Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Debate between David Davis and Heidi Alexander

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

The Government have been clear that we will permit airport expansion only when it is consistent with our legally binding climate change targets. SAF is one way in which we can clean up aviation, but the work we are doing on the development of new aircraft technologies, alongside the work we are doing on airspace modernisation, is all connected to how we bring those emissions down. I point out to the hon. Lady that the expansion of Heathrow has already been modelled in relation to the sixth carbon budget.

We have been clear that the mandate alone is not enough. Creating the demand for SAF but not the supply does not get us where we want to be. We have heard the industry’s concerns around risk and uncertainty for investment, and that is why we are acting today. The Bill creates a revenue certainty mechanism that will boost SAF production by giving investors confidence to choose the UK.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a pilot. In this context, I spoke to one of the would-be producers—I think it is called Zero—and its primary concern with respect to the strike price mechanism that the right hon. Lady talks about is how that will be set and what input producers will have. Will she address that when she talks through the mechanism?

[Heidi Alexander]

There is more detailed design work to do on all that, and we will work alongside industry to ensure that we have a workable proposition.

The mechanism boosts SAF production and gives investors confidence in the UK by addressing one of the biggest barriers to investment: the lack of a clear, predictable market price for SAF. That starts with a guaranteed strike price agreed between a Government-owned counterparty and the SAF producer. If SAF is sold for under that price, the counterparty will pay the difference to the producer. If SAF is sold for above that price, the producer will pay the difference to the counterparty.

The revenue certainty mechanism will be funded by industry, specifically through a levy on aviation fuel suppliers. That makes sense for two reasons. First, it is the industry that will benefit from more and cheaper SAF production, so it is only right that industry, and not the taxpayer, should fund it. Secondly, placing the levy higher up the supply chain spreads costs across the sector and is the least burdensome option. It is important to note that the revenue certainty mechanism will not be indefinite. It will be targeted and time-limited, helping to get first-of-a-kind UK projects off the ground. The Bill’s sunset clause means that we can offer contracts only for 10 years, unless it is extended via the affirmative procedure. We will have a firm grip on costs throughout. We will decide the number and duration of contracts, limit support to a predetermined volume of SAF and negotiate acceptable strike prices. There is no obligation on the Government to enter into a defined number of contracts or to agree contracts at any cost.

I know that some hon. Members may be concerned about the impact on passengers, so let me reassure them: none of this will limit people’s ability to fly. We expect minimal changes to fares, with an average ticket increasing or decreasing by up to £1.50 a year. I am pleased to say that this is a product of many months of consultation with the industry. Airlines are calling for it, airports are calling for it, SAF producers are calling for it, environmental organisations are calling for it, and the Government are therefore getting on with delivering it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Heidi Alexander

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am aware from correspondence that I have received, as the Member of Parliament for Swindon South, that there are significant concerns about the collapse of law firms such as SSB Solicitors, Axiom Law and McClure. As my hon. Friend said, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is looking at this, as is the Legal Services Board, and I shall be happy to speak to her further to provide an update.

[Sir David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

The Justice Secretary will be aware that the Criminal Cases Review Commission took 17 years to overturn the conviction of Andrew Malkinson, an innocent man, even though DNA evidence exonerating him was available from the fourth year; and his is not the only such case. Has the Minister any intention of addressing the resources, regulation and management of the CCRC to ensure that innocent people are not left incarcerated for many years?

[Heidi Alexander]

What happened to Mr Malkinson is appalling, both for him and for the victim of the crime. It is vital that lessons are learned. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, following the publication of the Henley review of the CCRC’s handling of Mr Malkinson’s case, the Lord Chancellor’s view is that the current chair is unfit to fulfil her duties. As for resources, the amount that the CCRC has received in recent years has risen, and we will continue to keep that under review.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Heidi Alexander

Thursday 1st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, the purpose of the implementation period, which was asked for by just about every business organisation, is to ensure they face stability in the couple of years in the run-up to the conclusion of the future relationship. That is what is going to happen, and that is why companies and the CBI and others welcomed it when we announced it.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)]

As we accelerate the pace of our negotiations with the European Union, I gave a speech last Friday to lay out the terms of the implementation period for our new relationship. This period, a bridge to the future, will be strictly time-limited and see a continuation of existing structures and rules. We will no longer be a member of the EU, which is a legal requirement for signing a new trade treaty, while still ensuring the continuity of our businesses and their trading relationships. We will use this period to ensure we are best placed to grasp the opportunities of Brexit, and that will mean signing new free trade deals with countries around the world.

[Heidi Alexander]

Given reports today of a huge gap between the UK and the EU on how financial services will be able to be traded freely in a post-Brexit environment, can the Secretary of State set out exactly how he sees this trade operating successfully in future, and exactly how he plans to protect the jobs of the 1.1 million people in the UK who work in this sector?

[Mr Davis]

First, not only have we not yet engaged in the future relationship negotiation, but the EU has not yet decided its own negotiating guidelines. They will, we expect, be laid down by the March Council on 22 March, and to that end I am talking to every member state that I can in order to ensure that we are at the same place on this issue, rather than having, as the hon. Lady terms it, “a huge gap”. Indeed, at the end of these questions I am going to Luxembourg for specifically that issue.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and Heidi Alexander

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I am sure that the Irish Government are conscious of all those things, but let me pick one point that my right hon. Friend made. When I last reported to this House—on 17 November, I think—I reiterated that the common travel area, which allows absolute freedom of movement between the two countries and absolute equality of treatment between our citizens, will remain in place, as will the constitutional protections allowing people from Northern Ireland to choose which nationality they wish to adhere to. We are protecting those rights very carefully.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I put it to the Secretary of State that his Government’s dogmatic insistence on pulling us out of the single market and the customs union threatens not only our future jobs, rights and prosperity, but the future territorial integrity of our country. When he looks back in a few years’ time and reflects on his role in creating this mess, how does he think he will feel?

[Mr Davis]

I say to the hon. Lady what I said at the beginning of this urgent question: all these stories put about by her Labour party co-members yesterday were just nonsense. The Conservative and Unionist party puts the integrity of the United Kingdom at the forefront of its aims.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and Heidi Alexander

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend puts it better than I can.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State set out the implications of the Prime Minister’s Florence speech for the UK’s relationship with EU regulatory bodies such as the European Medicines Agency during transition? Will we in effect seek to remain a member of such organisations, despite our having formally left the EU?

[Mr Davis]

As the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech, we start by identifying the regulatory position, and the question is then how we manage divergence. Britain will bring the control of such matters back within its own shores, and we will then have a procedure between us by which we manage divergence.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Heidi Alexander

Thursday 27th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Far from there being an extra £350 million a week to spend on the NHS following Brexit, we are likely to face an NHS staffing crisis and slower access to cancer drugs and treatments because of the loss of the European Medicines Agency. Is the Secretary of State going to put that sign on a bus in the next few weeks?

[Mr David Davis]

One of the oddities of the Labour party’s position is that on the one hand it says, “You must represent everybody,” which is entirely proper, but on the other hand it wants to revisit—

Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between David Davis and Heidi Alexander

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

It is not in the White Paper, but my hon. Friend will know that the Chancellor announced further devolution of powers to London, for example. I have been talking to a great extent with the Mayor of London about issues for London on this matter. It is not in the White Paper, but part of the Government’s overall strategy is to bring government as close as possible to the people.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Despite Government protestations to the contrary, leaving the EU does not automatically and necessarily mean leaving the single market. Equally, leaving the treaty of the European Union does not automatically and necessarily mean leaving the European Economic Area agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman’s so-called repeal Bill repeal the European Economic Area Act 1993 and will every Member of this House get a specific vote on that specific issue?

[Mr Davis]

Rarely have I heard a question based on so many false premises. The truth is that leaving the European Union does involve leaving the single market, because the single market requires the four freedoms. Whatever one thinks about the vote last year, it was clearly not a vote in favour of allowing the control of migration, the control of laws and the operation of the European Court of Justice to stay in Europe.

Exiting the EU: New Partnership

Debate between David Davis and Heidi Alexander

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I assume that my hon. Friend is talking about our permanent representative to the European Union, who has 120 brilliant staff, and they all work for me. I do not know what our representational arrangements will be, but he is referring to an ambassador to Belgium, an ambassador to NATO—I assume—and an ambassador to UKRep. We will undoubtedly have close relationships with the European Union thereafter, so it will be a pretty sizeable embassy I should think, but it will not be what it is now.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Our current membership of the single market is governed by the European economic area agreement. The Government contend that we are a member of the EEA by virtue of our membership of the EU—that may or may not prove to be the case—but can the Secretary of State be clear about the implications of our domestic legislation in that regard, specifically the European Economic Area Act 1993? Will the Government repeal that Act? If so, when? Will we get a vote?

[Mr Davis]

As it stands—as far as I can see, having gone through this quite carefully—once we are outside the EU, the question of whether we automatically cease to be a member of the EEA becomes a legal empty vessel. We will look at that. If we do propose to withdraw from the EEA, we will come back and tell the House.

Article 50

Debate between David Davis and Heidi Alexander

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Looking across the Chamber, I am tempted to ask, “What Liberal Democrats?”. As my hon. Friend said, there was only one of them here, which shows just how seriously they take this incredibly important issue. I think the public at large will take the view that the Liberal Democrats are trying to use this matter for their own political purposes, not for the national interest.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

There have understandably been a lot of questions today about process, but there is an emerging Brexit reality in the country for which this Government are responsible. A thousand jobs are going from London to Paris with HSBC, and Toyota, Lloyd’s of London, UBS and Nissan are all reviewing their operations. Exactly how many jobs are the Government prepared to lose to other European countries while we negotiate our exit from the EU?

[Mr Davis]

I could stand here for 10 minutes naming companies, such as Apple, Google, Microsoft and McDonald’s, that have decided to be here. We have pretty much the highest employment and lowest unemployment rates for some considerable time, completely contrary to the pessimistic predictions of many people after the Brexit result. If we want a demonstration of how wrong the establishment of Britain got this, we need only look at those numbers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and Heidi Alexander

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

May I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman back? I understand that he has a new member of his family, on which the whole House will join me in congratulating him. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We have seen an opening bid from the European Union. That is what it is. It is nothing more than the maximum price for departure from the Union. If he will forgive me, I am not going to engage in chipping away at that bid; we will start from scratch when we go through the door after March when the negotiations start.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

3. What steps the Government are taking to prepare for triggering Article 50.

[The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)]

At home, we are carrying out an extensive programme of sectoral analysis on the key factors that affect our negotiations with the European Union. We are working closely with the devolved Administrations, Parliament and a range of other stakeholders, as we have already heard from the Minister of State. The House should understand that we are also working with every Department to ensure a full range of opportunities.

In Europe, we are undertaking wide-ranging engagement, led by the Prime Minister. I have met representatives of the European Commission and the European Parliament, as well as Ministers and other officials from several European member states.

[Heidi Alexander]

I am not entirely sure how that answer related to my question, but it was certainly full of flannel. It seems that we are no further forward with a plan to leave the EU than we were five months ago. Will the Secretary of State tell me when the Government are going to drop the pretence that Brexit can mean continued tariff-free access to the single market and an end to freedom of movement? The British public deserve better than that embarrassing charade.

[Mr Davis]

I am interested to hear the hon. Lady’s supplementary question, which she obviously prepared earlier—[Interruption.] This has been the Labour line for some time. It is really interesting that Labour Members cannot agree among themselves on whether they agree with their Front-Bench spokesman or with their shadow Chancellor. We are four to five months from the triggering of article 50. That will be point at which the negotiations start and it will be clear where we are going.

Article 50

Debate between David Davis and Heidi Alexander

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The simple truth, which may sound rather platitudinous, is that we are in until we are out. We will actually obey every aspect of European law until we leave.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

This summer, the country was failed by an embarrassing, misleading and, at times, toxic debate about the EU that all too often inflamed rather than illuminated. Legislation before article 50 is triggered could help lift us out of this quagmire, giving the issue the sort of thorough scrutiny and sensible debate it deserves. Why will the Secretary of State not commit to a Bill and a programme motion that allows each and every one of us to set out our views on the principle of triggering article 50, the terms on which it should be invoked and the process thereafter?

[Mr Davis]

I think the hon. Lady has just given the game away.