Water and Sewerage Companies: Statutory Consultees
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make water and sewerage companies and undertakings statutory consultees on major new housing developments and nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my interest as an officer of the All-Party Water Group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, water companies must by law provide new water and sewerage connections to housing through drainage and wastewater management plans. As relevant statutory undertakers in the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, they must be consulted on relevant applications for development consent. The Government’s forthcoming guidance will promote early engagement with them. The Government have paused creating new statutory consultees in the Town and Country Planning Act regime. As part of a wider review, a consultation on streamlining this system is under way, with decisions to follow.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. It begs the question how the Government plan to build major housing developments of 300,000 a year, many of them on flood plains with no sustainable drains, with the additional demands of the new data centres and mindful of the Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources, giving the acute warning of a deficit of water of 5 billion litres by 2050. Do the Government agree that we need to end the automatic right to connect, so that where water companies say there is simply no capacity, the development will not go ahead?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her constant interest in this subject through many of the pieces of legislation that she and I have debated across the Chamber. There is no automatic right to connect to a sewerage system. Section 106 of the Water Industry Act allows a sewerage undertaker to refuse a proposed connection to its public sewer system, which is otherwise a statutory right. Refusal is possible—and would be subject to an appeal to Ofwat—only when the mode of construction or condition of the sewer does not satisfy the undertaker’s reasonable standards, or where the connection would otherwise prejudice the system. I appreciate her great interest in sustainable drainage systems. As she knows, we are pursuing that for new developments with our colleagues in Defra.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, we desperately need new housing, but avoiding flooding is also essential. Internal drainage board levies make up a significant proportion of the budgets of some local authorities, which often have to cut off other services to fund the IDB levy. The IDB’s work ensures that communities are safe, so that essential housebuilding can go ahead. Pumping stations are run on electricity, the cost of which has risen exponentially since the introduction of Ofgem’s targeted charging review. The Government announced £5 million for councils this year. That is short term, so what is the Government’s long-term solution to this pressing problem?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have been greatly involved in the issues around internal drainage boards and the constant tensions in their financing over the years. Internal drainage boards are not statutory consultees, but they work proactively with local authorities, which are represented on their management boards and can comment on proposals within the statutory consultation period. Where an internal drainage board raises issues that are material to the determination of an application in question, local authorities must take these into account. We are working at pace to deliver the renewable electricity and other energy we all need, to help reduce costs for householders and businesses alike.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, the Minister, in her reply to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned Ofwat. The Independent Water Commission, which reported in July, recommended the abolition of Ofwat and the institution of a new regulator. I realise that this falls under a different department, but would the Minister be prepared to accelerate the start of the new regulatory regime? It seems to be in everyone’s interest that this should happen sooner rather than later.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We were very grateful for the work of the Independent Water Commission. As the noble Duke says, it is not my department that is working through the procedures needed to reply to the recommendations. The Government are considering the recommendations on whether water companies should be statutory consultees or subject to a requirement to notify. A water White Paper will be published before the end of this year, and I am sure that it will contain many of the issues that were the subject of those recommendations. People will be able to comment on the water White Paper in due course.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of how many pumping stations are either completely inoperable or malfunctioning?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That too is probably a question for my Defra colleagues to answer, but I will come back to the noble Baroness with a written response.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, we are seeing more erratic weather patterns and some increasingly severe floods. Is the plan for sustainable drainage systems speeding up? Will we see that in the water White Paper?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The recent issues in Monmouthshire—we are terribly sorry for the people there; they have had a dreadful time over the past few days—make us even more determined to support the delivery of high-quality sustainable drainage systems to help us manage flood risk and adapt to the effects of climate change. National planning policy therefore makes it very clear that developments of all sizes are expected to make use of sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts. I have seen some fantastic examples of that when visiting housing sites around the country. Not only can it be done, but in a way that enhances the environment for local residents. We are considering what further changes need to be made to planning policy.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, in looking at the system of regulation, can we consider that Ofwat’s failures are not in isolation? Many regulatory authorities in this country are showing similar failings, although sometimes in slightly different manifestations. Do we not need not only individual changes, but to look at the whole regulatory system—not just to change legislation but to change the whole culture of these bodies?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Of course our regulatory system is important in helping and supporting the management of the development of the number of new homes we want to deliver. But we have taken a step back to look at the statutory consultees within the planning system—the moratorium was announced by the Chancellor in January—so that we can take account of some of the feedback we have had that the statutory consultee system is not working as well as it should. The Statement confirmed to the House a number of steps that the Government have taken to improve those statutory consultee arrangements—and that includes some of the regulators—including limiting the scope of those consultees to apply only where advice is strictly necessary.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that water and sewerage companies and undertakings should fully engage with local plans and spatial development strategies as statutory consultees, so that these issues can be addressed up front at the strategic level rather than having to do it on a site-by-site basis? That would speed up the planning process and deliver better outcomes.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that early engagement with the local planning authority, the Environment Agency and the relevant water and sewerage companies, as appropriate, can help establish whether there will be water and wastewater issues that need to be considered. We expect water and sewerage companies to take a strategic approach to planning their water services, accounting for growth and the needs of the environment. There must also be strong collaboration between local authorities and water companies, so that local plans, water resources management plans, and drainage and wastewater plans align.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
Is it correct that the Government’s housebuilding target can be reached only if flood plains are used for building—and is that not a practice to be deprecated?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The National Planning Policy Framework is very clear that housing and most other types of development should not be permitted in functional flood plains—that is, in flood zone 3b—where water must flow or be stored during floods. Where development is necessary in such areas, it should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere, so there must be no displacement of the risk. In 2023-24, 96% of all planning decisions complied with the Environment Agency advice on flood risk. In the same year, 99% of residential development proposals also complied with that advice.
South Western Railway
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathcarron
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the performance of South Western Railway since nationalisation, and whether they have taken account of its performance in their plans to nationalise other railways.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, South Western’s performance before and after public ownership has remained below the standards passengers deserve. We inherited from both the previous Government’s management and the previous owners a very serious driver shortage, and 84 out of 90 new trains sitting in sidings, unused but being paid for from the public purse, for several years. Since May, the number of new trains in service has quadrupled and many more drivers are being recruited. It will take time to fix the poor management of the past, but the new managing director and his team will do just that.
Lord Strathcarron (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for his reply, and I agree that this has been a disaster for years. However, passenger groups report that since nationalisation, South Western has suffered a 50% increase in cancellations—it is even worse on Monday mornings and Friday afternoons—and delay minutes per hundred miles have risen by 29%. Rakes have often been halved, leaving passengers standing for whole journeys. Meanwhile, if we can understand them, we see that fares have risen faster than inflation. Would the Minister join me on a weekday morning and pay £49 to stand for one hour in a train from Winchester to Waterloo, and see for himself the results of nationalisation before it starts to affect us all?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I do not need to join the noble Lord on his service, because I am on my own, from Richmond to Vauxhall. It is true that there are some short forms—the result of both the driver shortage and the failure to put the new trains into service. Those are linked, because it is clear that the previous management did not choose to put the trains into service because they would have had to train the drivers. There are 780 drivers to be trained on those trains, and getting them into service means withdrawing 20, 30 or 40 of them from what they do normally. Meanwhile, the trains that are used are falling to pieces. Those are the old red ones, as anybody who has travelled on them will know, and they are best used in their last journey to the scrapyard in Newport, South Wales. They will be gone by December. It takes time to fix things. They were not being fixed under the previous regime, and they are now.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I acknowledge that there have been serious infrastructure issues, some natural and some legacy, but that does not take away from the poor service provided on the longer-distance services. When will passengers on South Western services be able to buy a cup of tea on board, and to reserve seats for their journeys, which is what many would consider to be a basic standard?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is referring to the London to Exeter service, which has not been very good in recent months, although the timetable will be reinstated from 29 November. That is because there was a serious problem with soil moisture deficit, as we have had the driest spring since 1836—and that was not due to public ownership. She also refers to the refreshment trolleys. She may know that I have asked the managing director to see what he can do to put back the refreshment trolleys, which were withdrawn some time under previous Governments—after Covid, I think.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a failure not of nationalisation but of privatisation, and that we have had 13 years of wrecking the train service, like everything else? Is it not the case that we are clearing up the mess left by the previous Administration?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, and he is right.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, a few months ago I asked the Minister about the transition payments that were previously paid when a franchise ended and a new operator came in. He was not at that point able to answer the question about SWR, so I ask him again now, as a few months have passed: have the Government paid any money to FirstGroup as a result of the transition from private to public, and have any further payments been made since the time of the transition?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are very reluctant to pay any money to the previous owners, bearing in mind the condition in which the service was left. That discussion is still carrying on, but I am not aware of any money so far being paid and I would not be keen to pay any in the future.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Strathcarron has opened up this debate about privatisation. I have been the first to admit that previous privatisation was on a strange footing, but I notice that on my Southeastern service on the north Kent line, we are getting that back-to-nationalisation Gallic shrug from many of the staff. On the last 20 sectors that I have used over the past three weeks, I think 15 have been delayed. I am using the Delay Repay service, which comes straight out of His Majesty’s Treasury. Whatever one thinks the turnover and the profits of these services are, they are being massively reduced because of the delays. This applies not just to services on the railway; I am also seeing stations under damage and pressure. For instance, the lift has been out of operation for two weeks at Rochester station, which causes me some inconvenience.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There was not a question in there but, now that Southeastern is run by a managing director who is responsible for both the operations and the infrastructure, I will get Steve White to talk to the noble Lord, and he can make his complaints in person on Rochester station.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a user of South Western, but on the Portsmouth line. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, buys a senior railcard. Is not one of the problems with the Government’s policy that they now get blamed for all the problems of the railway companies that they so-called own? The service on my train has been pretty good, except for one incident which I blame the Minister for. Is he confident that South Western will continue to get the investment it needs now that it is under government control?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am confident of that. Indeed, if the noble Lord is a regular user of the Portsmouth line, he will know that the signalling has been replaced in the last three weeks, which demonstrates significant investment in what was an unreliable system. The purpose of the forthcoming Railways Bill is to create Great British Railways so that, for the first time in over 30 years, the railway is run as a holistic whole by people who understand how to run a railway for the benefit of passengers and freight. That is better than the system that I have inherited and have had to work with for many years.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, have not a lot of the problems with the conditions of the rolling stock arisen from the ludicrous decision to put out the work to the leasing companies, for which it was a massive licence to print money? Certainly, neither passengers nor the Treasury benefited from that.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Although it might be possible to agree with my noble friend, on this occasion that is not correct. The old South Western trains have been at the end of their lives for some five years. Indeed, I found when I arrived there an extraordinary plan to spend £25 million trying to resuscitate rusty trains to keep them in service because the new ones have been in the sidings for five years. That is a fault not of the rolling stock companies but of management and the previous Government.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, under the system of franchising, should a franchise fail, the Government would have the opportunity to put in an operator of last resort. Who is the operator of last resort now?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is familiar with that system; indeed, in his Government’s time, four franchises were already in public ownership as a consequence of that. By and large, they are doing better now than they were under the previous regime. You do not need an operator of last resort if you have management committed to a long-term future of the railway which satisfies passengers and freight.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Strathcarron is a passenger who has a strong voice because he sits in your Lordships’ House. Before the election, the Labour Party promised in its manifesto and its document about rail that it will create a “strong passenger voice” for all passengers. However, now that we can see the Railways Bill, we see that it is a wimpish creature—a revamped TravelWatch—which has no power at all to compel Great British Rail. Would not the Minister just like to admit now that in his vision of a single directing mind for the railways in this country there really is no room for the passenger except as supplicant, never as customer?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord should read the draft Bill more carefully. If he does, he will find that the rather antiseptically named passengers’ council—it will have a better name than that in practice—will have the right to ask for regulatory action to be taken against Great British Railways if it fails to deal with subjects that the passengers’ council has a view about. I am very happy to meet the noble Lord afterwards and point him to the specific wording of the clauses; no doubt we will debate them in due course.
Child Grooming Victims: Compensation Awards
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure compensation awards to victims of child grooming scandals are made in a timely way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, there are three routes by which victims of child grooming may be awarded compensation. First, following a criminal conviction, a court can order compensation to be paid to the victim, but the criminal courts cannot embark on a detailed inquiry as to the extent of any injury, loss or damage. Secondly, victims can bring an action for damages for personal injury in the civil courts; the Government are abolishing the three-year limitation period so that it no longer operates as a barrier to compensation for such victims. Thirdly and finally, victims can apply to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. These awards are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and the majority are decided within 12 months.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply and for our earlier meeting, but might I request a further meeting? These young ladies, who may not all have the strength of Madame Pelicot, will still be living in a highly corrupted community in terms of the activities that were perpetrated upon them earlier. Some of them may not be relevant for an award; none the less, the entire community does not seem to be honouring British law with regard to respect for women, young women and children. Would the Minister be willing to have a meeting, to discuss not the award but the wider implications which perhaps we might manage to do something to help?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to speak to the noble Baroness, and the answer is yes.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, will the Government set up a unit to start assessing the numbers of the victims of the grooming gangs, and in particular their distribution and their personal situation, and then start learning from the problems of the previous schemes, such as the Post Office Horizon and infected blood schemes, so that when the inquiry is complete, the victims do not have to wait years for their compensation?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, knows, it is a top priority for the Government to appoint the chair of the national inquiry as quickly as possible, and we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for supporting these efforts. Once the chair is in place, the terms of reference for the inquiry will be settled, and we will take it from there.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, we discussed criminal exploitation of children last night. I know from my experience that a young woman was denied any compensation because of the way the trial was conducted. She was in the position where, when the third barrister had been appointed by the defendant, she was told that she had to go through her third cross-examination. She went out that night and did things she should not have: she got drunk, and maybe had other substances—I do not know—and ended up in the police station overnight, and then any compensation was denied her. We are in the position that because these young women are extremely vulnerable, the way we operate our court system retraumatises them in many ways. I hope that the Government, in thinking about the compensation, take these issues into account.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a number of points in that question. Many of those will be for the national inquiry to deal with, so I will simply deal very quickly with the question of convictions and their effect on compensation. It is right to say that it is a condition of applying to the criminal injuries compensation scheme that the applicant does not have unspent criminal convictions. The difficulty with waiving that for one group is that it undermines the universality of the system. We are very anxious not to create a hierarchy of victims where some are seen as more worthy of belief or compensation than others, and we will do everything we can to avoid that.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, it has been widely reported that four victims of the grooming scandal have resigned from the liaison panel of the national grooming gangs inquiry, describing a “toxic, fearful environment” and accusing the process of being manipulated away from the central issue of the grooming gangs. Will the Minister commit to publishing a proper timeline, including a fixed timescale for the appointment of a chair, and a clear start date for this important inquiry?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The Government were extremely saddened by the resignation of those victims, and they are always welcome to rejoin and re-engage with the process—we very much hope that they will. The process of appointing the chair is well under way. As I have already said, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is assisting with this. It would not be helpful to give a running commentary on what is happening, but it is important to the Government to get on with this.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned three possible avenues for compensation. I think she would accept that the largest award is likely to be if there is a civil claim, rather than the other two avenues. Can she help the House with who the potential defendants in such a claim might be? I am not asking for her legal advice but for some general guidance if this is to be a realistic remedy.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Of course, we are speaking generically about victims of grooming, but they may fall into a number of different categories. There are the grooming gangs, about which a great deal has been heard, but there are also, for example, victims of online grooming. So I cannot really give an answer as to who the potential defendant is going to be that will actually deal with all the victims. That is a case-by-case decision to be made.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
Have the Government consulted the Independent Public Advocate about the new inquiry? As the system threatens yet again to overwhelm the voices of victims and survivors, would not her guidance and support for this group be really valuable in this instance?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I recognise, of course, her ongoing interest in the Independent Public Advocate, which is very welcome. I do not know the answer, so I shall write to her.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, on the wording of her Question, which for once does not put the word “Pakistani” in front of “child grooming scandals”? Does the Minister agree that the problem is to be laid at the door not of our Pakistani men but, very largely, of our Muslim men and that, therefore, the problem is religious, not ethnic?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am afraid I am absolutely not going to agree with that. It is going to be a matter for the new national inquiry, and I am not going to pre-empt that.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Walmsey did not necessarily ask about the terms of reference of the inquiry; she asked about the mechanisms of the payments of the compensation scheme. Have the Government learned from what has happened in the infected blood and Post Office Horizon schemes, and are they now working on the mechanisms of the compensation scheme so that fast payment will flow once the public inquiry has reached its conclusions?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The difficulty with that question is that it presupposes the existence of a compensation scheme for these victims. There is no such compensation scheme in existence. Whether or not that is something that is recommended by the national inquiry, we will wait to see. As I have already said, there are a number of different categories of victims in these cases, and not all the same conditions apply to all of them. But I take the point that if there were to be a compensation scheme, it would be important that it paid out quickly.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
Given the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, surely a very specific compensation scheme would deal with those issues. I suggest to the Minister that she looks at the scheme that we set up in Northern Ireland to deal with institutional child abuse. The way in which that scheme worked meant that it was very quickly operated and that victims were able to access it. It is something that the national inquiry could very much benefit from looking at.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness very much for that. Obviously, that is something that will be very useful to look into once the inquiry is set up.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, the perpetrators of these crimes are men from all backgrounds, but many of them are not from upstanding backgrounds in the sense that some are involved in criminal activities such as drug dealing. So what action are His Majesty’s Government wanting to take against those convicted, looking at the Proceeds of Crime Act? These people were able to groom some of these young ladies—women—and girls because they had flash cars, et cetera. How do we ensure that those monsters have all the criminal assets from their ill-gotten gains taken away from them after conviction?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It is a very good point. Every judge at the end of a criminal trial has the ability to make a confiscation order, and these are being pursued with rigour because it is really important to ensure that criminals do not profit from that kind of illicit activity.
President Trump: Nuclear Weapons Statement
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of President Trump’s statement on 30 October regarding the testing of nuclear weapons.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and continues to press for its entry into force. We remain committed to our voluntary moratorium on nuclear test explosions, having ceased nuclear testing in 1991. The nuclear testing policy of the United States is a matter for the US Government, and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment further.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, it is easy to look on this as some sort of playground bravado by President Trump, who clearly did not understand the implications of, or what was meant by, the trials of delivery systems that Putin was conducting. With him having made his statement, President Putin wanted to show how tough he was and made his statement about doing tests again. This would be probably quite amusing if it was not so incredibly dangerous. The comprehensive test-ban treaty is one of the few treaties regarding nuclear weapons that are still in existence; many have fallen by the wayside. We are less safe than we used to be because of that. If the comprehensive test-ban treaty is broken, it opens a Pandora’s box. All of us will be far less safe. That is extremely worrying.
I know the Minister cannot say very much in response to my Question—in effect, it was nothing, but those are wonderful. However, even though something may not happen because the Department of Energy in America is unable to do a test straight away—it will take a couple of years and cost billions of dollars, so this thing may go away— and even though, as he says, it is their business, does he believe that the Government should make it very clear to the Americans how much we support keeping the test ban treaty in place and that we will be very disappointed if there is any break to that?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The UK has a long-standing and important relationship with the United States—it is important to start out and say that on a number of occasions. The comprehensive test-ban treaty, as my noble friend has said, is a really successful treaty, and we continue to push and to do all we can to ensure that it is as effective as it is with as many states as possible. We look forward to everyone who signed it ratifying it in due course.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we saw the PrepCom for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—or NPT—conference, which is due to meet again next year. We have five signatories. In light of what we have heard from the rhetoric of Russia, and the actions that others have taken, what assessment is being made of the potential success of the NPT meeting next May? Further, linked to the recent conflict we saw between India and Pakistan, what extra efforts have been made to ensure that those countries also sign the NPT?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord has a lot of experience in these matters, and he knows that numerous conversations go on and numerous efforts are made by numerous countries, in ways we cannot often speak about in this Chamber. Whether it is India and Pakistan, or other countries, numerous debates and discussions take place to ensure that we are as safe as we possibly can be. As he knows, the parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will meet in New York next year—I think is an important statement that it is taking place in New York. It is a really important treaty. We have the comprehensive test-ban treaty, and we have the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I think sometimes that what countries such as us should do, as well as recognising the difficulties and problems, is to continue to push the importance of those treaties and to do all we can to ensure their continued success.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that this is the latest instance of the potential use of nuclear weapons being referred to loosely by leaders of the recognised weapon states, on which President Putin gave the lead on several occasions when he spoke about it in the context of the Ukraine conflict? That is surely a lamentable change from the taboo on talking about these matters since the end of the Cold War. Does he think that we would do better to work at the non-proliferation treaty review conference next year for a reaffirmation of the view that a nuclear war must not be fought and cannot be won?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a good point. With all the questions and my comments so far, it is extremely important that we do not let rhetoric cause a problem. The question that the noble Lord has posed is important. As I have said in my answers so far, it is important that we talk about the success of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. We have not conducted a nuclear test explosion since 1991. The United States and others have conformed to that as well. People must be really careful in the use of rhetoric in whatever circumstance. Our debates and discussions on these matters are looked at and pored over. I take the noble Lord’s point very seriously. We need to be very careful in how we discuss these matters while having the right to discuss them.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
In a conflict-beset world, a credible nuclear deterrent is unarguable, but macho posturing by the leaders of the United States and Russia is an alarming development that undermines the non-proliferation treaty. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, will the Government take a lead to encourage or persuade India, Pakistan and Israel to sign that treaty, reaffirm it, strengthen it and make it clear exactly what has been said? A nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We encourage all states to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It has been a huge vehicle by which we have worked together to keep the world safe. This Government accept, as previous Governments have done and as do many Governments across the world, that the nuclear deterrent is part of the security architecture of the world. Part of having a nuclear deterrent is to deter from war, deter from aggression. The restatement of the deterrent policy is consistent with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, under which the noble Lord will know that the UK is allowed to have weapons.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, following on from what the Minister has just very helpfully said, in relation to our own United Kingdom nuclear defence capability, we have seen just this week that between 400 and 500 jobs will be put at risk at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. The Government claim that the workforce needs to be reshaped so that it is fit for the future. However, in a time of growing international insecurity, can the Minister confirm that there will be no reduction in staffing for our nuclear weapons capability?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
What I can confirm is that there will be no reduction in our capability of ensuring that the nuclear deterrent is effective and that it remains so seven days a week, 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. That is the commitment that the Government make. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the AWE. That is about looking at reshaping how that important body works. The Government have committed £31 billion to the Dreadnought programme, with a £10 billion contingency. We have committed £15 billion in this Parliament to the development of a new warhead. That is a Government who are committed, as the last Government were, to spending billions of pounds on maintaining the credibility of our nuclear deterrent, which, as I said in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is essential to the global security of the world.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to my entry in the register of interests, particularly as vice-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which I am a consultant to as well. Every European NATO member has ratified the 1996 nuclear test-ban treaty. In addition to a commitment to Article VI, the commitment by the five nuclear weapon states to the CTBT was essential to the indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1995. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that former US officials who have had responsibility for their nuclear arsenal have stated publicly that new US nuclear tests are unnecessary, unwise and unwelcome. As those officials have done, have our Government assessed the impact on the NPT’s future if there are renewed explosive nuclear tests by any of the five—including the US and the UK?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I have said, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is an essential part of the Government’s policy. We remain committed under that treaty to the aspiration to a nuclear-free world, which may seem a long way off but is our aspiration. All I can say with respect to this is to reiterate the complete commitment that the Government have to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to the meeting next year in New York. We want that conference to be a success.
The UK remains an active participant in all the nuclear non-proliferation treaty forums, alongside the commitment to maintain for as long as is necessary our nuclear deterrent. The commitment that we have to that nuclear non-proliferation treaty is important as well. That is good UK government policy.
Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 18 and 19 November.
Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 19 November.
Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 18 November.
Asylum Policy
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the Home Secretary’s Statement to the other place announced a number of reforms which are very welcome. When the Government bring forward strong measures, we will support them. The Home Secretary should be praised for accepting a simple truth—that Britain’s asylum system is far more generous than that of many other European countries.
It is a truth that, unfortunately, many Labour Back-Benchers cannot seem to grasp. The true test to these reforms will be whether the Government can face down opposition from within their own ranks and implement them.
There is another welcome truth that the Home Secretary has implicitly accepted: up to now, the Government’s measures to tackle illegal migration have failed. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we have spent many hours debating in this House, is woefully inadequate to deal with the issue. It is a shame that it took the Government so long to realise this, but we are where we are. We will have to have another immigration and asylum Bill next year because the Government were too slow to reach the logical conclusion that their plans are not working. These new announcements are at least a tacit acceptance that that Bill did not go anywhere near far enough to seriously tackle small boat crossings.
There are a number of proposals here that are very similar to amendments I tabled during the Report stage of the border security Bill—amendments that the Government completely opposed. It is heartening to see that they have finally come round, but it might have been easier for all of us if they had compromised earlier.
For example, the Government opposed my amendment to create third-country removal centres. The Minister criticised it for wanting to rehash the Rwanda policy, but that is a complete falsehood. The Rwanda policy would have sent illegal migrants to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. The amendments I brought to the border security Bill would automatically reject that asylum claim brought by an illegal migrant and then return them to either their home country or a safe third country. Their claims would not be processed in Rwanda because they would never be allowed to make a claim in the first place.
That amendment was about having safe third countries where we can send failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants who cannot be returned to their home country. Now, in their policy statement, the Government say:
“We will continue to explore the use of ‘return hubs’ which are safe third countries that failed asylum seekers can be sent to instead of their country of origin. Negotiations with a number of countries are ongoing”.
This is precisely what we were pushing the Government to do, and I am pleased that they have announced that they will look to send failed asylum seekers to safe third countries, but this all could have been much easier if they had come to this conclusion earlier.
The Government have also announced changes to the appeals procedure. The Statement says that the Home Office will
“create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators”.
However, it does not mention whether this appeals body will run alongside the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) or replace it. Could the Minister please clarify this?
Would the Government run this new body alongside the judicial appeals tribunals? If so, how would they decide whose appeal is heard before which body? Or are they proposing to abolish the immigration and asylum tribunal and replace it with the Home Office review body? If so, then that was exactly what I proposed by way of Amendments 46 and 47 to the border security Bill. On Report on 5 November, 128 Labour peers voted against that. If they have changed their mind on this, it is very embarrassing to say the least; it is disappointing for them to vote against that proposal and then come up with something very similar.
The Home Secretary has claimed that she is following the lead set by Denmark, but this is only a partial truth, because Denmark requires asylum seekers to prove full-time employment for several years before they qualify for permanent residence.
The Government’s plans extend the waiting time to get indefinite leave to remain to 10 years once a person’s refugee status has been granted and if they entered legally. This would be 20 years for those who entered illegally, but this does not impose any conditions. Theoretically, a person could enter illegally, languish on benefits for 20 years and then be granted the right to indefinite leave to remain. While I am pleased to see asylum status become temporary, and for anyone whose home country becomes safe to be returned there, it is absolutely wrong that a person could enter illegally and still be allowed to remain, especially given the Government’s opening of new safe and legal routes. If we are to have legal routes for refugees, we absolutely cannot reward those who enter illegally. That would make even more of a mockery of the whole system. Why would a person bother to apply for the legal route if they know that they can board a boat and be allowed to stay here? The Government need to follow this plan to its logical conclusion and ban asylum, human rights and protection claims from any illegal migrant.
Finally, the plan to reform Article 8 is all well and good, but the Government have to know that this will not be enough. While we have the Human Rights Act in force and are party to the ECHR, we will face the same barriers to removals that we do currently. Reforming the interpretation will simply allow crafty human rights lawyers to find innovative new ways to circumvent it. Only a wholesale repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR can finally remove the legal barriers to deportation.
The Government have started moving in the right direction. As my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we will support the Government in making these changes. But I fear that they will not be enough and that the Government will end up coming back to us next year with further changes. If they simply accepted that now, and went even further with these changes, it would save us all a lot of time down the line.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests, and I am supported by the RAMP organisation. I am minded to think of the title of that great film, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”; I am afraid that these proposals have all three within them. I will go through some of those.
Starting with the positive, we support the Government’s intent to bring order in the asylum system, and we welcome the announcement of new, capped, safe and legal routes for refugees. These pathways, with security checks and controls, are the correct way to fulfil the UK’s responsibility to those in need. Confirmation that the Government will not leave the European Convention on Human Rights is welcome, as is the recognition that early legal advice should be a core part of the appeal system.
Moving on to the bad, or impractical, the argument that asylum seekers should contribute is undermined when they are denied the means to earn their way. Denmark allows asylum seekers to work after six months. Why are the Government persisting in stopping asylum seekers from working when there is no evidence that this is a pull factor? We question the assumption of the UK as a magnet, given that we receive far fewer asylum seekers per capita than our European neighbours. Home Office analysis itself found that asylum seekers have little to no understanding of welfare policies before arrival. Shared language, diaspora communities and perhaps even colonial connections are the primary drivers for asylum seekers taking irregular routes to the UK. Can the UK Government provide evidence, rather than simple assertion, on this matter?
Revoking the duty to support risks creating more destitution and pushing more asylum seekers towards illegal working and exploitation. What assessment has been made of this risk? What action are the Government taking to avoid passing the financial strain onto already struggling local authorities? The use of immoderate language is also unhelpful and risks stoking division. Why do the Government feel the need to create a whole new asylum appeals structure? Why not simply expand the existing system?
The most severe criticisms target the core protection model and its administrative fallout. Core protection requires a status review every 30 months and delays permanent settlement for 20 years, which in our view is unnecessary and cruel. This prolonged state of instability will inhibit successful integration by making it difficult for refugees to secure tenancies, employment or higher education. The Home Office is currently struggling with a backlog, yet this policy would impose what has been called bureaucratic madness, requiring a huge increase in capacity to review the status of an estimated 1.45 million people by the end of 2035, potentially costing £872 million. Do the Government accept these figures or have they alternative ones to offer?
Scrapping the refugee family reunion route pushes children and spouses into the hands of smugglers, directly contradicting the goal of safe migration. Has this risk been assessed? How will the long-term separation from family impact refugees’ ability to contribute and reduce their reliance on state support? Will the Government be detaining and deporting children who were once accepted as refugees but will subsequently not be when their home country is deemed safe?
Given that Denmark’s temporary protection scheme clearly failed to result in returns for Syrians, how do the Government justify the massive cost and profound uncertainty imposed by the UK version? What is the timescale for these changes? When will they be implemented and what method will be used to implement them?
Finally, do the Government agree with the report in the i newspaper that deportations will be retrospective? It says:
“It means that, if a refugee has not already been granted indefinite right to remain before the Home Secretary’s new legislation comes into force, they will be deported if their home country is subsequently deemed safe by the Government”.
I look forward to the Government’s response to these questions.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I will try to answer his questions first of all. I am grateful for the welcome he gave to some of the Government’s proposals. I remind him that the reason we are undertaking these reforms is that we have inherited a very broken system: a system that has been in operation for 14 years, where the number of asylum claims has risen, where the backlog has grown and where the deportations have not existed where they are rightfully proposed to exist. We have a duty, on behalf of the British people, to take some difficult decisions to sort this out.
The noble Lord mentioned that the border security Bill, which has completed its passage bar one Commons amendment, has not been effective. Let me remind him that we have introduced a border security commander, who has negotiated deals with France, negotiated deals with Iraq, negotiated deals with the Germans and has been put on a legal footing by this Bill. We have put extra measures in place to support penalties for people smugglers, which will now, once Royal Assent is achieved, allow us to take some further deterrent actions against people smugglers to end that vile trade. We have put in place mechanisms to stop the manufacture and use of boats, to seize engines and to do other things which will take effect once Royal Assent is agreed. I do not, therefore, accept his contention first and foremost that the border security Bill, about which we have had many hours of discussion, is pointless.
I have to say to him, however, that the Government have to keep these issues under review because it is self-evidently a broken system, which is why we put in place additional people to speed up the backlog. The measures before the House today, outlined in the Statement, will be brought forward in legislation, subject to consultation. We will also look at a range of other measures we need to take to fix the system we have inherited from the noble Lord and his political party. He may not like that—I do not want to politicise that: I want his support for this—but we have had to take those steps because of where we are, and I think that is reasonable.
The support he has given for some of those steps is particularly good. He mentioned, for example, the tightened criteria. I think it is fair and proper that, if a country is deemed safe after two and a half years, the individual concerned is encouraged and supported to return to that country; or, as is in this proposal, they can apply for a different route through work or study to get permanent residence downstream. If the country is safe, however, it is perfectly reasonable to look at how we can remove that individual.
The proposals include tackling increased enforcement on illegal working. I think it is perfectly reasonable to put some pressure and heat into the system to tackle people who are being employed illegally, to look at increasing the right-to-work checks, to provide digital ID requirements—which I suspect he will oppose—to ensure there are mandatory right-to-work checks and collaboration to verify companies. I think that is reasonable. I think it is reasonable to look at return hubs: not Rwanda, not £700 million being wasted, not two people being removed voluntarily, but discussing proper return hubs for people who do not have safe countries but where their asylum claims have failed. It is perfectly reasonable to remove people whose asylum claims have failed because their asylum claims have failed. That is perfectly reasonable to do.
It is perfectly reasonable to do what we are doing in this proposal to speed up assessments and appeals. He asked about the First-tier Tribunal. We are going to put extra hours into the tribunal and we are going to ensure that we look at improving the legal system to get appeals dealt with and tribunals dealt with much more quickly. It is reasonable—and this is, again, where we will have a bit of blue and red water between us—to be committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, to be committed to legislation to uphold human rights, but actually to say that we want to look at how we can tweak that to make sure that it acts in the interest of our country, at the same time as being part of our international obligations, which is where we are. He wants to leave those conventions. I do not, and the Government do not, but we need to make sure we make them work in a better way to deal with this issue. I think it is reasonable for us to do all those things and I hope for and look forward to his support on them.
I welcome the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord German. It has been overlooked in this, but there are safe and legal routes that we want to develop, as we have done, for example, in our bespoke schemes for Ukraine and for Syria. There are bespoke routes that we can develop. There are safe and legal routes that we can look at. In this Statement, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that we wish to look at doing that. We are committed to human rights, but we are committed to looking at these particular issues. We will encourage people to look at the work route, if necessary, for safe and legal routes, and we will ensure that a range of other issues are examined.
The noble Lord takes issue with the core protection measures that we have before us in this proposal. I think, again, that it is reasonable, given where we are, to look at how we can ensure that those people are assessed very quickly, within two and a half years, or 30 months. If the country is safe to return to, they can return. If not, let us get that asylum claim approved, or let us get that asylum claim rejected and the individual then returned. I think that is a reasonable proposal. It is reasonable that we look at family reunion, and the noble Lord asked about child deportations. I do not want to see child deportations, but what I want to see is, if people have failed their asylum claim or if they are a foreign national offender—of which we have many languishing in UK jails at the moment—we must find mechanisms to return those individuals fairly and properly to their communities if they are safe, or, if not, to look at the issue that we have talked about here of an alternative holding establishment. All of this will be consulted on.
The noble Lord asked about when and how this will be brought in. There will be legislation brought before both Houses of Parliament, at a point to be determined, and the consultation will take place. However, I ask all those noble Lords who may criticise the proposals: are they happy with the status quo? Do they think the status quo is a good place to be? I think nobody in this Chamber will say that the status quo is a good place to be. Therefore, my objective with the Home Secretary and the Home Office is to look at ways in which we can maintain our international obligations, welcome genuine refugees and asylum seekers, but also speed up a broken system to make sure it works effectively.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, who will decide whether a country is safe? The previous Government decided that Rwanda was safe, but the Supreme Court, following a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, said that it was the body with the responsibility for deciding whether a country was safe. So my question to the Minister is: who, under the Government’s proposals, is to decide whether a country is safe—the Government or the Supreme Court?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. I take the view that the Government will determine ultimately which are safe countries. The Government will make that judgment. We are open to challenge and discussion, but the Government will have to make a determination on that. In doing so, we will look at a range of factors. What does the United Nations think? What do the other agencies think? In the end, however, the Government ultimately will have to determine. Again, let me just say that it may not even be a blanket “safe” for a particular country. It may be safe, for example, now, for individuals post an Assad regime to return to Syria, but it may equally not be safe for some individuals to do that. There is a case-by-case basis for the individual, but, ultimately, we have to make that call.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to human rights, and I know it is a sincere one, but the Statement itself appears to express some irritation with both Article 8, respect for private and family life, and even Article 3, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. In the light of our own justice and prison system being found in breach of Article 3 in the High Court just two days ago, can the Minister say a little more—give us a little more specificity—about the detail of the proposed renegotiation of Article 3 that the Statement refers to?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. We are seeking international reform of the application of Article 3. We will work with partners to reform the application of the ECHR’s prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment. That means we have to discuss it with our partners and get joint agreement, but it is an objective to which the Government are committed. It is one that will be tested. It will be in our consultation in due course. We will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. That will be subject to scrutiny, but it will be within the spirit of maintaining our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights application. Those are fair and legitimate objectives, and I hope that my noble friend will support them in due course.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, the Home Secretary ended her Statement by saying that her reforms
“are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide”.
My greatest worry about them is that making refugee status only temporary, and subject to review every 30 months and deportation, will have the opposite effect. It will not bring unity, it will not encourage community or integration, and it is not very British. The Attlee Government did not try to deport the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in 1945. The attempt to send trucks round south London to generate a hostile environment and tell people to go home was called off very quickly because of the public revulsion. I remember being very warmed to see crowds in Glasgow blocking the streets to prevent the deportation of their neighbours.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, he did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, about retrospection. Can he assure us that the change from five years to 10 years or 20 years will not be applied retrospectively to those people who are here, have been allowed to stay here and came when the rule was that they could obtain citizenship after five years? It will not apply to them, I trust.
Secondly, the Statement says that
“as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country”.
Does “as order and control are restored” imply a sequence: that we need first to see order and control restored, then we will open safe and legal routes? If it does, is that not wholly illogical? The best way of putting the traffickers out of business and ensuring that there are no deaths in the channel is to open safe and legal routes. Will the Minister also tell us how a system of capping safe and legal routes will work? How will the caps be set and how will they be made compatible with our obligations under the refugee convention?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will try to answer the three broad issues within that. The first is the reduction in time from five years to 30 months. It is not, “At the end of 30 months you are deported”; at the end of 30 months, an assessment will be made about whether the country the person has come from is safe, to go back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I hope that we will not have long backlogs on asylum claims in the first place. That is why other measures are being sped up. Part of the problem, and the reason why people are waiting for five years and beyond, is that asylum claims are not met. From our perspective, if an asylum claim can be met and sped up then a decision can be taken to grant asylum, in which case the individual has asylum—admittedly with a longer period for final settlement—or they are removed from the country under a deportation route. The purpose is to try to put some energy into the system to get that sped up very quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about safe and legal routes, and the annual cap. The Home Secretary will examine and consult on this as part of the proposals, but it is perfectly reasonable to try to set an annual cap, in discussion with our refugee convention and other obligations, to see what the country can bear in terms of housing support and everything else so that annual cap is based on community capacity. We can then look at safe and legal routes that help support individuals to come here so they do not use the illegal routes that are universally condemned across the House. We will maintain the flexibility that we have for things such as the Ukraine scheme and the Gaza scheme. If I had been putting this before the House six years ago, we would not have been talking about a Ukraine scheme. Who knows what will happen next? We retain our international obligations to do that.
The noble Lord asked about retrospection. That will be part of the discussion and consultation. Legislation will be brought forward to address what will happen, and that will be subject to tests by both Houses of Parliament.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, I declare an interest as a participant in the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Three and a half years on, we have a delightful Ukrainian family still living in our house. In the section of the report on safe and legal routes, the options in the policy document include a route to safety for students and skilled workers. Such schemes may be a useful adjunct to sufficient open safe and legal routes, but does the Minister share my concern that, in a world where safe and legal routes are limited, we may send a message that young, healthy, skilled people are more deserving of sanctuary than others?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
No. We need to look at individuals’ asylum claims based on their merit. An individual who is not of working age or is not going to be involved in education or study can have an asylum claim. The key point in the safe and legal routes aspect is that we need to look at what that is and design a scheme. We will consult on that. The work and student visa route will be one that individuals can apply for during the course of their asylum claim. If their asylum claim is granted, that gives another route into longer-term settlement, which would be valuable if the individual wishes to do that. I retain an openness to examine individuals’ claims and positions on the basis of their individual status.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the Home Secretary’s Statement and the acceptance that the current system is unsustainable. It is interesting that perhaps a year or two ago, people proposing some of these measures would have been accused of being racist, so I welcome the Statement. The Government will have to get support from other political parties to get these measures through. Does the Minister accept that he will have to work with Reform UK, whose leader, whatever noble Lords may think about him, was one of the first people to raise the issue of the difficulties and the possibilities of migrants coming in on small boats?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will welcome support for the Government’s proposals wherever they come from, but if the noble Baroness thinks that I have anything in common with the honourable Member for Clacton and his crew, she is sadly mistaken. I come from a position of trying to ensure that we build a coterminous, cohesive society that is open and tolerant but manages its borders effectively. I do not seek to cause division, which I think the honourable Member for Clacton seeks to do. He wants us not to solve this problem; he wants it to continue. He wants the small boat routes to continue so that he can spread division. That is not on this Government’s agenda. We are here to fix this problem, not to exploit it.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I urge the Minister to think again about the sequence of events regarding safe and legal routes. Many of us believe that introducing safe and legal routes would take away the business of the traffickers. Therefore, leaving it until the end of the line seems to allow the traffickers to go on doing their business. Could we speed that up, please? Secondly, on the 20-year period when people may or may not feel secure in this country—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has already referred to this—is the problem not that if people feel insecure in this country then local communities will feel less likely to support them, and integration will suffer? Is there something the Government can do to make people feel more secure, because 20 years is a long time when families are here and children have been born here? It is not a humane way to proceed.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I know my noble friend takes a great interest in this, and I am very happy to discuss safe and legal routes with him and my colleagues in the Home Office, because I know that he is committed to this issue and we must ensure that we explore it extremely safely. I want to see community cohesion, and longer-term integration is an issue the Government have set their stall on. That is subject to consultation. Again, I want to work with my noble friend to ensure that we deal with this in a proper and effective way. The door is open to him at any time.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, during the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Minister made it quite clear that the Government would not in any way amend the Human Rights Act 1998 and that they were very concerned about the independence of the judiciary. Yet the Statement refers to potentially changing the approach to Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act requires the judiciary to take jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights into account; this has been followed and built upon by judges in this country. How will the Government alter the approach to Articles 3 and 8 without amending the Human Rights Act and without impeding the independence of the judiciary?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the question of Article 8 claims, Article 8 is a qualified right, which means that interferences with it can be justified where it is proportionate to the public interest. We will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. On Article 3, we will work with partners to reform the application of the ECHR’s prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. Both of those are potential tweaks, which will be subject to legislation and consultation, but which we believe can be done within our international obligations. We are not the Official Opposition who wish to withdraw from those international obligations; we wish to maintain them. But I think it is fair, open and proper that we can examine legislation to tweak them.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, there is not a word of the Prime Minister’s foreword to this Statement that was not true on the day that he became Prime Minister. It is welcome that the Government have got to where they have. The Minister referred to our record; my recollection is that, every time we proposed tough things, they were opposed by the party opposite. I do not remember us ever being challenged because we were not being tough enough.
My question is this: having read through the Statement and the policy document carefully, there are a number of measures that require changes to the Immigration Rules, which is obviously secondary legislation, but there are also a number, as has just been referred to, that require amendment to primary legislation. Certainly, my sense of the Home Secretary’s demeanour is that she feels that this is a very urgent matter to deal with. Has the legislation been drafted and is it ready? When is it going to be introduced? Will it be introduced in this Session to carry over or will it have to wait until the next Session of Parliament? If the latter, it does not strike me that the Government are treating it very urgently.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I remember serving as the noble Lord’s shadow about 10 or 11 years ago, when he was the Immigration Minister and we were both Members of Parliament. I supported a number of the measures that he brought forward then, which were very difficult. We, too, will take some very difficult decisions, and I hope to take Members of both the Government’s party and opposition parties with us.
On the question of legislation, he will expect me to say this, but I am going to say it anyway: legislation will be introduced in due course. I cannot comment on legislation in the second Session yet, but legislation will be introduced in due course.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I declare an interest, having been engaged with these matters for rather more than 20 years as the co-founder of Migration Watch, together with Professor David Coleman of Oxford University. I have read the Government’s Statement with great care. It covers a huge amount of ground, as previous questions have indicated, but it is clearly a serious attempt to deal with a matter that is a real and growing public concern. Further measures will certainly be needed, but this is at least a useful start.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. A number of Members of the House have asked why the Government did not do this a few months ago and what the Government will do next. Life is not static. There are competing challenges at all times. We are trying to bring forward the immigration Bill and bring forward proposals here. My right honourable friend will soon be making a Statement on other aspects in the House of Commons, which I suspect I will have to repeat early next week, and there is an immigration White Paper proposal as well.
This is a journey to try to ensure that we bring order to a system that is currently failing while maintaining our international obligations, being fair to people who are escaping war, poverty and terror, and at the same time making sure that we support United Kingdom citizens in finding integration and welcome where that is required. That is an ongoing process, and I would welcome the noble Lord’s support for any measures that we bring forward.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the status quo might not be where we want, but where the Government are moving to causes me some deep concern, not least about integration and the dehumanisation of migrants and people seeking sanctuary. I want to bring to the Minister’s attention some interesting polling by HOPE not hate, which reveals that most people are not anti-migrant; they are angry that they do not have access to public services, a GP, hospitals and housing for themselves and their children. They are worried about the future and they need good schools. Does he not realise that, until we deal with these issues, people will always look for somebody else to blame, particularly the stranger in our midst?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend makes a strong case for what I believe is the Labour Government’s intention, which is to rebuild public services and public trust in government. If he looks across the board at employment measures in the Employment Rights Bill, at housing measures in our housing proposals and at public transport measures with my noble friend here, he will see that we are trying to rebuild public services that have been hollowed out and to raise aspirations for an equal, prosperous society where everybody can contribute and reach their full potential. That is what the Government are trying to do. I take his point that people will always try to find scapegoats on issues where they feel uncomfortable that they are not having a fair crack of the whip. We need to encourage that integration and look at the social issues that my noble friend mentioned.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I say to the Minister and the Home Secretary that this set of measures is to be welcomed, but I am afraid that it does not quite go far enough. I have one specific question for the Minister on the Statement. The Home Secretary said this in the other place:
“We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of ‘degrading treatment’”,
in Article 3 of the ECHR,
“has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own”.
She is absolutely right to say that. She goes on to say that, in order to address this problem,
“we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/25; col. 512.]
I am afraid the reality is that that sort of international method to seek amendment to the European convention will take years and years.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an objective that we have set, one that we are trying to achieve and one that the activities of the last few weeks have shown the Home Secretary to be very focused on delivering. We want to make sure that we can effect those changes. There is an appetite in certain parts of Europe to begin that dialogue and process. Perhaps I should say in conclusion that it is only a shame that the noble Lord did not do any of these things when he had the chance.
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought, Northern Ireland legislative consent granted.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to present the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill for Second Reading today. I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and congratulate him on his forthcoming maiden speech in your Lordships’ House today. I look forward to hearing his contribution to this important debate, and to his many contributions in the months and years ahead.
If we are to be an outward, confident trading nation that is connected to the world and leading the way on innovation, we must move as fast as we can towards a greener, cleaner future for flying. Domestic transport accounted for 29% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2023. Aviation is currently the second largest contributor, and it faces unique barriers to decarbonisation. By 2040 it is set to overtake road vehicle use as transport’s largest emitter. SAF will be key to decarbonisation, a drop-in solution that can be used today in today’s aircraft with today’s infrastructure. SAF also has huge economic benefits for the wider low-carbon fuels industry, potentially supporting up to 15,000 jobs and contributing up to £5 billion to the economy by 2050.
SAF is not the only measure that we are supporting to address emissions in the aviation sector. The Government are supporting the development of more efficient and zero-emission aircraft technologies, and we have announced a further £1 billion of funding for the Aerospace Technology Institute to help to spur green aerospace innovation. The Civil Aviation Authority, supported by my department’s funding, is shaping regulations for zero-emission aircraft through its hydrogen challenge. Alongside that, we are advancing airspace modernisation to enable cleaner, quicker and quieter journeys. The Government are also establishing a UK airspace design service with the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Service, which are working together to launch this by the end of the year.
Turning to aviation fuel, the Government, alongside industry, are working collaboratively to ramp up the UK’s SAF industry. The UK stands at the forefront of global efforts to decarbonise aviation. When this Government came into power, we acted immediately by laying the statutory instrument for the SAF mandate, which came into force on 1 January this year. We have invested £63 million in 17 projects through the Advanced Fuels Fund, which will drive growth, support good jobs and deliver emissions reduction.
The revenue certainty mechanism introduced in the Bill is a scheme designed to support UK SAF production to drive growth and opportunity across the country. It addresses the lack of a clear and predictable market price for SAF, one of the biggest constraints on investment in UK SAF production. The RCM builds on the established precedent of contracts for difference in the renewables sector. Under the RCM, an SAF producer will enter into a private law contract with a government-owned counterparty that sets a guaranteed strike price for SAF. If SAF is sold for under that price, the counterparty will pay the difference to the producer. If SAF is sold above the price, the producer will pay the difference to the counterparty.
It is important to emphasise that no final decisions have been taken on how the strike price will be determined. The RCM contracts must set a strike price that finds a balance between securing the appropriate protection for the producer and its investors and providing value for money for the scheme and the wider sector. This is a new and emerging market. This will be the world’s first SAF RCM, and it will derisk SAF projects by addressing barriers to investment in a nascent market that is using innovative technologies. Like similar schemes in the low-carbon electricity sector, this will help to provide greater certainty of future revenue, help to attract investment in first-of-a-kind SAF plants, and support growth and opportunity across the country.
Turning to the SAF Bill, it has four key areas. First, it will enable the Secretary of State to designate a counterparty that is wholly owned by government. Secondly, the Secretary of State can direct the counterparty to enter into private law contracts with SAF producers, guaranteeing a price for the sale of eligible SAF over a period of time. The mechanism is there to support the development of a first-of-a-kind plant by increasing investor confidence. While first-of-a-kind plants are likely to be more expensive than future plants, supporting them allows future, cheaper plants to get constructed and start producing SAF. The contract allocation process will be designed to maximise competition, with all contracts to be underpinned by robust technical and commercial due diligence to ensure that successful projects represent value for money.
Thirdly, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a levy on suppliers of aviation fuel in the UK, in order to fund the RCM. That will allow the counterparty to collect the levy to cover the costs of issuing payments under contracts that are administering the scheme. It is right that the costs of decarbonising air travel should at least be partially 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 because aviation fuel suppliers will benefit from the greater volumes and lower prices for SAF that the RCM will create. The RCM will provide support only if SAF is actually being produced. If a project fails, there is no obligation on the Government to provide support. While novel technologies can have high failure rates, we can support multiple technology pathways to minimise risk and strengthen the UK’s project pipeline.
Fourthly, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to enforce certain provisions imposing financial penalties. The Secretary of State may impose a financial penalty on a person who fails to comply with levy regulations, or with requirements under regulations made to ensure that any paid-out surplus is used to benefit fuel suppliers’ customers.
This is a comprehensive and focused Bill that lays the foundations for a thriving UK SAF industry by delivering investment certainty, cutting emissions and securing the long-term sustainability of the aviation industry. More SAF supply and lower prices are good for the aviation sector and, ultimately, for those who wish to fly. The Bill is an essential part of securing our world-class aviation sector’s future, and we want it to do that sustainably. I look forward to engaging with noble Lords on this legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate on the Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the Aviation All-Party Parliamentary Group.
I do not intend to make a lengthy speech, but I shall touch on the essential ingredient of the Bill: the introduction of a revenue certainty mechanism to support the production of sustainable aviation fuel in the UK. We know that the Government currently impose an SAF mandate on the aviation industry whereby 2% of aviation fuel used in the UK must be SAF. That target is set to rise to 10% by 2030 and 22% by 2040—somewhat ambitious, I believe; nevertheless, that is the target.
I have met and spoken to representatives of all aspects of the industry, at their request, over the last year—airport owners, airline representatives and SAF producers, to name but a few. They all have one thing in common: a genuine desire to see the introduction of lower-carbon alternatives to conventional aviation fuel, which is very encouraging, particularly when you look at some other sectors.
Worthy of mention, perhaps, is that, on the domestic front, in 2022 the Royal Air Force and industry partners carried out the world’s first 100% SAF flight, in an RAF Voyager, an Airbus product with, I might add, wings constructed in Wales. We know that most of the SAF currently produced is HEFA-based: that is to say, made from hydro-processed esters and fatty acids—hence the acronym HEFA—that are derived from oils or fats such as cooking oil. A 2025 market report produced by companies in the sector stated that globally, 82% of current SAF capacity relies on HEFA technology, which is limited by available feedstocks. Moving forward, we look to second-generation and third-generation SAFs from solid waste and other materials.
The Climate Change Committee, the independent adviser to the UK Government on climate risk, said in its 2025 report to Parliament that SAF supply was sufficient to meet the Government’s current SAF mandate that 2% of aviation fuel must be SAF. However, it said that meeting the Government’s 10% target by 2030 was “uncertain” as production of different forms of SAF
“will need to scale up”.
The committee said that SAF producers must now start to diversify away from HEFA-based forms of SAF if the 2030 target is to be achieved.
That brings me to the main points that I wish to raise with the Government today. I believe that the Bill will be successful if it includes the necessary provisions to protect existing SAF production in the UK and maintain its competitiveness in the international market. A number of global renewables companies are in the process of developing techniques to produce low-cost, low-carbon SAF, and they have chosen to conduct business here in the UK. I know this to be true because I have met them. They see the UK as a convenient climate in which to operate. Coupled with the SAF mandate already in force, this could make the UK a leader in green aviation fuel production.
However, if the Government are serious about building a UK SAF industry and capturing the green jobs and fuel security benefits of doing so, the revenue certainty mechanism needs to be introduced at pace. Other major economies are moving ahead with their own plans to support domestic SAF production, particularly in Europe through the EU’s green deal industrial plan, which provides billions of euros in incentives. If UK policy incentives do not keep pace with these markets, this will at best delay production and at worst mean that companies move their global hub and associated production facilities overseas.
I ask the Minister: how seriously do the Government take the need to move at pace to retain companies developing SAF in the UK? Does he agree that if SAF production is to be viable for developers, they will require early access to the designated counterparty for revenue certainty mechanism negotiations ahead of the Bill’s ratification? Also, while they are keen to attract foreign investment, can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that grants from the advanced fuels fund are directed to support British technology?
Finally, what assurances can the Minister give to the travelling public that the Government’s estimated impact on ticket prices, of between minus £1.50 and plus £1.50, is accurate? In Committee in the other place, the International Airlines Group commented that some elements have not been included in the calculation, noting that the cost
“will be nearer to £10””.—[Official Report, Commons, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill Committee, 15/7/25; col. 17.]
I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we too look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, and we welcome him to the House. We are generally supportive of the measures in the Bill but have some concerns about areas of government policy that lie beyond its scope, and a few questions about the details.
To put the Bill in its legitimate context, it will help reduce CO2 emissions from aviation, but it is not a magic bullet. Alone, it is not a sustainable answer to the challenges we face. Aviation is, of course, one of the hardest sectors to abate and it is expected to show continued and rapid upward growth. Aviation is critical to our economy and our way of life. It moves some 240 million international passengers and 2.4 million tonnes of freight each year, adding £14 billion in GVA to UK GDP. The industry also supports 1 million associated jobs and £4.2 billion in associated passenger duty. Aviation accounts for 7% of UK carbon emissions, but this figure is due to rise significantly, to 11% in 2030 and 16% in 2035. Unless decisive action is taken on a broad range of fronts beyond the scope of the Bill, we will not meet our targets. Net zero 2050 is not optional; it is imperative.
We on these Benches do not wish to challenge any UK family’s right to a holiday. When we debate the Bill, we need to be clear that 15% of people in this country take 70% of the flights, and we need to change that. The Climate Change Committee was clear in 2023 when it said that SAF alone is a risky strategy. My party would reform air passenger duty to target the most frequent flyers. We would ensure that we have an escalating passenger duty so that those who fly the most frequently, pay more. We also oppose overexpansion of the airports, particularly in the south-east. This Government have chosen to take a different path, and it is for them to balance this path of increased airport expansion against their climate change commitments and targets. Therefore, we welcome the Bill but note our caveats.
SAF is widely considered as the main available pathway to decarbonise aviation. It can cut lifecycle emissions by up to 70% compared with conventional jet fuel. As we have heard, it is a drop-in fuel that can be used alongside existing aircraft and infrastructure. The SAF mandate passed last year starts at 2% and rises to 10% by 2030, and then to 22% in 2040. From 2040, the obligation will remain at 22% unless there is greater certainty of supply. The SAF mandate could, it is claimed, deliver up to 6.3 megatons of carbon savings each year by 2040.
We on these Benches welcome the revenue certainty mechanism. It will serve to strengthen investor confidence and unlock significant capital investment in the production facilities that need to be based here in the UK. It will allow for long-term stability and contracts through the guaranteed strike price. As the Minister said, this mechanism has been widely used in the renewables sector, and we know that it works. It will provide certainty to these suppliers. The approach is logical. The industry stands to benefit from cheaper staff, and the cost will be spread widely throughout the industry.
We recognise the UK’s approach, the long-term mandate, the proposed revenue support and the degree of certainty it will provide to help with this transition. Indeed, the UK is seen as an example of best practice, with ambitious targets and support mechanisms. Establishing a homegrown low-carbon fuel sector will bring significant jobs and benefits to the UK industry and wider society. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of ongoing negotiations with industry, running parallel with the Bill? Further, when will the Government be able to provide details on how the strike price will be set and what mechanisms will exist for adjustments? When do the Government anticipate that the first contracts will be signed?
While we welcome the Bill, we stress that SAF is only a first step. This is about not merely blending fuels but seeking alternative, more sustainable climate-friendly options for the longer term. That needs continuous investment and innovation in the next generations of technologies, including the battery/electric and hydrogen-fuelled. The Bill sets the policy framework, but crucial details are left to subsequent negotiations.
We have several key questions regarding the Bill’s ambition, scope and technical design. The SAF mandate requires 22% of jet fuel to be sustainable by 2040. This means that 78% of fuels will still be polluting just a decade before our net-zero deadline, so how will the Government achieve this target? In addition, the European Union has a higher target of 70% by 2050. What action will the Government take to bring further alignment not just with our EU partners but internationally?
We also have concerns about SAF feedstocks and the amount of cooking oil that is imported. It is important that we have a reliable domestic supply. We also note concerns about bioethanol and the closure of plants, particularly the Vivergo plant in Hull, and the impact of the US trade deal and subsidies on US ethanol. We are concerned about the potential for future bioethanol plant closures.
What consideration have the Government given to the inclusion of intermediate cover crops, such as catch and cover, as a scalable feedstock outside the HEFA cap to expand the resource base without competing with food markets? We believe that the transition to a sustainable aviation industry must be strategically linked to our existing industrial base. What actions are the Government taking to see that existing industrial plants are brought back into use, make sure that the planning system is fit for purpose and ensure that these plants can be brought online quickly?
While the Government are committed to undertaking a comprehensive assessment of these industrial sites to see that they are brought back online, transparency is paramount given the importance of public trust and accountability. The funding levy should also not place undue financial burden on air travellers, so how will the Government review the impacts to ensure that the levy does not include further burdens on those travellers? For the sake of public accountability, are the Government amenable to ensuring that the airlines report publicly on their use of SAF and the amount of it that they supply? We broadly welcome this Bill, but the Bill alone is not a sustainable long-term solution, and we call for greater monetary transparency and openness.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis and co-chair of Legislators for Nuclear. I look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I support the Bill, with the caveat that costs to consumers of these measures must always be front and centre, with all the freedoms that cheap air travel has opened up to people from all backgrounds in recent decades. But I accept that there is a strategic need to invest in the long-term sustainability of aviation fuel for the UK and that we need a revenue certainty mechanism alongside the mandate.
I have three broad points. My first is around the definitions in the Bill of fuels that are eligible for the revenue certainty mechanism. Clause 16 defines “sustainable aviation fuel” as,
“aviation fuel that is renewable transport fuel”.
“Renewable transport fuel” is defined in the same clause as,
“anything that is (or is treated as) renewable transport fuel for the purposes of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004”.
It then refers to Sections 131D and 132. I proposed the amendment to what is now the Energy Act 2023 that led to Section 131D, which treats recycled carbon fuels and nuclear-derived fuels as renewable transport fuels. That amendment was therefore a key enabler for this Bill in enabling support for second-generation and types of third-generation SAF.
However, this requires secondary legislation to take effect and treat these fuels as renewable transport fuels. This has not been completely done for the surface transport renewable transport fuel order; it has been done only for recycled carbon fuels. But it has been done for the sustainable aviation renewable transport fuel order, so we have quite a convoluted legislative route here between various Acts and secondary legislation. Can the Minister please confirm that recycled carbon fuels and nuclear-derived fuels are within the scope of the revenue certainty mechanism outlined in the Bill?
Clearly, recycled carbon fuels will be very important in the near term. Over the medium to long term, nuclear could well be a significant source of synthetic fuels due to the potential economic efficiency it brings to hydrogen production, whether that is high-temperature electrolysis, with the current pressurised water reactor plants, or, looking further ahead, the sulphur-iodine cycle in advanced high-temperature nuclear plant.
My second point is around the powers that the Government are taking in the Bill. They have clearly stated that they do not intend to offer contracts for first-generation SAF based on hydrogenated esters and fatty acids—HEFA. Should this therefore be stated in the Bill? The Government should take only the powers they need, given that this Bill is a framework for the long term. There is a case that the powers in the Bill should be limited to second-generation and third-generation sustainable aviation fuels. I do not foresee any good reason why HEFA fuels would need such support, so I believe that this could be clearly stated in the Bill.
My third point is around value for money and competition. We rightly heard a lot of discussion in the other place around costs to consumers and analysis on the £1.50 impacts on airfares. The Minister clearly stated that we need to get the right balance between investors and consumers with the prices that are negotiated, but another way of looking at this relates to the competitive structure within the Bill. Of course, the way the Bill is structured around bilateral negotiations, rather than a competitive process, is what is needed for the SAF market at this stage, noting its immaturity. An auction process, such as that which we have for offshore wind, is not perhaps appropriate at this stage.
However, this Bill needs to be fit for the longer term. Competition is the way to drive down costs for consumers in the long term, as has been demonstrated in more mature markets such as offshore wind. So, in the longer term, we need that mechanism for auctions and competitions within the Bill but, looking through it, I cannot see a mechanism for setting up such a competitive process.
Other government legislation, such as the Energy Act 2013 for CfDs for renewable energy generation, clearly states that regulations made may include provision for,
“the determination of a matter on a competitive basis”.
We also have that in the Energy Act 2023 for low-carbon hydrogen, which clearly states:
“Provision falling within subsection (2) may include provision for … the determination of a matter on a competitive basis”.
This Bill makes no provision for regulations to cover the determination of a matter on a competitive basis, or indeed for allocation frameworks. I would be grateful if the Minister could state whether, in his view, a competitive framework is covered by the Bill as written and, if not, whether it should be. The Bill should be fit for the future to avoid the need for future legislation in this area, and it should be structured to minimise costs to consumers, which in the end will be enabled through competition.
Finally, this Bill will go a long way to realising second-generation and third-generation SAF production in the UK, but the Government need urgently to address broader challenges as well, not least our high industrial electricity prices. I have spoken to a number of companies that want to set up SAF plants and related infrastructure in the UK, but they simply cannot make the numbers stack up when our electricity is four times as expensive as competitors such as the USA. This is a very energy-intensive industry. Alongside the measures in this Bill, we need to address the fundamentals to ensure that we are being fair to consumers and minimising required subsidies. I hope the Government will think about the broader framework as well and not just see this as a problem to be addressed through subsidies.
The Lord Bishop of Chester (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their warm welcome, although I confess that sustainable aviation fuel was not a subject that I imagined I would be addressing when various noble Lords have given me advice about maiden speeches. I am grateful for their wisdom, warmth and welcome, and especially that of the doorkeepers and staff of this House. It seems that I should have taken them rather more literally when they said I would be working with high-flyers, and rather less literally when they pointed out that not everything was rocket science.
I speak as one born almost two and a half thousand miles from where we sit. Indeed, the first serious journey of my life was by air, back here to the UK. I am also a father and, like the rest of this noble House, entrusted with passing on entire to the next generation this good earth. Sustainability matters: the good Lord provided us with many things, but a spare planet was not among them, at least in this age. It is this balance of pragmatisms which means that I speak largely in support of the Bill. We need to be real about air travel being vital to modern life. It builds community, enables encounter and crosses divides.
My diocese of Chester serves communities in two nations and 23 local authorities. It spans urban and rural, wealth and extreme poverty. We gaze at the universe from Jodrell Bank. We support half of the Mersey’s industrial life. We rejoice in our schools and in Chester University, and we cherish our world-renowned zoo. Indeed, we also have Warrington, which, according to the i Paper, may be Britain’s hardest-working town—who knew? All are part of the life of the diocese, from the newish migrant to the most established among the Cheshire set, from those who take penalties on the sporting field to those who serve a very different type of penalty. We are linked to the world both by Liverpool John Lennon Airport, which is in the diocese of Liverpool just across the River Mersey, and Manchester Airport, where one actually lands in the diocese of Chester but disembarks in the diocese of Manchester.
To repeat myself, the diocese of Chester touches two nations. I serve a border people, just as I did in my former see of Berwick-upon-Tweed. In Chester, we have several parishes which are all or partly in Wales. My Lords—or, as I should say, “fy Arglwyddi”—“Esgob Caer ydw i a ’dw i’n dysgu tipyn bach o Cymraeg”. I apologise for my lamentable Welsh accent. I am learning a little Welsh, partly because I carried on with Duolingo long after lockdown but, much more importantly, because communication is a vital gift for those of us who nurture and curate community. In communication, we need to learn to speak and to listen. This is almost always done in person and directly. Indeed, I argue that one of our primary vocations in this noble House is to be with and to listen, for few disciplines are more vital in the search for wisdom—the search I so often witness in your Lordships’ House. The question for me is not so much how we can be great again, but how we can be kindly present. Greatness is great, but grace is greater.
Air travel does more than build community; it enables partnership and commerce. It is a vital part of the defence of our nation, as I witnessed when offering chaplaincy to our Armed Forces. It is the backbone of much international aid provision, and it enables care for people and the planet. Chester Zoo, for example, serves ecosystems around this world. The relative ease of transport is one factor in this. My experience working in the university sector showed just how much journeys matter in the service of education.
Air travel is vital and is here to stay, but its environmental impact must be addressed. This means that net zero matters, but it is not the only sustainability consideration. Mike Berners-Lee points out, when ostensibly discussing the environmental impact of bananas, that the problem is not only emissions but where they are released. Sustainable fuel is far from carbon neutral. Although it shortens the life cycle of released carbon in the sense that it releases carbon which has only recently been captured, it also moves that carbon into the upper parts of the atmosphere, where it is most harmful.
I welcome the Bill’s creation of an economic framework in which SAF becomes a viable investment. I welcome the balancing of the use between investment by directing costs towards those who make use of the service—in effect, taxing flying to enable more sustainable flight seems very sensible. By itself, though, the Bill does not do nearly enough. The move it encourages from first- to second- and then, vitally, to third-generation SAF is essential. HyNet, in which the University of Chester is a partner, and which makes use of the geology and industrial infrastructure in the north-west, is one other expression of this kind of investment. The production of green hydrogen, which combines captured carbon with sustainably electrolysed hydrogen, really is the holy grail here—let any budding and noble theologians note that I do not use that term in a technical sense
Alongside the Bill, we must invest in rail and in environmental road transport if we are to progress to sustainability. It cannot be right that more than half my return trains from this place to my home in Chester seem to be delayed or cancelled. What are the projected timescales for substantive provision of third-generation SAF? Is consideration being given to roll out this technology beyond aviation?
The Bill helps us play our part in global well-being in every sense. The question with which I come to this House is—as I mentioned earlier—not so much how we make Britain great again, but rather how we make Britain kind again. Such kindness and responsibility are what leads to greatness in a manner which actually lasts and embraces all. In this, this Bill matters. Our infrastructure must line up with our fundamental identity and core vocation if we are to thrive. The Bill represents one structural step, but it is a step in the right direction and I support it.
Lord Raval (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and commend the Government on bringing forward a serious and long-awaited framework to decarbonise a sector that accounts, as the Minister said, for its ever-rising share of our national emissions.
Before I turn to aviation fuel, an altogether more uplifting and sustaining subject commands our attention. It is an extraordinary privilege and an honour to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his outstanding maiden speech. His contribution displayed the wisdom, moral seriousness, humour and quiet authority with which he will flourish in the work of this House.
If I may declare a personal interest, long before he was a Bishop, the right reverend Prelate joined a Senior Faith in Leadership programme which I directed. Across residencies with rabbis, imams, priests, business leaders, medics and public servants, I observed at first hand the depth of his character. He remained firmly rooted in his own tradition while offering genuine friendship across boundaries. In our digitally recorded conflict simulations—designed to test even the most devout—he kept his cool, listened with generosity and mediated with a humility that enabled others to shine. As I recall, he won.
I learned then that, although the right reverend Prelate had read mathematics at Cambridge, with every conventional avenue of worldly success open to him, he could not escape a deeper calling to ministry. As warden of Cranmer Hall, and vice-principal of St John’s College, Durham, he nurtured generations of leaders and equipped them to grapple with exactly the kinds of questions he raised a few moments ago—questions about community, purpose, presence and belonging.
The right reverend Prelate’s recent doctoral thesis offers a further window into his nature: a pastor-scholar attentive not to abstractions but to how real people grow, collaborate and serve. In it, he explores the call to integrate a leadership that is rooted ultimately in love—in the words of the right reverend Prelate himself,
“a combination of spiritual, emotional, rational, and pragmatic intelligence”,
reflecting a “relational understanding of humanity”. As was underscored by this and the preceding debate, we meet in a time marked by polarisation, disaffection, a growing distance from once-trusted institutions and the unsettling acceleration of trends intensified by digital habits, including, regrettably, the amplification of hatred that distorts our public square. The right reverend Prelate brings precisely the countervailing gifts this moment requires: not only the intellect, analytical clarity, logic and tech-savviness to address these forces—he is really brainy—but the pastoral breadth to speak, as he reminded us only moments ago, with the communication and genuine connection needed both for those who share his convictions and for those who feel unheard or left behind.
It is often communities whose social anchors have shifted that can be drawn towards simpler, louder narratives. The right reverend Prelate offers instead an approach that sees diversity not as a difficulty to be managed but as constituting a tapestry of human intelligences to be woven for the common good. Such leadership is not merely timely, it is essential. We look forward to, and indeed need, the right reverend Prelate’s statesmanship in this House.
I turn briefly to the Bill before us. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, working alongside the SAF mandate, provides the clarity and confidence that industry has long sought. With first-of-a-kind plants costing between £600 million and £2 billion, and typically running at a loss in their early years, the revenue certainty mechanism is a critical enabler of the investment this industry requires. This is precisely the sort of pragmatic investment-led policy that creates jobs, strengthens supply chains and positions the United Kingdom to lead in clean aviation technology—but ambition must meet delivery.
Industry modelling suggests that announced UK SAF projects may deliver only around half the volume required under the 2030 mandate unless further policy and investment steps are taken. Meanwhile, total UK greenhouse gas emissions, including aviation and shipping, amount to approximately 414 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Aviation will not decarbonise itself, and the Bill helps ensure that the UK does not fall behind while others race ahead. I therefore strongly support its direction of travel.
My question to the Minister concerns the feedstocks that will power this transition. As has been said, many early SAF pathways rely on used cooking oils, industrial residues and, critically, black bin bag and other residual wastes. As we rightly reduce such waste and increase recycling, how does the Government’s modelling ensure a stable, sustainable and ethically sourced supply? How will Ministers balance emerging SAF demand with existing waste-to-energy plants and local authority waste reduction targets so that one green ambition does not inadvertently undermine another?
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow a very well-articulated tribute to the right reverend Prelate, to whom I also offer my congratulations on a very well-made, thoughtful and appropriate maiden speech. He will undoubtedly make a major contribution in this House, and I think all of us welcome him to this place.
I start, ironically, by referring to my entry in the register as an advisor to AtkinsRéalis as well as to Hutchison Ports. It is a particular pleasure for me to speak in this Second Reading debate. Two years ago, I was responsible for an amendment to the then Energy Bill which mandated the Government to set up a revenue support mechanism for sustainable aviation fuel in the UK. I stopped after getting 56 Conservative signatures to the amendment, which proved enough, just about, to finally jolt the Government, particularly the Treasury, into action and starting a process which has brought us to this point today. I am glad that I will be speaking alongside my noble friend Lord Harper, who followed that by playing a significant part in delivering us to the point we are at today. My noble friend is another example of why this is a genuinely bipartisan Bill. There are debates, differences and discussions about the detail, but there has been strong support across all sides for the principles that underlie the Bill today.
I was very pleased at the time that Ministers then recognised that they needed to do something and I am very pleased that Ministers in the current Government have continued the work that we started and have delivered this piece of legislation, which I strongly support, albeit with some caveats and questions which I want to push the Minister on today, in Committee and subsequently. I think there are some things that need to be tightened up and some questions that need to be answered, but the principle is absolutely right.
For me, the reason this all matters is very simple. The aviation industry is under growing pressure over its carbon footprint. Whether you are an opponent or a supporter of net zero is, to my mind, completely irrelevant to this debate. This is actually about the market pressures on the airlines themselves, particularly from a younger generation of potential customer among whom flight shaming has become more visible. The industry has to address those concerns, and we have to help it address those concerns and its impact on the environment.
It is not just about politics, it is actually about what is commercially necessary for what is one of our most important economic sectors. Of course, that is why Virgin Atlantic, Boeing and Rolls-Royce collaborated on the ground-breaking transatlantic pioneering flight using sustainable aviation fuel two years ago. We were on that flight and it was a very unique experience. It is why I know that most of the industry strongly supports this legislation. It is why the last Government brought forward plans for the SAF mandate and why this Government continued to introduce the mandate at the start of this year.
Why then do we need a revenue certainty mechanism of the kind set out in the Bill? Our airlines could just buy SAF from overseas. The initial product being used in this country will almost certainly come principally from the United States. There are two very good reasons why the Bill remains necessary. First, our aviation sector is, as I say, a key part of our economy; it is the strongest sector in Europe, it is fundamental to our regions and to the economy of so many different parts of the country. Do we really just want to import the fuel it needs for the future, or is it better to encourage serious investment here, of the kind that companies such as alfanar are planning for Teesside—a part of the country that clearly wants and needs investment?
Even in a world of free markets, sometimes I really think we need to make sure that we do some important things for ourselves. I think we can have a successful SAF sector in the UK that brings investment and creates jobs, but SAF plants require a very large amount of capital, and investors are always cautious about new markets and developing technologies. The truth is that the first SAF plants in the United States, of which there are just a handful, received investment support from the Biden Administration. The EU is poised to introduce its own revenue certainty mechanism. The Minister was right to say that ours is the first in the world, but it is not going to be the last, so for me it comes down to a straightforward choice: do we want a SAF industry in the UK or do we just have to depend on imports? I do not think we have to. My view is that we need that industry in the UK and I strongly support the Bill as a result.
There is another reason for caution about buying SAF from elsewhere: I think the UK approach is much smarter and much better. In the United States, SAF is being produced primarily from corn. In the EU, SAF will be produced, as we have heard, from what is called HEFA—basically, used cooking oil. I absolutely do not support growing fuel in fields that could be used for growing food. I have long been uneasy about the practice of growing crops for purposes other than food, but I think it is mad to use the space that the world needs to feed itself to grow aviation fuel. The UK is right also to accept for now, I think, that HEFA will be needed for the time being, but we need to understand that it is not going to be there for ever, and it is right that its future use is capped.
There are serious question marks about the availability of HEFA and there is also the suggestion that it is often not really used cooking oil at all but near-virgin oil that has been doctored to create the semblance that it has been used in a kitchen. Of course, much of it comes from the Far East, and SAF mandates are going to spread there too, so there is absolutely no certainty of supply going forward. The UK’s approach, which has been to push quickly towards SAF produced from biowaste, of which we have quite a lot here already, and then in due course from municipal waste, has to be the right one. To me, this really is the nirvana of sustainable aviation fuel: if we can turn our waste—what we put in our black bins each week—into fuel oil, removing the impact of landfill, incineration and the rest, that has to be a good thing.
I have a question for the Minister, and this is the first of the points I want to put to him. There are rumours around that the Government want to allow first-generation SAF from crops here. I really hope that is not true and I ask the Minister to set that to rest by confirming that there are no such plans. We should not be growing agricultural crops to turn into fuel. We have taken a much smarter approach in this country to delivering aviation fuel that has a positive environmental impact. We must not see that compromised in any way.
There are a number of other issues I have with the Bill that I want to put to the Minister. I want to see these issues addressed in the debates ahead, and there is at least one that I am very committed to asking the Government or this House to put in the Bill.
My first concern is about how the levy is applied on conventional aviation fuel manufacturers. I know that the Government’s initial intent was to assign the levy based on the previous year’s market share. I genuinely do not think that approach is viable. It misses out the impact of changes in the composition of the market, which could mean that a new player faces a period without charges and is able to undercut the existing market. The levelling-up process would then come way down the track, after a long period of time when there had been a real price discrepancy between the two and a competitive advantage to the newcomer.
Also, if someone disappears from the market—and we have seen two refineries close in recent times—such a delay will also cause complications for the counterparty. So, the mechanism to apply the levy has got to be immediate. I do not understand why it cannot just be done per barrel of fuel as it leaves the refinery or the terminal. I think the Minister needs to explain to all of us why that cannot happen. I appreciate that that is going to come in the secondary legislation, but we need to understand how it is going to be applied, and it has got to be done in a timely way. It cannot happen way after the event.
I was grateful to the Minister for spending some time with me and allowing his officials to spend some time with me. I know they have thought about this, but I ask him to now put some of the Government’s thinking about this on the record, so we can understand where it is going as we go through the Bill.
My second concern is there has got to be a direct link between the commencement of the levy and the opening of the first SAF plant. We do not realistically expect the first SAF plant in the UK to be operational much before 2030. So, the levy cannot start until close to 2030, otherwise we would be raising money—which passengers are paying more for—and just leaving it sitting in the bank. It is important that there has to be a clear linkage between the arrival of SAF manufacturing in the UK and the application of the levy.
On the timeframe, there is one other thing I would just ask the Minister to consider. At the moment, because there is not an awful lot of SAF capacity anywhere in the world, we must not apply the mandate on a ratchet scale up to 2030 in a way that is detached from the reality of the availability of SAF in the marketplace. I would ask him to keep monitoring the mandate as we go towards 2030 and make sure we are not actually out of kilter with the availability of SAF for the airlines to put in their planes.
The third concern I would ask the Minister to address is there has got to be no legal doubt whatever that the proceeds of the levy will be used only to support investment in the manufacturing of SAF in the UK. There has just got to be a proper safeguard against any other part of Government going, “Oh, there’s some money there. We’ll have that for something else”. It does happen; it has happened in other countries in similar areas. We need that certainty in the Bill.
I think the most important addition to the Bill—and I would ask the Minister to go away and think about this, because it must be in primary legislation, so there is no doubt in the courts going forward—would be to make it absolutely certain that the revenue support mechanism is going to be used only to support the production of SAF in the UK. There has got to be no legal doubt about this and no loopholes whatever.
The Government already know that there are loopholes out there and there are people trying to take advantage of them. The Government have already had to stop one multinational in the hydrogen marketplace from benefiting from UK financial support while planning to produce part of its product in the Middle East. It would be relatively easy for a manufacturer of SAF to import an intermediate fuel into the UK, process it at a SAF plant and claim the benefits the RCM would offer. The legislation has got to be absolutely categoric: that cannot be allowed to happen.
I would like the Bill to say very explicitly that any certified fuel that is a component of SAF has to be manufactured in the UK and that only the feedstock can be imported. Of course, there will be times when we buy biowaste from other European countries—that is perfectly reasonable. But you cannot be allowed to produce a three-quarters-finished fuel that you just adjust, turn into SAF at the end and claim that that should benefit from the revenue support mechanism. I would only countenance the feedstock as being imported, and hopefully, as we see the move towards urban municipal waste and even sewage turned into fuel, even that will not be necessary.
It is really important that we have that in the Bill, because courts do strange things. They interpret laws in different ways, sometimes in ways that those in Parliament do not expect or do not want to be the case. We have got to have absolute certainty on that in primary legislation. I mention this now to the Minister ahead of Committee to give him advance warning that I really want to explore this in detail.
I believe the Bill to be essential to the UK, benefiting from a new industry that we have ourselves mandated as essential to one of our most important and oldest sectors. It makes no sense to tell airlines to buy SAF but then ignore the opportunity to produce it here and let other Governments incentivise their own investments and industries instead.
I am very glad that both the last Government and this one accepted the intent behind that amendment two years ago, and I look forward to seeing the Bill pass into law. Our job in this House is to make sure it leaves no loopholes and then to encourage the Government to get on with the secondary legislation, so that contracts and the constructions can begin as quickly as possible.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Bill. I am not often known to be supporting aviation, but this is the first time there has been a serious attempt to reduce its carbon emissions. At the same time, it can be used also to help the millions of households across Britain that actually do not have access to gas. I spoke about this in a debate on the energy Bill earlier this year and I declare an interest as the owner of a house that does not have gas, so we have to use oil.
There are 1.7 million homes in the UK, serving about 4 million people, that are off the gas grid and rely only on heating oil. They will be suffering at the present time, when it is really cold. They are mostly in rural community areas, where alternatives such as heat pumps work sometimes but not always.
It has come out of the recent debate that HVO, hydrotreated vegetable oil, is a renewable fuel that can cut emissions from home heating by up to 88% compared with kerosene, which is used at the moment. It works as a drop-in replacement—you just tip it in the tank. I do not know, because I have not tried it. The reason I bring it up again this morning is that HVO is a by-product. It is only about 30% of the output from SAF and, as SAF production goes up, we can increase the domestic supply of HVO.
Ministers have rightly said that HVO will play a vital role in our aviation decarbonisation journey, and I certainly agree with that. But it looks as if the SAF mandate will accelerate that growth from what I think is about 2% of jet fuel demand today, rising to 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040. That is enough HVO to provide a 66% or so blend of heating oil, which will sort out the decarbonisation needs of most off-grid homes. Especially at this time of year when it is really cold, this is a benefit not only for the aviation industry but for people who live in the countryside or cannot connect to alternatives.
We need the right mechanism, as other noble Lords have spoken about. Section 159 of the Energy Act 2023 gives the Government power to create a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation, which mirrors what the Labour Government did with the transport fuel obligation last time. I was really pleased, therefore, to read an announcement from the Government on Tuesday this week about a consultation on this. The industry that provides SAF and other similar material, working with their off-grid customers, has built up a considerable bank of evidence and data to show that this policy will actually benefit both consumers and the environment. I hope now that the consultation will allow things to move forward at pace.
I was interested to read that the Irish Government recently confirmed their intention to implement a renewable heat obligation, confident that their feedstocks are available to supply their off-grid homes. That is terribly important, as the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, referred to. If there are enough feedstocks, the market will work.
This is an opportunity to deliver a win-win: cleaner skies and warmer homes. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will discuss this with his new ministerial colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead—who was introduced today and has a lot of experience—confirm the Irish Government’s conclusion and commit to implementing Section 159 swiftly following the consultation.
On that basis, I hope we can have a win-win solution for aviation and home heating.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. I was absolutely delighted to hear him remind the House that there is no spare planet. Quite honestly, the rate at which we humans are trashing our planet suggests that we actually do think we can go to Mars, or something spectacular like that, and still live a good life. However, I point out that if we destroy this very beautiful planet, or make it increasingly less beautiful and diverse, our lives will be utterly constrained as well.
I like to say something nice about the Government occasionally, if I possibly can. I noted the Minister’s statement at the start that this Bill aims for a greener, cleaner future for aviation. That is a very noble aim, but I am afraid it is impossible unless we radically rethink how we are going to deal with it.
About 25 years ago, when I was on the London Assembly, we assembly members and the mayor, then Ken Livingstone, had a presentation by Heathrow representatives. They promised—this is 25 years ago, remember—that Heathrow could become sustainable within a few years. They claimed it should be given permission to expand because it would soon be polluting less.
It took us a couple of years, but the mayor and the assembly soon realised that Heathrow had lied. It still lies about expansion and pollution. It lies about how important it is to the economy and about how much public subsidy it gets. The truth is that the aviation industry cares about profits, not the environment. You can no more have sustainable aviation than you can have a crocodile with a conscience; it just does not exist.
There is absolutely no techno fix for the pollution that aviation causes. The Royal Society worked out that to reach net zero for aviation fuel—is this what we are snappily calling “jet zero”?—we need at least half the UK’s agricultural land to grow the raw materials. That would be over two-thirds if farmers only grew rapeseed.
That means less wheat, barley and fodder for livestock. That also means higher prices for cereals and food. We already have food inflation due to floods in some areas and droughts in others. Last year, the 2025 UK harvest was the second worst on record. If the Government want farmers to grow jet fuel instead of food, prices in the shops are going to rise in order to keep the planes flying.
As we enter the era of climate crisis impacting on world food production, our country will have less farming land but will want more of it devoted to support the oxymoronic idea of sustainable aviation. In the past 25 years, the UK has lost 771,000 hectares of farmland, contributing to a 12% fall in food self-sufficiency. That decline is about to get worse with the disastrous planning Bill the Government have passed.
I love the effort going into expanding renewable energy and battery storage, but as the Climate Committee has pointed out, that does not stop aviation becoming the number one contributor to emissions in the next few decades.
This Government have lost all claim to be a green Government, with their attack on nature in Britain and their decision to expand aviation. The go-ahead for the expansion of London City Airport, Luton, Gatwick and Stansted means an extra 51 million passengers per annum. If the Government add Heathrow to that total, that is an extra 65 million passengers. If all those extra flights result in either extra emissions or extra farmland taken up growing jet fuel, that means rising fuel prices and more public subsidy.
Of course, the reality is that we will not switch two-thirds of our farming land to jet fuel. The whole Bill is greenwash, designed to provide political cover for aviation expansion and bigger profits. The real solutions are to tax private jets and the ultra-frequent flyers, to stop short-haul flights, and to make train journeys cheaper and more reliable. The solution is less flying, not this fiction of sustainable aviation.
A noble Lord mentioned “flight shaming”; I am not trying to do that. It is understandable that families want to go on holiday once a year, but as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out, 70% of flights are taken by 15% of the population, which suggests that those people are grabbing their unfair share of the pollution that we can each expect to produce. Therefore, I ask the Minister: does he approve of making train journeys cheaper and more reliable, and putting a tax on private aircraft and frequent flyers?
I said to the owners of Heathrow 20 years ago—much to their annoyance, “If you want to show how environmental you are, then go ahead and fix the major problems of noise and air pollution and stop ruining the climate. Once you’ve done that, then, and only then, can we have a conversation about expansion of airports and of aviation”. I am so disappointed that this Government cannot see that. I recognise that they feel the need to explain that aviation can go on just as it has in the past, but that simply is not true.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a non-executive chair of RVL Aviation.
I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent maiden speech. Before he started speaking, I wondered whether he was going to set out the Church of England’s policy on sustainable aviation. I was pleasantly surprised by the excellent content of his speech and look forward to his further contributions in the House. The bit I will particularly remember is his injunction to be “kindly present”, which we should all strive to do. If I ever require someone to provide a reference for me, I will think of the noble Lord, Lord Raval, who spent most of his speech, rather than talking about the Bill, saying fantastic things that the right reverend Prelate would have been too humble to have said himself. He painted a rich picture of the right reverend Prelate’s skills, and I look forward to his future contributions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will not be surprised to learn that I disagreed with almost every word of her speech. On flying, she referred to the ability of people to go on holiday. We had a very interesting test case during the pandemic, when, in effect, we told people—albeit not for this reason—that they could not fly. Listening to constituents then as a Member of Parliament made clear to me the breadth of reasons why people value aviation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester touched on some of them, including aviation bringing people together and enabling people to see friends and family around the world. It is not just about holidays; it is about bringing people together.
I also do not share the noble Baroness’s distaste for frequent flyers. Most of the people who do frequent flying are those involved in business, in global investment and in growing both the British and the global economy, which is essential to generate the wealth that we will need to green the economy and to make it more sustainable. We will get public acceptance for a lot of this only if we also make people better off, so it is incredibly important that we support flying and enable more people to fly. I want people who currently do not have the opportunity to fly, both in the United Kingdom and globally, to have the chance to do so.
Where I do agree with the noble Baroness is that we absolutely need to do that sustainably. It will be done by the use of technology. Before I move on to the subject of the Bill, it is worth me saying that a range of technologies are available. When I was Secretary of State, I was surprised by the unanimity across the aviation industry—airlines, airports and the aerospace sector involved in developing technology and manufacturing planes—on the importance of sustainability and decarbonisation. We never had any arguments with the industry or had to push it in this direction; it was already there and moving at pace. I found that incredibly encouraging.
Innovative companies based in the United Kingdom, such as ZeroAvia, are working on the technology around hydrogen fuel cells, which will be available in the future. I will discuss SAF in a moment, but there are also companies working on electric planes. There is also the important work that the Government are doing on airspace modernisation, which we kicked off when I was Secretary of State; that will also make a contribution. To get to net-zero aviation, we will also need to use—for the bit you cannot abate with plane technology—carbon capture and storage, and I know that a great deal of work is going on in that space, too.
I was very pleased to see the Government carry on our Jet Zero Council, which they now call the Jet Zero Taskforce—the renaming is a minor detail. That brings together industry, government, academia and, importantly, representatives from the Climate Change Committee, who provide helpful advice. They therefore learn about where the technology has got to, to inform the advice that the Climate Change Committee then provides to the Government. That is very welcome.
On sustainable aviation fuel, my noble friend Lord Grayling referred to the VS100 flight that Virgin Atlantic put on; it was funded by Virgin Atlantic but also supported by a contribution from the taxpayer because of a competition run by my predecessor. That flight took place in November 2023 and captured enormous public interest and attention. It was one of the rare occasions that I was able to do the morning broadcast round standing in front of a plane at Heathrow Airport—a great backdrop. It also had a good response from broadcasters, who found the whole thing very interesting and who did great explainers for the public on some of this technology; they wished us well with the endeavour, which is not something that broadcasters usually did to Ministers doing the morning broadcast round. It captured attention not just in Britain but around the world. When I went, shortly afterwards, to the climate change conference, COP 28, I was able to speak about that flight, which was a very good example of Britain leading the way in this area and demonstrating the value of technology.
We then started developing and consulting on the SAF mandate, which, in effect, provides the demand side of the equation for sustainable aviation fuel. I am very pleased again that, with the present Government, there has been enormous continuity in policy in this area.
On the supply side, the Minister referred to the excellent work being done by the Aerospace Technology Institute, which I also support. As has been mentioned, including by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, the capital cost of the domestic production of sustainable aviation fuel has been supported from the advanced fuels fund. I think the third round of that took place recently; the first round happened when we were in government. I would be interested if, in his winding-up speech, the Minister could provide us with an update on where the development of those plants has got to and when we might see more. My noble friend Lord Grayling suggested one timeframe for that, as did my noble friend Lord Davies. If the Minister gives us an update on progress in this area, it would be helpful if he also sets out something that my noble friend Lord Grayling also touched on, which is the value that the Government place on domestic production of sustainable aviation fuel.
There is a national resilience case for that, because again we saw during the pandemic that countries, regardless of the contractual obligations that businesses had, very much protected their domestic supply of this sort of fuel. We can quickly find that our reliance on getting this from overseas rapidly dries up. Having some domestic resilience is very important, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government’s view.
The specific purpose of the Bill is the revenue certainty mechanism. My noble friend Lord Grayling touched on this, and I clearly remember what I might term his rebel amendment to force the pace. It was good that he provoked that debate. I must confess that, when I was Secretary of State, I took quite a bit of persuading about the need for the revenue certainty mechanism. I will say a few words about that, because it will be helpful in posing some questions to the Minister, both here and when we are in Committee.
When the industry and my noble friend were lobbying for this, I was clear that I wanted to understand what the market failure was that we were trying to fix with the revenue support mechanism. We have ended up with a clear enunciation of it in the Explanatory Notes for the Bill. In his opening remarks, the Minister touched on this and talked about how the need to develop first-of-a-kind technology, which is not currently in existence, requires a significant amount of capital and is very high risk.
The caveat is that, when I had some round-table discussions with some of the investors, both here and in the United States, they understandably quite liked the idea of some guaranteed demand through a mandate. They also quite liked the idea of guaranteed pricing through a revenue certainty mechanism. I gently pointed out to them that they have to take some risk in this process in order to justify the return. The trick here is not to remove all risk, but to get the risk to the level of comparable investment projects, so that we make sure that we get appropriate levels of investment. But we must guard against what has happened in some of the rest of the energy sector, with very long-run contracts guaranteeing returns to investors that are higher than are strictly necessary, with the costs being paid by the consumer.
It is important that, when the detailed work is done, we get the balance right between securing the investment in domestic SAF production, minimising the cost to the consumer and getting the length of the contractual terms right. I do not pretend that that is easy, but it will be important to do it. In Committee, I think we will be discussing how to design the levy obligations on the fuel suppliers. My noble friend Lord Grayling touched on some of the detailed questions, such as how the levy interacts with the UK’s emissions trading scheme, the CORSIA scheme that has been set up internationally and the EU scheme, particularly as the free allocations for aviation under the emissions trading scheme expire.
Some argue that payments under the emissions trading scheme should be used to fund sustainable aviation fuel plants, rather than creating yet another obligation. I would be interested if the Minister set out how he and the Government see those schemes interacting with each other to ensure that consumers do not pay more than once.
My final point, which was also touched on by my noble friend Lord Grayling, is about the composition of sustainable aviation fuel and the international dimension to this. It is quite right—I agree in principle with what my noble friend Lord Grayling said—that we should not be using land that could be used for food crops to produce SAF. But there is one thing that we need to be realistic about, which maybe we should not have to but we do.
There is a big lobby in the US, which my noble friend touched on, that wants to use corn ethanol for SAF. Normally, I would be very much against that. The only argument in favour of it is whether it may be necessary to engage the United States Administration, who are not enormously well disposed towards sustainability and net zero, about what international agreements we may need to have with them, because it is really important in this area to keep the United States Administration broadly aligned. Given that aviation is by definition an international industry, it will be quite difficult to decarbonise the industry if the United States is heading in a different direction. Therefore, I would be interested to know what discussions the British Government are having with the United States Government about trying to keep them in this space and what sorts of discussions are going on with fuel providers. The only argument for using food crops for this would be that if by doing so we could keep the United States in this space.
However, in summary, I strongly support aviation and strongly support making it more sustainable. That will be done not by stopping people flying but by using technology—all the technology. Sustainable aviation fuel is the technology solution that is going to be available first—it is available now. The Virgin flight that I referred to demonstrated that you can have a 100% sustainable aviation fuel flight that works. It is a drop-in fuel with existing technology, and the revenue certainty mechanism that is enabled by the Bill, if the design of it is correct—we will test some of that in Committee—will help get that domestic production up and running. With those caveats, I support the Bill and look forward to further debate in Committee with the Minister and, I suspect, a number of the noble Lords who are here today.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his entertaining and informed speech. He should moonlight and take a second job on the Climate Change Committee.
It is a great pleasure for me to follow my noble friend Lord Harper, who rightly stressed that we should continue to lead the way in developing new technologies. Perhaps the Government could pay more attention to the absurdly high level of electricity costs in this country and the high levels of taxation.
I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill today. I have been a frequent flier for most of my working life and still travel regularly overseas, especially to the Far East. So I declare my interest as set out in the register, especially in connection with advising Japanese companies and British companies with regard to their Japanese business.
My noble friend Lord Grayling knows a great deal about this subject and made a compelling speech. The rapid adoption of SAF is still broadly supported by the Conservative Party, but I believe the sands have been shifting on the whole question of how quickly and at what cost businesses and individuals should be compelled to adopt a net-zero and clean energy agenda. In particular, if the larger carbon dioxide emitters, such as China and developing countries in Africa and Asia, are not imposing similar constraints on market forces in their countries, logic suggests that we should not do so either.
It seems to me that the effect of the Bill is to distort the market for sustainable aviation fuel. I suspect that the cost of this distortion will be borne ultimately by consumers. The Bill is about the creation of a revenue certainty contract, which will, in effect, insulate the quango which will be created as the counterparty from market risk. I am very sceptical about the Government’s claim that the net cost per passenger of implementing the revenue certainty mechanism will be between minus £1.50 and plus £1.50 per passenger. How can this be possible if the cost of the SAF itself is going to be more like £10 per passenger? In any event, ticket prices have soared beyond our wildest expectations over the last few years, so whether the cost of the RCM amounts to one cup of coffee or 100 cups of coffee is not really relevant.
I am not certain that forcing an increase from 2% to 22% of the SAF component of aviation fuels over the next 15 years is likely to save the planet. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will interfere with airlines’ freedom to refuel their aircraft in other jurisdictions at will, including those that either have not imposed any mandate for inclusion of SAF or have imposed a less onerous one? I am not sure that the performance in miles per gallon of cars using E10 fuels is not slightly inferior to that of cars using E5 fuel, and I ask the Minister to tell the House what evidence there is that fuel economy and, crucially, safety are not at all impacted by the quite steep and burdensome mandate imposed on an already challenged aviation sector.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower in his interesting speech encouraged me to be more positive about SAF and to recognise its benefits and its importance. But he did point out that the Government’s mandate will be difficult to achieve without diverging from HEFA-based SAFs, and there is doubt about whether second- or third-generation SAFs will work well. There are more than 160 ships powered by small nuclear reactors, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, rightly drew attention to nuclear power as a potential source of power for aircraft. In particular, he pointed out that high-temperature gas-cooled reactors enable the production of hydrogen at scale, and hydrogen technologies are already capable of powering aircraft. Airbus plans to have commercial hydrogen aircraft in service by 2035. Unfortunately, the Government’s hydrogen strategy does not recognise the role of nuclear in producing hydrogen at all. I ask the Minister why this is the case. Our Japanese friends are disappointed that we are moving so slowly with their project to develop high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology with the National Nuclear Laboratory and believe that Poland may be a better partner than we are likely to be.
Can the Minister tell the House about the counterparty? He is going to have a great number of powers to direct it. How many people will it employ, and what does he expect will be its annual cost of operation? The Bill is designed to enforce a piece of industrial policy. Is the Minister certain that the counterparty will be well placed to manufacture SAFs competitively in this country, given our very high energy costs? Surely, if either the taxpayer or the consumer is going to have to pay for the cost of the counterparty and its activities, it follows that the legislation should require the Government to monitor costs and that the counterparty should be required to prioritise British technologies. Can the Minister tell the House why the Government declined to accept a perfectly reasonable and sensible amendment to require transparency over the effect of any revenue certainty contract on ticket prices, on both a one-year view and a five-year view?
I note that Jonathon Counsell of IAG, in his evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place, raised the question as to whether the Government’s estimate of plus £1.50 to minus £1.50 really included all elements of the counterparty’s costs. If the Government did not like the amendment moved by my right honourable friend Richard Holden, could the Minister not undertake to bring forward the Government’s own amendment to achieve the same purpose? It is beyond doubt that the public and the consumer are entitled to know that the costs of this new foray into industrial policy will be strictly monitored.
How will the Minister ensure that the counterparty will ensure that any contract leading to the establishment of a new factory will prioritise the use of British technologies? We would certainly welcome the Minister telling the House how we can ensure that new factories will prioritise the use of British technologies. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s winding-up speech and to working with other noble Lords to improve the Bill, which is absolutely necessary.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the carbon content of fossil fuels has been accumulating over eons by the removal of carbon dioxide from the earth’s atmosphere via biological processes of photosynthesis, depending on chlorophyll and powered by sunlight. Such processes are highly efficient in their use of energy but they are far too weak and gradual to remove from the atmosphere the quantities of carbon dioxide that have been emitted by burning fossil fuels.
Capturing this carbon dioxide requires artificial processes that are far less efficient than the biological processes and far more consumptive of energy. Only by expending a large amount of energy that could be supplied by nuclear fission, and possibly in the long run by nuclear fusion, can there be any hope of cleansing the atmosphere of its excess carbon dioxide. According to a recent analysis, about 3% of carbon emissions are due to aviation. This figure is rising. We have heard that it is about 7% of UK emissions. Jet aircraft consume high-octane kerosene, which is refined from petroleum. Each flight powered by hydrocarbons adds to the burden of atmospheric carbon dioxide. If global heating due to carbon dioxide is to be addressed, something must be done to staunch the carbon emissions of aviation.
The problem is that there is no viable means of powering long-haul aviation other than kerosene, which has an unequalled energy density. Moreover, the technology of jet turbines, which has developed over the past 80 years, is not easily replaceable. Electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells can be used in short-haul aviation, but their weight penalty precludes their use in long-haul aviation. Hydrogen, which has been used to power space rockets, has been proposed as an alternative for aviation fuel. Hydrogen has a very high energy content per mass, which is significantly greater than that of gasoline, but it has a low energy density per volume, meaning that it requires a large space to store it, even when compressed or liquefied. Liquid hydrogen has an energy content of about 5.6 megajoules per litre, whereas gasoline has about 32 megajoules per litre—almost six times as much. To use hydrogen to power aircraft would require a technology radically different from the current aviation technology, which would take a long time to develop. Its efficiency in transporting passengers would be severely limited by the storage requirements of the fuel.
If we are to sustain the present aviation technology, we need to develop sustainable aviation fuels, or SAFs. The ultimate requirement for such fuels is that they should emit to the atmosphere no greater quantities of carbon dioxide than are removed from the atmosphere for the purpose of creating their carbon feedstock. At present, so-called sustainable aviation fuel, which forms a very small proportion of the total supply of fuel for aviation, depends on a carbon feedstock that originates in biomass. Such aviation fuel cannot be relied on to reduce significantly the net emissions of carbon dioxide. They can have a beneficial effect only if the net supply of biomass can be increased to cover their use.
There are three cases to consider. First, the carbon feedstock might be grown for the purpose without displacing any other processes, but this is unlikely to happen. Secondly, the feedstock might be freely available, such as materials that would otherwise be consigned to landfill. Finally, and at worst, the production of the feedstock could displace other activities, such as the growth of foodstuffs.
Only in the first case, where there might be a net increase in photosynthesis, could there be a subtraction from atmospheric carbon dioxide. In the other cases, the emission of carbon dioxide from burning the fuel would be more rapid than if it had resulted from the natural decay of the feedstock, which might gradually add carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere.
It should be observed that wood, unless it is burned, will lock away carbon for many human generations. Therefore, forestry products should not be used as a carbon feedstock for synthetic fuels. Sustainable aviation fuel will deserve its name only if its carbon content can be removed directly from the atmosphere via the so-called technology of direct air capture.
This Bill has the ambition of stimulating the production of sustainable aviation fuels. It proposes to do so via minor financial interventions modelled on those that intend to encourage investment in renewable means of generating electricity.
The Bill itemises three levels, or generations, of SAF production. The first-generation SAFs are made from hydrogenated esters and fatty acids derived from oils or fats, such as used cooking oil. The second-generation SAFs are to be made from waste sources, including so-called municipal solid waste. The third-generation SAFs, also known as power-to-liquid aviation fuel, are to be made by combining hydrogen produced by electrolysis and carbon monoxide, which can be produced from captured carbon dioxide.
Regarding the first generation of SAFs, hydrogenated esters and fatty acids—commonly described as chip fat, because that is their major source—are already pre-empted to produce biodiesel. There is a good deal of mystery and doubt surrounding the second generation of SAFs. Their primary feedstock, which is described as municipal solid waste, is poorly defined, and different processes will be needed to cope with different categories of waste. A website of the British company Johnson Matthey, which is proposing to build plants in the US and Germany to produce second-generation SAFs, mentions a variety of sources for the carbon feedstock, including agricultural residues, forestry biomass, captured carbon dioxide, and the ill-defined municipal solid waste.
At the heart of the second generation of SAFs is the venerable Fischer-Tropsch process, which was invented in Germany in 1925 and used extensively in Germany during the war to create synthetic fuels using coal as the predominant carbon feedstock. The process generates hydrocarbons from syngas, which is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. The syngas will be the product of a gasification plant, which must be specific to the nature of the primary feedstock. If this process were to take its carbon dioxide from captured industrial emissions then it would emit carbon to the atmosphere that might otherwise be sequestered in the ground. The conclusion of this critique is that the only sure way of reducing aviation emissions would be to capture the carbon directly from the atmosphere. In that case, the Fischer-Tropsch process would continue to be used to synthesise the fuel.
The Bill appears to envisage a gradual transition between the three generations of SAF production, and it imagines that this can be achieved by financial incentives that could be structured by the Government. There would be no other government intervention and the Government would bear no costs. The costs would be covered by levies on the aviation industry and maybe by the suppliers of hydrocarbon fuels.
This is a weak proposal for addressing a crisis. The Bill has been inherited from the Conservatives, and it bears the marks of their social and economic philosophies. One might have expected a more interventionist approach from a Labour Government. One is reminded of how an early post-war Labour Government sought to revolutionise the supply of power to industrial and domestic users by creating a completely new industry: the nuclear industry. A similar endeavour would be required to create a sustainable aviation fuel industry, but there is little indication that this will be forthcoming.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I speak today in strong support of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, a measure that is not only timely but essential if the UK is to maintain our leadership in clean aviation, deepen our energy security and strengthen our competitiveness in a rapidly changing global landscape. I welcome the Minister’s opening speech, in which he confirmed the Government’s desire to encourage the many different technologies being developed to produce SAF, and I am grateful for the letter we received yesterday, following the all-Peers session on the Bill last week.
May I also take this opportunity to apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, and to the other five noble Lords whose contributions I missed, owing to having to lead my own debate in the Moses Room in Grand Committee? I look forward to reading their contributions in Hansard. I declare my interest as the unpaid chair of the advisory board of Eq.Flight, a government-backed project seeking to harness the power of nuclear energy to deliver SAF at scale. Its power-to-liquids technology is known as third generation.
Aviation remains one of the most challenging sectors to decarbonise. Even as new technologies and aircraft efficiencies develop, the industry will continue to rely on liquid fuels for many years to come. Sustainable aviation fuel provides the most scalable way to cut emissions, but this transition will not happen without clear long-term signals; industry needs confidence, stability and a durable policy framework—exactly what this Bill is designed to provide. A critical part of this transition is long-term certainty. Projects of this scale cannot proceed on short-term signals alone; they require the revenue certainty mechanisms that give investor confidence over the lifespan of the asset. Without stable, predictable support, the capital simply will not flow, the UK will miss the opportunity to build these industries here at home, and UK aviation will support jobs abroad instead of on UK soil. A clear RCM framework is therefore vital if we are to attract investment and give industry the confidence to build. It is what allows companies to commit, communities to benefit, and supply chains to grow with confidence.
We must also recognise the distinction between what can be delivered now and what must be delivered over the long term. In the near term, bio-based feedstocks are essential; they are proven, available and capable of delivering real emissions reductions today. However, bio-based feedstocks are ultimately finite; they cannot meet the total future demand of global aviation. The long-term solution is power-to-liquids—synthetic aviation fuels produced using clean energy and made from nothing more than air and water. These fuels offer potential deep decarbonisation of tailpipe emissions and can mitigate other greenhouse effects such as contrails. To achieve this, they require large quantities of firm low-carbon power, which is where the UK has a unique strategic advantage.
In the decades ahead, advanced nuclear technologies will be critical to producing the clean electricity, the hydrogen and the high-temperature heat needed for sustainable aviation fuel at scale. The UK’s positive and forward-leaning nuclear policy means we are exceptionally well placed to become a world leader in nuclear-enabled sustainable aviation fuel; but for this to happen, we must give nuclear investors the long-term certainty they require. Advanced reactors by their very nature demand longer revenue certainty mechanisms if they are to deliver affordable, sovereign clean energy for the industries of the future. The Government must ensure that consistency between technologies is maintained, but the absence of a defined carbon intensity for nuclear-derived SAF in the SAF mandate creates some uncertainty and therefore additional risk for investors. This barrier to the use of nuclear energy for SAF production risks the UK missing out on investment and the jobs that would inevitably follow investment in nuclear-derived SAF projects.
Globally, the potential for sustainable aviation fuel is now widely understood, and competition to become a world leader is intensifying. Countries and regions are moving quickly to secure the investment, the skills and the supply chains that will anchor these new industries for decades. The European Union’s ReFuelEU initiative provides strong market signals and long-term clarity for SAF deployment across Europe. If the UK is to keep pace—and indeed to lead—we must provide the same level of long-term certainty. A clear RCM framework is therefore vital if we are to attract investment and give industry the confidence to build.
Domestically, sustainable aviation fuel production can underpin a new generation of green industrial hubs, creating skilled jobs and strengthening economic resilience across all corners of our country. The aviation sector may be the final consumer, but the industrial benefits will be broad and enduring. The transition to sustainable flight will not be achieved with a single measure, but this Bill is a cornerstone, providing the certainty required to unlock investment, encourage innovation and build the infrastructure that will power aviation for decades to come. If we get this right, we will not only decarbonise one of our hardest-to-abate sectors: we will secure thousands of future-facing jobs and reaffirm the UK’s position as a world leader in clean aviation.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his excellent maiden speech and his commitment to sustainability and rail, which is music to many of our ears in this House. I look forward to working with him in the months and years to come.
As we have heard today, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill aims to encourage investment in sustainable aviation fuel in the UK by creating a mechanism to guarantee a certain level of revenue. The Bill provides for a guaranteed strike price, guaranteeing price for a producer selling SAF over a defined period. The GSP will be funded via a levy on the aviation industry, specifically through a variable levy on all aviation fuel suppliers over a set period. This legislation should help the industry meet its requirements under the SAF mandate, introduced in January this year, which specifies that at least 10% of all jet fuel used in flights taking off from the UK from 2030 must be made with sustainable fuel, rising to 22% by 2040. This is clearly an area where the UK is trying to lead the way in decarbonising the aviation sector.
However, it should be noted that aviation, with all its benefits in connecting people and businesses, was responsible for almost 30 million tonnes of CO2 in 2022, equivalent to about 7% of the UK’s total emissions. As I understand it, even as emissions from other sectors decline, aviation’s share is projected to rise to 16% by 2035. This is not compatible with our net-zero targets. Sustainable aviation fuel is not a silver bullet, but it is a step forward to help us in the challenging environment that other noble Lords have described.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome these steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. However, we see SAF as just the first step; we want it to offer a real low-carbon alternative. We believe that the Government should set out how they will go beyond securing investment in SAF and ensure that, longer term, this measure complements rather than detracts from investment in zero-carbon flight technology. We want to see greater innovation, research and development to make the UK the world leader in zero-carbon flight. SAF should be a springboard for that objective rather than a final destination, helping the UK transition to truly climate-friendly options such as battery-electric platforms and hydrogen-fuelled models as these technologies develop. There is a lack of clarity about what level of zero-carbon flight the Government are aiming for, if any, so perhaps the Minister can advise.
It is hard to square an objective of net-zero aviation by 2050 without measures alongside SAF to cut emissions and make climate-friendly flight a reality, and it is hard to look at the decarbonisation of fuel use in aviation while this Government seem intent on expanding airports such as Gatwick and Heathrow, to name just two, leading to many more flights.
There are a number of areas that we will be probing further in Committee. There are some concerns about the levy and the need to ensure that there are no loopholes, that progress is monitored and published and that we are aligned with our European and global neighbours or even ahead of them. Looking at international examples, the EU’s ReFuelEU aviation regulation requires a minimum blend of 2% SAF in 2025, rising to 70% by 2050; it focuses far more on both fuel suppliers and airlines; and, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, it is considering its own revenue support mechanism. Singapore and Thailand’s mandates started a 1% blend in 2026. Japan and South Korea are considering mandates starting some way off, in 2027 and 2030. In China, there is a SAF mandate at 2% that increases to 15% by 2030. Elsewhere, India and Brazil are considering SAF mandates. In the US, while there is no mandate, there is government support, as we have heard, to boost production, in the form of tax credits and other incentives. While there is no consensus on the route map for sustainable aviation fuel and how to support its growth, in developing this mechanism, what international examples have the Government considered to help shape their approach and the Bill before us today?
The levy on fuel producers is not necessarily the wrong approach, but key details are missing and could have unintended consequences if regulations are poorly designed. Leaving the mechanism to be determined later provides useful flexibility for a new and emerging industry. However, assurances are needed on how the mechanism will be designed. One issue that has been raised by industry and by other noble Lords today is that the levy is based on historical market share, which could cause problems. It is not clear if new market entrants might avoid paying the levy if they have no prior market share. Perhaps the Minister can clarify.
Another important issue I have picked up from talking to producers such as Neste is that, although industry in general supports the creation of a revenue certainty mechanism as a means to strengthen investor confidence and unlock the significant investments required for SAF production, there is concern that a level playing field would be guaranteed internationally. There is a strong feeling that revenues of the levy should not be used to support production of SAF that is subsequently exported. This should be about developing and supporting our own UK industry and needs. The levy should be focused on ensuring SAF supply at an affordable price within the UK. Since the UK and EU SAF mandates, I understand that we have seen an increase in the cost of SAF. This mechanism should help with the supply of SAF within the UK and help to ensure a stable price.
I have also been talking to operators that use SAF, for example DHL. In 2024, DHL used 73,000 tonnes of SAF in its own fleet, which is 3.5% of their total fuel share. This is in addition to investing in its fleet to decarbonise and in its ground-handling equipment to move to fully electric. We need to ensure that all operators are looking to decarbonise their whole operations and are not just relying on SAF to tick the green box, in effect.
A final issue that has come up in discussions and been raised by many noble Lords today, including my noble friend Lord Russell, is a concern that the levy will filter down and potentially cost passengers and airlines significantly. Can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have carried out and assure the House that passengers will not be significantly penalised? The combination of a long-term mandate and the proposed revenue support mechanism clearly offers a high degree of regulatory certainty, which is crucial for attracting the significant capital investment needed for SAF production in the UK. I hope the Minister can reassure us on the important points raised today and as we move forward to Committee.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, what is one to say? The easy part is to start by joining other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his entertaining and interesting maiden speech, and to welcome him and the many contributions he will no doubt make to your Lordships’ House in the future.
When the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, even without the support of the Green Party, all agree in supporting a measure, who can withstand them? Some might call it groupthink; others might see in it the spirit that defeated fascism in Europe. But here we are. We have huge support for this Bill from all quarters of the House, but I am afraid that it is the job of the Official Opposition to express a degree of scepticism.
Our debate has ranged very widely indeed, whereas the Bill has a very narrow focus. Many have spoken of it as if it were a net-zero measure. I dispute that. The net-zero measure was the SAF mandate that was put in place, as the Minister said, before Christmas last year, in November, which mandated airlines to use a certain quantity of SAF in their fuel, increasing every year over a period and set out in a statutory instrument. That was certainly a net-zero measure.
However, few noble Lords were open in saying that the Bill is not a net-zero measure as such but an industrial policy measure; in fact, it was really only my noble friend Lord Grayling who was explicit about that. He was explicit also in saying that he supported that industrial policy, which says that not only do we have to require SAF to be used by airlines in this country but we have to be the producer of that SAF. He gave reasons: he said, “Why would you want to use foreign producers? Why would you want to import your SAF?” But there are answers to that.
I am told that there is no future in being an old-fashioned Thatcherite and believing in markets, and that people like me are terribly out of date. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made clear that SAF mandates are not confined to Britain and the European Union; there are countries all over the world with SAF mandates. She mentioned Thailand and Singapore, and I am sure there are many others as well. SAF is a global business. There is an argument that you might be able to import your SAF more cheaply and have a more efficient market if you were not insisting on producing it all yourself. None the less, the Conservative Party when in power and the Labour Party today have decided on that as a matter of industrial policy.
So what can possibly go wrong, even though it is hard to see what comparative advantage the United Kingdom has as a producer of SAF? The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, pointed to one element that seemed pretty damning of our comparative advantage—our very high electricity costs by international standards. He pointed out that this the production of SAF is an electricity-hungry process, but that none the less has to be ignored and overridden.
The Government have decided to be a leader in this uncertain field, and it is uncertain. I think we have agreed that there are three stages of SAF. There is HEFA, which the Government do not want to subsidise, as I understand it, even though, as again the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, pointed out, the Bill appears to be drafted so that they could. We need to examine that more closely in Committee. Assuming that the Government do not want to subsidise HEFA, that leaves us with non-HEFA SAF, but the processes for producing non-HEFA SAF are highly uncertain and some of them are first of a kind. We do not even know that they are going to work, but we are putting in place a revenue certainty mechanism so that investors can find out, for practically no risk, whether they are. This is going to be of advantage to the national economy.
Beyond that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said, there is a power-to-liquid option, but the Government do not appear to believe that it is worth investing in that at the moment, even though it is being pursued in the United States with the support of tax credits and, as I understand it, with a large plant in Texas.
Anyway, having decided that this is our industrial policy, we have to find a way of subsidising it. The Treasury has discovered this wonderful thing, the contract for difference, which is a form of subsidy that means that they do not have to shell out any money, because the cost of the subsidy is passed on to the consumer. Contracts for difference have given us the very high electricity costs to which the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred earlier, which are apparently crippling the process on which we are embarking. So we are to have not a subsidy but a contract for difference, and we are to set up a counterparty that will be able to work that out. It is going to have the skills to negotiate with the hard-faced lawyers sent by the investors to get, as my noble friend Lord Harper said, absolutely that price which offers an appropriate level of reward for the very low level of risk the investors are taking, but not a penny more. Our negotiators will be able to manage that and land it to perfection, and they will have the resources to do that. And so we go on.
Noble Lords have raised a whole series of questions, which I suspect will form the basis of our discussion in Committee. I will add a few myself. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government have made an assessment of the compatibility of the revenue certainty mechanism with the non-discrimination requirements of the WTO’s Article III.4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, particularly in relation to the differential treatment between qualifying SAF and imported non-qualifying non-fossil aviation fuels such as HEFA? Also, will he indicate—I assure him that I do not necessarily expect him to answer these questions at the Dispatch Box, though it would be very impressive if he did—whether the Government have assessed whether the RCM would constitute a subsidy for the purposes of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and whether any risk of countermeasures or formal dispute settlement from other WTO members has been identified?
I am sure there are further questions, which I can bring up in Committee, but for the moment, there we are. We stand solidly behind the Bill, but we see a large number of holes in it. We are far from convinced that it will do the job that the Government have said it will set out to do. Whether it can be done at a price of £1.50 per ticket seems to be something else that is worthy of exploration—as is what that figure actually means. Since the mandate increases every year, at what point does the £1.50 come in? Surely, the cost per ticket would rise over the course of time as the mandate requirement rises. We will explore both how it was calculated and what it means but, for the moment, we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to what has been a lively and well-informed debate.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged in today’s lively debate on the Bill. I have listened with much interest to the excellent points raised across your Lordships’ House, and I will now attempt to answer some of the questions. Of course, we can explore many of the issues in greater detail in Committee. In the meantime, I will follow up as soon as I can on some of the issues that I cannot answer now, but I am grateful for such wide, general cross-party support for this important measure.
First, I should compliment the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his maiden speech. He said that sustainability matters; I am so glad that he did, and that he said it in English, because he might have been able to say it in Welsh and I would not have been able to respond. The Government and I are grateful for his support of a vital sustainability measure for air transport, which is essential for the nation’s wealth and defence. The only other thing I should say to the right reverend Prelate at this point is that I am sorry about his train service. I will speak to him separately about the trains to Chester.
As I said, I am grateful for the support of many noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, was supportive. The points that he and many others made and the questions he asked were all about making early progress. The Government are pursuing the Bill now, as we did with the SAF mandate, in order to get on and do this, because getting on and doing this is absolutely what we seek achieve. The noble Lord referred to the net effect of this on the price of airfares, as a number of other noble Lords have done. Our best estimate is plus or minus £1.50—we are confident on that—but I am happy to explore that further in Committee. We do not believe it is plus or minus £10. We believe that we have, at least for the moment, explored the cost that would fall on air passengers.
A number of points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, were about progress, and this Bill is evidence of the Government making progress. Like other noble Lords, he referred to the point of the first tranche and subsequent tranches. We of course need to move beyond HEFA feedstuffs, which is the point of the further tranches of the revenue support mechanism. The noble Earl also referred to the sustainability of UK plant, which is why the Government have put £63 million into the advanced fuel fund: for the very purpose of ensuring that there are plants in this country which can produce sustainable aviation fuel and that the plants themselves are sustainable.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to competition in due course. The Bill includes the opportunity for the Secretary of State in due course to run tenders or auctions as a means of developing this market.
The noble Lord, Lord Raval, talked about waste and foodstuffs. We will, as we go through this Bill, have regard to its overall effect on the provision of sustainable aviation fuel.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for his detailed and compelling speech on this subject and for his great interest. He talked about not allowing crops to be made into SAF. We have committed to publishing a call for evidence by the end of this year on the use of crops in the SAF mandate. The aim is to improve the evidence base on crop-based SAF production, following suggestions from some stakeholders that certain types of crops could be used to increase SAF supply without compromising our approach to sustainability. But we will get information provided through that call for evidence, and we will consider what we find out.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, referred particularly to the use of data and how the market price is determined. The counterparty will be responsible for determining the market and should do so by using data that suppliers submit to the SAF mandate reporting system. Our live consultation seeks views on whether the assessment period should use volume data from an earlier period, or—since he suggested that is not sensible—uses forecast volume data. We will have more discussion about that in due course, I am sure. He also made a very strong point about the support being used only for production in the United Kingdom. We intend to support only eligible SAF plants in the UK; I am sure we will discuss that further. It is a strong point and I will consider it as we get to Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about cleaner skies and warmer homes. I am aware of the consultation on alternative heating solutions, and we are working with our colleagues in DESNZ to move those forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, does not agree with this at all. We have discussed the points she was making about aviation before. This is a move towards net zero. We are trying to make aviation more sustainable, as it is not going to stop overnight and is important for the economy of the country. The mandate will save some net additional 54 million tonnes of CO2. On the noble Baroness’s other point about frequent flyers, last year the Government altered air passenger duty which does have an effect on more frequent flyers.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harper. He made some substantial points. The noble Lord referred to a flight that used 100% sustainable aviation fuel; I believe he was a passenger on it. If I may, I will try to respond in detail to the points that the noble Lord made before Committee stage.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is perhaps not so supportive, though in the end I think he said he was. But what we are doing is important. We should be trying to move into a market that self-evidently can be a success for British industry, if we approach it properly. Government intervention, as justified by a number of noble Lords this afternoon, is the only way to do it. The noble Viscount is very sceptical of the effect on pricing for passengers; again, I have no doubt that we will discuss this in Committee and afterwards. Of course, he wants safety not to be compromised; none of us does. It is only right to point out that another noble Lord on his Benches was on a flight wholly powered by sustainable aviation fuel and I doubt whether the noble Lord would put himself at risk: I hope he would not. We are absolutely committed to safety. We are also committed to the fuel economy, which he mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to nuclear and hydrogen power. The Government have clearly not set their mind against any solution. The significant funding put towards investing in technical solutions and the way in which the SAF process is being developed encourages other solutions and will encourage British industry to look particularly towards these solutions in the longer term. We will, of course, prioritise UK technology. This is the point and it is a good thing to do.
My noble friend Lord Hanworth is also probably not supportive—not because he does not agree with the general principle but because he somehow thinks, despite all we are doing to be at the forefront of global action, including the £63 million we are putting into the advanced fuels fund, that somehow this is not enough and that there should be some red-blooded approach. I contend that this is a pretty red-blooded approach from the Government. Significant sums of public money have been put into it, and we believe that it is the right thing to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, referred to the nuclear option. SAF produced using nuclear energy is and will be eligible for the SAF mandate. We have provided funding to support the development of this technology through the grant funding programme of the advanced fuels fund. We are clearly on a journey and I note the noble Baroness’s proposition that it will need longer-term support. Although the Bill is limited to a term of 10 years, the support term is not so limited. I hope the noble Baroness will note that this is one of the reasons why.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made some strong points. As I have said, we are on a journey. In Committee, we can discuss the consistency of the trajectory of that journey with the EU and other countries that have set themselves different targets. Of course, it is not the only measure: zero-emission flying is and could not be just about SAF. To that end, we have talked about airspace modernisation, which is something the noble Baroness knows about. We have looked at funding of up to £2.3 billion over 10 years to extend the Aerospace Technology Institute which was announced in the modern industrial strategy in June to look at low-emission and zero-emission aircraft. We are looking at reducing aviation emissions through schemes such as the UK Emissions Trading Scheme on carbon pricing. We are also seeking to address the non-CO2 impacts of aviation. The noble Baroness is correct, of course, in looking at everything to do with carbon reduction in flying, not just aircraft fuel and technology but the operations surrounding aircraft. She mentioned the activities in that respect of DHL, which is a major user of aircraft.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for whom I have huge respect, appears to see a conspiracy between all the parties here to do something which he does not seem to support, which is to have an industrial policy that gives British industry the chance to develop something new in the world and to develop jobs and processes which will lead to a bigger economy. He is not in the same place as some of his colleagues on his own Benches on that and I think that he is wrong, because this is not only an industrial policy but a step towards net zero. He mentioned power-to-liquid, and we have invested in that in the advanced fuels fund. He asked a couple of very detailed questions about the World Trade Organization, and I would be delighted to write to him with the answers, supposing that I was unable to provide answers from the Dispatch Box just now.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate today and I welcome the support of the many who spoke in favour of the Bill’s measures. The Bill will kick-start the UK SAF industry, attracting investment and creating jobs. By addressing the market and investment uncertainty in SAF production, it will enable the UK to lead the way to greener aviation. I beg to move.
Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and will respond to the points raised. However, I will first outline the context of this instrument, which was laid before the House on 13 October 2025. This instrument relates to radio equipment, which encompasses a broad range of products, including smartphones, laptops, fitness tracking devices and other connected or small devices. Under the Windsor Framework, the Radio Equipment Directive 2014/53/EU continues to apply in Northern Ireland, ensuring dual access to both the UK internal market and the EU single market. In 2021, the European Commission adopted Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/30, which supplements the Radio Equipment Directive and introduces additional essential requirements for certain categories of radio equipment.
The additional essential requirements applied to internet-connected radio equipment, including consumer connectable electronics and smart devices. Such equipment must be constructed in a way that protects networks, safeguards users’ personal data and privacy, and prevents fraud. Furthermore, radio equipment, whether internet-connected or not, that is covered by the EU toys directive and is intended for childcare or is wearable on the body must also be constructed so that it protects user data and privacy.
Baroness Hoey
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations are being made to give effect to legislation made by the European Commission, without public consultation and without taking account of the needs of small businesses in Northern Ireland.”
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to his position. He is about the third noble Lord we have had answering SIs, so we are gradually getting round all of them. It is of course very nice to see the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, who is very involved with and supportive of Northern Ireland, and she is very much respected there.
The noble Lord has set out in detail why this is happening, with a lot of words and explanation, but the reality is that it is happening because the United Kingdom Government signed up to the Windsor Framework protocol, which is now ensuring in legislation after legislation that Northern Ireland is treated differently. To comply with the EU law, we are therefore now required to update the EU law as defined in our 2017 regulations to take account of the new directive.
The regulations before us today seek to comply with this European Union diktat by applying a new regulation, Regulation 6A, into the United Kingdom regulations with respect to how they apply to Northern Ireland only. The legislative change does not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom; it does not apply to Great Britain.
I see there is an absence of the Liberal Democrats here today. That is because the Liberal Democrats tend to think that such regulations should be hidden away in the committee room and fail to understand that when it is an affirmative regulation, we have the right to bring it here to the Chamber. We do that because these regulations provide us with an object lesson of all that is wrong with the Windsor Framework protocol and the Irish Sea border that it creates.
To really understand the problems with these regulations and others like them, it is important to assess them from the vantage point not just of their immediate physical impact—which I will mention—but of their wider impact in Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom. The Irish Sea border arose from a decision of Parliament, but unlike the decisions in relation to devolution and joining the European Union, the resulting arrangements were not operated consistently with its ethos as a representative body. From the outset, their very point of conception, they have been fundamentally alien to the political tradition we have in the United Kingdom, because they involve transferring lawmaking powers for a part of the UK to a Government beyond the UK—to legislative arrangements that do not represent the United Kingdom.
This deeply affects the part of the United Kingdom in question, because as participants in a political nation, a political body politic that is nurtured, upheld and sustained by representative principles, this does not just take from us the ability to make some of our own laws but necessarily disinherits us from a key aspect of our identity.
In this context, the Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations, along with all other imposed legislation, are deeply problematic. It is worth reminding the House that while the Northern Ireland protocol was addressed through primary legislation, since February 2023 every piece of legislation that has been introduced and given effect to the Windsor Framework—without any say from people in Northern Ireland—has been by means of statutory instrument.
Someone engaging with this subject for the first time—perhaps a noble Lord today—might come to one debate and see that it highlights the imposition of EU law in one narrow area. However, that is very narrow; we have to regard the cumulative effect of all the different statutory instruments that have been brought in, and will be brought in, in the past and coming months. That is why, along with other noble friends from Northern Ireland, we will continue to bring these debates to the House. The House needs to understand that this is not just about one law—radio equipment—this is about the whole way we are now being governed in Northern Ireland.
That said, the draft Explanatory Memorandum makes the position very clear, and the Minister has gone through the far-reaching effects of the radio equipment regulations. Everyone needs to read paragraphs 5 and 6, which state:
“The essential requirement not to harm the network or its functioning applies to any internet-connected radio equipment … consumer electronics and smart devices … the protection of user/subscriber personal data and privacy also applies to the following radio equipment, where that equipment is capable of processing personal data, traffic data or location data: Internet-connected radio equipment; and Radio equipment, whether internet-connected or not, that is: (i) designed or intended exclusively for childcare; (ii) covered by the EU Toys Directive; or (iii) designed or intended, to be worn on, strapped to, or hung from the body or clothing”.
The final bit of the explanation states:
“The essential requirement to ensure protection from fraud also applies to internet-connected radio equipment, if that equipment enables the user to transfer money, monetary value or virtual currency”.
It is very wide-ranging.
Turning to those who will be impacted by the legislation, the draft Explanatory Memorandum is very clear that the effects on business are far-reaching. It states:
“This instrument will impact on manufacturers of specific types of radio equipment that are placed on the Northern Ireland marketplace, authorised representatives carrying out manufacturers’ tasks on their behalf, importers who place these products on the Northern Ireland marketplace, and distributors who make these products available on the Northern Ireland marketplace”.
It actually states:
“There is no, or no significant, impact on charities or voluntary bodies”,
but the impact on small businesses is also very clear. It states:
“The legislation does impact small or micro businesses … The legal requirements do not differentiate between businesses in terms of their size. Therefore, we are unable to take any mitigating actions to minimise the regulatory burdens on small or micro businesses”.
The officials who drafted this draft Explanatory Memorandum pass over those points very quickly, without acknowledging and confronting the obvious implications of what has been said. This legislation relates only to Northern Ireland and has an impact on small businesses and micro-businesses, yet Northern Ireland is the part of the United Kingdom where the economy is more dependent on such businesses than any other. In that sense, if we were told to apply this to one part of the UK, Northern Ireland would be the last place to start because of the unusual size of its small business sector. Can the Minister say what the Government will do practically to help those small businesses that are already drowning in an Irish Sea border of endless paperwork and bureaucracy?
The Minister will recall—the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, will certainly recall—the Federation of Small Businesses research, which, critically, was conducted before the introduction of the Irish Sea parcels border in May, the used farm machinery border in June and the huge increase in labelling requirements on 1 July, not to mention the impending arrival of the pet medicines Irish Sea border, which is due in January 2026, together with the application, from 1 January, of the much more demanding Import Control System 2.
The report demonstrated that 33% of GB suppliers had already withdrawn since the arrival of the Irish Sea border. I ask the Minister: how much more pain would the Government like to devise for small businesses in Northern Ireland? This imposition of EU legislation on Northern Ireland effectively declared that while the people of England, Wales and Scotland are worthy of the right to stand for election to make all the laws, or to elect a fellow citizen to represent them for this purpose, the people of Northern Ireland are only worthy of the right to stand for election to make some of the laws to which they are subject.
These changes do not have just a narrow functional effect, so that some of our laws are made by others; they actually erode and undermine our place in the nation of the United Kingdom. I do not think that noble Lords will fully appreciate that, until they themselves, perhaps as fellow citizens, find that that has been taken from them. In coming to terms with this, we must also understand that the purpose of all these imposed laws is to create an all-Ireland single market for goods. The political importance is hard to overstate, because the prerequisite of achieving statehood is described internationally as securing economic nationality.
One disturbing consequence of all this is that once people have been subject to the laws of another country or another institution, they not only lose the right to stand for election to make the laws to which they are subject, or to elect someone for this purpose; they also lose the right to be consulted about the law.
The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The Government has not undertaken a formal public consultation as this instrument’s provisions are confined to the implementation of provisions as required by the terms of the Windsor Framework, ensuring that Northern Ireland has in place EU derived essential product safety requirements.”
In other words, the legislation has to be imposed because the EU has told us to impose it, and we signed up to that, so we do not need to bother with the consultation because there would be no point.
The other striking feature about these regulations is that the Explanatory Memorandum and supplementary paperwork are distinctive in not volunteering that the Government will definitely align GB with the new Northern Ireland legislation, opening the door to regulatory divergence. Paragraph 9.1 says: “Many UK businesses also supply the EU market (as well as the UK market) and have already taken steps to come into compliance with the Radio Equipment Directive. We therefore do not anticipate significant impacts on the supply of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland”—anyone in Northern Ireland will tell you that they have heard that before—“and the UK’s Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act sets a framework for the cyber security of internet connected products in the UK and works alongside radio equipment directive provisions in Northern Ireland.”
As has been said, the Government intend to review the operation of the PSTI in the coming years, including through an interim post-implementation review in 2026, and will continue to monitor the functioning of the internal market. That is very complacent, and we could be left with legal divergence for a very long time. Why are the Government not more energetically seeking to avoid legislative divergence? If most companies in GB will comply automatically anyway, why accommodate needless legislative divergence?
Finally, I want to pick up the point that the Explanatory Notes suggest that these regulations are a good thing because they are part of the delivery of the wonderful dual market access. We need to be absolutely clear that dual market access is a myth. We have not secured a single piece of inward investment to access this special status, because it does not exist. Businesses are not stupid. If there was a special advantage, they would have come in from across the world.
Of course, you will find companies that would rather have the border in the Irish Sea because their business is based on trading with the Republic of Ireland and not with GB, and which say that they benefit from the current arrangements. However, if you drill down into that, it is not because they get dual market access but because at the end of the day, although the Windsor Framework fetters access to GB production inputs, it provides completely unfettered access to the Republic—that is, single market access to an all-Ireland economy—which is what they actually want. The problem is that most Northern Ireland businesses are based on needing unfettered access to GB, which is denied them by both the red and green lanes. It is therefore a very clear net negative for the Northern Ireland economy as a whole rather than a net positive. I do wish that Ministers would stop saying, every time the Windsor Framework is mentioned, that this is why it is so great.
I want to end by reading out two emails that I got sent yesterday from Northern Ireland relating to the veterinary effect which will come in in January. The first is to a lady who has pets and gets her veterinary medicine from GB:
“Thank you for your query regarding veterinary medication to Northern Ireland. Since Brexit, we have been operating under a grace period that has allowed us to continue medications to Northern Ireland. However, this grace period will come to an end on 31st December 2025. From 1st January it will no longer be possible for suppliers based here on the UK mainland to ship any class of medication, including prescription medications, to Northern Ireland”.
Another email reads:
“Good afternoon and thank you for your email. We will be stopping the last delivery to Northern Ireland on December 19th. This is due to a change in the Windsor Framework, which means medicines now need a Northern Ireland licence or EU licence to be sold there and cannot be imported free”.
This is happening over and again, and it means that many pet owners who cannot afford insurance and who go on to the internet to get the same veterinary medicine more cheaply from Great Britain are not now going to be able to get it.
We are seeing, over and again, ridiculous things that are happening because of the Windsor Framework/protocol. I cannot understand how any sensible person, including ex-Government Ministers from the previous Government, cannot realise that this is not in the long-term interests of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I beg to move this regret amendment with very great pleasure but with sadness that we are having still to come back to this House over and again on this issue.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for outlining in detail the impact and effect of the statutory instrument before us today and for clearly setting out the reasons behind it as well. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her regret amendment, which ensures that there is time in this House for your Lordships to consider this latest piece of legislation, which has been consulted upon in Europe, drafted in Europe, devised in Europe and planned in Europe for the benefit of the European Union states, and which has been implemented in part of the United Kingdom without any input into any of that process by any Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, any Member of Parliament or any Member of your Lordships’ House. It is quite a staggering situation in modern Britain, in a modern G7 country, for part of its own country to be subjected to this kind of colonial legislative process. It is quite remarkable when you think about it.
This latest regulation deals with a very important area, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, outlined, covers a wide range of equipment in Northern Ireland and will have a lot of impacts, particularly on small and medium-sized businesses.
This is the latest in a long line of statutory instruments affecting a very wide range of subjects, all listed in Annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol. Last week, I raised the issue of dental amalgam, because that is now under EU law and jurisdiction. Next week, we will be debating in Grant Committee the issue of cars coming into Northern Ireland, whereby now the biggest-selling car in Northern Ireland cannot be shipped from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, even though we sell, from Britain into the Irish Republic, only a handful of cars every year. But this is why consumers and motorists in Northern Ireland are going to have to pay more and come to Britain to buy their cars. This is the modern United Kingdom.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, reminded your Lordships, we have a problem with veterinary medicines, which is going to come in on 1 January 2026. We have an issue to do with the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which again is going to come in on 1 January 2026 in Northern Ireland. We have an issue to do with the Sentencing Bill, which your Lordships considered the other day at Second Reading, in which plans to deport people who come here may not be applicable, with part of the United Kingdom providing a back door and a loophole for all sorts of nefarious activity. We have court challenges in Northern Ireland to immigration policy and to legacy problems, all based on the fact that they do not comply with and conform to European law through the Windsor Framework. Not only are they ruled to be contrary, they actually strike down legislation passed by this House—in part of the United Kingdom.
It is a sad state of affairs, a lamentable state of affairs, a state of affairs that cannot endure in the long run. Sooner or later, even those who today are prepared to accept anything the European Union passes because it is the European Union, even those who care about democracy but these matters do not matter as much to them, even nationalists in the Northern Ireland Assembly, those who are not unionists, will say: “Hold on a moment, surely we should be making and devising and formulating the laws for the people we represent”. They may not wish to be part of the United Kingdom, but they do not want to have laws imposed upon them by a group of countries which make these laws in their own interests. They do not consult with anyone in Northern Ireland—nationalist, unionist or anyone. So I make a plea on behalf of everybody in Northern Ireland. Citizens and elected representatives of all shades should be saying: “Hold on a minute, we would like to actually make these laws for ourselves”. But here we are, once again, looking at a piece of legislation which applies European law because it is in Annex 2 of the protocol.
I am not going to go through all the issues that the previous speakers have raised. The point about consultation is an extremely important one. The Explanatory Memorandum implies, more or less, that because there is no room for amendment, the legislation must be imposed in Northern Ireland because the EU has decided this and passed this. There is no room for getting rid of it. Therefore, what is the point of consultation? That is, in essence, what the consultation part of the Explanatory Memorandum says on the regulatory divergence point.
As in so many cases, we are now told that while the rest of the United Kingdom may come into line with EU regulations and therefore mitigate the frictions between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, often that is vague, often it is not 100%, and often it is very delayed. What happens in the meantime? I would be grateful if the Minister could outline in more detail the implications of regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—between the immediate implementation of this statutory instrument and the current position in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The impact on small and medium-sized businesses has been mentioned. I note too that paragraph 9.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“There is an impact on the public sector because the enforcing authorities … are the Northern Ireland district councils”.
I hear from council members all the time about the straitened fiscal position they find themselves in. They are being lumbered continually with more and more investigatory, regulatory, enforcement and monitoring obligations and responsibilities as a result of European regulation. It is made much more difficult because they are now in a unique position of having to police this without any back-up or support elsewhere in the United Kingdom, because it does not apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what resources will be given to district councils in this and other cases where they face greater regulatory monitoring and enforcement obligations as a result of the Windsor Framework.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I declare two interests. I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which considered this statutory instrument, and a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group. This is important because those interests are relevant to the general debate on the Windsor Framework. I welcome my noble friend the Minister to this debate and to the ongoing issue of the Windsor Framework.
I acknowledge the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, but that does not mean that I agree with it. I am a firm supporter of the Windsor Framework. I believe we should seek to get back into the European Union because that is the best way to represent our interests. We should be working towards dual market access—not decrying dual market access but actively supporting businesses that are seeking to achieve the benefits of dual market access, not only for their businesses but for the wider community in Northern Ireland.
I remind noble Lords that the root cause of the problem is Brexit. Various events over the past 17 years have undermined the UK economy. We had the economic crash in 2008, which impacted many global economies. We had Brexit in 2016. We had Covid-19 and all the payments for that. Then we had the money to invest in defence for Ukraine and in defence of democracy, and to build up resilience against other powers, such as Russia.
In this instance, Brexit ushered in the Northern Ireland protocol and then the Windsor Framework to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland. I personally do not have a problem with that, as we argued back in 2016 that special arrangements were required on the island of Ireland, where two jurisdictions and two systems would apply. Hence, we have the UK internal market and EU single market. I make a plea that politicians of whatever hue should be encouraging people and businesses to avail themselves of dual market access, and it is wrong to decry them. I remind those who argued for the hardest form of Brexit, either in this House or in the other place, that in some ways we are paying for the consequences of that.
It was remarked on that our committee did not receive any submissions or comments relating to the Windsor Framework for this statutory instrument. That was a surprise, because we have received voluminous comments for other statutory instruments related to the framework. Also, the Government have undertaken stakeholder engagement with a cross-representation of stakeholders, including industry, trade associations and other government departments with an interest. Like my noble friend the Minister said, it will be subject to further review as part of the radio equipment directive provisions in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will prove productive.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
At the commencement of her address to the Chamber, the noble Baroness said that she was a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I noticed that its 39th report said, at paragraph 35, that the Department for Business and Trade
“therefore does not anticipate ‘any significant impacts’ on the supply of relevant products from Great Britain to NI”.
If the reality turns out to be that there is a significant impact, could the noble Baroness, who supports the Windsor Framework, tell us how it could be rectified?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I sincerely hope that there are no particular difficulties, but if there are any hiccups in the situation, I hope that, as part of that, the challenges and the operational difficulties that have presented themselves over the last number of months can be ironed out, and that we have a listening Government who will do everything within their power, working with the EU, to ensure that that is the case.
I will move on to what else I want to say. Undoubtedly, we need to resolve the challenges, the delays, and businesses’ lack of knowledge around the Windsor Framework. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister to outline when we will receive the responses to the following reports, which highlighted those operational difficulties and challenges, and the lack of knowledge for businesses operating within the Windsor Framework. Those reports are: the independent monitoring report, published two weeks ago; my noble friend Lord Murphy’s independent review, published in September; and the report of our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, of which I, the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, are members. We discussed those issues yesterday. When will the Government respond to those three reports, which all highlighted the need for a resolution to the operational difficulties? If operational difficulties and challenges exist for businesses, they should be resolved. To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, I imagine that is probably what he is referring to, rather than an outright rejection of the Windsor Framework.
Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has said, we also need answers on CBAM, and we need clarification. What will this mean for people’s electricity supply, taking on board that we have a single electricity market on the island of Ireland? We need to know what framework will be operational from 1 January 2026. What discussions have taken place with the EU regarding those interim arrangements for Northern Ireland? I have spoken with representatives from Manufacturing NI, and they have told me that they have had no discussions with the Government since November 2024. I say gently to my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench that this needs to be resolved quickly. I urge him to work with his ministerial colleagues in the department responsible to resolve these issues and to provide clarity and clarification for businesses and all those involved in manufacturing.
Finally, reference has been made to veterinary medicines and the ongoing difficulties and challenges there. We need a resolution to those issues, which are largely of a market and regulatory nature, and we need to know how many authorisations will be available and how many—because of pack size—will not. We need clear, professional guidance to be issued urgently and communicated to veterinarians and farmers in Northern Ireland. I understand that the BVA and NOAH would be willing to help with this, but we need that briefing in relation to the veterinary medicines directive to go directly to veterinarians, the BVA and farmers. We also need an industry-level co-ordination group to be established to share confidential, category-level supply risk signals, because much of this information, as I know from the Veterinary Medicines Working Group, is confidential and commercial in confidence. It should also be able to agree clinical fallback pathways for when authorised products are unavailable and be able to use the two systems that, thankfully, the Government have brought forward, and co-ordinate communication to vets, SQPs—or suitably qualified persons—and probably agricultural merchants, practices and producers.
I urge the Minister to obtain clarity on those various areas as they relate to the operational challenges and difficulties faced by those who have to work under the auspices of the Windsor Framework. For clarity, I support the Windsor Framework; I would like to see a route back to the European Union, because I believe in full democratic accountability. That can be achieved only through that mechanism and not by decrying the Windsor Framework, because that simply, in many ways, is a denial of democracy, when people argued for the hardest possible Brexit.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I have been provoked to respond to what the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has said. I had some difficulty in following her, but that might be more my fault than hers—I think it is not, but that is by the way. She went on at some length about the dual membership. Let me very clear to your Lordships’ House today: there are no tangible benefits from dual membership. What we are getting is unfettered access to the Republic of Ireland—our smallest market—in return for fettered access to our greatest market; namely, GB. I hope that your Lordships’ House, particularly the Minister, will keep that in mind. I am sure he is listening, and I know that the noble Baroness beside him always listens to what we are saying—she might not always agree, but she certainly always listens, and we commend her for that.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this instrument, as the Minister has outlined, amends the Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 to ensure that additional essential requirements covering cyber security, data protection and fraud prevention apply to certain categories of radio equipment marketed in Northern Ireland. The objectives of these requirements are sensible. In an era of ultra-connected devices such as smartphones, watches, fitness trackers and more, the need to protect personal data, prevent fraud and safeguard network integrity is clearly paramount. Consumers rightly expect that the technology that, in many cases, they entirely rely on does not expose them to unnecessary risk. However, this instrument raises broader constitutional and practical questions, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords.
First, it is another example of legislation applying in Northern Ireland that originates, unfortunately, not from the Palace of Westminster, not from the Northern Ireland Assembly, but from Brussels. Whatever view noble Lords might have of the Windsor Framework, it is undeniable that these rules are imposed under obligations that leave little room for domestic discretion. That is the reality, which is a concern for many, including in your Lordships’ House.
Secondly, while the Department for Business and Trade assures us that the impact on businesses will be minimal, given that many firms already comply in order to access EU markets, we must be allowed to scrutinise that claim. For smaller manufacturers and distributors, particularly those focused on the UK market, compliance costs and administrative burdens may not be negligible. As was so well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, my noble friend Lord Dobbs and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, have the Government undertaken a full assessment of the cost to SMEs? What support will be available to businesses in Northern Ireland to navigate these requirements?
While we do not oppose measures that enhance consumer protection and cybersecurity, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regret that this instrument exemplifies the democratic deficit inherent in the current arrangements. We urge the Government to provide greater transparency on the cumulative impact of these regulations and to ensure, above all, that Northern Ireland businesses are not disadvantaged and can remain competitive, thrive and flourish.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the warm welcome to this statutory instrument. In fact, when I was asked to take this SI, I thought it would be happening in Grand Committee and we would probably look at it for half an hour and then complete it, but obviously we have wider issues to consider today. I am grateful for the support given from across the House to these regulations. I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this instrument and all their excellent questions and contributions. I will respond to as many of the questions posed as possible and, if I run out of time, I will obviously write to noble Lords accordingly.
I shall first address the issue of the Windsor Framework. Look, is the Windsor Framework perfect? Of course it is not; nothing is perfect, other than being in a single market and customs union—we are not there and that boat has sailed—but it is definitely better than the Northern Ireland protocol. What is important here is that the Windsor Framework has delivered substantial improvements to the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. It has removed routine checks for the overwhelming majority of goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, ensured that supermarket shelves are stocked normally, secured long-term continuity of medicine supplies and restored the free flow of parcels for households and businesses.
At the same time, the Government have always been clear that the Windsor Framework is not the end of the journey but a significant step forward. There remain areas where further work with the EU is required, particularly around the practical implementation of the red and green lane arrangements and certain aspects of agrifood certification. We continue to engage constructively through the Joint Committee to reduce burdens where possible, provide clarity to businesses and ensure that the framework operates in a way that fully supports Northern Ireland’s place in the UK’s internal market.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, about consultation and engagement for business, my officials regularly and continuously engage and consult with businesses, and they have found that many businesses are already coming into compliance. They have also issued guidance to support industry. These engagements include UK retail and trade associations representing, for example, the manufacturers of small and large domestic appliances. They reported that there were no particular problems from this instrument relating to its impending GB-to-NI trade that they were aware of from discussions with their member companies. They also welcome the Government’s guidance and confirmation that products can continue to be placed on the GB market as long as they comply with the requirements of the PSTI Act, where relevant.
In addition, the Government share the EU’s desire to ensure that manufacturers are considering measures to improve the cybersecurity of relevant devices. We are also looking at further options for securing digital devices, as evidenced by our recent call for views on enterprise-connected devices, and will take into account arrangements in Northern Ireland, including impacts on SMEs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned dual access, and said it was a myth and that companies were not investing. I disagree. Just last month, the parcel delivery company Evri announced the opening of a new £1.3 million EU gateway depot in Mallusk, creating something like 650 jobs, which Evri itself said would enable it to avail itself of dual market access.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked about new cars, a subject that I think was in today’s papers. The Government are engaging closely with manufacturers to better understand what is needed to sell vehicles on the market in Northern Ireland, and we expect to make a further announcement on the next steps.
The noble Lord also asked whether this would create divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We consider that the additional legislative requirements that this SI puts in place in Northern Ireland will have limited impact in practice. My officials have engaged in discussions with a range of industry stakeholders, such as the AMDEA, which is the UK trade association for domestic appliances, the British Retail Consortium and government departments. These discussions have not identified any significant impacts or concerns for this instrument. Many businesses across the UK have already adapted to the new requirements. We therefore do not anticipate significant impacts on the supply of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I exhort my noble friend the Minister to implore his colleagues to provide speedy, expeditious responses to those reports, because they are vital in addressing the operational issues and challenges of the Windsor Framework.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. I am sure that, as a former Minister, she will know that we will try our best to get that done swiftly. Further to her question on the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, CBAM, we have always been clear that we will apply the UK’s CBAM across the UK, including in Northern Ireland, and that the EU’s CBAM does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee yesterday wrote to the Government on this issue and we will respond in the usual way.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also asked about veterinary measures. The vast majority of veterinary medicine will remain available in Northern Ireland from 1 January. The Government continue to engage extensively with industry and have announced two new schemes to support supply to Northern Ireland.
I come now to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on impact assessments. An impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument, as measures resulting from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are out of scope for assessment. However, my officials have engaged in discussions with a range of industry stakeholders and government departments on Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2022/30 and have not identified any significant impacts or concerns for this instrument. We therefore expect limited impacts, if any, on the supply of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
As I have set out, this instrument ensures effective implementation in Northern Ireland of Commission delegated regulation (EU) 2022/30, which applies additional essential requirements for manufacturers of certain radio equipment and enables them to be enforced. As a former businessperson, I am constantly encouraging my colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade to engage regularly with micro and small businesses. The Government are committed to engaging and supporting all businesses, not only in Great Britain but across Northern Ireland.
Many businesses have already prepared to comply with these new essential requirements, which came into force on 1 August this year, in order to continue to supply the EU. My officials have not identified significant impacts on this instrument in discussions with industry stakeholders, including trade associations. This is because many businesses have already adapted to these new requirements. We therefore expect the impact on the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to be very limited.
This instrument ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland’s continuing dual access. I am therefore pleased to commend this statutory instrument to the House.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response to this rather wide-ranging debate. We tend to have them on statutory instruments, because there seems to be no other way of raising and having debates in this place on the overall issue of the Windsor Framework and how it is affecting Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland officials in the Northern Ireland Office must have it very easy because, with all these SIs, they simply exchange the word “radio” for “motor car” or “dental” and then produce the rest of the speech more or less the same—we hear more or less the same response every time. I appreciate that the Minister is carrying out his party policy.
I was very disappointed, as I said, that there was no one here from the Liberal Democrats, because normally what they say is, of course, that it is all about Brexit: “If we hadn’t had Brexit, you wouldn’t have a Windsor Framework protocol”. But I am sure that Liberal Democrat noble Lords will be pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, seems to have taken up that mantle. Indeed, the Minister himself said that the best thing would be to rejoin the customs union and the single market. Has the Labour Party policy changed, or was that just a throwaway line?
Clearly, there was absolutely no need to have the Windsor Framework protocol because the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union; they did not have on their ballot paper, “Northern Ireland to be left under 300 areas of law”—absolutely outrageous. The Minister did not raise—and none of the Ministers who respond ever raise—that kind of constitutional issue. It is all about the EU saying that we must comply.
There was much agreement between the rest of the noble Lords who spoke about the Government dressing everything up as, “Oh, but you’ve got dual access”. Dual access is a joke. It has not produced a single job; that has been confirmed by Invest Northern Ireland. We might have dual access, but the raw materials and so on need to come in from Great Britain and through an international customs border.
This particular SI will affect small businesses. We have had no real response to what might be given in mitigation to help them and no response to a number of the other questions. But I would say one positive thing: I welcome the more critical response of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, to the SI. Perhaps that is just a bit of movement within the opposition party towards accepting that what was signed up to in the Windsor Framework protocol is not in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, never mind the people of Northern Ireland. What we have ended up with is the Minister basically saying, “We didn’t write this law and we can’t change it, so you’re just going to have to put up with it”. Noble Lords will be relieved to know that I withdraw the amendment.