Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Debate between Chris Vince and Euan Stainbank

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have taken me by surprise by not picking me last.

I thank the Minister for opening this debate. I also thank the shadow Minister for his comments and wish him a very happy birthday. Without wanting to get into any party political back and forth, I would like to say that we had a really productive Bill Committee, in which Members from all parts of the House came together collaboratively because we all wanted this to be a success. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who saw the Bill through Committee, was a huge driving force in ensuring that it will get on the statute book and that we will see the benefit of it.

I am being a little bit naughty, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is rare for me, but I particularly wanted to speak in this debate today because I was a member of the Bill Committee—one of my first in this place—and I saw the legislation through all its stages, from First Reading to Committee, only to miss Third Reading due to being on paternity leave. I think that on this occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will agree that I did get my priorities right.

However, as the Bill returns to this Chamber for the consideration of Lords amendments, I want to say how genuinely excited I have been to be part of this process. I believe that the Bill will make a difference not only to the aviation industry, which is hugely important to my constituency of Harlow, but also to Harlow itself. As I have mentioned previously in this place, my constituency starts at the end of Stansted airport’s runway. If my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East was in his place today, he would point out that Stansted airport is part of the Manchester Airports Group, so I am doing him a service by mentioning that.

This Bill will make a huge difference to people in my constituency. Hundreds of people are employed at Stansted airport, but Stansted airport college also has huge links with Harlow college. An earlier speaker mentioned how, when he goes into schools, he sees the younger people as the cabin crew, the pilot and the ground staff of the future. I have had the pleasure of visiting Stansted college—I did let the Leader of the Opposition know that I was visiting her constituency—to see the huge difference that that made to young people. We are not just talking about jobs; we are talking about careers and high-level occupations. I am really pleased that we will see 4,100 more jobs at Stansted airport because of its expansion. I am not expecting all of those 4,000 people to come from Harlow—although I have put in a request to the Manchester Airports Group—but that would be nice to see. We also know the difference that this Bill will make to the environment.

Naysayers will say that the increase of SAF production is not the answer, and that we need to decrease the number of people who fly, but we must be realistic about that. As I have said before, the expansion of Stansted airport will mean an additional 4,000 jobs for my area of the country. Aviation supports business travel and freight for millions, but SAF will also help to deliver on the green, clean energy and growth that has been so important to this Government. We know that, over its lifetime of usage, the use of SAF will reduce greenhouse gases by 70%, which is something that we can all get behind.

I know that I am expected to speak about the amendments, so I will briefly touch on Lords amendment 6. I am confident that the Secretary of State and the Minister will continue to consult those they consider appropriate ahead of any legislation. I am very reassured to hear the Minister say that he has already engaged with and got support from the devolved nations on this matter, but will he reflect on the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) about how SAF production could be part of the Government’s wider aims and the conversations he has with Energy Ministers about getting to net zero? Decreasing our carbon usage and green energy are so important to that. When I go into schools and meet the pilots, cabin crew and ground staff of the future, the No. 1 thing they bring up are their concerns about climate change.

Finally, it has been a pleasure to be part of this process and see this Bill through Parliament. The Bill is a clear sign that this Labour Government recognise the importance of our aviation sector for the future of young people and for business and international trade. It is also clear that the Government recognise the importance of green energy solutions to ensure that this country and the world have a positive future. Although I missed Third Reading—this is the joke coming—I am glad to be here for the Bill’s final descent towards Royal Assent.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

As a fellow member of the Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I welcome the return of the Bill to this place. Its progress is an example of the common-sense approach of this Labour Government.

With airport expansion and infrastructure expansion—such as, perhaps, the Glasgow airport rail link—necessary to support growth in every corner of the United Kingdom, and given the need to decarbonise the sector without pricing the ordinary Brit out of their holiday, the Government’s approach to aviation and this Bill has been the right one. While some Opposition Members—absent from their Benches—seem keen to condemn aviation and its economic benefits to the dustbin of history, this Bill takes the right approach. It will aid the Government’s growth commitment to the aviation sector alongside the progress being made on airspace modernisation.

UK Bus Manufacturing

Debate between Chris Vince and Euan Stainbank

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Euan Stainbank]

Franchising is certainly an opportunity for our British bus manufacturing sector. I will speak later about procurement and the opportunities it presents for us to go even further, and potentially correct some of the examples that are not as great as the fantastic work done by the Mayor of Greater Manchester in that regard.

This debate is unlike the last one held in Westminster Hall prior to the election in 2024. This is not a debate about the virtues of the current push to decarbonise transport. It is an immutable fact that the shift in demand from both operators and public subsidy is towards cleaner and quieter transport. For the UK manufacturing sector, we need to recognise that the transition to zero emission buses and away from diesel is happening. A business selling horses and carts at the beginning of the 20th century could have continued to sell the carts and might have done well in the short term, but eventually, if it did not transition to automobiles, it would have gone out of business.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech on a topic about which I know he is particularly passionate. He will be aware that Alexander Dennis has a base in my constituency of Harlow. Would he agree that the move towards zero emission buses is a massive opportunity to increase the skills base of our communities? We should welcome the opportunity that young people have in our constituencies to work on these revolutionary new vehicles.

[Euan Stainbank]

My hon. Friend goes to the heart of the issue we are debating today. This is an opportunity for our country to enable our manufacturers to compete within the market.

What British industry needs is not to see its renowned prowess for making diesel buses become a sentimental memory in communities such as Falkirk, but policy certainty and support to scale up and properly compete in the zero emissions market as we move towards the implementation of the ZEB mandate. International competitors have been able to scale up to meet the global market through state subsidy and clear procurement ambition. It is up to us to gather the political will to do the same, which I am sure we will hear articulated today.

Through both the mandate and voluntary targets for new registrations, operators are moving to prepare for new additions to their fleet to be fully zero emission by 2030, at the earliest. As that date approaches and diesel buses concurrently become a diminishing part of manufacturers’ order books, we must acknowledge that there is a short window before every new bus in the UK market will be zero emission. The year 2027, proposed by some during the passage of the Bus Services Act 2025 as the date for the ZEB mandate to come into operation, would, without thought, drastically narrow that window, and I was glad to see those amendments defeated.

However, the message we are hearing from our manufacturers is clear. If we now fail to get this right, we will not be talking about a British-led transition and we will not be talking just about a 35%, and rising, Chinese market share. We will be talking about transitioning to reliance on other places in the world to build the vehicles we need on our roads. We will be facing the reality of the long-term consequences of the price and security of supply being increasingly elsewhere and not here. We will have lost control.

That is why this debate is urgent. The Government, in my view, have the political temperament to deliver a new generation of British-built buses, and they have the proven ability to be bold on industrial policy, but too many missed chances by previous Governments and increasingly imminent deadlines for our industry mean that we need to be bolder. Sadly, taxpayer-funded schemes have contributed, rather than aiding a solution, to the problem of diminishing market share for UK manufacturers.

The initial ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional areas—scheme, touted proudly by Prime Minister Johnson’s Government, committed to 4,000 British-built buses by the end of the last Parliament. The scheme delivered just 2,270 buses, of which about 46% were built abroad. There was a material and harmful chasm between political rhetoric and delivery for UK manufacturers.

Scottish manufacturing fared worse recently in phase 2 of the Scottish Government’s zero emission bus challenge fund, the outcome of which was sending two thirds of ScotZEB2 orders to Yutong in China, while less than 20% went to Scottish manufacturers. That created an existential threat to 400 jobs and the Scottish bus manufacturing sector last year, with the First Minister being informed by the company in August 2024 that the outcome of the scheme appeared to show little regard for Scottish manufacturing, with unprecedented action being required in September to prevent the two factories from closing for good.

In addition, 130 jobs were lost in 2024, in part because of the aggravated issue of conditions being placed on Scottish Government funding, compelling adherence to advanced Fair Work First standards for employee remuneration, welfare and safety, while no such requirement was made of foreign manufacturers. I am all in favour of fair work standards being applied. The problem here is that they were not weighted in the procurement exercises, despite their being required only of British manufacturers. That created an unlevel playing field, tilted in the wrong direction.

We have heard testimonials to the origin of London’s public transport system in the labour of Scottish, English and Northern Irish workers, who now contend with, and are contradicted by, the rapidly increasing portions of Transport for London infrastructure coming from elsewhere in the world.

It does not have to be this way. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) alluded to, the Greater Manchester and Liverpool City Region combined authorities, when franchising their bus networks, bought nationally. They chose to weight properly when buying buses, with procurement teams looking at what could be achieved when social value is appropriately weighted.

These successes and failures are largely down to how the schemes are set up. It seems entirely right to me that, because many are funded wholly with our constituents’ tax money, we should maximise the muscle of the state to make sure that as much of it as possible ends up benefiting our constituents, within the limits of our World Trade Organisation obligations.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Chris Vince and Euan Stainbank

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Vince]

Q I will be very quick, Mr Pritchard. Thank you all for coming to give evidence. Graeme has stolen a little of my question, which was to understand what you see as the risks to your industry if the Bill does not go forward or, in fairness, if it does go forward. I want to understand the risks involved.

[Euan Stainbank]

We have talked about targeting. Would you support any further specific policy interventions to help to stimulate advanced 2G SAF technologies that might otherwise struggle to scale up?