Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his entertaining and informed speech. He should moonlight and take a second job on the Climate Change Committee.

It is a great pleasure for me to follow my noble friend Lord Harper, who rightly stressed that we should continue to lead the way in developing new technologies. Perhaps the Government could pay more attention to the absurdly high level of electricity costs in this country and the high levels of taxation.

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill today. I have been a frequent flier for most of my working life and still travel regularly overseas, especially to the Far East. So I declare my interest as set out in the register, especially in connection with advising Japanese companies and British companies with regard to their Japanese business.

My noble friend Lord Grayling knows a great deal about this subject and made a compelling speech. The rapid adoption of SAF is still broadly supported by the Conservative Party, but I believe the sands have been shifting on the whole question of how quickly and at what cost businesses and individuals should be compelled to adopt a net-zero and clean energy agenda. In particular, if the larger carbon dioxide emitters, such as China and developing countries in Africa and Asia, are not imposing similar constraints on market forces in their countries, logic suggests that we should not do so either.

It seems to me that the effect of the Bill is to distort the market for sustainable aviation fuel. I suspect that the cost of this distortion will be borne ultimately by consumers. The Bill is about the creation of a revenue certainty contract, which will, in effect, insulate the quango which will be created as the counterparty from market risk. I am very sceptical about the Government’s claim that the net cost per passenger of implementing the revenue certainty mechanism will be between minus £1.50 and plus £1.50 per passenger. How can this be possible if the cost of the SAF itself is going to be more like £10 per passenger? In any event, ticket prices have soared beyond our wildest expectations over the last few years, so whether the cost of the RCM amounts to one cup of coffee or 100 cups of coffee is not really relevant.

I am not certain that forcing an increase from 2% to 22% of the SAF component of aviation fuels over the next 15 years is likely to save the planet. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will interfere with airlines’ freedom to refuel their aircraft in other jurisdictions at will, including those that either have not imposed any mandate for inclusion of SAF or have imposed a less onerous one? I am not sure that the performance in miles per gallon of cars using E10 fuels is not slightly inferior to that of cars using E5 fuel, and I ask the Minister to tell the House what evidence there is that fuel economy and, crucially, safety are not at all impacted by the quite steep and burdensome mandate imposed on an already challenged aviation sector.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower in his interesting speech encouraged me to be more positive about SAF and to recognise its benefits and its importance. But he did point out that the Government’s mandate will be difficult to achieve without diverging from HEFA-based SAFs, and there is doubt about whether second- or third-generation SAFs will work well. There are more than 160 ships powered by small nuclear reactors, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, rightly drew attention to nuclear power as a potential source of power for aircraft. In particular, he pointed out that high-temperature gas-cooled reactors enable the production of hydrogen at scale, and hydrogen technologies are already capable of powering aircraft. Airbus plans to have commercial hydrogen aircraft in service by 2035. Unfortunately, the Government’s hydrogen strategy does not recognise the role of nuclear in producing hydrogen at all. I ask the Minister why this is the case. Our Japanese friends are disappointed that we are moving so slowly with their project to develop high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology with the National Nuclear Laboratory and believe that Poland may be a better partner than we are likely to be.

Can the Minister tell the House about the counterparty? He is going to have a great number of powers to direct it. How many people will it employ, and what does he expect will be its annual cost of operation? The Bill is designed to enforce a piece of industrial policy. Is the Minister certain that the counterparty will be well placed to manufacture SAFs competitively in this country, given our very high energy costs? Surely, if either the taxpayer or the consumer is going to have to pay for the cost of the counterparty and its activities, it follows that the legislation should require the Government to monitor costs and that the counterparty should be required to prioritise British technologies. Can the Minister tell the House why the Government declined to accept a perfectly reasonable and sensible amendment to require transparency over the effect of any revenue certainty contract on ticket prices, on both a one-year view and a five-year view?

I note that Jonathon Counsell of IAG, in his evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place, raised the question as to whether the Government’s estimate of plus £1.50 to minus £1.50 really included all elements of the counterparty’s costs. If the Government did not like the amendment moved by my right honourable friend Richard Holden, could the Minister not undertake to bring forward the Government’s own amendment to achieve the same purpose? It is beyond doubt that the public and the consumer are entitled to know that the costs of this new foray into industrial policy will be strictly monitored.

How will the Minister ensure that the counterparty will ensure that any contract leading to the establishment of a new factory will prioritise the use of British technologies? We would certainly welcome the Minister telling the House how we can ensure that new factories will prioritise the use of British technologies. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s winding-up speech and to working with other noble Lords to improve the Bill, which is absolutely necessary.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it will probably not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to know that I oppose his amendment. It is well known in your Lordships’ House that the Green Party opposes new nuclear power plants. Proponents of new nuclear power should be careful what they wish for and consider the whole issue of public consent and concern.

I commend the noble Lord on managing to get this amendment considered at an extremely timely moment, given that this week the Government are seeking to go ahead with Sizewell C. As the Financial Times notes, it is

“the costliest nuclear reactor in the world”

and will see the UK taxpayer bearing huge costs and risk, with government loans of £3.8 billion and a £36 billion loan from the National Wealth Fund.

I declare an interest in that I know many of the people who have opposed the Sizewell C project and, I have no doubt, will continue to do so. There are many reasons why they oppose it. Cost is the obvious one, but there are also the local environmental impacts and concerns about future security, sea level rise and water use—a whole list of things. Safety is a big issue that people have continuing concerns about with nuclear power; it is no wonder when you consider the list from Chernobyl to Fukushima to the continuing concerns regularly highlighted by the International Energy Agency about Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine. The public are very much concerned about trust and safety.

Many in your Lordships’ House are undoubtedly familiar with the phrase “policing with consent”. When we were discussing physician associates, I spoke about regulating with consent. What has happened since with the Leng review and the many concerns expressed showed that there was a problem when the previous Government went ahead without real consent and clear understanding within the health sector. If you are looking at nuclear power, those who propone it would want to see that there is construction with consent and reassurance of security. Taking away regulatory justification is not going to play very well.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I listened with interest to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I can assure her that, having heard last week from both the chairman and the chief executive of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, who appeared before the Industry and Regulators Committee on which I serve, I was very satisfied that their regulatory process and policy would more than satisfy the consumers and residents of the area of Suffolk near the Sizewell nuclear power station.

The secret of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is in its title:

“Removal of duplicative regulatory justification decisions”.


We do not need duplicative regulatory justification decisions if, in the singular, they protect the safety of the public to a sufficient degree. I was very satisfied by the answers to questions on safety that we received in our committee last week from the senior management of the ONR. I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, for the first time, perhaps, I find myself in full agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

I have had the good fortune of living and working in Japan for 11 years. When my wife and I first arrived in that country, we were initially surprised to observe how prevalent the wearing of masks is and how totally normal it is perceived to be, not only on public transport. Anyone who has a cold or the slightest sniffle is, effectively, obliged to wear a mask in order to avoid infecting others. Most scientists recognise that the need for social distancing is greatly reduced by the wearing of masks. The Japanese parliament has continued to operate much as normal throughout the pandemic and all Members of both Houses meet in their Chambers. They never once considered introducing remote voting. They wear masks at all times except for eating and drinking.

I wanted to show that it is even possible to speak and be understood while wearing a mask, even though a noble friend who is a Minister told me that I would expose myself to ridicule by wearing a mask to speak today. Does my noble friend the Minister not agree that, if all noble Lords wore masks, we would be able to resume normal working in this place much sooner than otherwise? Would it not also send the right message to the country at large?

Public Transport: Social Distancing

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising this. We must be mindful that certain passengers have an exemption, so 100% will probably not be achieved because of that. The Government are currently focusing on engagement rather than enforcement, but—the noble Baroness is quite right—if we see persistent non-compliance with face covering wearing, we will increase the amount of enforcement. Both the British Transport Police and TfL authorised persons can issue fixed penalty notices for £100.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right: my observation from travelling on the Tube is that about 90% of passengers are wearing masks. However, does compliance approach anything like that level on public transport in other cities and in the regions? Does my noble friend agree that if the wearing of masks were made obligatory in places such as theatres, concert halls and music festivals—perhaps even your Lordships’ House—those sectors could return to something near normal sooner than otherwise?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]]

My noble friend raises an important point. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, outside London, the usage of face coverings is slightly below 90% but still at very good levels. Firm data will be coming in in due course. I think that the use of face coverings in other sectors will need to be considered as we take things forward and as we look to a wider reopening of some of our really important cultural organisations.

Covid-19: Public Transport

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The long-term impact of the current pandemic on road traffic is yet to be established, but we are, of course, keeping it under review. The noble Lord mentioned that vehicle excise duty goes into the national roads fund and that is used to both enhance and maintain our strategic road network as well as many other major roads. So there could be an implication for this particular fund; we are keeping an eye on it.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, it seems obvious that social distancing, even if reduced to 1 metre, is impossible to observe while using public transport. Many countries, including France, Spain and Germany, have made the wearing of masks compulsory on public transport. Such a rule substantially removes the risk of direct transfer of the virus from person to person. Will my noble friend consider introducing a similar requirement in the UK?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The current guidance says that face coverings are advised on public transport and elsewhere, particularly in cases where social distancing is not possible. We are keeping this situation under review with regard to its extension and how we communicate that to our passengers.

Queen’s Speech

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Deighton for his excellent introduction to today’s debate and congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester on his excellent and thought-provoking maiden speech. Yesterday, I was able to listen to the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Fowler, which was entertaining and informative, proposing the Motion for an humble Address. As he rightly pointed out, it is a great pity that our noble friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches were unable to support the totally justified constituency boundaries proposals. It is widely but mistakenly believed outside the House that their position on that was justified by the fact that your Lordships’ House declined to support proposals for its reform, whereas, as your Lordships are well aware, the quid pro quo for the parliamentary boundaries Bill was actually the referendum on adopting the alternative vote system, which was granted to our coalition partners but was decisively rejected by the electorate.

The gracious Speech states that the Government will work to promote reform in the European Union, including a stronger role for member states and national Parliaments. I trust that the Minister will make clear whether a stronger role for member states actually means repatriation of powers over certain areas of our national life. In particular, I believe we strongly need to recover full control of our financial markets and their regulation. The FCA and the PRA should sit at the same table as the EBA, ESMA and EIOPA and should not be subordinate to them. The latter three should be the regulators for the financial markets of the eurozone countries. The recent European elections, albeit on a low turnout, show clearly how important people think this matter is, and I look forward to the next Government being able to negotiate a better settlement with our European partners. It is a pity that negotiations with them cannot start until after the general election in May 2015.

In connection with that, I have to say that I do not think the adoption of fixed-term Parliaments has necessarily been a good thing. If we have to have fixed-term Parliaments, I believe the term should be four years rather than five. The average term of Parliaments since the Second World War has been rather less than four years, and those countries that have adopted the fixed-term Parliament system in the main provide an opportunity for the people to elect their representatives once in four years or less. In the United States, it is four years; in Australia, a Parliament can run for a maximum of three years. Furthermore, it makes our political life rather dull if there is no opportunity to speculate on the timing of the general election. Ironically, the absence of speculation on timing probably limits the power of the electorate against that of the Executive even though, theoretically, the reverse is the case. I understand the reasons why the coalition Government decided to adopt the fixed-term Parliament principle four years ago, but many people feel that this Parliament is already a little bit stale. It is a pity that the Prime Minister does not have the opportunity to go to the country for nearly another year. That is notwithstanding the notable achievements of the coalition Government in saving the economy from the disaster for which it was headed.

The next Conservative Government will need to start the urgent task of negotiating with the European Union as early as possible. To start only after May 2015 does not allow much time to negotiate both real reform to the structures of the Union and the repatriation of powers over matters better decided at the nation state’s level. This will be extremely complicated and needs to be agreed with our partners before a new basis for membership can be put to the people in the referendum promised for 2017.

Although I do not think that fixed-term Parliaments are a good thing for all time, I must congratulate the coalition Government on all that they have achieved in their four years to date. They have clearly confounded the sceptics who denied the reality of the recovery that has been taking place, and the reduction in the budget deficit has been much greater than many had predicted. This has been recognised by the IMF. Also, the employment statistics are most encouraging. It is heartening to know that we have recently been more successful than any other G7 country in reducing our deficit.

Although it is not the subject of today’s debate, the centrepiece of the gracious Speech was the proposals to reform the pension system. I believe that the automatic enrolment pensions which were introduced two or so years ago have met with only limited success. I ask the Minister whether these reforms to workplace pensions are intended to replace the auto-enrolment pensions or to supplement them. The Government’s press release states:

“By no longer forcing people to buy an annuity we are giving them total control over the money that they have put aside over their lifetime and greater financial security in their old age”.

I am very clear that it will give them greater freedom and control. As for greater financial security, I am not quite sure that that will necessarily follow.

I am not quite sure why the measures concerning pensions reform are not combined into a single Bill. The pensions tax Bill provides the freedom for individuals aged 55 or over to have free access to their savings held in defined contribution schemes subject to paying tax at their marginal rates at the time of draw-down. However, it is the private pensions Bill which would allow the Department for Work and Pensions to decide whether to allow recipients of defined benefit schemes similar access to their savings or not. While I welcome the Government’s decision to give individuals the right to access their defined contribution pension pots in principle, it is important that an appropriate health warning is provided to those exercising their new freedom. Those who buy an annuity today can still receive a return of more than 5% and do not bear the risk that they may not receive this return for the 40 years or so that they may well live after retirement. Those who withdraw their funds and invest them in managed funds or a mixed portfolio would do well to receive higher returns than they would from an annuity. The impression given recently by the media is that the pensions industry has been exploiting people’s savings by providing poor returns and applying hidden charges. This is less than fair. To purchase an annuity on retirement will still be the best course of action for many.

I note the Government’s plan to introduce a third type of pension: defined ambition schemes. Under these schemes, risks will be shared between pensioner and provider. It will be interesting to see in what terms “ambition” will be defined by pension providers and whether prospective contributors to such schemes will have similar ambitions.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was too dismissive of many of the measures in the gracious Speech. The Federation of Small Businesses has warmly welcomed the small business Bill. The childcare payments Bill has also been widely welcomed. The Government propose to make childcare tax deductable to the extent of £2,000 per annum per child. This amount is, of course, not nearly enough, but it is nevertheless very welcome.

I strongly support the opinion expressed by my noble friend Lady Noakes that too little has been done to simplify tax and it is disappointing that the gracious Speech contains no Bill to achieve this. The combination of income tax and national insurance makes a great deal of sense. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government will commit to move ahead with this.

I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Marlesford in what he had to say about the EU financial transaction tax and hope the Minister can assure the House that London will be completely protected from the negative effects of this tax.

I strongly support the Government’s proposals to stimulate investment in shale gas projects included in the Infrastructure Bill. Shale gas can certainly provide an economic and relatively clean contribution to our energy mix. However, the best and ultimately most economic way to obtain energy security in the nick of time is to accelerate the development of new nuclear power stations. Hinkley Point is a start, but much more progress needs to be made soon with the other proposed projects.

It has been a privilege to participate in this debate. Even if this Parliament is already a little stale, we will have plenty to do. I look forward to the remaining speeches and especially the Minister’s winding up.