Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Paul Kohler and Mike Kane

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Kane]

Clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to introduce, through regulations, a levy on aviation fuel suppliers to meet the costs of payments made by the counterparty to SAF producers and to cover the counterparty’s administrative costs. We plan to fund the revenue certainty mechanism through a levy on industry because it is right that the costs of decarbonising air travel are borne by the aviation sector rather than the taxpayer. We are levying aviation fuel suppliers because placing the levy higher up the supply chain spreads costs across the sector and reduces administrative burdens, and because aviation fuel suppliers will benefit from the greater volumes and lower prices for SAF that the revenue certainty mechanism will create.

Broadly, if the counterparty has incurred costs in a set period, we will cover those costs by levying aviation fuel suppliers based on their share of the fossil fuel market during that period. We are continuing to work closely with industry on the details of how the levy will operate. This approach is in line with the approach of other contracts-for-difference-style schemes, such as in the renewable electricity sector where there is a levy on electricity suppliers. The clause will also ensure that the counterparty’s obligations and activities in respect to the levy are appropriately regulated. I assure Members that the regulations under this clause will be subject to consultation and the affirmative parliamentary procedure, so there will be further opportunities for scrutiny in this area.

Clause 7 enables the levy regulations to require a person who is liable to pay the levy to provide financial collateral to the counterparty. This acts as a failsafe if there is cause for concern about non-payment. It ensures that if a levied party does not make a payment, the counterparty can take any owed money through the collateral. Without this power, there is a risk that non-payments to the counterparty lead to the Government needing to provide financial assistance to ensure that the counterparty can make payments under the revenue certainty mechanism contracts.

Clause 8 enables the levy regulations to include provisions to ensure that the levy is administered efficiently. It allows the Secretary of State to confer statutory functions on the counterparty, such as collecting levy payments and enforcing regulations. It is vital that the counterparty has the powers and functions it needs to operate efficiently and effectively.

Clause 9 will allow us to make regulations on who will calculate matters relating to the levy, and how—for example, how levy payments should be calculated and who is responsible for doing so. It ensures that calculations are made in an appropriate way by people who are qualified to do so. The regulations made under this clause will be subject to consultation and the affirmative procedure.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I rise to speak on clause 6 and new clause 6. As we have heard, clause 6 would create a levy on fuel producers. While I do not necessarily believe that to be the wrong approach, as with much of the Bill, the devil will be in the detail that is not available for us to scrutinise here, for obvious reasons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam will make clear, there may be unintended consequences if the regulations are not designed correctly.

In my opinion, leaving much of the mechanism to a later date is not necessarily a bad thing—I agree with the flexibility that is being put in place. With a new, emerging technology and industry, ensuring that the Government’s hands are not tied at this early stage is a strength, not a weakness. That notwithstanding, some assurances should be given about how the mechanism will be designed, and how the potential flaws raised in the written evidence received by the Committee will be sidestepped. I point in particular to the written evidence from Valero.

Clause 6(3) implies that the levy will be based on criteria relating to the historical market share of fuel suppliers. That has been raised by those in the industry as potentially having unintended consequences. As I raised yesterday with the Minister, who I am not convinced gave me the clearest of answers, there have been worries that it may allow new market entrants not to pay any levy, as they will not have had a previous market share. Will he commit to ensuring that the levy regulations will account for such obvious loopholes?

It is clear that the challenge of decarbonisation, both in aviation and beyond, is great and will not be solved without collaboration with our closest international partners. I therefore tabled new clause 6, which would require the Government to review the differences between our approach to sustainable aviation fuel and that of our European partners in the European common aviation area. With 71% of international air passengers at UK airports travelling to or from Europe, it seems sensible that we should strive to be in broad alignment with Europe with regard to SAF.

I appreciate that there may be differences: in the case of the early part of our SAF mandate, we are going further and faster than the ECAA, but our European partners may accelerate beyond our thresholds later on. However, we believe it is important to remain mindful of what our partners across Europe are doing in an industry that has international competition at its very heart. The new clause would ensure that the Government are fully aware of differences in policy, and alive to any unintended consequences or differences that the Bill could result in for those in the aviation industry. We think that would be helpful.

I would welcome the Minister’s observations on both the mechanism that we have suggested and the broader issue of alignment with our European partners. This is, of course, a probing clause. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Government will keep a watching brief on what the ECAA are doing with regard to SAF from here on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I have a brief question. When the Minister talked about the effect of £1.50 either way on airfares, was he talking about the effect of just the levy or the effect of the mandate as well? As we heard on Tuesday, the mandate will have far more of an effect on prices than the levy, given the premium that is likely to be repayable on SAF.

[Mike Kane]

Well done to the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire; he pulled it out of the fire there with the amendments. He is right that we are putting SAF on the statute book. We should have put it on the statute book years ago, which is why it was in our manifesto and we are doing the right thing now. I will address the questions about £1.50 in a moment.

Amendment 4 tabled by the hon. Member would put a requirement on the counterparty to report on the effect of the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism on air travel prices. Once operating, the revenue certainty mechanism is expected to make minimal changes to fares with an average ticket price, as we have said, decreasing or increasing by up to £1.50 on average per year. I remind him that that is less than a bus fare on Andy Burnham’s Bee Network in Greater Manchester where I live. I would offer to pay it, but it is quite cumulative over time and I do not have that type of resource—I am happy to fund the hon. Member for one year at £1.50 if he so wishes. That figure comes from a DFT analysis.

The costs of the scheme and the impact on ticket prices will be kept under continual review. The Government will also set the approach to the allocation of contracts, the number of contracts awarded and the scale of support they provide. Those controls will help to minimise any potential impacts on airfares. The costs of the scheme will also be reported in the DFT annual report and accounts in the usual way. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked whether the figure refers to the mandate or the revenue certainty mechanism. I assure him that it is just the revenue certainty mechanism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I absolutely understand and appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from with this new clause. This topic came up in the oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading.

It is of great concern that the slightly lower tariffs deal done with the United States of America has clearly and materially threatened UK production of bioethanol, which of course has many uses. Many of us on the petrol station forecourt will have seen the curious E5 and E10 labels on the petrol pumps, which is about the ethanol blended with the regular fossil fuel. Our consumption of it as a country is particularly high.

As we are debating the potential future of bioethanol in sustainable aviation fuel production, it is incumbent upon the Government to reflect, within the scope of the Bill, on how much domestic supply there can be. So much of the Bill is underpinned by sovereign capability and fuel security—a point on which the Opposition and I think the Liberal Democrats are equally aligned on; it is so important—and so surely this new clause must also be important to the Government. I ask the Minister to reflect on that when he responds.

[Mike Kane]

I am extraordinarily proud that we have a Prime Minister and a Government who are rebuilding the UK’s reputation across the world once again, building trade deals with our closest partners across the planet, whether that be India, America or the recent agreement with the European Union. That is where Britain should be—leading and involved, not on the fringes as we have been for many years.

We are debating sustainable aviation fuel, but this is also about decarbonising the planes that will fly in our skies for generations to come. That US trade deal is zero tariff on aviation technology, which is a huge deal for this country, making it a world leader again in the future.

However, I am worried for the workers and families who have been affected by the trade deal. Ministers and officials, including the Business and Transport Secretaries, have met the companies consistently during this challenging time—those companies were struggling regardless of the time—to understand their concerns, discuss what action could be taken and to support them, because that is what good Governments do. The Department for Business and Trade is in discussions on requests for support from the UK bioethanol sector. As a responsible Government, there is a series of strict criteria and well-established due diligence processes that we must follow to consider such requests.

While I would like to see a thriving UK bioethanol sector, we would not expect a significant impact on the SAF mandate if there were to be a reduction in that sector’s production. That is because the UK bioethanol plants use crops that are not eligible for the SAF mandate. The SAF mandate, which is the framework for the supply of SAF in the UK, sets targets based on the availability of waste feedstocks rather than crop feedstocks. The SAF mandate is a global scheme and can use fuels from all around the world, providing an opportunity to draw upon a diverse pool of feedstocks.

However, we also want to encourage a UK industry. In January, the Chancellor announced £63 million of funding this year to help grow UK supply of SAF through the advanced fuels fund, which has been further extended in the recent Budget through to 2029-30. The SAF revenue certainty mechanism—the subject of the Bill—will also boost investment in UK SAF production.

Finally, under the SAF mandate, a formal review of the whole scheme has been built into the legislation, with the first review taking place in 2030. That will provide an opportunity to make an assessment on the availability of SAF supply. The above steps demonstrate how many of the recommendations set out in the hon. Member for Wimbledon’s new clause are already being undertaken by the Government. Given that, I ask him to withdraw it.

[Mr Kohler]

I hear what the Minister says, but we think that not enough is being done to protect the bioethanol industry in this country. We will therefore push the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

My kingdom for a chemistry degree! I will let the hon. Gentleman know the answer to his question in due course.

To go back to the point, new clause 5 would duplicate the process already embedded in the SAF mandate legislation. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause.

[Mr Kohler]

New clause 4 was of course a probing amendment, and the Minister has satisfied most of us that enough will be done to report on our progress towards net zero. I was less convinced by the Minister’s answer to new clause 5. With or without a chemistry degree, the point is a simple one: SAF is green, but some SAF is greener than other SAF. I am not convinced that the Government are yet embracing that or doing enough to work out which SAF should be pushed because it is the most beneficial to the environment. We will press new clause 5 to a Division, but not new clause 4. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Increasing greenhouse gas saving potential of sustainable aviation fuel

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report which sets out a strategy for increasing the greenhouse gas emission saving resulting from the promotion of sustainable aviation fuel production in the United Kingdom.

(2) The report required under subsection (1) must include, but not be limited to—

(a) proposals for incentivising the research and development of Sustainable Aviation Fuels that maximise greenhouse gas emission savings;

(b) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, the minimum required greenhouse gas emission reduction in order for a Sustainable Aviation Fuel to be issued a SAF certificate;

(c) an assessment of, and recommendations for increases to, minimum ratios for renewable content in blended sustainable aviation fuels, for the purpose of more quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

(3) Twelve months after the publication of the report required under subsection (1) and within every twelve months thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish a further report which—

(a) sets out progress against the strategy, and

(b) makes any necessary adjustments to the strategy as a result of developments in the sustainable aviation fuel industry.

(4) In this section, “SAF certificate” has the meaning given in article 2 of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024.”—(Mr Kohler.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Paul Kohler and Mike Kane

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

If we are serious about meeting our climate obligations and economic ambitions, then transparency, accountability and evidence-led policy must be at the heart of the legislation. The ambition of the Bill to build a whole new industry is to be lauded, but it lacks the level of scrutiny that such a large project entails. The Bill sets a framework, but frameworks alone do not produce fuel. Nor do they deliver jobs, attract investment or lower emissions. We must not content ourselves with well-intentioned ambition. After previous broken promises by—I am sorry to say—the Conservatives—to have five plants up and running by now, we have already seen that ambition alone will not deliver what we need.

To truly build the sustainable aviation fuel industry, we must track progress, identify bottlenecks and act on evidence. That is what the new clause provides. It demands a detailed assessment of SAF production levels, uptake by airlines and investment in infrastructure. Further, it requires the Government to consult widely with a full range of stakeholders, widely enough drawn to include employees and unions, as well as producers, suppliers, environmental experts, academics and, importantly, the communities whose lives will be affected, whether by new plants, changes in aviation demand or environmental impact.

The new clause would ensure that Ministers come back to the House not with warm words but with evidence, consultation and a plan. I urge the Minister to accept it in the spirit in which it is offered—constructive, collaborative and committed to making the legislation truly fit for purpose.

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

I thank the hon. Member for the new clause, which seeks to ensure parliamentary scrutiny and that the SAF revenue certainty mechanism will run effectively. I also thank him for saying that I am full of warm words, because I am.

I agree with the hon. Member that it is important to have measures to assess the impact of the Bill and make necessary recommendations; however, significant developments in the SAF industry are unlikely within the first 12 months after the Bill becomes an Act. We are committed to deliver the revenue certainty mechanism as soon as possible, but it is vital that such complex contracts are considered carefully, with time taken to get them right. That will involve negotiations with potential SAF producers.

I reassure the hon. Member that we are committed to transparency in the Bill. We have committed to publishing details of who receives revenue certainty contracts and on what terms. We will also continue to publish annual data on the volume of SAF supplied under the SAF mandate. I hope that he accepts the explanations in the spirit in which they are given and withdraws his new clause.

[Mr Kohler]

I am grateful for the Minister’s flattering and sometimes unctuous words. He makes a good point about 12 months not being sufficient time to give such a report, and I acknowledge the assurances that he has given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Review of the Potential Conversion of Industrial Sites for Sustainable Aviation Fuel Production

“(1) Within twelve months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish a report into the merits of converting disused oil refineries and other relevant existing industrial sites into facilities for the production of sustainable aviation fuel.

(2) The report required under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—

(a) an assessment of the technical and operational feasibility of such conversions;

(b) an evaluation of the economic viability of such conversions;

(c) the cost effectiveness of such conversions compared to new build production facilities, taking into account—

(i) the ability to use existing infrastructure such as tanks and pipelines;

(ii) the complexities of environmental remediation and site preparation.

(iii) the availability and suitability of a skilled workforce within proximity to such sites.

(d) recommendations for government actions to facilitate and incentivise such conversions, where they are deemed beneficial for enhancing the resilience and increasing the domestic production of sustainable aviation fuel industry.

(3) In preparing the report required under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult relevant stakeholders, including, but not limited to—

(a) sustainable aviation fuel producers,

(b) representatives of the oil and gas industry and workforce,

(c) environmental organisations,

(d) local authorities, and

(e) academic experts.

(4) The report must be accompanied by a statement from the Secretary of State on how the findings of the report will be addressed through Government action.”—(Mr Kohler.)

This new clause mandates the Secretary of State to publish a report within twelve months, reviewing the merits of converting disused oil refineries and other industrial sites for Sustainable Aviation Fuel production.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

New clause 8 has considerable merit. It is always preferable where new industrial facilities are to be built—in this case for the production of sustainable aviation fuel—for those identified sites to have had former brownfield status and former industrial use. I have no argument with that element of the new clause.

The one note of caution I have on the new clause is that many of the existing sites—certainly oil refinery sites—are not necessarily located in the right places currently for certain SAF technologies. That includes the e-fuels and power-to-liquid solutions, which require, as part of the process, electrolysis and the creation of green hydrogen. Of course, if the hydrogen element that goes into making the SAF is not green hydrogen, the whole problem becomes rather academic—we could still make the fuel, but the reality is that it would not be as green as we want it to be. Those SAF production facilities, by definition, would need to be located in places with potential large-scale offshore wind, electricity production or, possibly, nuclear generation.

If we look across the world at such fuel plants that have been created, Porsche, for example, chose the hills of Chile to produce its particular fuel, because it can leverage off the wind power that it can get up there. In our country, Orkney seems to have been a popular site for harnessing the offshore wind technology available up there. While I fully support the principle that underpins the new clause—for many SAF production sites to be on former industrial or oil refinery sites—I simply wish to add the note of caution that they might not be suitable for every application and technology out there.

[Mike Kane]

On new clause 8, the hon. Member for Wimbledon is right to talk about deindustrialisation. Growing up in the 1970s, I saw the impacts of that, particularly on the east side of Manchester, with the chemical and mining industries being wiped out. In this day and age, we are still getting over that in my great city. I reassure him that we are supporting the SAF industry, in part, to grasp this opportunity for deindustrialised areas. Emerging SAF projects are often located on former industrial sites, and I remind the Committee that, if we do this right, our low-carbon fuels industry can support up to 15,000 jobs and £5 billion to the economy by 2050.

I also reassure the hon. Member that work is ongoing across Government on the future of our refineries. We are acting urgently in response to the deeply concerning news of insolvency at Prax Lindsey oil refinery, and have put £200 million into the National Wealth Fund to back investment at Grangemouth. I want that work to continue at pace, and am conscious that specific sites will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Commissioning an additional separate report would not be beneficial, and would risk delaying potential investment decisions. Given that, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

[Mr Kohler]

I am saddened by the Minister’s response. We cannot just leave it to the invisible hand of the market to make sure that sensible decisions are made regarding old oil refinery sites.

Draft Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025

Debate between Paul Kohler and Mike Kane

Wednesday 9th July 2025 General Committees

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington for stating the Opposition’s support. UK aviation enjoyed its most successful month in history in April. Over the next 20 years, we are looking at the doubling of numbers in aviation, and freight as well, so modernising our airspace is critical to making sure that there is resilience in the system.

Work was done under the previous Government, and I pay tribute to the former hon. Member for Witney, Robert Courts, for what he did, but Governments become sclerotic and the last Government did not get this measure over the line. I was glad that we committed to do it in our manifesto. What we are doing today by implementing that manifesto commitment and putting it into law will be a huge confidence boost for the aviation industry. When I have spoken to industry representatives, as I do all the time, including this morning, they tell me they have been looking forward to today, because the measure is a statement of commitment and intent.

The hon. Member for Orpington is absolutely right: who knew that flying in a straight line would cut carbon emissions? EasyJet gives the example of the journey from Jersey to Luton airport wherein the aircraft burns a third more fuel because of the path it has to take. Flying in a straight line is better for customers and for the environment, and it will produce fuel savings. He talks about winners and losers, but this measure also allows us to analyse take-offs and landings and varying routes, so we can mitigate impacts on communities. That is key.

The skillset is an essential element of that. Until now, the skills have been dissipated throughout the country. This measure puts the skillset into one place in the UKADS. That means we can concentrate on the most congested skies in the south-east, but it does not stop us doing what we need to do in the Scottish, northern and south-west airspaces. There will be funding to make sure that those other regions benefit, including smaller airports, which the hon. Member asked about. I will also commit to full transparency as we go through the process and get it over the wire to modernise airspace, so that the British aviation set-up has a confident future.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

rose—

Department for Transport

Debate between Paul Kohler and Mike Kane

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

We are giving back control of buses to local authorities—as difficult as it is in some circumstances. It is a £1 billion commitment. People in rural economies need to get about just as much as people in cities and we are committed to making sure that that happens.

Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). I cannot wait to visit and to ride on the No. 65 bus. She is a doughty campaigner for her constituency. She also talked about two Labour Governments working hand in hand to bring rail investment to Magor and Undy station, and I am glad that she has had correspondence with the Roads Minister on the safety of the M48.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) rightly talked about HS2. He highlighted the need to connect our maritime industries on the south coast with the rail network, so that we can take maximum advantage of both maritime and rail to get that freight off our roads.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) summed it up when he spoke about the collapse of Galley Hill Road, which I thought was a metaphor for transport under the last Government. We have committed to the Lower Thames Crossing, with an initial investment of £590 million, and we will be making announcements on that in due course. We have also put in £54 million to fix potholes in Kent. The Government are showing that we are committing to the Lower Thames Crossing, with announcements to come, and are fixing the roads, and yet not one Reform Member came to this debate. Let us remind the people of Kent day in, day out about Reform’s lack of commitment to improving their lives compared with what we are doing.

I was with the predecessor of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) at the British Ports Association. Do they only elect Scottish Members to the Surrey Heath constituency? I noticed that even some of the mannerisms were the same. The hon. Member made some important points about evidence-based transport systems. I think we are demonstrating that we are not a cultural, woke Government but are looking policy data to drive our decisions about how we best connect this country up. He also talked about road safety. Our manifesto included a commitment to long-term connectivity for transport across the country. That will be coming, so I hope he gets involved in the debate when it comes forward.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage talked about HS2. We have accepted James Stewart’s recommendations about the cost overruns, although the hon. Member was right to highlight them. He also asked about how our railways and maritime industry can work together. Green shipping corridors will be key to the future of shipping, but the grid capacity in our coastal communities is not up to scratch. He knows that and we know that, and that is why we made manifesto commitments on our grid capacity. I note that we have already made announcements about greater European train connectivity, but I understand the point he makes about depot constraints; the Government are looking at that as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) is a real champion for Cornwall. I was glad that we could announce £4.1 million for Cornwall alone in 2025-26 in addition to the £201 million —which, as he mentions, is four times greater than the last settlement. We hope to see things improve in that wonderful part of the country.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) always astonishes me. He is like some latter-day Hilaire Belloc in his pinstriped suits and polka-dot tie. He was so positive about the Government that I thought he was going to cross the Floor for a second; we will give him time. He mentioned being disappointed about some areas, but we have done more to decarbonise transport this year, more for buses than any Government have done for a generation, and more for active travel in one year than any Government for a generation.

[Mr Kohler]

I thank the Minister for his compliments. Does he accept that Active Travel England will get £100 million less next year, and does he think that is a sensible way to move forward?

[Mike Kane]

Under this Government, Active Travel England gets settlements that go forward. I have to say that I thought the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip—the former Prime Minister—was actually very good in this space, but the announcements he made were then all pared back. Local authorities need to have long-term continuing investment to connect routes and get people walking, wheeling and cycling. My constituents die of type 2 diabetes, hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—all things that can be fixed by more of us walking, wheeling and cycling. Active travel is key to the Government’s health mission as well as to our transport mission.



I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for his contribution. He mentioned that the settlements for West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the west midlands were similar to those from 2023. Yes, they are, but this Government are delivering on these settlements. We had so many promises from the last Administration, but we are delivering.

We will take no lessons from the Opposition on the costs of Great British Rail, which I think the nation is proud of, given that we were left to clear up the debacle of the overrun costs of HS2—a project that was cut by the previous Prime Minister while he was at the Tory party conference in Manchester. It was the most astonishing decision, and the most astonishing place to announce it. As a proud trade union member, I am glad that the trade unions have come to the table this past year. After years of industrial strife, we are solving the disputes, particularly in the railway industry, and services are beginning to improve.

On long-term investment, I gently remind the shadow Minister that he voted for Prime Minister Liz Truss’s Budget, which left us with a £22 billion black hole. We have been tackling that as well as setting out our ambition for the future. We are fixing the foundations of our transport system to deliver the Government’s priorities. Our funding settlement for 2025-26 enables us to press ahead with reforming our bus and rail services, to get to grips with the maintenance backlog, to empower local leaders to deliver, and to build transformative new routes for the country. The settlement announced earlier this month will build on that; it will drive progress on the Government’s missions, and improve transport for people and businesses across the country.

I thank hon. Members for contributing to the debate. I am grateful for the important work of the Transport Committee, and look forward to continuing to work with it. I commend the estimates to the House.

North Sea Vessel Collision

Debate between Paul Kohler and Mike Kane

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.