Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Debate between Earl Russell and Lord Harper

Report stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the register as non-exec chair of RVL Aviation, which is in the aviation sector but not involved in the production of sustainable aviation fuel.

I strongly support this move to make sure that we do not include food crops. I have one caveat, which I raised in Committee, and I wonder whether the Minister can update the House. My noble friend Lord Grayling drew attention to the different position that the United States has taken about including food crops. My starting point, as his, is that we should not include food crops. The only caveat that I raised in Committee was that if, in doing so, that enabled us to ensure that the United States continued to support the development of sustainable aviation fuel, given the importance of the United States in the international aviation sector, there might be a case for that. I would be interested to know whether the Minister can update your Lordships on any discussions that have taken place with the United States. If it is not necessary to do that, I strongly support the amendments that are there to make sure that we rule out food crops because, as my noble friend Lord Grayling said, using land to grow crops for food is what we should be doing, and we have seen, in the renewable energy sector, what can happen when you have policy that then drives behaviours that you had not intended, which have outcomes that are environmentally not welcome.

The second point that I raise is that I support the amendments to rule out the use of the revenue certainty mechanism for subsidising HEFA. As my noble friend Lord Grayling said, it is important that we move away from that and develop the new technologies, as my noble friend Lord Moylan said from the Front Bench. The danger of allowing subsidy of things that we are trying to get rid of is that you never get rid of them; any subsidy that there is should be used for the development of new technologies and processes. That is the rationale for having a subsidy regime in the first place. Setting that framework is very welcome.

My final point is on power-to-liquid technology. My noble friend Lord Moylan set out his view that that technology is probably not yet at a point where this Bill would be of any use. My starting position and his is that you have to justify carefully the need for subsidy, so it would not be a bad thing, if that technology is some way away from development, to force the Government to come back to Parliament to rejustify subsidy for power-to-liquid. That would be very welcome. If the Minister can update the House that providing subsidy to develop the technology and get it into production would have a much nearer-term outcome than my noble friend suggested, I might think again. However, in the scenario that my noble friend Lord Moylan set out, his amendments would be very sensible and helpful in testing the Government and forcing them to put on record the state of that technology.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this second group concerns different aspects of the operation and scope of the revenue certainty contracts. We appreciate the good intentions to influence the mix of technologies and feedstocks supported by this scheme, but we cannot support these amendments, each of which in a different way would introduce arbitrary restrictions that, while well intended, would risk upsetting the balanced, technology-neutral framework that is central to the Bill’s success. They would remove flexibility and could have serious unexpected consequences. The technological framework itself will attract the broad range of investments that will enable the rapid scaling of UK aviation fuel production. It is the creation of the revenue certainty mechanism that will attract investments, which are the literal fuel to bring the technologies we need.

I will address each amendment in turn. Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would introduce a new subsection prohibiting revenue certainty contracts from providing payment for a PtL sustainable aviation fuel. I understand the concern that PtL technologies are still maturing and often come with higher upfront costs, but a statutory exclusion is too blunt a guillotine instrument. It would deny Ministers any flexibility to support promising PtL projects as costs fall and technologies advance, sending an unhelpful signal to developers and investors that this entire pathway is off limits for UK support. Such rigidity would involve diverting PtL investment to other jurisdictions. The Bill as drafted already provides the Government with tools to shape pathways through allocations criteria and contract design without foreclosing future opportunities.

Amendment 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, would take exactly the opposite approach, requiring the Secretary of State to direct the counterparty to offer minimum volumes of PtL contracts from 2028 onward, increasing annually to 2040. While the objective of accelerating PtL development is commendable, setting the number of strict time-fixed statutory quotas in the Bill would be equally problematic. It would commit the Government to contracting many time-fixed volumes whether or not sufficient viable PtL projects were ready, creating a risk of uneconomic awards or unfulfilled obligations on many occasions. As others involved in financing such large-scale projects know, they are often delivered slightly behind time as supply chains can be overrun. Building so many rigid volumetric obligations into the statute would create legal and commercial uncertainty and could crowd out credible SAF pathways. The Government’s more flexible approach, using competitive tenders and market readiness to guide allocation, remains a more practical and adaptable route.

Amendment 14 in the name of noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to define “relevant crops” as starch-rich crops, sugars, oil crops and main crops, adopting the same definitions as used in the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007. Amendment 16, in a similar vein, would exclude from support any sustainable aviation fuel derived from such crops.

I fully recognise the environmental concern to avoid diverting crops into fuel production, but legislating directly for this exclusion via statutory definition risks unintended consequences; for example, capturing advanced biofuels that use a mix of waste and feedstocks or deterring innovation where crop residues are responsibly utilised. The same aims can, we feel, be better achieved through policy guidance, sustainability criteria and a certification process already envisaged under the Bill, rather than through rigid statutory exclusion. As drafted, these amendments are overly prescriptive and would constrain technological evolution and government flexibility and discourage investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Moylan set out the challenge—the thing you have to justify—to put the revenue certainty mechanism in place. It was certainly one of the things that I grappled with, and challenged the industry on, when I was the Secretary of State for Transport and we were developing the beginnings of this policy. As my noble friend said, the SAF mandate sets out some guaranteed demand for the industry producing sustainable aviation fuel. The challenge I always put to those thinking about investing in producing the technology was exactly the challenge that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, set out: if you have guaranteed demand, what is the barrier to producing that product?

We discussed this in Committee. The logic is that, for some of these products, it is new technology that requires significant upfront capital investment, and the judgment is that, if you compare it to other similar sorts of investments that these investors are making, the risk is higher than with those other investments. Therefore, if you do not do something to close that gap, you will not see the investment in the technology, particularly here in the United Kingdom, where we want to see the production take place, at least in part, if for no other reason than resilience.

What you are really dealing with is closing the gap between the risks involved in producing SAF and the alternative products that those investors could invest in. I do not think, therefore, that you need an open-ended contract. You need to put some limits around it. I am sure that the Minister will have some responses on what those limits should be, but a very obvious one would be to have a time limit, so that investors have some certainty: they have guaranteed demand and a period when they will get a guaranteed price. That should enable the risk premium to be reduced and enable the investment and production to take place.

If we start from the assumption that it certainly does not need to be an infinite period and should therefore be fixed, the debate is therefore just about what the length of that period should be. Now, the Minister may want to come back and say that the 10 years proposed by my noble friend is the wrong number or limitation period, in which case I would be happy to listen to the arguments that he makes about an alternative period, but I do not think that the right answer is that it can be any length at all, with no cap on it. I would be much more comfortable if we put a cap on it.

Again, if, at some point in the future, there was a clear justification for changing it, there would be nothing to stop this or a future Government coming back to Parliament to change the position. But I do not want to see open-ended contracts in place, particularly since we have legislated for there to be guaranteed demand. So I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, unless I hear a very good counter case from the Minister.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I am responding to Amendment 6 in this group, which seeks to cap the length of revenue certainty contracts to a maximum of 10 years. On the face of it, this might appear to be neat and disciplined but, in practice, we conclude that it is both arbitrary and unduly restrictive.

The noble Lord spoke about the need to control costs and we agree with that. It is also important, as we discuss this, to recognise that the Bill covers a range of technologies and huge investments going into them, but it may also include emerging technologies. Ten years is not derived from any settled evidence about what different SAF projects will require; it is simply a round number that seeks to be written into this primary legislation.

Some plants with high upfront capital costs and long asset lives may need longer-term revenue support to be financed at all, particularly in the current high interest rate environment. Others, especially later or more standard projects, could be perfectly viable on shorter contracts, which I am sure is the Government’s intention for many of the projects that will be considered. However, a single statutory ceiling takes no account of any of that diversity in these emerging markets. It is not really for us to know more than the Government and their officials, as they have details that we do not.

This amendment is also restrictive because it removes one of the Government’s key design levers. The ability to adjust contract length between technologies and over time, in response to costs and market maturity, is fundamental to achieving value for money. If we fix 10 years in the Bill, any future Government who judge that a 12-year or 15-year term is necessary to secure a first-of-a-kind project would be unable to do so without further primary legislation. This rigidity could also play into commercial hands, encouraging developers to structure bids around fixed terms in ways that actually undermine the very affordability that is spoken about.

While the intention is understandable, imposing an arbitrary timeline would remove the flexibility and pragmatism that any evidence-led scheme requires. It would, in effect, ask the Government to negotiate with one hand tied behind their back. We do not believe that this amendment is helpful in this emerging market, but we do think it is important that contracts are reviewed. On that, I ask the Minister, in the context of reporting later on, whether the length of caps that are imposed under the Bill is something that he would be prepared to include in the reporting information that will be made available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. It is very important, particularly when we come on to later groups and are talking about the ultimate impact of this—which is that it will, in effect, fall on to the end consumer, as all taxes do—that we make sure that this is as simple and straightforward a process as possible, so that we can explain to people what we are doing, why we are doing it and what the cost is. That is always to be welcomed in policy-making.

Further, this should be workable and straightforward for aviation fuel producers. They are the ones that we have chosen to put the mandate on, in giving them the legal responsibility to produce sustainable aviation fuel and blend it with their regular fuel. The current structure transfers the level of financial risk to them. I agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan, in that I suspect that behind this—the Minister can tell us that we are wrong if we are—is the Treasury wanting to make sure, not entirely unreasonably, that there is no risk to the taxpayer. However, in doing so, all that has happened is that the risk has been moved on to the fuel supplier.

As my noble friend Lord Moylan says—I have thought about this as well, and I have listened to the industry—it seems that, for the producers to deal with the risk, they will have to increase what they charge the airlines. So rather than the cost and the risk falling on the Treasury and the taxpayer, it will, in effect, still fall on the taxpayer but just in their guise of an airline passenger who will face a higher ticket price. That is not very economically sensible.

The industry is very clear that the Treasury should not be picking up the costs for this. The only sensible thing would be to have a per unit price. There would be some risk for the Treasury in the short term, but that could be smoothed out over time, and the Government are perfectly able to do that. That would be a much better solution, and I hope that the Minister can at least indicate that that is where the Government’s thinking is. If he cannot do that, I suggest that my noble friend Lord Moylan is correct that we should have done the detail before the legislation, rather than the other way around.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to this group of amendments that deal with the design and timings of the revenue certainty mechanisms and the levy. While I recognise that concerns around fiscal discipline, transparency and fairness lie behind them, I do not believe that these amendments are the right way to address those concerns.

We have spent considerable time talking with industry and officials, and I am thankful to the Minister’s officials for taking the time to talk with us. We note that the consultation closed on 8 January. We have reflected to officials the concerns that industry has raised with us, and we are pleased that we had the opportunity to do that. We have confidence that Ministers, officials and industry are all working together, in what is a complex space, to find practical and workable solutions that balance a number of competing agendas. Added to this, I remind the House that these mechanisms will be subject to statutory instruments under the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, would specify that the levy under Clause 6 can fund contracts only in respect of sustainable aviation fuel manufactured in the United Kingdom. We recognise the intention here and have some sympathy for it, but we believe that the concessions already granted by the Minister in group 1 fundamentally deal with this issue and give greater assurances to the House that the levy will be used only for those purposes.

Amendment 9, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, would narrow the other costs that can be met from the levy to those associated with directly related administration. Guarding against drift of levy funds into unrelated processes is absolutely right, but, in our opinion, the formulation risks overtightening. It could exclude legitimate and necessary scheme-related expenditures, such as certain forms of oversight, enforcement, market-enabling activity and the reporting that we will come on to in the final group. These would be unintended consequences. The Bill already confines the levy to the purposes of the mechanism, and regulations can and should be scrutinised by Parliament, but we believe that these restrictions would be too tight.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Debate between Earl Russell and Lord Harper

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.