Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says and I completely support his good intentions. The problem with sustainable aviation fuel is that it is perhaps five times more expensive than what we are currently paying, and that stocks are very limited and—we have been talking about livestock feeds—even more difficult. I am completely with him on the ambition, but we must also protect consumer rights, the right to fly at a reasonable cost and the cost to the economy. As with all green energy policies, there must be a balance. I am sure he will agree with that.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I do understand his point. This is a transition. We are moving away from fuels that are killing our environment and our ability to survive on planet Earth. It is a responsible thing to do to find ways to reduce our reliance on carbon-generating fossil fuels through cleaner alternatives. This may not be the final solution for aviation—it might be a transition. Future technologies and innovations might allow us to stop the use of such fuels altogether.

More than 130 organisations from airlines and clean energy firms to researchers and investors have called on the Government to prioritise PTL through the Bill. They have called for urgent engagement, timely regulation and a clear pathway to a commercial-scale plant in the UK by 2026. As I have mentioned, the EU, Canada and the United States are moving faster. We must not miss this industrial opportunity to take a lead in progressing innovative SAF alternatives and licensing that technology around the world. We must act decisively, not incrementally.

I support the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, but I believe we have a responsibility to make it stronger, bolder and more targeted towards the fuels that will truly deliver net zero. My amendments are practical, proportionate and widely supported. They add not cost, but clarity, confidence and a commitment to a sector that needs all three. If we want to lead the world in clean aviation, we must lead with action, not just ambition. I call on friends and colleagues across the House to support the amendments in my name, and in doing so to give PTL the foothold it needs to take off in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I commend my hon. Friend on his speech. Does he agree that the Conservative way is to ensure practicality over mere ideology, and consumer rights over Government imposition of controls and regulations that can do serious damage to the economy and people’s livelihoods?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House; I could not have put it better myself. It is essential that whatever measures, on any matter, are brought forward by any Government—be it the current Government or any future Government—real people’s lives and the cost base be reviewed regularly, so that we are not making people poorer, or stopping people from being able to do what they want, be it go on holiday, travel for business or move goods around.

With that, I come to amendment 8 and the cost impact on passengers. The amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on passenger air fares. One of the most contentious areas surrounding the Bill, and indeed the Government’s whole approach to net zero, is: what does it actually cost real people? The amendment seeks to clarify that, and it gives the Government the opportunity—in theory, they should cheerfully embrace this—to lock in a claim that they profess to believe, namely that the Bill will have an impact of plus or minus £1.50 on air fares. The previous Minister repeated that statistic time and again on Second Reading and in Committee. The new Minister has the challenge today of either sticking with his predecessor’s assertion, backing the amendment and locking in protections for consumers, or admitting that this may well be more costly to air travellers.

It is worth noting that during the evidence stage of Bill Committee, none of the witnesses was willing to affirm the Government’s figure. In fact, some noted that the estimated price appeared low. For example, Jonathon Counsell from International Airlines Group stated:

“We think there are potentially some elements that have not been included in that calculation, but £1.50 per passenger feels quite low when you think the costs of the SAF itself will be nearer to £10.”––[Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 15 July 2025; c. 17, Q12.]

Consumers need peace of mind that the Bill will not cost them dear, and will not act as a financial barrier to the family holiday or any other trip, so failure to back the amendment can only mean uncertainty.

I turn to amendment 11, which is focused on transparency. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate, payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers. Valero, for example—one of the world’s largest renewable fuels producers—has contacted the Opposition arguing for the amendment, saying that it would offer a workable solution; it would support the development of new SAF production without significantly impacting the industry as a whole. The amendment would apply the levy equally to all jet fuel suppliers, providing a fair and transparent mechanism for supporting the broader SAF industry.

Just this week, I have been contacted by Virgin Atlantic, which is arguing that transparency safeguards must be in place to keep costs low for consumers. As organisations including the International Air Transport Association have highlighted, since the mandate came into effect in January 2025, fuel suppliers have been adding compliance risk premiums to the cost of mandated SAF, contributing to the price of SAF and doubling it for some carriers. That is to cover the eventuality that they do not meet the 2% mandate target and must pay the buy-out price for any missed volume. Virgin Atlantic has argued that to prevent SAF prices increasing further, the revenue certainty mechanism must have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure transparency over cost pass-through. There must also be a transparent process for refunds in the event of over-collections, and all revenues generated under the RCM should be ringfenced, rather than going into the general taxation pot.

Amendment 9 looks at British technology and intellectual property. It would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts. As I said from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, there is a historical reality that we need to confront, and the amendment would stop history repeating itself. The historical error that I refer to is this: a great many projects supported by grants from the advanced fuels fund use foreign-owned technology. It cannot be right that the British state, while arguing for domestic fuel security, funds overseas technology when we have incredible innovators and manufacturers right here.

Domestic fuel security must mean domestic fuel IP, manufacture and supply. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF, eSAF and local production, as is provided for by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of those products. That not only retains revenue in the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. The amendment tackles that head-on, and a failure to back it would be a failure to back United Kingdom innovators.

Lastly, amendment 10 is on technological choices. It states:

“The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”

I feel incredibly strongly about this amendment. It is on a matter that I have championed in this House for many years—in the last Parliament, during my time on the Transport Committee and, since July, from this Dispatch Box. The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and it is relevant to new clause 7 and amendment 12 in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley, both of which I have a great deal of sympathy for.

Governments of all political persuasions have professed to be technologically neutral. They seldom are. There is a natural tendency to pick winners and losers. We need to look through that lens, and ask ourselves what the Bill is promoting and using the levers of primary legislation to enable. The disappointing answer to that is the potential to bring alive SAF plants using technologies that have already been superseded—plants that would therefore be temporary at best. Stepping up something with no longevity, and with an estimated build cost of between £600 million and £2 billion, would be no small mistake.

Power-to-liquid solutions, otherwise known as eSAF or synthetic fuel—liquid hydrocarbons literally made out of air and water—are surely the better and sustainable future for aviation fuel. We had debates on Second Reading and in Committee about other solutions. I cannot imagine that anyone is ready to defend growing food to burn it, but equally, waste-derived fuels simply are not sustainable in the long term. Solid waste is not readily available; the primary source is local authorities, the majority of which are on contracts with energy-from-waste facilities and incinerators that have decades to run. Likewise, I am not sure there is enough chip oil in the country to meet our aviation fuel needs.

That leaves power-to-liquid solutions and eSAF. Many say that it is not ready; some say it is too expensive; but those of us on the Public Bill Committee heard loud and clear from Zero Petroleum that it is ready to scale right now. It just needs the green light from the regulators, and with scale will come affordability. Amendment 10 is in many ways a light-touch amendment to bring this debate to the fore. It does not close down other technological routes, but forces the Government to acknowledge the risk, both to the environment and in terms of cost, when choosing contracts under the RCM.

As other speakers have said, the Bill can still be improved. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments, which would improve the Bill, and to ensure a strong and affordable future for sustainable aviation fuel in our great United Kingdom.

Road and Rail Projects

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. We will set out the timetable for the delivery of these schemes as we produce the next road investment strategy—RIS3—which we will have done by the end of March next year.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

For 30 long and weary years, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have campaigned for a through-train from Grimsby, which would stop at Market Rasen and end up in London. We have been made numerous promises by Network Rail, which is now saying that the platform is too short, that a bridge needs to be built, and that it will cost £25 million—the usual negativity. The Secretary of State is a feisty Minister. I promise her that if she gets us our train, I will campaign for it to be renamed the “Heidi Alexander, Heroine of Lincolnshire”.

[Heidi Alexander]

I feel that I am making progress, because the last time the right hon. Gentleman asked me a question, I believe he suggested that I name a train after Margaret Thatcher. I politely declined. He will get everywhere with flattery. Of course, the digital signalling on the east coast main line will have a positive impact on services, but I am afraid I cannot make a commitment on the particular service that he wants at this time.

Disruption at Heathrow

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Following that last question, can the Secretary of State give us an absolute assurance that nothing in our drive towards green energy and net zero will ever affect the sustainability and safety of our vital transport systems?

[Heidi Alexander]

I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am aware that some other Members of this House—not present in the Chamber today—were busy peddling some myths on Friday morning about this issue. It is clear to me that Heathrow’s back-up power supplies consist of both diesel and electricity generators. No matter what some other Members might be saying, those systems did work. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

The east coast digital programme is delivering digital signalling on 100 miles of the east coast main line. The technology will deliver an inherent improvement to service reliability and uplift performance and capacity across the line, including for my hon. Friend’s constituents. The first trains are forecast to start running under digital signalling from early 2026. The number of services running under digital signalling will increase until the full programme is expected to be complete in the early 2030s.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

9. What steps she is taking to reduce the cost of rail services.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

21. What steps she is taking to reduce the cost of rail services.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)]

It is our ambition through public ownership to deliver a more affordable railway. This year’s fare increase of 4.6% is the lowest absolute increase in three years. We are committed to reforming the overcomplicated fares system and expanding ticketing innovations like pay-as-you-go in urban areas across the country.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

When the Secretary of State finally steps in and knocks heads together and we get our Azuma train to Grimsby via Market Rasen, will she instruct the railway company to name the locomotive Margaret Thatcher to remind us all that the best way to reduce the cost of rail services is to end restrictive trade union practices?

[Heidi Alexander]

I hate to disappoint the Father of the House, but I am afraid that I will not be making such a commitment today.

Rail Services: Open Access Operators

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), for securing this important debate and for emphasising the national importance of open access. His point about Hull Trains and the opportunity it has given us is very powerful. I want to speak about our little local problem, to which he and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) alluded.

Originally, there were two trains every day going up and down to London via Lincoln and Market Rasen, ending up in Grimsby. That was then cut to one train and we were given a solemn promise that that train would never be taken away, but decades ago it was taken away. I have been campaigning for decades to get that service up and running again. We are talking about a catchment area of a quarter of a million people with no direct train to London. I cannot think of any other country in Europe that would have such a situation for huge conurbations like Grimsby and Cleethorpes and a place like Market Rasen—which is a small station but serves a vast rural area, perhaps 20 miles in every direction, going all the way to Louth. Yet every time we have been to see Ministers with campaigns, over many years, we get fobbed off with every single excuse. I cannot count the number of times we went to see the Transport Minister in the last Government; now I am boring this Minister instead, but I will go on boring him and we will go on making this point.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham said, we were first fobbed off with the view that there was no capacity on the main line. Yet the Azuma train runs perfectly well to Lincoln and it would make no difference to capacity on the main line if that train carried on to Grimsby via Market Rasen, so that point does not hold. We made some progress eventually and I thought that we finally had a commitment that this train would happen. Indeed, we had a test run in June 2023. I was there—I saw it. Everything worked perfectly smoothly. The train arrived from Grimsby, there was no problem, we had our photograph taken, everybody was very happy, but we have still had no progress.

Now we have had this bolt from the blue: it is no longer the capacity point, but apparently we cannot have this train because the platform in Market Rasen is too short and there is no bridge. That is an absurd point. I go all over the country and I see trains stop at short platforms, and they announce, “Will you please go to the first four carriages because it’s a short platform?”

Then we got the excuse that if the Azuma train stopped at Market Rasen, it would somehow cover the pedestrian crossing, which is apparently unacceptable. Is somebody going to try to go across the railway line and climb underneath the train to get to it, stopped at the platform? It is ridiculous. I am not sure that it is even possible to climb underneath a train. Are people going to sprint down the track, leaving the platform altogether, to get round the back of the train? This is all just ludicrous. There is absolutely no reason why the train could not stop there, blocking the existing pedestrian access. Perhaps once in 100 years there might be some sort of injury; in fact I doubt whether there would ever be any injury. So, why are we stopping the whole service because, apparently, the existing pedestrian access could be blocked?

It is funny—the operators never give an explanation. They say, “Oh, we now have a problem with the disabled access and it must be in a certain part of the train.” But surely there are solutions. This is a sort of not-can-do attitude, which is driving the country crazy.

Whenever we write to bodies such as Network Rail, instead of their having the attitude of, “Let’s work together, let’s make this work,” once again we get fobbed off with ridiculous excuses and they never actually explain their actions. Then they say, “We have got to build a bridge.” All right, they build a bridge. Then they have come up with a ridiculous figure of £24 million. How could it cost £24 million to build a bridge? This is only a small country station with just one footbridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham campaigned for years for a bridge, did he not? And he got it for far less—£1 million, was it not?

[Martin Vickers]

My right hon. Friend will remember from the last Parliament that I campaigned for a footbridge over Suggitts Lane in Cleethorpes. Thankfully, I was supported by the then Prime Minister—Boris Johnson—who on one famous occasion at Prime Minister’s questions said:

“Suggitt’s Lane is never far from my thoughts”. —[Official Report, 23 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 963.]

I hope that the Market Rasen situation will not be far from the Minister’s thoughts.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. This is a serious issue. There is absolutely no reason why the great conurbation of Grimsby and Cleethorpes should not have a direct train to London, and there is no reason why the good people who live in the rural areas around Market Rasen should not have a direct train.

What has actually happened—one might argue that this is not really LNER’s fault—is that since we have had the Azuma train going directly from London to Lincoln, our indirect service has got worse. There are more delays and there is a reduced service. It really is hard work to get from that part of my constituency to London.

So, enough of excuses. We had a tremendous relationship with the Transport Minister in the last Government and we look forward to our relationship with this Minister in this Government. There is nothing party political about this matter. What we are doing—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham and I—is begging the Minister to please intervene to knock some heads together to get this train going and stopping. That is all we ask.

Gatwick Airspace Modernisation Review

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I will call John Milne to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention in 30-minute debates. It is not normal for other Members to make a speech unless they have the permission of the Member in charge and the Minister, but they can intervene. I call John Milne.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential impact of the Gatwick airspace modernisation review on local communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My constituency of Horsham lies to the west and south of Gatwick airport. I have brought today’s debate in order to represent growing concerns from residents regarding the airspace modernisation process around Gatwick, which is part of the future airspace strategy implementation south, known as FASI-S.

Before I start, I would like to make it clear that I wholly support the modernisation process in principle. It is a vital step if we are to improve the efficiency of civil aviation, cut flight times and reduce carbon emissions. What I do question, however, is how we will get there. The process as it stands involves a significant conflict of interest. I would also like to emphasise that the airspace modernisation process is entirely separate from the second runway application at Gatwick, although it is going on at the same time and naturally gets confused in the public mind. The airspace modernisation process will go ahead whether or not Gatwick obtains permission to expand and is in fact part of a national process also being conducted at 19 other airports across the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The previous Minister promised me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) that he had instructed LNER and Network Rail to ensure that we get our through train from Grimsby to London. Will the Minister confirm that she will continue those firm instructions and, above all, ensure that this train stops? If it does not stop in Market Rasen, I am going to lie down on the line and stop it that way.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I do hope that the right hon. Member will not put himself in such danger. We are working with industry to address timetabling, financial, operational and infrastructure issues that need to be resolved before a service between Cleethorpes and London via Market Rasen could be introduced, once the east coast main line timetable change has been implemented. We will consider any proposals put forward, with approval subject to funding and a thorough business case process.

Pedicabs (London) Bill [Lords]

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

It is hard to disagree with those points, but I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has concerns and I want to try to try to address some of his points. This is not something that just one side of the House is seeking; all parts of the House are seeking it, as have successive Mayors, including Mr Boris Johnson, late of this parish, who enthusiastically supported it.

I accept entirely that some may have concerns about Transport for London not being part of the Government as such, but successive Mayors of different political persuasions have been happy for TfL to run this appropriate regulation. The hon. Lady touches on a variety of points, but clearly there are other issues, such as noise, the persistent and ongoing blocking of footpaths—which unquestionably has significant issues for accessibility—and the general causing of nuisance. Without a shadow of a doubt, there are plentiful examples to show why this measure has been called for on a repeat basis and why the Government should act in this space.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am not against this Bill, but I would like some general reassurance from the Minister. I am not the sort of Conservative who believes in more regulation, particularly when it comes to young entrepreneurs providing a fairly simple service for tourists. Can he assure me that, when this regulation comes into force, it will be light touch and not onerous, so that we do not kill this young and perfectly acceptable industry? I am perfectly happy to be reassured; I just want the Minister to do that for me.

[Guy Opperman]

The answer is yes and yes. The key point is that, as this is a totally unregulated market, it is hard to be precise as to how many people are providing this service on a daily or weekly basis. In London, it is in the several hundreds, rather than the thousands. Those who wish to take this industry seriously and do things properly unquestionably feel that they can run a young entrepreneurial business with a proper reputation and the right amount of enthusiasm and aspiration in a truly Conservative way, and also provide a safe service in which tourists can have confidence. I genuinely believe that that is the case. If it matters that there is a strong recommendation that the measures will be appropriate, but light touch, I am happy to provide that from this Dispatch Box.

I have gone on for longer than I intended, but I genuinely believe that the Bill will ensure that the pedicab industry is respectable, safe and regulated in an appropriate fashion, and that it brings the same accountability to this industry that we rightly expect in a great capital city that is, rightly, a tourist hotspot, and we wish to continue to support that. The Bill is supported by Londoners, councillors and Members of Parliament, and there is no question but that I am happy to commend it to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

If we take the current year’s fares as an example, we delivered the biggest Government intervention on rail fares since privatisation by capping fare increases at 5.9%, which was 6.4 percentage points below the July RPI. It is all about striking a balance, and I believe that balance is a fair one.

In the last three years, the UK taxpayer has contributed £45.9 billion to keep the railways going. This year’s figure of 4.9% is, again, below inflation. It cannot be that bad, because Labour-run Wales has done exactly the same. It is better than Scotland, where the SNP has put up fares by 8.7%.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If a person were to get a train from Market Rasen to London later this morning, not only would they be hit by a hefty rail fare, as we all know, but, worse, it would take them over three hours and two changes. My hon. Friend has repeatedly promised me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) that he will give us a through train to London. I understand that he has now approved that—he can confirm it today—but it is held up on the desk of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We do not want some bean counter in the Treasury stopping our train.

[Huw Merriman]

I fear a career-limiting response. My right hon. Friend’s campaign is strong, and he is absolutely right that it has this team’s support; I am sure that it will have support across Government. It is currently being looked at, and I hope to be able to give him and his colleagues good news.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 8th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to a person who will have done 40 years tomorrow, I understand. I call Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under the old British Rail, we used to have a direct train to London from Grimsby and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) through Market Rasen. I have been campaigning for that train to be reinstated for 40 years—ever since I was elected as a Member of Parliament. Sometimes I wander down from my home in the wolds and wait forlornly on the platform at Market Rasen, but the train never comes. Will the Secretary of State oblige an old campaigner and give us our train back, please?