, the Government and North Yorkshire Council need to sit up, get serious and listen to the concerns of local residents in my area, who cannot wait another day for action to be taken.

The Minister could forgive residents across North Yorkshire for their confusion over the mixed messages they have received from the Conservative party, which has meant that common-sense ways to limit dangerous driving have not been taken. In a piece of literature sent recently to local people in my area, both the local Conservative candidate and the party’s candidate for North Yorkshire Mayor registered their opposition to Welsh-style blanket 20 mph limits, which, to my knowledge, not a single representative of either main party in the county has proposed. In September, however, the very same mayoral candidate, in his role as executive member for highways and transportation on North Yorkshire Council, praised the

“most significant 20 mph zone the council has ever introduced”

in Harrogate. I agree and applaud those efforts, but I ask why there can be a grown-up discussion about road safety in Harrogate, with seven schools having new 20 mph zones placed around them, but in the Selby district we have to deal with unsafe roads and suffer under a Conservative party that is distracted by waging a culture war that simply does not exist.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing his first Adjournment debate. I have to say that I do not recognise his characterisation of the way the local council approaches road safety issues. He gave the example of Harrogate. That particular campaign was started by two residents, Hazel Peacock and Jenny Marks, and it led to a broader community campaign. The issue of 20 mph zones around schools is fairly uncontroversial, particularly when they are adopted alongside such measures as crossings or barriers along the roadside. I have found that introducing simple measures like those has brought communities together, and it might be a way to help the hon. Gentleman in Selby and Ainsty.

[Keir Mather]

To an extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment: it is uncontroversial to have common-sense measures such as 20 mph limits in villages, outside schools and in urban areas. I wish the debate was tret with the seriousness it deserves in my part of North Yorkshire by the council’s executive member for highways, who has been able to achieve that work in Harrogate.

By attempting to turn sensible measures, such as 20 mph zones where they are necessary, into wedge issues in my part of North Yorkshire, the local Conservative party disregards the concerns of local residents. Meanwhile, the council is not taking action in villages such as Lumby, Monk Fryston and Hambleton, where the immediate safety concerns are acute and are badly damaging communities. People want their council to get on with making their villages and towns safe. In some cases, the excuses for inaction just do not add up.

I return to the community of Hambleton, where a local person tragically lost their life. The A63, which bisects the village, is a long, straight stretch of road used by parents with prams, elderly residents and large groups of schoolchildren. It is crying out for pedestrian islands, but North Yorkshire Council has argued that footfall on the road is insufficient, using data from a study that was taken during a school holiday. Although I am pleased that the council has committed to reassessing the area due to the fatality that occurred, an accident should not have had to happen for people to realise that action needed to be taken.

In Monk Fryston, over 800 local residents petitioned for a pedestrian crossing on the A64, and they continue to have my full support. North Yorkshire Council has acknowledged, in my correspondence with it, that speeds are excessive on the road, but it has refused to implement the crossing because it says that there is not a suitable location. I know that the installation of traffic-calming measures is a complicated business, but this road is the key link between Selby and Leeds, providing people with access to the A1. Again, the A64 bisects the village, leaving residents on the other side with no access to local amenities. I ask the Minister to join me in putting the case to North Yorkshire Council that Monk Fryston cannot be held back and disregarded any longer in its campaign for common-sense traffic-calming measures.

I now turn to the wider issue of speeding, which I know is of concern to all our constituents. In Brayton, which lies just to the south of Selby, there has been consistent and widespread concern about speeding along Barff Lane. I am glad that by working with local agencies such as North Yorkshire police, residents’ concerns have been heard and measures have been taken to tackle the chronic problem of speeding on Barff Lane. There is now a speed-activated warning sign along the road and North Yorkshire police are in the process of identifying a suitable location for camera van sites, which will do much to ensure that drivers along the road follows the speed limits and will ultimately save lives in Brayton.

Regrettably, speeding is also seen in other places in my constituency, including Cawood, an extremely rural village whose roads are not fit for the amount of traffic that it sees or for cars going at the speed that they do. I recently held a drop-in event for the community there, and a significant number of residents raised the issue of speeding and dangerous driving on Sherburn Street. I want to make it clear that the safety of residents in Cawood should be a top priority for both North Yorkshire Council and North Yorkshire police. Although I have been assured by the council that there are several existing traffic-calming measures in Sherburn Street, they are in reality having a minimal impact on speeding in Cawood. I would greatly appreciate any support the Minister can give me and local residents in working with North Yorkshire Council and the police to push for measures that will provide a lasting solution to this issue.

It is clear that we have a lot to do, both in Selby and Ainsty and across North Yorkshire, to improve road safety. Every single injury and road death in our communities is one too many, and we must all work together to prevent this debate from being reduced to meaningless, wasteful and distracting culture wars when our constituents are crying out for common-sense change. We need to ensure that local families and the communities in which they live are protected across the length and breadth of our great county, and I look forward to working with anyone who is willing to make this a reality.