Wednesday 10th December 2025
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberSustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 View all Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 138-I(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (9 Dec 2025)
Lord Ravensdale
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Ravensdale’s amendments adding new sections “Further provision about power to liquid fuels” and “Further provision about the direction to offer revenue certainty contract”.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 1, 5 and 6, and Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. I declare my interests as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis and as co-chair of Legislators for Nuclear.
Turning first to Amendment 5, I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say at Second Reading on this matter and was pleased to hear some clarification on competitive allocation. Of course, to get the market moving, most contracts will initially be likely to be bilateral between the counterparty and the SAF provider, but the legislation must be future-proofed.
We had a lot of discussion in the other place and at Second Reading here on the effect on air fares of this legislation. The way to bring costs down and deliver value for money is, of course, through competition. In the longer term, we need a mechanism similar to offshore wind whereby a strike price and an auction are put in place. That would apply the right competitive pressure to the markets and put downward pressure on costs. All other similar government legislation—for example, the Energy Act 2023 for hydrogen carbon capture and storage, and the Energy Act 2004 for offshore wind—include such provisions, but the Bill does not. Clarity on how this competitive process will be set out is important, so I propose this amendment.
Amendment 5 is based upon Section 76 of the Energy Act 2023, but it has been tweaked so that, rather than spelling out all the things regulation might cover, I give the Secretary of State the power to make rules. This reduces the complexity of the other Acts by avoiding the need to table complex secondary legislation and instead covers this through a rule-making power. Through the framework, the amendment also allows the Secretary of State to make decisions on aspects such as the process of producing SAF, the outputs and, critically, the location of production, which feeds into some of the amendments in the next group.
Overall, Amendment 5 is an opportunity for the Government to clarify the overarching strategy of the Bill in moving from bilateral negotiation to competitive allocation by embedding competition within the Bill. This would clarify the Bill and ensure that the benefits of competition in lowering costs are taken forward.
Turning to Amendment 6, there is another opportunity here for the Government in aligning the Bill with the SAF mandate order. The strategic nature of power-to-liquid fuel, or third-generation SAF—eSAF—has been recognised by the Government. In the SAF mandate order, there is a table that specifies by calendar year the percentage of SAF that must be in power-to-liquid form.
It is crucial that the revenue certainty mechanism secures enough eSAF production capacity to meet the SAF mandate in the UK; otherwise, there is a real risk that the mandate will not be able to be met due to global scarcity. Analysis from the Transport & Environment NGO shows that the UK cannot rely on eSAF imports from the EU, for example, to meet the SAF mandate, as planned EU production capacity is just enough to meet EU regulations. That shows the importance of aligning the revenue certainty mechanism with the SAF mandate order.
In Amendment 6, I am proposing to take aviation fuel demand in the UK, which is around 10 million tonnes per year—that figure is at the lower end of aviation fuel demand over the past couple of decades and is taken from ONS data—and multiply that figure by the percentages in the SAF mandate order.
The amendment would help the Government to ensure that the revenue certainty mechanism and domestic SAF production delivers the quantities of power-to-liquid fuel that are required to meet the SAF mandate. Critically, it would ensure that we have join-up between these two parallel pieces of legislation and that the revenue certainty mechanism is joined up with the SAF mandate order.
I will also speak to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. This amendment, which is very straightforward, proposes a modification to the SAF revenue certainty contract having a default length of 10 years in that it would extend it to 20 years. This is particularly of interest for nuclear-derived SAF. If a SAF offtake is to support the investment in a nuclear power station like an electricity offtake agreement does today, revenue certainty beyond 10 years is highly likely to be required. Ten years’ offtake of SAF is too short to be bankable and is likely to block a SAF developer from supporting investments in nuclear new-build projects, as they would need to do in order to comply with the SAF mandate. This amendment is to probe whether a change to the 10-year period is required for certain classes of projects or whether the option of longer-term contracts is open in the existing legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to this group of amendments. I strongly agree on the importance of having a proper framework for these contracts and a competitive process. The lesson from the energy market is that that competitive process is important to make sure that we achieve the policy objective, which is the production of the fuel, but at the lowest possible cost, which in the end will be passed on to consumers, so having some sort of competitive process is very important.
Two amendments in this group are potentially conflicting. I understand the argument in favour of allowing a longer contract period, particularly for nuclear-derived power-to-liquid fuel, as the noble Lord said, but equally, I would not want that to be the automatic default for all these contracts. I was struck by the amendment from my noble friend Lord Moylan about making sure that it is possible for the Government to exit from these contracts. From my point of view, the attraction here is just to make sure that we learn one of the lessons from the energy market. There is a balance to strike here. We want long-term contracts to give the certainty to the investors and those going into first-to-market plants in the UK to produce this, but we do not want to lock in contracts longer than necessary but potentially at a point where the market price is lower and we are effectively holding the price higher than it needs to be. We have learned some lessons from how that works in the energy market. The amendments on the paper may not be the right way of doing that.
The Minister referred in his speech at Second Reading to the contracts for difference models from the energy market. When he winds up this group, I would be interested to hear what the Government have learned. What detailed work has been done about getting these contracts right at the outset but also enabling them to be flexed as the circumstances change, so that we get the right level of price protection which is necessary to get the initial investment and produce investor certainty but do not keep it going past the point at which investors are making returns above what was necessary to get them to invest? Obviously, you cannot change those rules retrospectively, so it is about getting the right level of certainty. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say there.
I am supportive of the thrust of the noble Lord’s Amendment 6 on power-to-liquid fuels. The only thing I would quibble with is that it has a “must” in it; I do not know the likelihood of this, but I would not want to force the Government to enter into revenue certainty contracts that were not necessary to produce. If we had producers producing enough of that third-generation sustainable aviation fuel, I would not want to force the Government into having to enter into unnecessary revenue certainty contracts. Therefore, I support the thrust of the noble Lord’s argument, which is to make sure that enough of the third-generation SAF is produced to meet the requirements in the mandate, but I would not want the Government to be forced to do that. So the wording in the amendment just needs something which says that they only have to do that if not doing so would not allow that level of fuel to be produced for the market.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments on the amendments. I would certainly be open to what he is saying about the wording in that amendment. I will just say that the way we have structured this amendment is to provide 1 million tonnes of oil equivalent figure. We have tried to do it using a floor mechanism, so we looked at the total aviation fuel demand in the UK over the past 20 years or so, took the lowest figure and simply multiplied that by the percentages in the SAF mandate order. I hope that by providing that floor mechanism, there is that flexibility there, but I certainly take his point about the wording.
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. As I said, I certainly agree with the thrust of his amendments; I just would not want there to be a legislative mandate for the Government to do something that proves to be unnecessary. Again, I think we need to understand from the Minister what is the appropriate amount of flexibility for the Government to have in practice, because we want the Government to use the lessons from those contracts and to have the appropriate level of negotiating space to strike the best deal for aviation consumers. However, we also want to make sure that the Government do not give away unnecessary amounts of consumers’ money that is not necessary to produce the results.
Overall, the amendments in this group are helpful in enabling us to have that debate and to just test what lessons we have learned from the way these sorts of contracts work in the energy market, but also the amount of negotiating space that Ministers will need when they are directing the counterparty to strike the best possible commercial deal.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments is trying to tease out the details around revenue certainty mechanism contracts.
Amendment 2 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, says that the contracts must not exceed 10 years and must have a no-cost break clause at five years. Amendment 3 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on the other hand, wants the contracts to be increased from 10 to 20 years—we have already heard the reasons around that. So there is a difference in thinking from the two Members. However, what is key here and clear from the debate so far is that flexibility is needed, depending on the type of industry involved here. The Minister briefed Members about the thinking behind the 10-year contracts at a recent meeting, so I hope he can explain from the Dispatch Box to reassure Members that the Government have in mind the right length of contracts for this emerging area.
Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, as he outlined, is trying to put flesh on the bones of the revenue certainty contracts by developing an allocation framework similar to contracts for difference for energy. Although Amendment 6 looks at the role and amount of revenue certainty contracts for power to liquid fuels, both of these are really important points which I hope the Minister can address, as well as whether this is the right stage for such detail or whether some of that should be coming through at secondary legislation stage.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this short debate. It is almost certainly my fault, and I will probably need to be mildly humiliated as I am corrected on the topic, but we have discussed the length of contracts by reference to Clause 1(7) and it seems to me that it says nothing at all about the length of contracts. The Minister now has the opportunity to correct one or both sides of this question.
Clause 1(7) states:
“No direction may be given under subsection (1) after the end of the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.
Following on from that immediately, subsection (8) gives the power to the Secretary of State by regulation to amend subsection (7) so as to extend the period for a further five years. This is saying when the counterparty can enter into contracts, not when the contracts start. It is not saying when the contracts end. As long as the contract is awarded in the first 10 or 15 years, it could be for 100 years. Nothing that has been tabled by noble Lords in relation to this clause would affect that.
However, in my Amendment 2, I have bitten firmly on the question and said that no contract, whenever it is awarded, may last for more than 10 years and that it must contain a break clause after five years. I am talking in my amendment about the length of the contract, but the other noble Lords who have talked about longer contracts are not talking about longer contracts at all. I may have got that completely wrong—
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way for two reasons. First, despite having asked the clerk for advice, I omitted to declare an interest at the beginning of my speech, which I will now correct. I draw the attention of the Committee to my entry in the register as the non-executive chair of RVL Aviation, as I did at Second Reading. Secondly, on my noble friend’s specific question, I referred in my speech to his amendment. I had the misfortune of supporting his amendment before he had so ably spoken to it, but I agree that it is the contract length that is important and not just the period from when the Bill becomes law.
Lord Moylan (Con)
We are all agreed that we should be talking about contract length, but my amendment is the only one that refers to it. That is the point that I am trying to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, in respect of competition, says that there must be at least an opening in the future for these revenue certainty mechanism contracts to be awarded competitively. He seeks to put this in the Bill now and appeared to say that, if this is not done now, through a device such as that which he is proposing, there would not be in future an opportunity for competitive procurement. If I have misrepresented him, I will give way and be corrected—I see that he is about to rise, so I might as well complete the point before he corrects me. My understanding is that there is nothing to prevent competitive procurement taking place from day one under these arrangements. Therefore, it is not necessary to put in place an arrangement to secure it. I am open to being corrected on all hands about this, because I am groping my way in the dark through this thicket.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I agree with what the noble Lord has said. The Minister provided the clarification at Second Reading that there is nothing in the Bill that prevents competition. However, for consistency with the other legislation that I outlined that has such direction on similar competitive processes in the energy Acts, and for clarity on the strategy, it would be beneficial to have that process set out in the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that. I am glad we are broadly ad idem, but he helps me to my third point.
The assumption by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, appears to be that the procurement of all future SAF, including non-HEFA SAF and potentially at some stage power to liquid, will have to depend upon or be supported by a revenue certainty mechanism, or at least some form of subsidy or support from the state. That appears to be the assumption. I wholly deprecate that assumption. It is appalling that we should embark upon this project with a view to a regime of perpetual subsidies. If SAF is not rapidly producible on a commercial basis in this country then, as I shall come to in other amendments, the whole project should be reconsidered at this stage.
However, I am comforted in thinking that the Government do not envisage perpetual subsidy by my reading of Clause 1(7) and (8). These are the subsections that I referred to before, so I will not read them out again, but why would the Government put in place what is, in effect, a sunset clause if they envisaged a need for perpetual subsidy? The Minister may want to confirm this, but subsections (7) and (8) taken together are a sunset clause. At the end of 10 or possibly 15 years, no more contracts can be awarded without further primary legislation. There is a degree of confusion, which I may have participated in, concerning what we are discussing. We are giving the Minister the opportunity to bring a blast of fresh air to clear the fog and explain it all to us, so that we know what we are talking about, because up to now I am not entirely sure that we all do.
My Amendment 2 has been explained very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I do not need to elaborate on what it says, but I have not yet given any rationale for why it should commend itself to the Committee. Amendment 2 seeks to limit the length of contracts. The reason is very simple. This Bill is a large slice of corporate welfare. Having given to the industry, through the SAF mandate which we approved last year, a guarantee of uptake of SAF so that you know that your product is going to have to be bought, this is not enough for them, and we are now going to give them, in addition, a guaranteed price. That is what they are demanding.
I do not blame them for demanding that. Let us have guaranteed demand and a guaranteed price—that is a very pretty place to be in. Let us transfer all the risk somewhere else. Who is going to pay that guaranteed price? Not the Government, because it is not a subsidy. They have discovered from the electricity market the contract for difference, which the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has referred to as a model—a structure which has given us the highest electricity prices in the civilised world. This points to the cost of SAF falling on the airlines and, potentially and ultimately, on the passenger. We will come to this later, but the Government have assessed what that might mean in pounds per ticket. That is the subject of a later amendment which I will not trouble your Lordships with now.
Recognising the large element of corporate welfare in the Bill and the need to get away from that and to incentivise competition, I suggest that there should be some basis for limiting the contract, and therefore the benefits that accrue to the producers of SAF. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harper for supporting this. I have suggested 10 years, which is of course an arbitrary number—it might be six years, it might be seven years, or it might be eight years. I have also suggested including a break clause, which I put at five years, so that if the Government saw that this was all going well and that the thing was becoming commercial, they could walk away—which must be their ambition. I put that break clause at five years, which is an equally arbitrary number. If the Minister agreed on the principle, I am sure that he and I could sit down and rapidly agree a maximum length of contract and an appropriate term for the break clause.
It is in that direction that we should be looking if we are not to burden young people. There are not so many young people in the Committee this evening. Many of us are getting to the point where our best flying days are behind us, but when you look to young people who perhaps work in other parts of the House and say, “You are going to be paying for this for the next 20 years. You and your wives and children, and even potentially your grandchildren, are going to be paying for this slice of corporate welfare, so if we don’t get it right the burden falls on you”, and one thinks about that, then of course one is moved very strongly, and is surely moved in the direction of supporting my Amendment 2.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this group of amendments. Amendments 1 and 6 would require the Secretary of State to enter into at least one revenue certainty contract with a SAF producer that is using power-to-liquid technology. The Government recognise the potential that power-to-liquid fuel may have. These fuels will have high greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential, with a low risk of environmental issues such as land use change.
However, adopting these amendments would limit the Government’s allocation flexibility by setting criteria in advance, which could ultimately reduce value for money in the contracts agreed. It is important that the allocation strategy is able to reflect different technologies as they develop. The Government will establish a fair and transparent process to assess each project’s key costs, benefits and risks. This process will be developed over the coming months and will involve consultation with stakeholders.
The decisions on contract allocation will be determined during the contract allocation process. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is right that we do not want perpetual subsidy, but we have to establish over time the opportunity for different technologies to develop.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is right in his remarks about contract lengths; there is no humiliation there at all. The length of contracts is not set out in the Bill, and the amendments other than his Amendment 2 would extend the time in which the contracts could be entered into, not the length of the contracts themselves. We are engaging a range of stakeholders on contract length because it obviously makes sense to talk to the market about that. No final decisions have yet been made.
Contracts issued under similar schemes are generally for a period of 10 to 15 years, which reflects a standard debt repayment period. Limiting the contract to 10 years may not be sufficient to attract the investment necessary to construct these plants, and I contend that it is premature to decide the contract length until the market has advised what it would need to construct the plants that would make the fuel.
The Bill allows the Secretary of State crucial flexibility to adjust any standard contract length in between allocation rounds in the light of emerging market evidence. It also preserves optionality for the potential needs of emerging pathways—for example, nuclear-derived SAF. The addition of a no-fault break clause would, of course, undermine the certainty provided by the contract and seriously risks losing the investor confidence that the Bill aims to increase.
In respect of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, the learning from the energy market is that the contracts need to be long enough to secure the investment that we are talking about. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, asked what the right contract length is. I think we have to establish that by talking to the market, so it is premature to determine it now.
On the contrary, Amendment 3 seeks to extend the time in which revenue certainty contracts can be allocated from 10 years to 20 years. The purpose of the Bill is to kick-start the industry in this country. The revenue certainty mechanism is intended to be a time-limited measure and to stimulate the early market. Once investors have confidence in the market price and the first-of-a-kind technology has proved itself at commercial scale—to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—the mechanism should no longer be needed.
The Government contend that Amendment 3 is not the right way to go. However, if the Government find in due course that it is necessary to extend the provision, Clause 1(8) will allow the Secretary of State to extend the period by which contracts can be allocated in five-year increments by making regulations by the affirmative resolution, so that Parliament can take a view about the applicability of that extension at the time that it is proposed.
Amendment 5 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to include a contract allocation framework in the Bill. The Government will need to carefully consider and work with industry on the specifics of contract allocation. This will ensure that there will be a fair and transparent allocation process that evaluates the key costs, benefits and risks of each project. This will be developed over the coming months and will be rightly subject to consultation with stakeholders. The amendment as it stands would reduce the Government’s leverage in negotiations by setting criteria in advance and limit the ability to secure the best value for money in the contract signed.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, referred to the Energy Act 2023. The allocation framework was included in the Energy Act 2013 and the Energy Act 2023 to ensure that the Secretary of State could effectively regulate the activities of an allocation body where one is appointed under that legislation. In this Bill, the Secretary of State will carry out the allocation process, so it is not necessary to set out an allocation framework to govern the activities of an allocation body.
I hope that my explanations have answered the concerns and that noble Lords feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
The Minister’s response to Amendment 6 is appreciated, but there is a risk that if the amount of third generation SAF or power-to-liquid that needs to be produced is not set out, then the Bill would not, in effect, align with the SAF mandates, which have clear percentages on power-to-liquid fuel requirements. Does he accept that there is a bit of a gap between this legislation and delivering the SAF mandates, in that one does not support the other?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. If he is willing, I will take that point away and contemplate it further.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I thank the Minister. This has been an excellent short debate and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the Minister, certainly provided the clarity on contract length that we were missing. I was pleased to hear that the allocation process will be fleshed out through a consultation. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
“(9) A direction given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) may only require the designated counterparty to enter into a revenue certainty contract with a producer in respect of sustainable aviation fuel that is, or is projected to be, manufactured at a production facility located within the United Kingdom.(10) For the purposes of this Act, no sustainable aviation fuel producer shall be eligible for a revenue certainty contract if any certified component fuel or precursor which constitutes more than ten per cent of the final sustainable aviation fuel volume is not also manufactured at a production facility located within the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to legally ring-fence the financial support provided under the Act, preventing the levy raised from UK aviation fuel suppliers from being used to subsidise sustainable aviation fuel production facilities located outside the UK.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling, who has taken the deepest and most knowledgeable interest in the Bill but has had to excuse himself from the Committee because of pressing family matters. However, it is not my intention to speak to his amendment; I wish simply to create an opportunity for other noble Lords who may wish to speak to it to do so. I will say in regard to it, speaking, if you like, from the Front Bench, only that it raises very interesting questions about the potential beneficiaries of the revenue certainty mechanism and whether they are tied to production within the UK itself. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the questions implicit in the amendment. For now, I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling and the similar Amendment 18 in this group in the names of other noble Lords. They both have the same intention, which is to make sure, as set out in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, that the point of the revenue certainty mechanism is to support UK SAF production, not SAF production that takes place elsewhere. I think my noble friend Lord Grayling had two purposes in tabling the amendment: first, to make that point explicit; and, secondly, to test with the Minister what definition of UK production the Government are going to adopt in their contracts. What does that mean for the components of the fuel, and where do the different stages of production have to take place? What will be the lines about what qualifies as UK production?
Clearly, what we are intending to do, certainly with the plants that have received capital support from the Government, is to have the end-to-end process here in the UK, the plants here in the UK and effectively all the value created in the UK. But there may well be businesses that do only part of that in the UK. It is important for the Government to be clear about where the lines are going to be and what they are going to insist on in the contracts, so that the money coming from UK consumers is going to support UK jobs as part of that industrial policy. That is, after all, the point of this. There is no point in having a revenue certainty mechanism if all it is going to do is deliver SAF production elsewhere in the world. We could just let it get on with it, frankly, and not be too worried about it.
The point is to make sure that we produce that fuel here for two reasons, as I understand it. One is the industrial policy argument of making sure that we develop the technology here, but there is also the learning from what happened during the Covid pandemic when countries resorted to holding on to essential fuel supplies for their own industries. During that period, the international trade in some of these internationally traded commodities gummed up, and we found that some of those strategic supplies were not available. UK production is important for both those reasons, and I think it would be of benefit to the Committee to hear from the Minister exactly how the Government are going to deliver that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my name is attached in support of Amendment 18, but I did not ask for it to be. I asked for it to be attached to a different amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I think this is a great amendment anyway and I am fully in support.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s support. I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, cannot be here, and I wish him and his family well. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for speaking to his amendment.
My Amendment 18 in this group is on UK SAF production. I thank my noble friend Lady Pidgeon, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, even if it was the wrong amendment, for adding their support to it. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government’s support for sustainable aviation fuel translates into genuine homegrown industrial capacity, as we have heard. We support the Bill and its aims, and we want to see it move forward. Other countries are moving forward, such as the United States through its Inflation Reduction Act, and across Europe progress is being made. We need to act decisively to make sure that we do not become a passive importer, and we welcome that the Bill seeks to prevent that.
We believe that this reporting mechanism would help to strengthen the Bill to make sure that these issues are defined and reported on. There is an important distinction between manufacturing and simple operations such as blending, trading or storage. Too often, limited progress is repackaged as domestic production when it is not, so in this amendment we have sought to define what UK production means: that the main chemical or biological conversion processes take place here. We believe that clarity is essential, and having it is in the Government’s interests as well as ours. The amendment does not seek to tie the Secretary of State’s hands. It provides a clear framework for defining what counts as UK production. It also allows flexibility to set out more detailed rules by regulation on the extent of processing ownership and the evidence required for compliance, while maintaining robust accountability.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 18, to which I have added my name, and the other amendment in this group. As has been said, it is important for the Government to consider setting out the definitions in the amendments of what manufacture means and how it is going to be supported in making sure that this is all UK-based. As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, that is the point of the Bill.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I join the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in sending the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, our good wishes for him and his family. I congratulate the noble Earl on his recent nomination for a life peerage. That is an odd sentence to say, but there you go. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has got lucky by signing this amendment, as she will shortly hear.
The revenue certainty mechanism is intended to support only eligible SAF plants in the UK, and this will be ensured through the allocation process. This Government are committed to supporting the UK SAF sector through our advanced fuels fund, which is supporting projects across the UK, and through the revenue certainty mechanism. The UK SAF sector will create jobs and growth opportunities in the UK, help secure a supply of SAF for UK airlines and enhance energy security.
On Amendment 4, SAF projects that use imported precursors still offer significant economic benefits to the UK because of the investment needed to construct them and the employment that they would provide. I fully recognise the strong points made by noble Lords this evening around UK production being in the Bill, and I will seriously consider this point ahead of the next stage of the Bill. I will invite noble Lords who have spoken tonight—or rather those who tabled the amendments—to meet me and my officials ahead of the next stage. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the levy is raised for the purposes of manufacturing sustainable aviation fuel in the United Kingdom. Connected with another amendment in the name of Lord Grayling, it seeks to prevent the government from diverting the levy funds to other broader aviation or climate-related policies.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, for the convenience of the Committee, I rise to move Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling. While I am on my feet, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on his demotion to a mere barony. I assure him that it will pass, and his family will be able to resume their Earl-like status, I hope for many generations to come.
I wish to speak to my Amendment 11 in this group. I will try to put this in language that I understand—that is, fairly simple language. The levy has to be allocated. If the contracting party has to make payments to the producers of SAF, it will fund this by a levy, and the levy will be applied high up the supply chain; it will be applied to the producers of fuel. The people who produce aviation fuel will be adding a certain amount of SAF to their kerosene—an increasing amount each year—before then selling it to the airlines. As I understand it, that is the mechanism.
The question is: among the competing producers of aviation fuel, how is the levy to be allocated from one period to the next? I will assume for the sake of simplicity that the allocation period is a year. There is no necessity that it should be a year—it could be done six-monthly or monthly—but the Minister can say whether the Government have a clear intention about that.
My understanding is that the Bill envisages that the allocation will be based on market share. Market share can be measured only in retrospect. You can know what a company’s market share was last year or in the last six months; you will not necessarily know what its market share will be for the year to come. But, of course, companies are selling aviation fuel in the year in which they are acquiring market share, so they will not know what their levy is until the end of the year, or period, in which the levy is allocated to them, according to their market share. It will be impossible for them to have a clear notion of what they should be adding to the price of the fuel to compensate themselves for the levy. It is envisaged that they should compensate themselves for the levy through adding to the price of the fuel and selling it on, which is how the airlines and ultimately the passengers pick up the cost.
This is presented by the industry—to me, at least, and maybe to other noble Lords —as a very serious practical difficulty. The tendency will be to overcompensate and add more to the price of fuel than is strictly necessary to cover a levy which companies can only vaguely guess at. I accept that their market share is unlikely to jump wildly from one year to another. That does not happen in mature businesses; I do appreciate that. But the levy is quite sensitive even to modest adjustments in market share from one year to another. To get an accurate price to pass on to the customer, relying on retrospective market share is simply not going to cut it and the result may well be that customers end up being overcharged.
It would be better if the counterparty were able to calculate the levy on a transparent pence-per-litre basis. Another point of capital importance is that this could then be added to invoices so that anyone buying aviation fuel—which would normally be airlines, of course—would see clearly on their invoice how much had been added in respect of the levy. There is a suspicion in the industry, which I am sure the Minister wants to dispel, that the Government would rather obscure the additional cost of the levy, and that a system whereby it was written plainly on the face of an invoice would be unwelcome to them.
It would be useful if the Minister were to dispel that view, but I will leave aside that issue. Even if it were not a consideration, there is the important practical consideration of how this will be calculated by companies which will not know what their levy is going to be. This is an extremely serious issue about the implementability of the Bill. It is bound to come back on Report, because the Bill will not work unless this is sorted out; at least, it will not work in the way that the Government intend.
With that, I recommend my Amendment 11. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak mainly to my noble friend the Minister’s Amendment 20. This is perhaps an odd order in which to speak on these things, but it does enable my noble friend to respond to me after I have spoken rather than before; I am sure that he would welcome that.
I want to talk about the relationship between sustainable aviation fuel and the production of renewable liquid fuels that could be used in home heating. I raised this at Second Reading and highlighted what I thought was a key point. The production of sustainable aviation fuel, particularly through the HEFA process, generates hydro-treated vegetable oil—HVO—as a by-product. In fact, HVO accounts for around 30% of the output—a significant quantity, I believe.
In the consultation on alternative heating solutions published a couple of weeks ago, the Government rightly acknowledged the role that HVO could play in decarbonising off-grid homes. I declare that my home is off-grid and relies on oil. Indeed, the Government highlighted that it would be the most cost-effective option for consumers of all the options considered. However, the consultation still questioned the feedstock availability of the fuel. What really pleased me was that, in the last few days, a Written Answer has been given to a Member of Parliament in the other place. It states:
“As of the 1st of January 2025, a market for low carbon fuels for use in aviation and road transport has been supported under two separate schemes”—
the SAF and the RTFO. It continues by saying that targets under both these mandates
“are set considering global availability of feedstocks and competing demands between transport modes and across sectors of the economy”.
It basically says that there is enough material for both aviation and home heating. I think that is a major step forward.
When my noble friend comes to discuss his Amendment 20, I hope he will include a consultation with me, a few colleagues and our noble friend Lord Whitehead, the Minister for Energy Security, to discuss the significant benefits of working together for these two uses given that we have this Bill and a DESNZ consultation. I hope that this is just the right time to have such a discussion because it is a sensible strategic step towards meeting our decarbonisation goals.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 11. He set out the point of it in great detail so I will not repeat what he said but will just emphasise two of the points.
The first is about transparency. It is very important that we are transparent about what we are doing here. Having sustainable aviation fuel and making aviation more sustainable is an important policy goal. It is one that we supported in government and the present Government support, and the principle of it was also supported by the Liberal Democrats. We should just be open about the cost involved in doing it. There are two reasons to be transparent. First, that is how you generate confidence among the public as they can see that aviation is becoming more sustainable. There is a cost involved but that cost is sensible and one they are prepared to pay. Secondly, transparency enables there to be competition or downward pressure on the costs, which is easily missing if the costs are obscured. Having the costs transparent is very helpful and will also mean that different suppliers are not able to hide these costs in their invoicing.
The second point is that I am still unclear about how a mechanism based on market share would work. As well as the lack of clarity and the risk of that leading to overcharging, there is a risk of being backward-looking and looking at historic market share. I am also not clear whether the intention is that different suppliers would, in effect, have different costs being added to what they have to charge, which would seem to have an adverse competitive effect. We want people to bear the cost of the levy, but do not want different suppliers to be picking up a different proportion of that based on their historic market share and then having to charge a different price per litre to competitors. That seems to me to lock in a previous competitive structure and outcome. Part of what we are trying to do here is to encourage new producers and new people to come into the marketplace with new fuels and to enable that competitive process to take place. It is that competitive process that will make sure that we get SAF produced at the lowest possible cost, which is important for consumers. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister and would urge for that clear price per litre of fuel that can be placed on people’s invoices and for transparency.
I also want to speak briefly to Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling. It would place a sunrise clause or a commencement period on Section 6 so that it does not come into force until the first SAF producer is six months away from producing that sustainable aviation fuel in the UK. I think what my noble friend is driving at in this amendment is to make sure that the costs of producing SAF do not start being paid until a domestic plant is almost ready to go and payments to that producer ready to go—that, in effect, we are not starting to charge people in advance and saving up the money on the basis that at some point many years down the road a producer is going to start producing. There is merit in this amendment. Six months may not be the right period but it would be helpful to understand whether the Minister is broadly supportive of the principle and for him to set out the Government’s view on that. That may be an issue that the Government can return to on Report, as the Minister has indicated he will on the earlier group of amendments, or he may have a different way of dealing with the issue raised by my noble friend.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 10 and my consequential Amendment 12 are in this group. This amendment to Clause 6 would replace subsection (3) with a requirement for a standardised levy on aviation fuel, uniform across suppliers, publicly displayed on invoices and expressed in pence per litre.
At the outset I want to make two quick points. First, on these Benches we support this Bill and the principle of the revenue certainty mechanism. Our concern is in relation not to the levy but the method of its deployment and use. As drafted, our worry and the worry of industry is that it is not clear and, in some cases, it creates burdens and frictions in this process for industry, which it would be useful to find a way to avoid. Secondly, my amendment comes from conversations I have had with Valero Energy, one of the UK’s major aviation fuel suppliers. I have no connection with the company. It came to me after the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was tabled. It believes that the proposed text that I have tabled here offers the most effective remedy to the Bill’s flaws.
Having said that, I support the noble Lord’s amendment, and my amendment is very similar. I do not want to repeat the arguments that have already been made here, but I will just reinforce a couple of them. Industry is concerned about this. It feels that it creates fiction, is an inefficient way of doing these things and could slow down investment in the market. It will discourage new entrants, and suppliers will have difficulty planning as they will not have certainty and will need to settle bills at later dates. The department says that this is administratively simple. It might be for government, but industry feels that the opposite is the case and that disincentive is enough that some companies are thinking about the levels of investment they want to make. That, I know, is an outcome that we do not want and the Government do not want either.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister and his officials for having a quick meeting with us. I am fully aware that consultations on this matter are ongoing and was greatly reassured by the conversations we had with Ministers. I know that officials are working extremely hard to find a way forward. I am hopeful that between now and Report, with this amendment, a government amendment or some fresh thinking, these issues can be looked at again. This is genuinely to help make sure that the Bill works not just for the Government but for industry and does so in a way that does not create unnecessary friction.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. We are generally supportive of Amendments 7 to 9 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and would be interested in the Minister’s response to them.
However, we have concerns with Amendments 24 and 26, which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Harper. As he said, they would include a sunrise clause in the Bill. These are very large investments that we seek these companies to make in large and substantial plant in this country. I do not think that I would make that level of investment with such conditions attached. I would worry that delaying the payments will create uncertainty and fear for those who want to invest in the jobs and growth we need in this country. It could create a downward, damaging spiral for the investment we need.
However, there may be a need for the Government to have a bit of a further think about how the early days of the levy will operate, and how to talk about reporting back on those processes of early investment—we have already discussed reporting—to show that investment is happening and is on track. That could show that that investment is being monitored and going towards the end process that we all want, with the plants being set up and running, and producing the fuel.
Before I sit down, I point out that we support the Government’s own amendments that have been tabled. If the Minister could just give an update in relation to Scotland, we would welcome that.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for the brief debate on this group of amendments.
Amendments 7, 8, 9, 24 and 26 seek to address how funds from the levy are used. I first reassure noble Lords that moneys raised through the levy will be used only to support eligible SAF plants in the United Kingdom. The purpose of Clause 6 is to provide a power to place a levy on aviation fuel suppliers to meet the costs of payments made by the counterparty to SAF producers and to cover the counterparty’s administrative costs.
Clause 6 restricts the costs incurred by the counterparty in carrying out its functions under the Bill and, under this clause, the levy funds will be used only to meet the costs of the RCM scheme. The majority of the costs will be incurred only once SAF is being produced and sold by producers who have entered into RCM contracts. It is important that the counterparty be able to recover its costs, which include the costs of administering the contracts, the levy and the payment of surpluses. I hope noble Lords will agree that the counterparty should be self-sustainable.
Amendment 9 intends to ensure that there is a specific mandatory point at which the supplier becomes liable to pay the levy. However, the Government’s view is that it is unnecessary, because the Bill already provides that a person becomes liable to pay the levy at the same point when they become liable to an obligation under the SAF mandate. This aligns the levy to the point at which aviation fuel is eligible for certification under the SAF mandate. The Government think that this simplifies the process for fuel suppliers. I remind noble Lords that the regulations made under Clause 6(1) to set out how the levy will work will be subject to scrutiny under the affirmative procedure, which will give Parliament the opportunity to continue to consider the approach.
On Amendments 10, 11 and 12, as has been noted this evening, we are currently consulting on the detailed design of the levy, including the length of time—it certainly will not be years—which will help inform the drafting of levy regulations. The current levy design consultation will conclude on 8 January 2026, which is of course before any levy regulations are laid in Parliament. Final decisions on the levy design will be informed by this consultation and, to be clear, the Bill as drafted does not specify a particular mechanism and allows the Secretary of State to consider a range of options for calculating the levy paid by individual companies.
To reassure the Committee, the Government are alive to the potential impacts of different levy designs. We are working closely with stakeholders to develop a levy design and engage with them regularly to understand their concerns. We recognise industry’s desire for certainty and transparency. We are looking to design the levy in a way that ensures this, while also ensuring fairness and affordability for the consumer. We recognise that the levy must be dynamic and responsive to the changing market, while also ensuring that the counterparty has funds to make payments under the scheme.
The Government are clear that the levy will not be used to generate unnecessary funds and will raise only sufficient moneys to cover the counterparty’s costs under the revenue certainty scheme. While final decisions will be informed by the open consultation, we are exploring options that deliver this. Many of the proposals and options set out in that consultation could help provide greater certainty and transparency. As I have said, the secondary legislation will be laid by affirmative procedure, allowing both Houses to scrutinise its contents.
In addition, as a consequence of the short debate we have just had, I commit to noble Lords that I will brief them before then on what the levy is and how we currently believe it will work. That is in advance of the consultation closing and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right: it will have closed by Report. I think we will then be clearer on how it will work. I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance on these points for noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling.
Member's explanatory statement
This leaves out the duty to consult about levy regulations under clause 6 since I am proposing a new clause that brings together (and extends) consultation requirements under the Bill. See my new clause to be inserted before clause 15.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, since we were congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Russell, earlier, may I take this opportunity—it may surprise him a little—also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on his new peerage and continued membership of your Lordships’ House?
In rising to resist, for the moment, that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill, I am moved simply by the letter and comments of the Constitution Committee. The Constitution Committee wrote on 5 November to the Minister to say that, while it understood that
“a degree of flexibility is required”,
it regards
“the lack of specificity in the Bill”
about the levy, which is set out in Clause 6,
“as a potential inhibitor of detailed legislative scrutiny”.
The Minister made certain remarks that relate to this in the last group. He was very bland and reassuring in explaining that we must not know anything about the levy at this stage, while we have a chance to scrutinise it, because it is all being consulted on and will look absolutely wonderful by the time it comes out. But that was not enough for the Constitution Committee, and it is worth making a marker at this point that it is not necessarily enough for noble Lords.
At the very least, I would have thought that the Constitution Committee deserved a reply to its letter, but I understand that it has not received one. The Minister might want to give an assurance that he will reply to the letter to explain why this lack of specificity is justified and what compensates for the fact that legislative scrutiny is not being permitted in relation to the levy.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this stand part notice is interesting, and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, explains why it is tabled. It seems to be almost wrecking the Bill if you are trying to remove the mechanism. The purpose of this Committee is to look at the concerns and issues, and to try to find the best system in this complex area. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this, because our view is that it is important to keep the mechanism in the Bill. Clearly, a committee has expressed some concerns, and it will be useful to hear from the Minister.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on his forthcoming appointment as a life Peer.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raises the correspondence from the Constitution Committee. I did in fact reply; the copy of my reply does not have a date on it, but I did reply because it has been reprinted. A full reply was sent to the Constitution Committee, and it referred to what we were just talking about—the current levy design consultation, concluding on 8 January 2026. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, says, without a levy we would not be able to deliver the revenue certainty mechanism. We continue to work closely with industry on the details of the levy’s operation. The current levy design consultation will conclude on 8 January 2026, before any levy regulations will be laid in Parliament. Final decisions on the levy design will be informed by this consultation.
It is appropriate that the levy provisions are set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State, so that there is flexibility to respond to changes in the sector. Flexibility is required so that the levy is set at the appropriate level to ensure that the RCM can be delivered effectively and the counterparty’s costs are recovered. The Government have set out the potential costs and benefits that may arise from the RCM scheme, including the levy and the cost-benefit analysis published in May 2025. The Government will actively monitor and control scheme costs, including through the setting of strike prices and by controlling the scale and number of contracts awarded. I assure noble Lords that the regulation under this clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so there will be further opportunities for scrutiny as to how this power is used.
We have engaged with the Constitution Committee; I now have the date of my letter, which was sent on 17 November. Following this debate, I will ensure that copies of both the Constitution Committee’s letter to me and my reply are sent to all noble Lords who participate in this debate.
Member’s explanatory statement
This leaves out the duty to consult about regulations under clause 10 since I am proposing a new clause that brings together (and extends) consultation requirements under the Bill. See my new clause to be inserted before clause 15.
Earl Russell
“Report on UK sustainable aviation fuel production(1) The Secretary of State must, in respect of each reporting period, prepare and publish a report on sustainable aviation fuel (“SAF”) produced in the United Kingdom.(2) The report must include—(a) the total volume of SAF produced in the United Kingdom during the reporting period;(b) the types of SAF produced, including the feedstocks and production pathways used;(c) the volume produced for each type identified under paragraph (b);(d) an assessment of the conversion of UK production sites for SAF manufacture;(e) an estimate of the greenhouse gas savings resulting from SAF produced during the reporting period;(f) information reported by air travel providers in relation to their use of SAF;(g) any other information the Secretary of State considers relevant to understanding the United Kingdom’s SAF production capacity and trends.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament within six months of the end of each reporting period.(4) In this section “reporting period” means a period of three years beginning with 1 January 2026 and each subsequent three-year period.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on the production of SAF in the UK and for related purposes.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments is on reporting and impact. My Amendment 15 might seem like a straightforward reporting amendment with a duty on the Secretary of State, but I believe it goes to the heart of what we are trying to do here. It will help to support the Government’s own commitment to help us to decarbonise our aviation sector, and to build a credible and sustainable fuel sector here in the United Kingdom.
Knowledge is power, and it is important that we know the impact of the legislation that we pass. It is important, with the revenue certainty mechanism, that we know how it is working in practice, that we have these reports, and that they are available to Parliament and to the public. This will also help to ensure that sufficient volumes of SAF are being produced to meet the mandate and to ensure the transparency of the monitoring mechanisms. The Government’s “jet zero” strategy recognises that SAF could deliver 32% of the emissions reductions needed by 2050, yet we have no consistent public data on how much SAF is already being produced, the types that will be developed, and where the bottlenecks might lie in the future system.
This amendment does what it says on the tin. It seeks to help answer some of those questions and to help the monitoring process. It would give Parliament and the public the evidence that they need to hold this policy to account. It would also help the sector to have confidence that the transition is coming, and that in turn would provide greater confidence for those who wish to invest in this sector. Reporting is a common requirement—we see it in the renewable energy sector, in the transport sector, and in the electric vehicle update—yet it is missing in this Bill. I believe it is important to put it in, and I do not believe that it would impose undue bureaucracy on the Government or their officials. Indeed, it would help to deliver clarity to everybody. That is all I want to say on the amendment: it speaks for itself.
I turn to the other amendments in this group. I support my noble friend Lady Pidgeon’s Amendments 16 and 17; I will let her speak to them. Amendment 19A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, calls for a report no later than three years after the day on which the Act is passed. That report will assess the impact of the revenue support mechanism for sustainable aviation fuel on deforestation outside the United Kingdom, and land use change outside the United Kingdom arising from the cultivation, harvesting or production of feedstocks for sustainable aviation fuel.
I am pleased to support Amendment 19A. It is sensible and essential to the Bill. Without proper monitoring, there is a risk that the UK’s incentives for SAF could inadvertently drive deforestation or damaging land use changes overseas, undermining our climate and biodiversity goals. By requiring the Government to report on international land use impacts, this provision would introduce transparency and accountability into the policy framework. It would help to ensure that the public subsidies truly create sustainable fuels and would help to drive us away from using feedstocks. This is a useful amendment. We cannot have our own decarbonisation at the expense of others. Therefore, it is important that these matters are monitored. I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we have been debating, this is an emerging field in terms of technology and production in the UK. That is why the Bill is here: to introduce the revenue certainty mechanism for the sector to help support its development and growth. Alongside this, it is important that we have transparency throughout the implementation of the Bill and about the reality in the sector. We have heard much the same from my noble friend Lord Russell and other noble Lords in this debate.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 15, which is absolutely vital. Every time I look at the Title of this Bill, I get irritated because there is no such thing as sustainable aviation fuel, and we really ought to accept that. Too often, we have these grand promises that are never backed up— I would argue that carbon capture and storage is another one. But if the Government are to press ahead with so-called sustainable aviation fuel, the very least we should expect is full transparency about what is being produced, where it is coming from and what the real impacts are. Reporting on UK sustainable fuel production would give Parliament the ability to see whether this industry is genuinely delivering any climate benefits or whether we are simply shifting emissions, land pressures and environmental harms elsewhere.
As one expert put it:
“We’re not about to start eating more chips, so we will have to start importing more waste oil”.
What if rising European demand for so-called waste oil is being met with virgin palm oil fraudulently passed off as waste? If that is happening—studies suggest it is—then any emissions savings vanish, replaced by deforestation for palm-oil plantations. Plus, most of our waste cooking oil is currently used in road transport fuels, so diverting it into aviation simply shifts emissions elsewhere and nothing actually shrinks.
Parliament should not be expected to take the Government’s optimism on trust. We need to see what is really happening, and Amendment 15 would provide at least a little transparency, accountability and a dose of realism—three things that are too often missing from aviation policy. If the Government believe that sustainable aviation fuel will play a meaningful role in decarbonising aviation, they should have no hesitation in reporting openly and regularly on its progress.
My Amendment 19A asks the Secretary of State to do something that should already be at the heart of a Bill such as this: to acknowledge that what we do here—what we incentivise, what we subsidise and what we label as sustainable—has real consequences for land, forests and communities here and far beyond our shores. Sustainability does not stop at the white cliffs of Dover. Protecting land over here while outsourcing environmental destruction over there is not sustainability; it is hypocrisy.
Supporting crop-based aviation fuels risks taking land away from food and from nature. It risks fuelling deforestation, especially in the global South, where communities are already living with the impacts of land grabs and ecological collapse. Yet this Bill encourages exactly that. We are using or talking about land as if it were an infinite resource, and it most definitely is not. Land is already under enormous pressure from farming, housing, biodiversity loss and climate breakdown. Turning that precious land over to growing crops for climate-destroying fuel makes absolutely no sense.
My amendment would require the Government to publish an assessment of how the revenue support mechanism for so-called sustainable aviation fuel is affecting land use internationally, including whether it is driving deforestation or other damaging land use change. Parliament deserves to know if we are simply shifting environmental harm on to other countries while congratulating ourselves on green progress.
Even if we overlook the land use impacts—and we should not—this Bill will not do anything to actually reduce air travel emissions. Sustainable aviation fuel, as described here, is at best a drop in the ocean—a rapidly rising ocean. A clever accounting trick will not cool the planet, nor will a marginal fuel switch deliver any sort of the emissions reductions we need. One analysis of sustainable fuels shows that carbon emission savings are almost entirely wiped out by the rising demand for air travel. As Professor Bill Rutherford of Imperial College said:
“The only way you can make aviation any more sustainable is to do less of it”.
Every hectare of land used to grow fuel crops risks locking us further into a system that protects the freedom of frequent flyers, rather than the future of the planet.
I apologise; I did not thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell —soon to be Baron—for his support for my amendment.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, since they are both still in the Chamber, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on their life peerages so that they will remain with us. I will not get into the ranking thing we got into earlier, but it is very good they will both still be with us.
On the substance of these amendments, transparency is broadly a good thing. As I said in response to an earlier amendment, being transparent about this is very helpful. Given that Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talks about reporting on progress, this might be a suitable opportunity to ask the Minister, when he winds up this group, to respond to the question I asked him at Second Reading and provide the Committee with an update on the plants we hope to see in the UK and where they have got to. The Minister very kindly responded to some of the questions Members raised at Second Reading in his recent letter of 2 December, including one or two that I raised. I am very grateful to him for being courteous and doing that as he said he would, but he did not touch on where we were at with those plants. Given the significant amount of money in the various rounds of support that we have given—both through the Aerospace Technology Institute and directly from government—it would be helpful for the Committee to have an update on some of the timeframes. We have been contacted directly by some of the providers with updates on when they think their plants will be ready, but it would be helpful to have that wider picture.
Although the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, knows that I do not agree with her overall view about aviation—we had that exchange at Second Reading—I will take the opportunity, as it does not happen very often, to support the thrust of her amendment. Transparency is very helpful. She will know from my comments at Second Reading that I generally do not support the use of food crops being grown specifically for this purpose, but she will also know I have one potential exception: if, by doing so, we can keep the present United States Government focused in this space, it would be a win.
I am grateful for two points the Minister made in his reply. First, he confirmed that the Government were working closely with the US Administration and wanted to keep them on board. That is helpful. Secondly, he confirmed—I hope this was welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that the Government set very high sustainability standards for SAF in the UK and were looking to make sure the revenue certainty mechanism was in line with that approach and did not trespass on it.
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there is no point in us doing great things in the United Kingdom if the result is that we just drive poor behaviours elsewhere, so having some transparency on that would be very helpful. The specific amendment may or may not be able to be improved, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the Government intend to add extra transparency to the Bill on Report, or whether we will need to return to that ourselves and use the collective set of amendments here to do some sensible reporting.
We have to make sure that it is balanced and that we do not put undue burdens on people, but transparency in this space would be helpful for the industry in explaining what is going on, as well as for consumers. Given that there is a cost to this, showing consumers what is happening, and the cost of that, would be helpful in demonstrating the trade-offs that we are having to make in this space. I am broadly supportive of this group of amendments.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, generally speaking, monitoring is good, and reporting is better. If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, want to engage over the next few weeks on the drafting of amendments that could achieve that in a way that is not overly burdensome to those charged with doing that reporting, or overly expensive, I am sure we would be happy to discuss that with them.
On Amendment 19A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I will save my comments for the last group, in which the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and I have some interesting amendments on precisely these questions of what the source and feedstock of the sustainable aviation fuel are going to be, and what constitutes sustainable aviation fuel. I would be repeating myself if I were to address those questions now and again later.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the Government contend that Amendments 15 and 16 are unnecessary as they duplicate measures that already exist in the SAF mandate.
There are existing statutory powers in Sections 124 to 132 of the Energy Act 2004 that enable the Secretary of State to amend obligations under the SAF mandate, subject to consultation with those affected and scrutiny by Parliament. Maintaining certainty throughout each obligation period is vital so that suppliers can properly prepare to meet their requirements. It is essential that those impacted by any changes to the mandate are given the chance to be involved and have adequate time to adapt, especially considering the early stage of the sector. This would need to be taken into account when considering any amendments to the obligations under the SAF mandate. The Government already publish annual SAF figures, with a comprehensive report for each year typically released in the winter following the reporting year. A formal review of the SAF mandate legislation is required, with the initial review scheduled to occur by 2030.
The Government also consider Amendment 17 to be unnecessary. Many airlines already publicly disclose information on their decarbonisation initiatives, and we will continue to encourage them to do so. The Government will publish data on the supply of SAF under the mandate, including information on the proportion of SAF relative to the total aviation fuel supply.
In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, about an update on plants in the UK, I will certainly write to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on where we have currently got to. I apologise to the noble Lord for not having included that in my previous letter.
On Amendment 19A, I certainly recognise the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about land use and deforestation. However, the amendment duplicates existing measures in the SAF mandate. SAF supplied under the SAF mandate cannot be derived from crops and must adhere to strict sustainability criteria. Sustainability criteria in the RCM will align with the criteria in the SAF mandate. The SAF mandate already makes provision for the publication of detailed statistics on the supply of SAF, including feedstock, country of origin and carbon and sustainability data.
We will continue to review the evidence and update the eligibility and sustainability criteria on a regular basis. In line with this commitment, this Government recently published a consultation on the development of a common biomass sustainability framework, which includes proposals for strengthening existing biomass sustainability criteria, including those for woody biomass, in line with the latest evidence. The SAF mandate will be subject to regular reviews to help ensure that it is delivering on sustainability outcomes, with the initial review scheduled to occur by 2030. I hope my explanations are sufficient for the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and important debate. It is informative that the whole of this side of the House believes—as I think the Minister does as well— in the importance of transparency, reporting and data. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response, and I recognise the work the Government are doing in various places to publish the relevant information.
Having said that, I have two issues. First, this information is not necessarily collected together in one place as a coherent whole, where it would be possible to review the impact the Bill is having and how it and the revenue certainty mechanism are operating in practice. Secondly, there are the broader issues relating to the impact of different types of fuel and their possible impact on other countries.
I welcome the offer that has been made; it is one for all of us to think a bit more about between now and Report. I would not want to duplicate information that was already gathered; on the other hand, I would not want information to exist in lots of disparate places and not be a coherent and usable whole, or for there to be any gaps in that information. This is one for all of us to go away and think about further, but I am grateful for the Minister’s response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moylan
“Impact of this Act on the price of airline tickets(1) Within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report to assess the impact of the sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty mechanism on the price of airline tickets.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of whether the impact of the sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty mechanism on ticket prices is greater than £1.50 per ticket per year.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (1) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks probe the impact of the sustainable aviation fuel revenue certainty mechanism on airline tickets. In particular, it seeks to probe whether the impact is in line with the Government’s analysis as set out in the Department for Transport’s ‘Revenue Certainty Mechanism Cost Benefit analysis’, which suggests that the likely impact on ticket prices is between -£1.50 and £1.50, on average, per year.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 19 and the other amendments in my name in this group. These amendments cover two topics, and I will try to deal with them fairly briefly, but they are very important. Even if the speech is short, the resonance and consequence of the amendments is long.
There will be a cost to the revenue certainty mechanism that will be distributed to airline passengers through their air fares. How much is it going to be? We are not in the dark on that subject, because the cost-benefit analysis produced by the department makes a stab at this. Paragraph 4.23 says:
“Overall, the Revenue Certainty Mechanism, when covering a limited but reasonable amount of non-HEFA SAF volumes, is likely to result in a small impact on ticket prices. Depending on non-HEFA SAF prices and whether the levy costs are offset by fuel cost savings, the likely impact on ticket prices is between -£1.5 and £1.5, on average, per year”.
The only things of absolute fixity in that sentence are the numbers and the phrase “per year”. Almost everything else consists of a caveat, although I accept that a forecast of this type will have to be caveated to some extent. I want to explore some of the caveats in the next group as well, not merely here. What are we talking about when we refer to non-HEFA SAF? I have an amendment in the last group to explore that.
However, at this stage, I want to know how far the Government are willing to go to commit themselves on the £1.50 cost—let us take the upside—per ticket. Bear in mind that this £1.50 per ticket is the cost not of SAF but of non-HEFA SAF produced using the revenue certainty mechanism in this Bill. SAF is already in use. It is being paid for by airlines and it is painfully expensive —much more than it was expected to be. It is already having a significant impact on airlines’ fuel bills. That is not included in the £1.50, which is purely for the mechanism that sits in the Bill.
How firm are the Government willing to be on this? This is of crucial significance to the public at large, who would like to see more sustainable aviation fuel. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is no longer in her place, regards that as a chimera. The public are happy to see it, but they want to know what it will cost them. If we are going to hold out a prospect, as the Government are, of a maximum cost of £1.50 per ticket for this—that is a significant sum for a family of four going on holiday—they would like to know that the Government stand behind it. Airlines that I have spoken to suggest that the cost will be much closer to £10 a ticket, so the Government need to give some justification for the £1.50. That is one of the two topics these amendments cover.
Moving on to the second, I have to apologise in a sense to noble Lords because it is of a more general character. In some ways, it would have been nice if it could have been contrived to come at the beginning of our debate this evening, but the rigidities of our system of numbering and marshalling amendments means that it appears at this late stage. I appreciate that not everybody is interested in it, but I assure noble Lords that, outside this Committee, there is a large audience that is very interested in this question—an audience of people who still believe, to some extent, in capitalism, the principles of Adam Smith and the notion of comparative advantage.
This is asking that the Government make some stab at assessing our comparative advantage in wishing to be a leader in this field. This is, after all, a measure designed to make us a domestic producer, rather than an importer, and a globally leading producer of non-HEFA SAF, compared to the rest of the world. It is, as I said at Second Reading, an industrial policy Bill rather than a net-zero Bill. The SAF mandate was a net-zero measure; this is an industrial policy measure. It is a decision by government that this stuff has to be produced here and not imported—a decision by government that we should be a leader in this field.
The question is: what on earth do we have by way of comparative advantage that means the Government should have alighted upon this particular economic activity as one in which we are to be—or in which we can be, or it is suitable that we should be—a leader in the field? Do we have access to particularly rich streams of feedstock, for example? If non-HEFA SAF—some of it at least—is to be produced from old cabbages collected from people’s kitchens, are our cabbages better than somebody else’s cabbages? Do our wood cuttings and so forth have a particular advantage or a greater richness of oil-bearing quality that puts us ahead of the field? I suspect that the answer to that is no.
Is our refining capacity cutting edge and world leading for turning these things into a usable fuel? I do not know a great deal about that—I see that there are noble Lords in the Committee who, I suspect, know a great deal more about it—but what I do see, as an ordinary reader of the newspapers, is that we are closing down our refining capacity as fast as we can. Far from being a leader, we are falling behind. Of course, this process will be very heavy on electricity usage; I think nobody denies that. Yet we have contrived, no doubt in the interest of saving the planet—I will not go into that further at the moment—to have the most expensive electricity in the civilised world. Do we have skills particularly, or an existing workforce? None of these things are apparent.
So what I am asking—I do not think it an unreasonable request—is that, before the Government launch us, and taxpayers’ and airline passengers’ money, into this reckless scheme of being a world leader in something in which we have no apparent comparative advantage, they set out the economic case for doing so. The contrivance here is that the amendment would be inserted as a commencement blocker, so that the Bill could not commence until this has been done, but I am not wedded to that; it is merely a way of inserting it into the debate. But the Government owe it to the public to have a better case and a better argument for why they should do this.
After all, this is not our first attempt to produce SAF. In the last few years, we have had schemes such as the advanced fuel funds, the Green Fuels, Green Skies fund, the Future Fuels for Flight and Freight competition, and others. But despite those, around 90% of the SAF used in this country is still imported. Why has this not taken off domestically already, with that level of support, if we have the sort of advantage that we should be able to bring to bear, and that will make a success of it this time? I, at least, would like to know. I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the first of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendments—the one about transparency and the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on ticket prices for consumers. As I think he acknowledged, this is an area where consumers want to see sustainable aviation fuel used, but it is reasonable that they understand the cost of it. Many people who fly are very sensitive to the cost. The industry is very conscious, in all the conversations that I have had with it recently, but also previously, when I led the Department for Transport, about the importance of delivering sustainability at a low cost that does not impact significantly on consumers, and particularly does not price the least well-off, most price-sensitive consumers out of the market and stop them flying. So I think this level of transparency specifically about the cost from the revenue certainty mechanism is very welcome.
As my noble friend said, that is not the only cost from developing sustainable aviation fuel, because there is obviously the cost of SAF that is bought from outside those UK plants that benefit from the revenue certainty mechanism, so I strongly support the thrust of my noble friend’s amendment and I will listen carefully to what the Minister says about whether the Government will bring forward any measures on this; it would also support what they had in their impact assessment.
As a final point on this amendment, I agree with my noble friend that the impact assessment is clearly an assessment, an estimate. No one is going to beat the Government up if it is not quite right, but there is a big difference between a £1.50 charge per ticket per year and a £10 charge per ticket per year, or more, and it is important that we have a rough idea of where we are on that, so that is very welcome.
On the other amendments, I will add just one thing which I alluded to earlier. It is not just an industrial policy question, it is about security of supply, particularly if there are certain circumstances that impact it, as we saw during the pandemic or as we might see if there were another energy price shock. Actually, there is an industrial policy question about producing stuff in the UK; there is also a question about availability or making sure that we have access to those fuel supplies. Both questions are important, as is having the Government be clear and transparent about it.
Both the previous Government and this one have set out some of the thinking in terms of the decision we made to have the advanced fuels fund and the different rounds of that. We have set out some of the thinking in the money that has been going into this through the ATI funding as well. Bringing all that together and having a very clear exposition of the Government’s policy in this space is welcome and will actually do nothing but benefit the Government. So, although I am not sure that the mechanism for delivering it is the right one, I think the thrust of my noble friend’s amendment is right and I strongly support its intention, if not the specific mechanism.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, following up on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about the £1.50, I may be missing something, but if that is a cost to UK airlines for passengers leaving or arriving at UK airports, do we add that to a similar cost which might be applied by France, Germany or Timbuktu? They may have different costs in creating SAF, if they ever get round to doing it. The noble Lord mentioned cabbages. Well, if you are flying to Russia, you probably get lots of cheap cabbages there and you can turn those into SAF. I think we need to know what the total cost is going to be for this particular journey, whether it is £1.50 or £10 or whatever.
Sustainability is fine, but we had a Question today about the Drax power station and wood chips. If you look at some of the consultancy reports on how those wood chips are made, you will see that most of the trees seem to have many years of life left in them, but we do not worry about that, apparently. A bit more detail from my noble friend the Minister would certainly give me a bit of comfort.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I shall talk about Amendment 19 and the impact on airline tickets, which I think is really important. At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords raised the impact on passengers, and it goes to the whole theme of our discussion this evening, which has been about transparency at every level of the Bill.
We should talk, maybe outside the Chamber, about what sort of comprehensive report we could produce on the impact of this legislation, whether that is the direct impact on the passenger, through the price of their ticket, or in all these other areas we have been discussing today. There is a cost as we transition to the greater use of SAF through the revenue certainty mechanism, and it is really important that passengers and the whole industry understand the true cost of the Bill, so I will be interested in the Minister’s response to the points that have been raised.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the Government want to ensure that flying will remain affordable for UK holidaymakers and travellers while supporting a United Kingdom sustainable aviation fuel industry. A report on the impact of the Act on ticket prices within a year of its enactment would be premature. Costs need to be negotiated and signed, plants built and SAF produced and sold before any real impact on ticket prices can be measured, but the Government can control costs by controlling how many contracts are issued.
I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, what the effect on ticket prices from other countries producing this will be, but the Government’s cost-benefit analysis of the revenue certainty mechanism, which noble Lords have referred to, published in May this year, will remain the best estimate of the Act’s impact on passenger air fares over the next period, pending the mechanism working and SAF being produced in some volumes here. The Government take reporting to Parliament seriously. Where appropriate to undertake it, we can present an assessment of costs and benefits reflecting the latest available evidence, but that evidence is not there yet.
Amendments 23 and 25 would require the Government to publish an assessment on the UK’s comparative advantage in the production of SAF. The Government believe that this would be counterproductive and would delay the good progress that we have made for decarbonising the aviation industry through the SAF mandate and the advanced fuels fund. The Government and other noble Lords, including someone on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, are certainly more confident about the ability of UK industry to produce SAF than the noble Lord. The points from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, about security of supply are germane here.
The SAF industry has been calling for support to overcome the investment barriers. This Bill will help to drive our missions to kick-start economic growth and make Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment to secure the UK aviation industry’s long-term future. The Bill is a crucial step to establish a SAF industry in the United Kingdom and to drive investment, growth and jobs. I hope that the noble Lord is persuaded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, before I go any further, I just return to paragraph 4.23 of the cost-benefit analysis, where I read out something earlier thinking that I understood it, but now I do not think that I understand it at all. Perhaps it is a bit late procedurally for the noble Lord to explain it to me now; he might write to noble Lords. It says that
“the likely impact on ticket prices is between -£1.5 and £1.5, on average, per year”.
What is “per year” doing there? Surely, it is on average per ticket. Why does this say per year? That would assume that maybe you fly once a year. However, if you fly more than once a year, it would not be per year at all; it would still be per ticket, but it would not be per year. Explaining to me what that means would be extremely helpful.
What we wanted to hear—what the public wanted to hear—from the Minister on this particular question was that he put himself and the Government squarely behind £1.50 as the upper estimate of the cost of the measures in this Bill. He did not do that, and we have noticed it. It will get around. On this occasion when he had the chance, he could have said £1.50, as my noble friend Lord Harper said. Of course, it could be a bit more, it could be a bit less, but it is of the order of £1.50. He could have said, “That is what we the Government believe. I, Lord Hendy, on behalf of the Government, am putting myself behind that estimate: £1.50, not £10, not £15, but something of the order of £1.50 is what we are backing”. He did not, and we have noted that. We are not going to let that matter drop.
Concerning comparative advantage, the Minister made what I thought was an uncharacteristically sneering remark, implying that I did not think that Britain was capable of producing SAF. He was trying, I think, to draw a wholly false distinction between my views and the views of my noble friend Lord Harper. Britain can do anything—of course Britain can do anything. Britain can particularly do anything if we throw millions of pounds of subsidy at something. I think back to the day when Britain could produce vans at British Leyland because it was being given very large amounts of subsidy. That was until we found a way of producing cars in this country that did not require those subsidies and we became a leader in car production here under the flag of the Japanese, who invested in order to make a profit, not simply to farm subsidies. It is not a question of whether we can do something.
The whole point of comparative advantage is that you are comparing things. The question is whether this is the best thing we can be doing with the very limited money we have available, or are there other things that would be more productive and would bring greater prosperity to the country? What is the particular advantage we have in relation to this, which means that it is the thing that the Government should be backing?
Doing that does not need to hold up the Bill. It would if it were constructed as a commencement blocker, as it is at the moment, but we could of course all reach agreement around a table on a commitment for the Government to do this within six months of the commencement of the Act. It would not have to hold things up. It is a contrived objection. It is the complete lack of interest in the question on the part of the Government that is so depressing.
Despite those comments, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.
“Duty to consult about regulations(1) Before making regulations under this Act the Secretary of State must consult any persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(2) In the case of regulations under section 1, 3, 10 or 11, that must include—(a) the Welsh Ministers,(b) the Scottish Ministers, and(c) the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This requires the Secretary of State, before making regulations under the Bill, to consult any persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate. In the case of regulations under section 1, 3, 10 or 11 (which may contain devolved provision) the devolved authorities must be consulted in addition to anyone else.
Lord Ravensdale
““relevant crops” means starch-rich crops, sugars, oil crops and main crops, where “starch-rich crops” include—(a) cereals (regardless of whether only the grains are used or the whole plant),(b) tubers and root crops, including potatoes, Jerusalem artichokes, sweet potatoes, cassava and yams, and(c) corm crops, including taro and cocoyam;“renewable transport fuel” means anything that is (or could be treated as) renewable transport fuel for the purposes of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004 (see sections 131D(2) and 132(1) of that Act), other than such fuel where it is derived from relevant crops;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will include nuclear-derived power-to-liquid fuels in the scope of sustainable aviation fuels for which Revenue Certainty Contracts can be offered, and remove food crops, using the same definition of “relevant crops” as the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order for surface transport (SI 2007/3072).
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to earlier, I think this wraps up a number of points in previous groups. It is a good point at which to have this debate about what actually qualifies for support under the revenue certainty mechanism. First, I take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on their peerages. It is absolutely brilliant news, and I am really pleased for them.
There are two parts to this amendment, and I would like to deal with them in reverse order. At Second Reading, I asked a question on the eligibility of nuclear energy or nuclear-derived SAF. The Minister said:
“SAF produced using nuclear energy is and will be eligible for the SAF mandate”.—[Official Report, 20/11/25; col. 990.]
I noted that he said the SAF mandate and not the revenue certainty mechanism. What I am really after from the Minister is explicit clarity that nuclear-derived fuels are within the scope of the revenue certainty mechanism, and perhaps some commentary on how this flows through the legislation.
The reason for needing this clarity is that the legislative route is a little convoluted. 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”.
As I said at Second Reading, I proposed the amendment to the Energy Act 2023 that led to the insertion of Section 131D into the Energy Act 2004, which treats recycled carbon fuels and nuclear-derived fuels as renewable transport fuels. But it was stated there that it required secondary legislation to take effect and to treat these fuels as renewable transport fuels. I noted that this has been done for recycled carbon fuels, but the secondary legislation has not been done for nuclear-derived fuels.
We have this quite convoluted route through the 2004 Act, the 2023 Act, the secondary legislation and the SAF mandate, so I would appreciate that clarity from the Minister on nuclear-derived fuels. That is the second part of my amendment to ensure that they would be within the scope of the Bill.
My second point is around the eligibility for this Bill of certain types of sustainable aviation fuel. I am seeking to exclude first-generation SAFs from the revenue certainty mechanism. I do not see the need for crop-based biofuels to be given support, because the production pathways for these fuels are already there—they are already commercialised at scale. On previous groups we have talked a lot about some of the issues with crop-based biofuels: they are CO2 saving; they compete with food, potentially raising food prices; they drive land use change and reduce biodiversity. Those fuels have all those other effects, and they are already commercially viable and commercialised, so I cannot see why we need them to be within the scope of the revenue certainty mechanism.
That is brought out in a lot of the government guidance as well. The driver behind the Bill is to provide a mechanism for second and third-generation sustainable aviation fuels. That has been stated repeatedly by the Government. I cannot see a good reason for including these fuels within the revenue certainty mechanism. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts around that. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
If noble Lords do not object, I will speak now rather than later in this group because, having read his amendment, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, before Committee that it would be sensible if we grouped these two amendments together. We are both trying to get at the same thing and, in a sense, I am not going to say anything very different from what he said, but I am going to take a different approach. It is fair to say that both of us want to limit the deploying of these contracts, or at least to know what limits the Government are going to apply themselves.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said, Clause 16, states that
“sustainable aviation fuel’ means aviation fuel that is renewable transport fuel”,
and earlier it states that
“renewable transport fuel’ means anything that is (or is treated as) renewable transport fuel for the purposes of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004”,
in which the noble Lord played a certain part in amending in 2023.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their amendments; this is one of the really interesting groups. In response to what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said about knocking out fuels, I can probably sum up my speech by saying that I am not certain that knocking out fuels is the best thing to do in the transition; we might need to limit the time the revenue certainty mechanism applies to certain fuels. That might be where I am coming from.
Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to
“include nuclear-derived power-to-liquid fuels in the scope of sustainable aviation fuels for which Revenue Certainty Contracts can be offered, and remove food crops, using the same definition of ‘relevant crops’ as the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order for surface transport”.
While we recognise and support the ambition behind this amendment—promoting nuclear-derived and more sustainably-derived stuff, thus reducing carbon emissions —we would welcome the Government’s response to the idea of including nuclear-derived power-to-liquid fuels. Our questions relate more to the complete removal of biomass from the revenue certainty mechanism.
I suspect the Minister might say that this technology in relation to the nuclear side is not ready, and we would not disagree. But my question back to the Minister would be: how do the Government plan—if they do indeed plan—to bring these into the revenue certainty mechanism? How will that be done, what is the timescale for doing that, and is it something that can be done by secondary legislation?
We recognise that biomass has some use as a SAF, particularly in the early stages of SAF use. At the same time, we recognise the limitations of biomass as a sustainable fuel and its impact on any use at scale. This amendment raises some fundamental questions about the plans for the revenue certainty mechanism, its role in relation to different technologies for SAF production and how it is best used to advance the aim of zero-carbon flight.
I will be honest: we have some difficult challenges and questions to answer, and this group has certainly raised those. It can certainly be argued, as the noble Lord has done, that crop-based biofuels should not be given long-term support under the revenue certainty mechanism, as production pathways for these fuels are already commercialised at scale, as has been said. It can also be argued that crop-based biofuels offer relatively small CO2 carbon savings compared with fossil fuels, that they compete with food and can create biodiversity loss in other countries. However, crop-based fuels offer some CO2 savings when there are very few other options available today at scale.
However, with very few alternatives to reduce carbon emissions from aviation today, the revenue certainty mechanism could also be an important intermediate step in this continuous journey of decarbonisation. So, while we support nuclear derived power-to-liquid, and we share a desire to limit the use of the RCM to support bio crops, this amendment opens some complex policy decisions which need a lot of careful thought. What we are doing here is planning a journey. On that road, we will have different fuels that will jump in and out as we move along it. A lot of the questions that are being asked in this group are around how the Government plan to have those fuels come in and drop out, how that that be done and scrutinised and how the mechanisms will change. The same is true in relation to Amendment 22, on HEFA. The arguments I would make around that are the same.
This is a really important group of amendments, and there is a lot to think about in this space.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked some questions in relation to Amendment 19 in his closing remarks. I will write to him and provide a copy to all noble Lords about standing by the cost-benefit analysis on ticket prices and how we can control the cost to passengers by controlling costs through the allocation process. For good measure, I will also clarify the phrase “per year”.
On Amendment 21, I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, to exclude crops from the revenue certainty mechanism. Several other noble Lords also spoke about their concerns on growing crops for purposes other than food at Second Reading. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, just now, was realistic about some of the practicalities of doing so. The sustainability criteria in the revenue certainty mechanism will align with the criteria in the SAF mandate.
As I mentioned before, there will be a call for evidence shortly, focusing on the potential benefits, risks and trade-offs of using crops in SAF production. The scope of the call for evidence will include different types of crops, including feed crops, dedicated energy crops and cover crops. While this call for evidence will neither propose any changes to the SAF mandate nor signal the future direction of the mandate, we would not want to expressly exclude SAF derived from relevant crops from the scope of the RCM if they might be included in the SAF mandate in the future.
We will, of course, continue to engage with industry on these issues. I echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this is developing and things will change over time. We need to understand it, and that call for evidence is part of that process.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to nuclear eligibility. We will match that in the SAF mandate. We are already supporting nuclear through the advanced fuels fund, which we believe to be right.
Turning to Amendment 22, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that HEFA SAF—I hate these acronyms—has already overcome many of the barriers to investment. For that reason, in our response to the first consultation on RCM, we announced that HEFA SAF projects will be excluded from the first round of contract allocation. I hope what I have said is sufficient to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
Just to clarify what he said, could the Minister just confirm that nuclear-derived fuels are eligible under the SAF mandate and that they are also eligible under the revenue certainty mechanism, please?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Yes, that is what I meant to say in answer to the noble Lord. I do clarify that.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I was hoping that the Minister would simply and explicitly state that the Government do not intend to see the mechanism used to support all the fuels that appear in the Energy Act 2004 that are currently in scope and that he would look to an amendment to eliminate some of those to give assurance that this mechanism is going to be directed at the fuels we have been discussing and not at that broader list. Would he take advantage of this last moment of Committee to give that assurance that he will be happy with such an amendment and contribute to drafting it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
In answer to the noble Lord, I will not do that at this stage, but I will consider what he has just said.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
I thank noble Lords for this short debate. In terms of eligibility of crop-based biofuels, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, this is a journey we are going on and, absolutely, crop-based biofuels are part of that journey. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan said, and made the case quite strongly, that we have not heard any rationale for why those fuels should specifically get support under the revenue certainty mechanism, but I look forward to those further conversations. We have had the clarification on nuclear-derived fuels. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.