Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Baggy Shanker Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

For many years, I commuted by aircraft from Scotland to Dublin—so many years, in fact, that I can still recall there are eight emergency exits on a Boeing 737-800. There are two at the front, two at the rear and four over-wing exits. What a great pity that this Bill does not have an amendment that is an escape slide.

While sustainable aviation fuel sounds wonderful, it is burdened with many inconvenient facts. The first is that there is no SAF production industry at the scale required. While new clause 1 is a bold attempt to jump-start production by repurposing old facilities, it is a jumbo jet of a task. The World Economic Forum estimates that by 2030, global demand for SAF is expected to reach 70 million tonnes per annum—around 4% to 5% of total jet fuel consumption.

Meeting likely demand in just five years requires an additional 5.8 million tonnes of capacity. What is the investment required to reach even that relatively modest goal? The WEF pitches it at somewhere between $19 billion and $45 billion globally. If that does not give our legislative autopilot the warning, “Terrain! Terrain! Pull up!”, then it should do. New clause 1 is unaffordable, whether backed by public or private finance, and I am afraid it is doomed to fail.

It is certain that the vast input costs will result in massively higher costs for passengers and air freight. I support the vital new clause 6, which would force an assessment of the economic impact of this Bill, which I fear will be nothing short of devastating. Some might piously accept fewer flights to the Costas or a little less airfreighted Kenyan mangetout on the dinner table, but making air travel ruinously expensive will have implications for thousands of jobs—millions globally—in not only aviation, but tourism. Many flights are not indulgences, but lifelines. We are an island nation, and many communities within the UK are entirely reliant on air links.

Will Britain—so long the pioneers of aviation, with a history stretching back to the first scheduled international passenger flight and the first jet airliner—be foremost in SAF? Probably not, for mandating SAF is easier than producing it, especially in a country with power prices as exorbitant as ours. Energy bills in Dumfries in my constituency are four times what they are in Dumfries in Virginia in the United States, and they are cheaper still in China.

We need a lot of power to make SAF. Many question its green credentials when so much carbon is generated in its production. Amendment 10 is a bid to explore the serious issues around SAF derived from either organic or synthetic sources. Much is made of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases using SAF sourced from waste fat and oil feedstocks, but, as we have heard, those basic building blocks are in limited supply. That issue is also addressed in, though not solved by, new clause 2. Using crops as feedstock may not reduce greenhouse gases at all, and there are huge implications of turning prime agricultural land and billions of gallons of water over to producing crops for fuel, rather than food. Again, Britain is at a disadvantage. America’s vast corn belt might get involved, but the British bioethanol industry is a warning to us, for it was not able to survive on current targets for the content in road fuel.

Other amendments, including amendment 11, concern themselves with how a revenue certainty mechanism will operate. My concern is that we risk creating a self-licking ice cream—a self-perpetuating system with no purpose other than to sustain itself. This Bill could guarantee moneys that simply offset the costs of manufacturing SAF, which is itself made expensive by green levies. Would it not be better to put what money we have available into aviation excellence, driving up the efficiency of jet engines and airframes? Aviation is already playing its part in reducing its carbon footprint—according to some experts, engine efficiency is already up by as much as 83% from the early days of the de Havilland Comet jet liner. That progress can continue, although super-efficient jets need superalloys to handle the extremes of temperature in their engines, and those require the sorts of rare earths that China is hoovering up. Canada, by the way, has many of the same critical minerals; might we be better off investing in those than subsidising SAF?

If we want really big carbon savings, we ought to look to the sea. Much of what we trade—in and out—goes by sea, and cargo ships are heavily reliant on bunker oil, a tar-like substance with heavy emissions. If we want novel fuels, this island nation should look once more to Tennyson’s “boundless deep”, where the salt-caked smoke stacks belch still. Meanwhile, the wild blue yonder of the skies must not be made inaccessible simply by expensive green dogma.

[Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Aviation is central to our economy and our way of life, whether it is delivering well over 300,000 jobs here in the UK, contributing over £22 billion to our economy, driving inbound tourism, or connecting communities, businesses and families the world over. I am proud of our world-leading aviation sector in Derby and many other places across the UK, and while aviation is an integral part of our economy, it is also one of the most challenging to decarbonise. Despite the scale of the challenge, though, we must keep pushing forward, because—as I have said before, and as I will say again now—without net zero in aviation, there is no net zero, full stop.

To ensure that future generations are able to access the opportunities that air travel can provide, we need to make sure that flying is greener. This Bill does exactly that. It will unlock the potential of UK SAF by delivering the confidence and stability that SAF producers need to continue to turbocharge growth as they drive forward green innovation. I welcome the Bill as a clear statement of intent that this country is absolutely serious about decarbonising the future and future-proofing our world-leading aviation sector. It is the right thing to do, and we must do it.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I chair the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, and the debate on SAF has been a focus of many of our meetings. As a cover-all, I should declare my interests, having met with AirportsUK, Airlines UK, ADS Group, LanzaJet, Back British SAF, Valero, alfanar and others over the past six months. I also worked in the aviation industry for 16 years prior to being elected. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 1 to 5, tabled by my colleagues, and new clause 7. I also encourage the Government to support amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the Conservatives, which would strengthen and improve the Bill and give us the best chance to achieve its targets. I will tell the House why.

In 2023, aviation accounted for 2.5% of global energy-related CO2 emissions; however, when non-CO2 effects are included, its contribution to climate warming increases to approximately 4%. Although that is a small fraction of global emissions, it is not insignificant. However, in my experience, few sectors take their role in bringing down emissions and tackling climate change as seriously as aviation, primarily because fuel burnt and emissions released is money spent.

As other Members have already made clear, decarbonising aviation and achieving net zero carbon UK aviation will require a huge range of different measures. Measures such as Operation Blue Skies, a global contrail avoidance system, will reduce the density of the heat-trapping contrails produced by aircraft, which creates nearly half the overall climate-warming impacts. Continuing improvements in aircraft engine and airframe efficiency are also critical, and that too has been mentioned by others.