Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Before I begin, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, with respect to a donation from P1 Fuels. Although it does not make aviation fuel, it was in the synthetics business, and—as the Minister well knows—I ran a classic Land Rover on that fuel last summer to prove the point that this stuff works.

The test that net zero must meet is that all our constituents must still be able to do everything they do today—be it fly on holiday, drive, or get a ferry or anything else that runs on a liquid hydrocarbon—and that businesses must still be able to move goods around the world and trade at the same price as today, or for an equivalent price, just greener. In that, technology is our friend, as is the innovation we see—particularly on these shores, but also innovation that is happening abroad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), the shadow Secretary of State, said earlier in the debate, the Opposition do not seek to divide the House on Second Reading. This Bill is an extension of the previous Government’s agenda in this regard, and we fully recognise the need to replace fossil fuels over time and, in this instance, to replace aviation fuel with a cleaner, greener alternative. However, there will be key questions that the House should look at as this Bill goes through Committee and its later stages, which do need answers. We have heard some of those questions throughout this afternoon’s debate.

We have had a good and wide-ranging debate, with very little deviation from the core consensus that sits underneath the Bill. On the Conservative Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made the important point that aviation will be critical to get the tourists into the new Universal theme park in Bedfordshire when it eventually opens. He also focused on the important role that Cranfield University and industry in his constituency are playing—they are providing part of the solution to the problem that this Bill seeks to support and deliver. Equally, he asked the legitimate question of how the United Kingdom mechanism and mandate compare with those overseas, which I hope the Minister will reflect on in his winding-up speech.

On the Government Benches, the chairman of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), spoke well and in an informed way on this subject. She and I both served on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and we both worked on the inquiry and report on the fuels of the future that the Committee produced during that Parliament. She rightly made good points about the supply of waste for SAF technology and the trade-off with energy from waste facilities, for example. There will have to be some conversations within Government, particularly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, about the way in which so many councils, including my own in Buckinghamshire, now send all general waste to an energy from waste facility. Those incinerators and facilities have been financed through multi-decade deals, and if we are to get that waste into SAF production, some of those deals will inevitably have to be undone or renegotiated. Who will bear the cost of that?

The hon. Lady equally raised an important point about bioethanol—I do not know whether it was just shadow Ministers who received an email from Vivergo Fuels this week, or whether it was all Members of the House. That email gave a pretty stark warning, particularly about the impact of the US trade deal that the Government have done on the bioethanol space. Essentially, it warned that that deal could completely undermine the UK bioethanol industry. That is a serious concern that the Department for Transport and the Department for Business and Trade will have to work out if we are to have domestic bioethanol production, as much for sustainable aviation fuel as for petrol. We largely all fill up—unless we have classic cars—with E10 at the pump. E5 is still 5% bioethanol. As this Bill passes through the House and as the petrol debate for road cars moves on, that serious question will have to be answered. When we get a warning from industry as stark as the one from Vivergo Fuels, it needs to be addressed.

The hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) mentioned the role of hydrogen in the mix, and I look forward to debating that with him when he has a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall next week, I think. He is absolutely right that there are other technologies and other fuels out there. The hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) correctly pointed out that there can be no net zero without many of the elements of this Bill. The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke passionately about Doncaster airport and the sustainable future that the Bill will help bring about.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) spoke in support of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) spoke in an informed way about SAF production, which forms such an important part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) rightly spoke of the innovative landscape, although the drone taxis did worry me a little bit—I am not sure we have completely got goods being delivered properly by drones yet, so we should do that before we start putting people in them. Equally, she rightly spoke about the world-leading engineering jobs that will be created.

The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) slightly broke the consensus, but he was entirely right to speak up for his constituents and his constituency interests so passionately. I think there is a legitimate debate about the refineries that we have lost, the refineries that we still have and how this debate intersects with them.

I will not dwell too much on the puns of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). I thought he was a teacher before he entered this House, but perhaps he also wrote for Bobby Davro, given some of the puns he came up with.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

For the benefit of younger Members, Bobby Davro was a comedian.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman shows my age, and no doubt his own, with that sedentary interjection.

The hon. Member for Harlow was right to focus on the skills agenda that underpins this legislation, on which I do not think we have heard so much from the Government. Likewise, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) rightly pointed out the lived experience of Jet2 and the impact on cargo. We have heard a lot in this debate about moving people around the country and the world using aviation, but not so much about cargo, which is an equally important part of our role as a global trading nation. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), putting aside his little geek-off with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), was right to focus on that agenda of moving goods as well as people.

We also heard from Teesside, with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). In fact, I am a little worried. This morning I was in Westminster Hall with the hon. Member for Stockton North, for a debate on the space industry, in which I agreed with every word he said, and I am a bit nervous to say that I agreed with him this afternoon, too. That does not often happen in this House, but he was absolutely right that all our constituents work hard and save hard. They want that family holiday or that weekend away or whatever it is every single year, and it would be a gross dereliction of duty for any of us to lumber them with higher airfares or to try to make their holidays more expensive. That is not what any of them send any of us here to do; they want us to ensure that they can still live their lives in the way they wish.

Briefly, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam warned us that he might be boring but, uncharacteristically for a Liberal Democrat, he actually was not. [Laughter.] I very much enjoyed his speech and the knowledge that he brought from his 16 years of work in the aviation sector. The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) was equally right to focus on another matter that a few Members have raised in the debate: the use of SAF by our armed forces, particular the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.

The use of technology, from fuels derived from waste and feedstock to pure synthetics, is where I think much of the debate will go in the coming years. In fact, the technology to enable us to move on from those feedstock and waste-derived fuels already exists. In 2021 the RAF flew a plane not on a blend of SAF, but on 100% synthetic fuel made right here in the United Kingdom by a company called Zero Petroleum, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis).

Let me now turn to a part of the agenda on which I think we will need to have a conversation when the Bill goes into Committee. The Bill gives no detail on the approach to be taken regarding the specifics of the contracting between the producer and the counterparty, the Government contractor for the strike price. In the background material, especially that which can be found in the Government’s response to the consultation on the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, the ambitions are largely there, and we are not critical of the ambitions that sit within that document, but it might be beneficial to be sure that the contracting will follow those ambitions.

Given that the SAF mandate already in force includes a ringfenced mandate for an electro-sustainable aviation fuel quota, it is critical that eSAF projects are supported equally within the revenue certainty mechanism. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF and eSAF, and local production as created by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of SAF and eSAF, as that not only retains revenue within the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. Sadly, a great many projects supported by grants from the Advanced Fuels Fund are using foreign technology.

Perhaps I could suggest that the Government reflect, ahead of the Committee stage, on the possibility of adding another ambition to those that they have already set out: namely, to reward or incentivise the use of UK technology in projects supported by the revenue support mechanism. The House may be surprised to know that, despite the various programmes of UK Government support for SAF and eSAF, AFF grants, SAF mandates and the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, no UK Government bodies are mandated to support the development of the core technologies of fuel synthesis.

We have a great tradition of research and development in this country. Companies such as Zero Petroleum have been funded entirely by private capital—which is largely a good thing—and also through some of their RAF and Ministry of Defence contracts, for different reasons. Notably, however, the Aerospace Technology Institute is the Government-funded body that should be supporting SAF and eSAF manufacturing technology. It supports everything else, including hydrogen and electric aircraft, but, bizarrely, it is not permitted to fund SAF and eSAF technology programmes. That is a huge misalignment in the strategy, which I hope the Minister can address.

I have a few key questions for the Minister, and he is showing great enthusiasm about answering them. We will be spending three days in Committee, so there will be many more to come.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Only three?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

We can negotiate more, I am sure. [Interruption.] The less we hear about the hon. Gentleman’s date at Heathrow, the better.

Are the Government able to outline their level of certainty about the costs to taxpayers? Is there confidence that the levy imposed on fuel suppliers will not lead to significant rises in ticket prices? In other words, what will ensure that the £1.50 variance in either direction is not a hope, not a dream and not a best-case scenario, but a reality about air fares?

It would also be helpful if details could be provided about the expected cost of importing SAF in comparison with the cost of producing it in the United Kingdom. If we are imposing costs on passengers through levies, is it expected that SAF can be produced more cheaply in other regions, or is the policy focused primarily on energy security? As I have said, our view is that we should make the fuel right here in the United Kingdom using our technology, but in order to get the right price from our technology in the UK, it is important that we understand the market overseas.

Can the Minister outline what proportion of the SAF used in the UK is expected to be produced domestically in the first instance? What would constitute success in the first iterations? The Government have suggested that financing a plant costs between £600 million and £2 billion. From a regulatory perspective, what can be done to ensure that plants fall towards the lower end of that cost range?

There are many questions to be answered in getting the Bill right. We want to get it right, and we want to see sustainable aviation fuel used in our aircraft. We will not divide the House today, but the test, as always, is this: have the Government got it right?

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we hear from the witnesses, does any Member wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill?

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I made this declaration on Second Reading as well; I do not think it is strictly relevant, but I wish to be very transparent: I got a donation of sustainable fuel, to use in a road car, from a company that does not produce sustainable aviation fuel. It is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

[The Chair]

That is noted and recorded.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith]

Q Good morning, witnesses. From the Second Reading debate and most of the written evidence that we have seen, we know that there is a fair amount of consensus on the price mechanism in the Bill, but the only point of having Committees like this is to seek to make a Bill better, so my straightforward question to all of you is: “How could the Bill be made better?”

Rob Griggs: Our starting position as UK airlines is that we recognise that the Bill is principally an enabling Bill. Of the issues that we really care about, the revenue certainty mechanism is really important. We fully support the RCM: it is a critical way to drive the investment that we think we will need in the UK sustainable aviation fuel sector to support the advanced SAF industry in particular and that part of the mandate, which starts to become considerable by 2030.

We need to get the RCM right. The design matters to make sure that we get the most from it and deliver the most cost-competitive, efficient decarbonisation of the sector while supporting and protecting UK consumers as well as fliers. We think that we can do that with a well-designed RCM. We know that many of the design elements will come through in secondary legislation and further consultation after this point, so we do not see anything in the Bill that is particularly problematic.

At this point, we would not proactively suggest that any amendments are necessary. We recognise some of the important elements. We know that the levy will be on fuel suppliers, but we think it is really important that there is accountability in what happens to the money. In all likelihood, the costs of the levy will be passed through to airlines and ultimately to consumers and to the UK public, so there needs to be accountability about the levy and the funding mechanism. The Bill does not prevent that, but it will be important to get it right in future.

[Greg Smith]

Q That is very helpful. Before we move on to the next witness, may I probe two elements of what you said? On your last point about costs ultimately being passed to the consumer, the Government stated clearly—the Minister said it from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading—that the Department for Transport believes that any addition to, or indeed subtraction from, airfares as a result of the Bill will be no more than £1.50. Do you agree with that point?

Secondly, you have talked about advanced SAF. Does the Bill do enough to safeguard any state involvement in encouraging the right long-term technology, rather than standing up earlier technologies that we can all see might well need to be stood down in 10 or 20 years when something better has come along?

Rob Griggs: We recognise the £1.50, and we absolutely welcome the commitment through the mandate that if there were price spikes as a result of SAF policy, steps would be taken to address that. For us, it is probably a little too early to say definitively what the price impact of the RCM will be. A lot of it depends on its ultimate scope and design, as well as the costs in the 2G market and the strike price.

We have to bear in mind that ultimately it is the market price of SAF that will drive the biggest impact on ticket prices and the costs borne by the sector. With the RCM, the costs relate essentially either to paying the difference between the cost of SAF and production or to the fact that money can come back the other way. Relatively speaking, although the RCM costs are very important and we need to do everything we can to make sure that they are kept as low and as efficient as possible, they are part of a bigger picture. There are a number of factors that will determine the cost of SAF for the UK. We need to get everything right; the RCM is just one part.

You asked whether the Bill will support the advanced 2G SAFs. The UK has taken a fairly unique route with SAF and the mandate. We have the sub-mandate for advanced SAF, which is about 300,000 tonnes by 2030. We think that it could be a pretty smart move for the UK to do that, because at some point 1G SAF will become feedstock-constrained. That could happen sooner rather than later. We could put ourselves in a really good position by having a domestic advanced SAF industry producing the scalable SAFs that will play an increasingly big role.

The Bill, as written, is technology-neutral. There a number of ways in which you can do advanced SAF. When we come to the design and how projects are chosen, allocated and prioritised, we think it will be really important that this RCM supports projects that are quickly deliverable, scalable and commercially viable to help us to meet the volumes that we will need come 2030. There is nothing in the Bill that says that that cannot happen, but the design stage and how we get into the detail will matter.

Gaynor Hartnell: I agree that no amendments are necessary for the Bill. It has a fairly discrete job, which is basically to get the counterparty established and engaged and to get the levy in place. All the detail on how the revenue certainty mechanism works will come through in secondary legislation. We are very engaged with the thinking and the development on that, as we have been in the lead-up to the RCM becoming a policy of both the former Government and this Government.

It is important to get the design right. Broadly, we are happy with this. The fuel producers are agnostic as to who pays the levy. It is good to hear you note that the cost is going to be small; indeed, it could go either way. There is quite a bit of confusion between the costs of the mandate and the costs of the revenue certainty mechanism. We are keen to make sure that the differences are understood.

Paul Greenwood: I fear I may be a slightly dissenting voice, after you have just heard some comments about how everybody is very supportive. I will start with our perspective at FIUK; I will talk very much as ExxonMobil, but please feel free to challenge me on how there may be some differences in view across the members of FIUK.

Let me start by saying that ExxonMobil owns and runs a very large refinery and petrochemical complex, the Fawley refinery in Southampton, which is actually the largest producer of jet fuel in the UK. We supply about 13% of the UK’s jet market and have recently invested $300 million in a new larger pipeline from Southampton to London. I say that just to highlight the fact that we take the aviation business and the supply of jet fuel very seriously.

One thing is absolutely clear: this is very well-intentioned. We all wish to decarbonise, but I think we have to call out some fundamental flaws in the Bill. I do so with the aim of saying, “Let’s make sure that we can be really clear about what this is doing and what some of the potential unintended consequences are.”

First, I think it is important to say—this might sound slightly controversial, but I do not wish it to be—that this is not a step that will decarbonise. It is a step that will increase the production of sustainable aviation fuel. The way you decarbonise is effectively by incentivising consumption of sustainable aviation fuel, which we already do through the SAF mandate. The SAF mandate is a reasonably well-developed tool that sets a volume threshold and a buy-out price. That is a major lever that you pull as a Government to incentivise consumption. Let us be clear that this is around incentivising production.

My question is not necessarily whether the Bill is right or wrong; I just do not think it is necessary. What you want is a market that functions and sends a signal, and then production will meet that demand signal and the sustainable aviation fuel will be supplied. My question is whether the Bill is necessary.

Let us look at some of the unintended consequences. The first is that there will potentially be an incremental cost, which will be put on the fuel supplier and then, in theory, passed over to the consumer. It is important to say that although that has been put under the principle of the polluter pays, the fuel supplier in this scenario is not the polluter; it is clearly the passenger on the aeroplane or the person who is booking freight on a cargo plane. They are the ones who are causing the flight to happen and creating the consumption. Our principle should therefore be that the cost of the levy goes directly to those entities, but the way we look at it now, it is structured in such a way that it is based on the market share of the fuel supplier.

That gives us two issues. First, it is not really on the polluter; it is on the fuel supplier. Secondly, we are very concerned about whether we will have the absolute transparency necessary to be able to pass 100% of the cost through to the ultimate consumer: either the passenger on the plane or the person who books the freight. We strongly urge you to look at that mechanism and perhaps look at something like the contracts for difference supplier obligation levy that exists in the electricity sector. That is one way of asking, “What are the actual costs? What are we going to impose as a levy?” It is published, it is transparent, the supplier knows what we are going to charge, and what we charge the supplier is 100% passed through. There are a lot of mechanics I think we really need to be clear on.

It is also worth saying clearly that if we have a mechanism that we do not believe is necessary, but which is going to incur incremental costs, we will be passing incremental costs to British consumers and to an area in the UK that is clearly a global market. Having a potentially higher jet fuel cost because of the levy will have some unintended consequences. First, it makes the UK less competitive. Secondly, planes can tanker in fuel, as we all know, so if fuel is more expensive in the UK than elsewhere, people will fill up with more fuel in France, for example, before they fly into the UK, thereby decreasing demand in the UK, decreasing revenues and ironically increasing consumption because more jet fuel is being hauled around the world. I think that those are important unintended consequences that we need to take into account.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Q To pick up on an item raised by Mr Greenwood, we have heard the Government talking about how this is the first legislation of its kind in the world. What impact do the other members of the panel feel it will have on the global market for SAF, and for airlines more generally?

Rob Griggs: One of the key reasons why we support the RCM and see it as necessary is that we have a mandate that—unlike the EU mandate, for example—has an advanced subsection. We therefore require advanced SAF. At the moment, something like 85% of all the SAFs produced in the world are first-generation HEFA—hydro-processed esters and fatty acids. That is used cooking oil-type SAF; it is perfectly legitimate, but it is ultimately feedstock-constrained. The world will be drawing on more and more SAF, and at some point we will be likely to reach what people are calling a HEFA tipping point, where there just will not be enough of it.

The UK, through its policies, is focusing on second-generation advanced SAFs, which are technically more challenging and more expensive, but also more scalable. As airlines, the absolute worst-case scenario that we are trying to avoid, and that we think the RCM is really important in helping us avoid, is a situation whereby in 2030 the suppliers who are the mandated party simply cannot access through the market the advanced SAF they need to fulfil their mandate obligations. It is not being made anywhere at the moment. A lot of HEFA is being made, but not advanced SAF.

We need advanced SAF here in the UK. The US is making some advanced SAFs, but they have feedstocks that are not for our mandate—they are often crop-based. Without the RCM driving the production of advanced SAFs, we are concerned that we simply will not be able to access it. If that happens, the buy-out price kicks in for the suppliers, which is likely to be passed on to airlines.

The worst case scenario is that, in 2030, the mandate essentially fails because there is high buy-out, all the cost gets passed on to airlines, there are no SAFs, which means no decarbonisation, and then we are unable to claim our SAF against the emissions trading scheme obligations, for example. To be clear, we do not think that the RCM should cover all mandated volumes of advanced SAF; there needs to be competition. It should be there to get those first plants built, and to provide a quantity of that mandate—potentially a substantial quantity, but part, not all, of it.

If we can get a competitive scheme, where the market for advanced SAF is becoming competitive, and the RCM helps to get some of those first difficult plants built, the UK could be in an advantage position, because the global market for SAF, at some point, will need to expand into the advanced SAF area, and the UK could have got a head start on that through our approach. That is the upside of what we are doing, notwithstanding the challenges of getting it right.

Gaynor Hartnell: The question was about the impact on global supply. I think Rob is absolutely right that the UK’s policy is unique. It is very much envied. I have been at many conferences where the greenhouse gas basis, versus it being volumetric, was lauded. The existence of the RCM is envied by SAF developers in other jurisdictions. It is already having an influence globally by being visible in doing this special seeking-out of waste-based SAFs, which are incredibly challenging to develop. These projects are very complicated, which is why the RCM is totally necessary; I disagree with Paul Greenwood about that.

Paul Greenwood: Let me build on the question of necessity. To be clear, I know that everyone is trying to do the right thing here, but the reason this is being called for, for entities in the marketplace, is because it is very difficult to manufacture things in the UK, and that is because energy costs, carbon dioxide costs and labour costs are incredibly high. It is very difficult. Not very long ago, we used to have six refineries in the UK; one of them was shut down for operations and another has gone insolvent. There are four refineries left, so it is very difficult to manufacture things effectively in the UK at a profitable level.

What the Bill does is say, “Because of that problem, we’re going to incur more costs in a niche, new business, and we’re going to input that cost on to the existing fuel suppliers, which are already struggling to survive.” We need to be clear about what problem we are trying to solve. Effectively, I think this is a distraction. We need to look at the core fundamentals that are impacting our manufacturing base in the UK, because that is the primary struggle that we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from Jonathon Counsell from the International Airlines Group, Luke Ervine from Virgin Atlantic and Lahiru Ranasinghe from easyJet. We have until 10.55 am. I welcome our witnesses. If we run out of time, I will interrupt at the end by saying, “Order.” Forgive me if it is abrupt. Please could you introduce yourselves for the record?

Jonathon Counsell: Good morning. I am Jonathon Counsell, group sustainability director at IAG. For those who do not know it, IAG is the owner of five airlines—British Airways, Aer Lingus, Iberia, Vueling and Level. We also have a loyalty and a cargo business.

Luke Ervine: I am Luke Ervine, head of sustainability at Virgin Atlantic. We operate a fleet of wide-bodied transatlantic aircraft. We also have a cargo business and a holidays business. For us, having invested in decarbonising our fleet over the past 10 years, SAF is vital. It is now the only opportunity we really have to decarbonise further in the foreseeable future.

Lahiru Ranasinghe: Good morning. I am Lahiru Ranasinghe, the director of sustainability at easyJet. We operate an entirely short-haul network, with about 350 aircraft around Europe, more than 150 of which are based in the UK.

[Greg Smith]

Q Good morning to our witnesses. It is impossible to consider the Bill without also considering the mandate, side by side. What impact do you feel the Bill will have not just on your businesses but on the fares that you charge passengers on your aircraft, and, for those of you who have cargo operations, the impact on the cost of shipping goods by air?

Jonathon Counsell: We are huge supporters of the Bill. As Luke has said, SAF is critical to decarbonising aviation. There is no silver bullet, but this gets pretty close. We think that by 2050, 70% of our fuel will be SAF.

There are three types of SAF: first, second and third generation. Quite clearly, the first generation is all that you can buy today, and 95% of it is from hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—used cooking oil. However, that will hit feedstock constraints in the early 2030s, so we are going to start to cap out on the amount of 1G SAF we can produce. That is why 2G and 3G are critical if we are to meet long-term decarbonisation targets. We expect that by 2050, 90% of SAF will be 2G and 3G, so it is critical that we have a policy mechanism that incentivises 2G SAF.

That is why I disagree with some of the comments from the oil company representative in the previous witness panel, who said that we do not need this policy intervention. We absolutely do, because without it we will not get 2G SAF on the mandate alone. That was shown in the work done by Philip New, the chief executive officer of BP renewables. He knows a lot about this market, and he wrote an extensive paper for the Government, which said that we will not get these SAFs without the revenue certainty mechanism. For that reason, we support it.

I will come on to the impacts shortly. We have no amendments to suggest at this stage, but we think that there are two points that could make it better in the next phase. One is that it has to be targeted. Not all 2G projects will need the revenue certainty mechanism; some of them will get funding without it, so it has to be targeted at the early-stage, first-of-a-kind projects that need it. That is how we can contain the total cost of the scheme.

Then, as mentioned during the previous panel, there is the funding question. We in the industry support polluter pays; we are part of the emissions trading scheme, and we have a global carbon offset scheme. Of course, the airlines will be paying for SAF from the 2030s onwards, and that is by far the biggest element of the cost. We talk about a figure of £1.50; to us, that seems a conservative number, but anyway, that is only for the RCM mechanism. By far the biggest cost is actually paying for the SAF.

Let me give some top line numbers: 10% by 2030 is 1.2 million tonnes; a conservative premium for the SAF is about £2,000 per tonne, so you are looking at over £2 billion of SAF premium that the airlines will be paying. We are paying for the SAF and also for our carbon emissions. The issue is that we know the levy on the fuel suppliers will come straight back to the airlines. I used to work for the oil industry—for Exxon, in fact—and I know how this works. That will come back quicker than you can imagine. Our view is that will result in double payment by the airlines. We are paying for the SAF and for emissions trading. We should not be paying for RCM as well. Our view is that if that money is passed back through to the airlines we should be compensated through the money that aviation puts in the UK emissions trading scheme, to avoid double payment.

[Greg Smith]

Q If I can probe that a little more, you say £1.50 is a conservative estimate. Does IAG have its own estimate?

Jonathon Counsell: No. We have not at this stage managed to fully analyse that number. 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. We can take a close look at that, but I think the key principle is we should not be paying for that plus the SAF, hence we need to net that off against the UK emissions trading scheme costs.

Luke Ervine: I fully support Jonathon’s comments. We are fully supportive of the RCM, as we have been for the mandate. The mandate drives demand and the RCM drives the supply, and we do see a massive shortage in the 2G that we need. It is interesting from an oil producer’s perspective to state that the polluter must pay. Well, the oil companies are also part of that problem and must pay. We believe that our consumers will pay the price of SAF but we do not believe we should pay to underwrite the logistics and the production facilities. That is why there should be differentiation between paying for SAF and paying for the RCM.

We as a company have fully supported some of the potential producers in the UK and they are the ones saying to us, “We need an RCM; we need a level playing field to attract investment into producing 2G SAF in the UK.” When we say, “Let the market do what it wants to do,” we are hearing from the market and from producers, some of which do not want an RCM but some of which definitely do. In creating this Bill, you are allowing that opportunity for those that do need it. I do not think we need 100% of SAF covered by RCM for 2G production. We do need imports and to make sure that SAF in the UK remains competitive. That means balancing that need for investing in first of a kind 2G plants that require the investment certainty with the ability to create a competitive market and allow imports into the UK as well.

Lahiru Ranasinghe: From a strategic perspective, there are three things we are trying to do as an airline. We want to grow, to do so sustainably while decarbonising at the same time, and to keep fares affordable for consumers. For us to be able to do that, we need a functioning SAF market to develop over time, so that supply and demand are balanced and the market is working under its own steam. Right now, the 2G and 3G SAF technology has been developed but there is a key transition period it needs to go through, to get from technology demonstrations to commercial scale. That is where the market failure is which is being addressed by the RCM. Like my colleagues, we are supportive of the RCM. It is clear to us that the eyes of the world are on the UK to see how we make this work.

To answer directly the question about the cost impact on consumers, let me split that into two things. First, there is the cost of SAF, full stop, and secondly, the potential cost of the levy. Fuel costs are about a third of our cost base. The cost of jet fuel today is about $750 a tonne. You are looking at upwards of $2,500 dollars a tonne for first generation SAF. When you go all the way to 3G or power to liquid SAF, estimates right now range from $7,000 to $8,000 in Europe. That is a massive increase in cost, which goes into the cost base. To keep flying affordable in the long run, we have to manage that carefully, because it risks the industry adding significantly to what goes through.

The cost of the levy is additional to what we would be paying for SAF, which is something that we do by fulfilling the mandate. A scenario that we are absolutely trying to avoid at any cost is one in which we cannot meet the mandate and therefore are paying buy-out prices with no SAF. In that case, those costs will be going through without any environmental benefit.

A step down from that, there is a not quite as bad, but still bad, scenario in which the market is short on supply, so there is little incentive for suppliers to charge significantly below the buy-out price. You would end up in a situation where the cost that being passed through to airlines, and therefore to consumers, is disproportionate to the decarbonisation that happens.

Finally, putting our ability to absorb those costs into context, easyJet’s profit margin is £6 per passenger—roughly 1.5 coffees in the vicinity of this building—and that is once we have paid several billion for new, more efficient aircraft, invested in the operation and paid for 18,500 employees. We have very little margin to work with without having to pass the cost on to the consumer. If an excessive cost gets passed on, the risk is that that disadvantages the consumer, but economically it would also mean that aviation cannot play the role that we intend to play in the UK’s growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Sophia Haywood from LanzaJet and Noaman Al Adhami from Alfanar Projects. We have until 11.25 am for this panel. Good morning to you. Could you introduce yourselves for the record?

Sophia Haywood: Good morning, everyone. My name is Sophia Haywood. I am the director of EU and UK Government affairs, policy and sustainability for LanzaJet. We are a US-headquartered alcohol-to-jet SAF producer, and we are developing our flagship project—Project Speedbird—here in the UK. Thank you for having me.

Noaman Al Adhami: My name is Noaman Al Adhami. I am country head at Alfanar, which is a global renewables and engineering and construction company. We are developing our Lighthouse Green Fuels project in Teesside. It is a second generation SAF from biogenic waste and residues. We are currently considered the most advanced globally in terms of development, and one of the largest globally in terms of capacity.

[Greg Smith]

Q Good morning to both of you. You are both bringing different technologies to SAF production. Ms Haywood, your SAF is more bioethanol based, and Mr Al Adhami, yours is more waste derived. At what point do you think that the incentives—shall we call them that?—in the Bill, if it becomes law, such as the price mechanism, will mean that you can get your respective products to a cost that is similar to regular, fossil fuel-derived jet fuel in today’s prices? How long will it take you to get prices down?

Noaman Al Adhami: Maybe I can answer this question. This comes with scale. The technologies that we are implementing currently have been implemented in other sectors, so they are not necessarily new, but with the scale, in terms of logistics and feedstock availability, it will take time. We think that when we potentially scale up production, we can recycle engineering and we can utilise other services to push the price down further.

However, in our case, because we are using the FT-SPK route, biogenic CO2 is produced in the process. If I capture that CO2 and connect to Net Zero Teesside, I will be able to generate more carbon certificates—actually, it is triple. For example, if I produced 100 carbon certificates without carbon capture, with carbon capture I can produce 300. By this process, we can reduce the cost of SAF to the offtaker or to the consumer, because then I will divide the capex with the overall cost; instead of dividing it by 100, I will divide it by 300. In our case and for our route, it is key to be connected to the carbon cluster in Teesside, because then I will be able to provide a lower cost for these carbon certificates, if we get the RCM potential.

Sophia Haywood: Just to build on that, scalability is absolutely key. We are looking at a global suite of different projects all across the world. With that, each time we are learning and improving, and becoming more efficient. For example, we built a demonstrator project in the US of our ethanol-to-jet process. From that, we have been able to learn and to become more efficient in spaces, so that when we then develop in Teesside with Project Speedbird, we are able to improve consistently on that basis.

The other thing I would add is that scalability takes you to one level, but I do not think that scalability alone will become completely identical with a market that has had years and years of operation and cheap access to crude oil, for example, to convert into jet. As for the idea that we will immediately be able to become competitive, that is where there can be another role for policy. The RCM is one of those tools.

Another example that we have seen in Europe is that they have been looking at things such as ETS allowances. These allowances basically help airlines to minimise that uplift in terms of the price of SAF. At the moment, that is time limited until 2030, but for biofuels you are able to take 75% of the cost difference between fossil jet and biofuel. For e-fuels, you are able to take 95% of the price difference. This could potentially be explored in the UK long term, again to help airlines to minimise the impact of SAF price increases. I think there is a role for scalability and time, but equally, in the short to medium term, there is still a role for policy in being able to support that.

[Greg Smith]

Q This question is probably more for you, Ms Haywood, given the ethanol element of your product. Clearly, there has been some concern in the UK that the lower tariffs deal with the United States has quite a significant bioethanol element to it, which has made UK producers nervous, if I can put it that way. Given that what sits underneath a lot of the Bill is domestic fuel security and production here in the UK, how big a concern is it for you, producing SAF that is ethanol derived, that we might not have that UK security, because we will be dependent on imports—in this case, imports of the bioethanol feedstock?

Sophia Haywood: At the moment, we are not allowed to use the bioethanol produced in the UK, because the majority of it is technically first generation, whereby it is produced from crops. The bioethanol here is particularly produced from crops such as wheat. I am not sure about the exact proportion that is grown here and then converted into bioethanol here.

I think that SAF is a great opportunity for the challenge that the bioethanol sector is currently facing. If we were allowed to use in SAF the bioethanol that is currently allowed to be used in the road transportation sector, we would be able to take that and convert that into jet fuel at our facility Speedbird. I did some quick statistics—quick maths—looking at the total capacity that we have for bioethanol production in the UK today. If we took that additional capacity—not counting our current project, which is 2G or second generation—we would be able to build three and a half more Project Speedbirds in the UK, just taking that potential capacity, if that was all theoretically to come to us.

We see SAF as a great opportunity to fix the current issue that the bioethanol sector is facing. Certainly, we see it as complementary also to the scale-up of 2G, because for us it means that we can reduce the overall cost of project development and we could still transition to 2G over time, or indeed have blends of first generation and 2G together to increase roll-out. For our technology, as long as it is sustainable ethanol that is coming in, we are producing sustainable jet on the other side.

[Luke Taylor]

Q Thank you both. A lot of the criticism and cynicism over the value of SAF and its environmental benefits are around the fuel source or feedstuff—you have alluded to it. The Bill concentrates on second and third generation SAF. Do you see that as enabling a lot of the potential greenwashing of SAF that may have been behind all that cynicism? Does it address some of those challenges?

As a follow-up question, similar to one that I asked the previous panel, what do you see as some of the challenges across Government that will hold back your ability to produce more SAF? You referred to the ability to use some of the feedstuff to produce second generation SAF mixing, but I think planning and energy will be among the responses as well.

Sophia Haywood: On sustainability and fraud, I have been working on sustainability certification over a number of different fuel types. We have ISCC, which is like an auditing process that we generally have to go through—there are other providers out there—to be able to prove the sustainability of our fuel. This is a very complicated and rigorous process, and I have gone through it many times on different types of fuels.

On the sustainability piece, the guidance that has been put out already in the SAF mandate is very high, and we have to go through a lot of that auditing process. To your point about the risk of fraud and other challenges around greenwashing that potentially could have happened in the past, I think the UK has done a good thing there with how it has approached this, so I support the approach that we are taking. That is not necessarily in this Bill; I would say that that has more already been laid out in the mandate rules.

On what else we would like to see, potentially, through this, as I said before, there is a piece around the SAF allowances—this is a scheme currently in Europe that is funded through ETS revenues. Obviously, you are always taking from somewhere with funding, but you are trying to take at least from a funding source that is coming directly from industry, and using that to then fund the industry back with SAF. I think that has good bones and good structure, and I would love to see that being fleshed out.

On a more practical level, for sure, there is planning. We have just had a recent example that some of my engineers have told me about: waiting two months for an answer on a very small question. It is not because of the quality of the planning teams; they are fantastic. It is the fact that they are quite constrained and there are not enough of them. I suppose there is a potential short-to-medium-term fix there, but also a longer-term fix in terms of thinking of the skills that we need moving forward. We automatically think of more engineering and STEM roles, but we also need the rest of the value chain to be adequate in terms of workforce and other things.

I alluded earlier to the details of the mandate being really good on the sustainability piece, but there are some very complex rules that we are still consistently trying to navigate six months on. There are different interpretations to different questions—for example, in the nitty gritty of how hydrogen is treated or the rules around electricity and displacement. They are more in the detail, but we end up spending quite a lot of time on them as a company trying to break through into this market.

Equally, it is a learning experience for my colleagues doing these projects all across the world. We have other projects going on in India and Australia. As a Brit, I want the UK to be our flagship and our first, and I am working hard to make sure that it is, but as I always say to people, I am competing with my colleagues in Australia and all over because lots of people want SAF. It is about how we can make it as efficient and easy as possible, keeping in mind all the good sustainability criteria, to get steel in the ground here in the UK.

Noaman Al Adhami: From our perspective, the route we are using—the Fischer-Tropsch synthetic paraffinic kerosene route—is an American Society for Testing and Materials route that is approved already. On sustainability, the feedstock criteria are well defined in the SAF mandate. All the types of feedstock that are eligible to produce SAF are well defined. We are complying with that. The greenhouse gas and carbon intensity are other factors for measuring sustainability. For our project, without carbon capture, we are at minus 80% or minus 85% from the fossil equivalent. With carbon capture, we will go negative—we will go to even more than minus 200%. That is key for us.

On what could be done better, planning is always an area where we need improvement in terms of time. There is also connection to the grid, for example—grid connections take a very long time. We decided to produce our own power on site using a biomass boiler rather than waiting for a grid connection because the answer we got was that we will get it by the end of the 2030s—2039—and we cannot wait until then.

Another requirement, which is very specific to us, is to get connected as early as possible to the carbon network once we start producing SAF by the end of 2029, especially when there is a unique benefit for the UK. By the way, that is very unique to the UK. No other country has a SAF mandate that is about carbon scaling and at the same time has the capability to capture CO₂. That is also unique in Europe because the UK and Norway together have 75% of the carbon capture capacity in Europe. It is really very unique to the UK. Our ask is to get connected to reduce carbon intensity, provide a better price per certificate, and also pay, because we do not need subsidy for carbon capture. We are ready to pay the transport and storage costs to the Government for carbon capture. Those are the three main points.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

Doug McKiernan: My name is Doug McKiernan. I am a co-founder of an e-fuels company based up in Oxfordshire. We have been going for five years. We have 40-plus staff, and are primarily focused on Jet A-1 development.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Q29 For transparency, I should declare that I have visited Zero Petroleum on a couple of occasions and met with people there. Mr McKiernan, your product is a power-to-liquid product; it is not derived from feedstocks or waste. Do you think that a power-to-liquid solution is the long-term solution for sustainable and synthetic fuels for aviation use? Do you worry that any part of the Bill incentivises short-term solutions over long-term solutions?

Doug McKiernan: On the first part of the question, given my knowledge of the sector as an engineer, I do not believe that there is a long-term solution other than power to liquid. At the moment, in the ASTM fuel standards, there are a lot of bio-based, sugar-based and food-waste solutions. In my view, those are not truly scalable, and their cost will only ever go up, because of the shortage of land and so on. The power-to-liquid side is truly scalable. The feedstock is air, water and renewable energy. It is extremely clean, and it gives the industry the opportunity—in, say, 10 or 15 years’ time—to move to fuels that are even more performant than current fossil-based fuels.

We are very supportive of the Bill, and we think it will be useful for us if it goes through. It will give confidence to the sector and bring investment, which then helps to bring capability to the UK. It is a great way to kickstart the e-fuels industry, which is the medium to long-term solution, not a short-term solution. We have been working in this sector for only five years. Because of our education system, we probably have some of the best talent in this sector globally, and we are able to recruit that.

We have already made significant inroads into the quality of the fuel, which is over and above anything else that is now available—and when I say that, I mean globally available. This little company that we have—and it is little—has been able to outperform some of the bigger competitors in the field. Towards the end of this year, we will submit our product to the ASTM governing body to get it certified. The intellectual property that we are generating is key to the UK. We need to make sure that the IP is generated here in the UK and kept here because I believe that in five years from now all the big decisions around e-fuels—all the important ones—and the freedom to operate will have been worked out, and we do not want that to be worked out anywhere other than in the UK. It will enable us to kickstart the energy generation within the UK so that we have a sovereign capability for energy generation. I hope that answers your question.

[Greg Smith]

Q It does. I have one brief additional question, mindful that we have only 20 minutes with you. Off the back of that protection of UK IP, do you think the Bill could be strengthened to bring in greater protection of technologies such as those that have been developed by Zero and other companies in the UK, so that when the strike price is set it does not end up with foreign-owned technology being incentivised in the United Kingdom? Do you believe that you, along with others that have similar technologies, can scale fast enough to meet the other side of the coin of this Bill, the SAF mandate?

Doug McKiernan: That is a very good question. I think we are in a race. At the moment we need the Bill to give confidence to investors. That will help us to scale. That is the main benefit in the short term. With regard to the IP, there needs to be a mandate somewhere in Government to support core e-fuels development. A lot of small companies at the moment are not getting that, so we are at risk of going abroad with the technology. The Aerospace Technology Institute heavily sponsors hydrogen and electric, but does not really support the core technology of e-fuels. Although we have this mandate, which we think is great, there is a bit of a gap there that could do with addressing.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

Q This morning, we had a witness say that they did not believe the revenue certainty mechanism was required, that the market would essentially take care of the solution itself, and that the mandate was all that was needed. What is your response to that, and how would it affect your company in particular?

Doug McKiernan: Without this Bill and the mandate and quotas that have been set, I think the investment industry will step back from that, which would hurt us as a company. We would not be able to scale up. It would make things extremely difficult and would push the pace at which we could get to net zero to the right.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear from Ruben van Grinsven from Shell International. This session will have until 2.40 pm. Can you introduce yourself for the record, Ruben?

Ruben van Grinsven: Good afternoon. My name is Ruben van Grinsven. I work for Shell and I am based out of the Netherlands, at The Hague—the former headquarters of our company, which has now moved across the street. Shell is active in quite a large part of the value chain of aviation refuelling. We provide both SAF and fossil aviation fuel to airline customers today. We do the blending, we do the transportation and we do sourcing, which means that we buy both aviation fuel and SAF from across the world to meet our customers’ needs. We are also actively looking at the production of generations 1, 2, and 3 of SAF.

[Greg Smith]

Q Good afternoon. You have talked about the sourcing of aviation fuel and blending SAF as well as fossil fuel for aviation. Shell is clearly a global company, but the Bill’s underpinning is the United Kingdom’s domestic fuel security. Where does Shell sit in terms of viewing domestic fuel security for aviation use within the United Kingdom? Do you think the Bill will deliver on not just that primary goal but increasing UK-based SAF production?

Ruben van Grinsven: That is a really good question. We are looking globally at various opportunities to build SAF production plants. The second and third generations especially are more challenging than the first generation. To make the investment case robust, we need to solve a whole number of challenges—some are around ensuring that we can make the technology work, and some are around financing. But a lot of it has to do with the value of the product that we make, and the certainty around the value of the product.

The revenue certainty mechanism being discussed in the Bill is very compelling. There is always a combination of different factors. It is partially fundamentals about whether we can get the right feedstocks, but part of it is also about the certainty we have about the price we are going to get for our products. The revenue certainty mechanism is absolutely very helpful.

[Greg Smith]

Q That is helpful, but on this particular point about UK-based production, a global company like Shell—there is nothing wrong with this position; it is what you do—will source SAF from wherever it is cheapest around the world. Does the Bill go far enough to pump-prime UK-based production so that a global giant like Shell—nothing wrong with being a global giant—will choose UK-based plants, or will the mechanism in the Bill not produce SAF at a cost that you think is competitive for your usage, blends and potential future use when compared to that from suppliers overseas?

Ruben van Grinsven: There are two elements. One is whether we can invest in a UK plant. That is hard to tell at this point in time for two reasons. We do not fully understand all the details associated with the Bill. I think the principles are very promising, but there are many things that need to be detailed out, which, at the end of the day, will decide how appealing the investment is going to be. There is a lot of that.

Can UK-produced SAF be competitive in a global market? I think that depends a little bit on the type of technology, but it is also very timebound. At this point in time, this is not the cheapest place to make e-SAF, just because power is more expensive than other places in the world. But if we continue to build out the renewables, as I have seen in plans before, I think there are going to be more affordable electrons around that can then be converted into e-SAF. In the longer term, e-SAF can be competitive.

For other technologies, I think things are less location dependent. Ethanol to jet, for instance, is very feedstock dependent, and I think that the UK can be as competitive as other places. Again, the fundamental competitiveness is one element. The other element is whether the whole investment case makes sense, and part of that is financing —and part of the financing is driven by revenue certainty. It is not just the fundamentals but the whole package that determines the attractiveness of the investment.

[Greg Smith]

Q That is very helpful. On one last point of clarity, when you talk about the long term for e-fuels, we can all put a different definition on “long term”. What do you mean by that—10, 20, 50 years?

Ruben van Grinsven: I do not know. I do not know exactly what the price projections are for renewable power in the UK. It is hard to guesstimate that, so I do not know.

[Graeme Downie]

Q Sitting in the audience, you will have heard me ask this question of the last person. We had a witness this morning who said they did not believe the revenue certainty mechanism was required, and that the market would essentially take care of this on its own. You described it there as “compelling”. Do you agree that the RCM is required in the Bill, or do you think the market could take care of itself?

Ruben van Grinsven: Ideally, you want the market to take care of it. As evidenced by a lack of investment to date and by a lot of feedback from industry, it is difficult for investors now, without the revenue certainty mechanism, to invest. Is it essential? That is a very black-and-white question. I think it is going to be extremely helpful to convince people to invest.

We absolutely support the Bill because additional SAF production in the UK is going to be helpful for decarbonising the aviation sector, and we very much support that. Additional supply projects in the UK are going to be very helpful to meet the targets and help decarbonise the aviation industry. Yes, we very much support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

Q Obviously, the Bill is trying to make it easier for us to produce SAF in this country, which is really important. I gather—if this is correct—that part of your role is to source SAF around the world. Do you feel there will be a greater need, and therefore a strong argument that we should be pushing ahead with SAF and producing it here in Britain? Although you said you cannot commit to where you will buy your SAF because of cost, would you say you will be in a place where you need more and more—and so it is very likely that you will have to source SAF from Britain, because you will need as many sources as possible?

Ruben van Grinsven: Especially for the second and third generation, SAF needs to develop. I think the consensus is that HEFA-based SAF is, at this moment, the most mature and affordable, so it is a great option. However, we also all believe that we are going to run out of feedstock at a certain time.

If you want to continue decarbonising aviation, you need additional forms of SAF—and that is where the second and third generations come in. We need to start developing those now, to learn how it is done and establish the technology and the fundamentals behind it. Starting that now is essential, and doing it in the UK could potentially give you a head start. If you do this before everybody else, you would have a technological and commercial head start, which could be an advantage.

[Greg Smith]

Q If the Bill becomes an Act, Shell will find itself in a peculiar place given that it will be both a levy payer, as a fossil fuel producer, and a developer of SAF potentially looking to benefit from the strike price. The Government put an analysis in the public domain on Second Reading: they suggested that the ultimate cost to the end user, such as somebody getting a flight—there will be a different calculation for those using air freight—will be plus or minus £1.50. Witnesses earlier suggested that that might be a “conservative” estimate—in their own words. Where would Shell see the ultimate cost pass on to the end user?

Ruben van Grinsven: The principle makes sense: at the end of the day, additional cost will find its way to the end user. We do not have enough information at this point in time to calculate what the cost is going to be because a lot of the details of the Bill are unknown. We would like to better understand how this is going to work, what the volumes are, what the timing is going to be, and how we will organise the contracts between the supplier and the off-taker. There are a lot of things that we do not know at this point, and therefore it is difficult to model what the final cost of the levy is going to be for the end consumer. I do not know; it is difficult to answer.

On top of that, I think it is going to change over time. Over time, if the market is short and the prices are high, money might flow towards the levy, so it would be like a negative levy but then it might turn into a positive levy. It is very difficult to assess that and put a number on it.

[Mr Kohler]

Q Some of the evidence we have received from the contributors to the consultation expressed concern over the levy calculation. Under clause 6, it could be based on historic market share. Do you share those concerns about complications in the levy calculation? Should it be a simple levy placed on sales going forward, rather than on historic market share?

Ruben van Grinsven: Again, that is hard to judge because we do not have the full details of how this is going to be done. I agree that it is a very thin-margin business, so we have to make sure that the levy is distributed properly, and that we do not give certain people a disadvantage or advantage just based on calculation methods. We need to design it very carefully so we do not disturb the market too much. We will be able to assess that much better when we have more details about the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Matt Gorman from Heathrow airport. For this session, we have until 3 pm. Welcome, Mr Gorman. For the record, can you please introduce yourself?

Matt Gorman: Sure. I am Matthew Gorman, the carbon strategy director for Heathrow airport.

[Greg Smith]

Q Good afternoon, Mr Gorman. I will lead with the question that I asked the previous witness about end-user cost. Clearly, Heathrow’s business model relies on you having many people coming through and getting on aircraft, or arriving in the UK on an aircraft. If the cost of flying were to increase significantly, that might impact Heathrow’s very business model, with fewer people being able to take those flights. Some of the evidence we have heard today seems to challenge the Government’s presumption, presented on Second Reading, that any cost increase to the end user, as a result of the Bill and the SAF mandate, would be plus or minus £1.50. Do you share the Government’s view on that, or do you share some of the other witnesses’ views that that might be optimistic?

Matt Gorman: Let me start by saying that we take this issue very seriously, for the reasons you have outlined. It is central to our business. SAF is key to delivering the industry’s net zero transition plan: it is about 40% of the solution. I do not think that anyone can forecast the future costs and prices with exact certainty, but I will say that we test all our demand forecasts for Heathrow against a range of different carbon price scenarios, from low to high—“high” being the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s high scenarios. We do that because it is important for us to understand and our investors to understand, and because climate disclosure legislation now requires us to share that information in our annual report. We have concluded that demand for flying from Heathrow remains robust even in high carbon price scenarios in future. We are confident about that.

The Government have shared their analysis on the revenue certainty mechanism and the reasons behind it. That is one of the carbon costs that consumers will bear—there are clearly others—but I come back to the point that all our forecasts have shown that demand is robust.

[Greg Smith]

Q In respect of procurement of SAF to be available at the airport, will the Bill safeguard domestic fuel security? I ask that question largely through the lens of the challenge to Heathrow if fuel were suddenly to be unavailable in the United Kingdom for you to supply to the airlines on site. Is there any way that the Bill could be improved to shore up the domestic security position?

Matt Gorman: It is a good question. We welcome the Bill. As SAF is so important, the sector and Heathrow have advocated over a number of years both the mandate, which was passed as legislation at the beginning of the year, and the revenue certainty mechanism. It has benefits for energy security, green jobs, growth and decarbonisation. That has been one of the drivers for the sector to support it. The decarbonisation benefits are clear. On jobs and growth, earlier witnesses talked about the industry studies showing up to £10 billion of GVA and 60,000 jobs by 2050.

Energy security is one of those reasons. As SAF is a key part of the industry transition plan around the world, there will be global trading of SAF. Kerosene is a global commodity today; SAF will be in future. We think we will import some. However, the sector is supportive of domestic production, which is why we are so supportive of the Bill. I should say that Heathrow is not directly in the fuel value chain—we do not buy, make or sell fuel—but we are very involved in the debate, because it is so significant. All the fuel producers and investors we talk to say that the revenue certainty mechanism will help to unlock investment decisions in the UK. I am not sure whether the Bill could be improved to do that even more. I do not have a view on that.

[Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)]

Q I have two questions. The first relates to your role on the board of Sustainable Aviation. You referred earlier to the key part the Bill plays in decarbonisation and reaching net zero. On behalf of that board, from the wider sector perspective, do you think that it is possible to reach net zero by 2050 without the Bill?

Matt Gorman: That is a good question. We have not studied it in those terms. We have published a plan to get to net zero, and there are four key tools in the toolkit. SAF is one; zero-emission and hydrogen-powered aircraft are others. More efficient aircraft and more efficient operations deliver a huge amount, and there are greenhouse gas removals for anything that we cannot cut within the sector.

SAF is important. We have always said that a combination of a mandate requiring production and incentives to stimulate investment in the UK is important. We are delighted to see the Government progressing with the Bill: we would like it to be passed as soon as possible, and we would like the consultation on the implementation to move forward. I would simply say that SAF is very important and that the Bill is very important to driving UK production.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Josh Garton of the Green Finance Institute. For this session, we have until 3.20 pm. Good afternoon and welcome, Mr Garton. For the record, will you please introduce yourself?

Josh Garton: I am Josh Garton, technical director at the Green Finance Institute.

[Greg Smith]

Q Green finance is something of a minefield across various technologies. A straightforward first question is whether the Bill is the most effective way to get finance into UK SAF production via the price mechanism. If the answer is no, what would be a better way of ensuring UK SAF production and the protection of UK intellectual property in that production? Where do you sit in the debate about what the ultimate cost to the end user will be?

Josh Garton: I think that the revenue certainty mechanism that is being proposed is a really good start to getting finance into the sector. Undoubtedly it will not be the only thing that is required: there are other risks that need to be addressed. The revenue certainty mechanism addresses price risk, as it is designed to, but other challenges remain for the second and third-generation fuels, and they may need to be addressed as well. I think that it is the best solution for addressing price risk. As other witnesses have described, when we speak to our colleagues in Europe and elsewhere, they see the package of regulation that the UK is proposing as some of the most promising in the world. The UK will become a very promising place to invest in SAF.

On your question about the price for the end consumer, it is very hard to forecast what that will be. There are a lot of forecasts out there. It obviously depends on the cost of production, the blending of the fuel and many other factors, but the most important thing is that the mechanism for transferring the cost to the consumer be done in a very equitable way, so that you remove any competitive advantages or disadvantages resulting from airlines and other players in the industry potentially gaming the system. I would say that that is a more critical element to consider.

[Greg Smith]

Q From your experience of securing finance for green projects, and given that the other side of the coin to the Bill is the mandate and its demands for increasing percentages of blend of SAF, do you think that the mechanisms within the Bill that we are considering in this Committee will deliver scalability fast enough to meet those elements of the mandate—the 2%, or the 10% over time—or are we going to find ourselves in the position where, to meet the mandate, we will still need to rely to some degree on imports?

Josh Garton: I think that imports will definitely play a role, particularly for the first-generation fuels. The structure of the mandate provides space for second-generation fuels, which are quite novel with the sustainability requirements attached to them, so the UK will be a good place for producing them. The technical design of the mechanism, which is not set out in the Bill, will be what is most critical to ensuring that the mechanism is adequate for facilitating investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Q Building on those last two questions, in terms of the investment landscape in the UK for technology, and for SAF in particular, we are in an emerging technological race where, for example, the mandate itself starts to wind down HEFA use quite quickly. We can see waste-derived fuels coming down, but then we have heard from witnesses, such as Zero Petroleum and other manufacturers of e-fuels and power-to-liquid fuels, that this might be where the technology settles in the long term. How much reticence is there from those who might finance these projects to go there on a technology that could well be stood down in 10 or 20 years in favour of something else coming upstream?

Josh Garton: To go there? Are you talking about the first-generation fuels?

[Greg Smith]

Well, first and second, until we get to third.

Josh Garton: It is certainly a consideration, but I think most investors are very cognisant of the fact that the third-generation fuel, while absolutely necessary in the long term, has some way to go to evolve to that point. There is a lot of space still for the first and second-generation fuels to develop, but there will be some consideration about not building overcapacity in those sectors.

[Greg Smith]

Q Can I gently push you on that? We heard from the witness from Zero Petroleum earlier that they are ready to scale now, in reference to a question from one of the Liberal Democrat Members on the Committee. If that is the case, what do you see as the barriers to those later-generation fuels being scalable now, when one witness who actually does it—sat where you are sat not half an hour ago—said they are ready to scale?

Josh Garton: Certainly, the technologies are at that point. There are still commercial challenges; they have been proven at demonstration scale but not at the commercial scale. In the UK, we have a mandate that provides space for second-generation fuels. While that mandate remains intact, there will be a lot of space for that fuel over the long term. In the EU they have a different structure, where they do not have that same space for second-generation fuels.

[Luke Taylor]

Q I want to be very careful with this question. We have had questions about investors and appetites to put money into these technologies—into refineries, production and particular projects. There was previously a fairly strong consensus on the need to address climate change, and this is one of the projects that we are doing to mitigate those impacts. There is a fair amount of rhetoric at the moment about stopping investment in net zero projects in particular regions, some of which have a heavy dependency on or a high frequency of these sorts of projects—north Lincolnshire, Humberside and such areas. Is there a risk that that sort of rhetoric damages investor confidence and that, with that sort of language and those sorts of pronouncements being made, we see challenges in delivering the jobs and the plants and seeing the capacity that we need come online?

Josh Garton: Yes, absolutely there is. It feeds into the overall narrative in the UK on the direction of SAF. It is more than just at the regional level; there are murmurings around the strength of the mandate itself and its being upheld. All those murmurings impact the narrative and the appetite for investors. The more we can do to support those first-generation plants to get through to a final investment decision and through to production, the better we prove out the sector as a viable one in the second and third-generation fuels. That narrative then falls away, because we have proof that it is a commercially viable product.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Philip New. For this session we have until 3.40 pm. Welcome, Mr New. Just for the record, could you introduce yourself?

Philip New: My name is Philip New. A couple of years ago I was commissioned to prepare a report for the Government on the development of a UK SAF industry. Before that, I used to be responsible for BP’s global renewable energy activities.

[Greg Smith]

Q Good afternoon, Mr New. Fast-forwarding from your review to where we are today, is there anything that you wanted to see, that you recommended or that you found in that review, that is lacking in the Bill that this Committee is considering? If that is the case, how would you improve it—or is this the mechanism that you think will pump-prime the UK SAF industry?

Philip New: The main conclusions from the report that I did were, first, that the SAF mandate as laid out—it was at a slightly more formative stage then than it is now—was a really smart way of trying to define the market mechanisms, the targets and the obligations framing a new market. The question then was what other mechanisms would need to be in place, having got the demand side largely mapped by the mandate, to enable supply to occur.

My first thought when I saw the RCM was that there was very little that was needed: if you believe that the market will be short of SAF, as many people do, with a buy-out price and a target, you would expect the product to price close to the buy-out price—that which is available. That sends a very strong price signal to investors. I was unfortunately thinking of that from my historical perspective as a strategic investor and had underestimated the conservatism of the banking community. It was clear to me that they were pushing very hard—perhaps because they had grown very comfortable with the idea of a CFD in other parts of the green transition—and they were really enthused and insistent on the idea of a revenue certainty mechanism. The way that the RCM has emerged so far is very highly aligned with the proposals that emerged in that original report. From that point of view I would say, “So far, so good.” The mandate is evolving well and the RCM feels pretty much where it needs to be.

The questions that are still out there, as I think Josh Garton was referring to, are specific to very first-of-a-kind technologies. Part of the issue with the second-generation products is that, while the feedstocks are already wastes, they are often already being used in other sectors. There needs to be, I think, some greater degree of comfort to enable some of those wastes to be bid away without wrecking the project economics of the SAF developer. A good example is black bin waste. The prospect is that by having more competition for black bin waste, we reduce costs for local authorities. It is really nice if we can get there, but for now, while these technologies are so uncertain and regarded as such a risk, it is difficult for local authorities to commit to them with enthusiasm, because they are afraid that they will end up paying landfill fees if they do not manage to do it.

That is one example suggesting that there should be some more comfort around feedstocks. The rest of the answer are the mechanisms that could be put in place to smooth some of the risk around the very first projects. The risks there are around integrating new technologies for the first time and then getting through some of the operating teething problems, because everyone involved will be coming across those issues for the first time. It took me about four years to get a much simpler plant up and running to a point of satisfactory operation. We should not underestimate the challenges of getting those initial assets over that first set of hurdles, but the RCM is an absolutely necessary part of the mix that needs to be put in place.

[Greg Smith]

Q That is very helpful. As you raised, for example, the black bin waste stream, it strikes me that looking across the differing technologies to produce SAF, the waste-derived ones could end up being the most costly, not least because the bulk of waste goes through local authorities. Many of those—including my own in Buckinghamshire—are tied up in very long-term finance arrangements on incinerators, so they cannot simply take their waste somewhere else because they are locked in a contract. Buckinghamshire is by no means unique in that. Do you see waste-derived SAF hitting an even bigger buffer when the practicalities come, and it either requiring some significant state subsidy to buy out those incinerator contracts or simply not having the waste in the first place?

Philip New: When I first engaged with this, I had exactly the same thought. However, a few things are starting to emerge that sit on the more optimistic side of the balance of risk here.

First of all, over time there will be more and more pressure for the energy from waste manufacturers to access carbon capture and storage. It is not at all the cleanest way of generating an electron in this day and age. It would be reasonable to expect that over the next 15 years, we will see a number of those assets get to a point where the contracts are expiring. They will then need to contemplate refinancing, and if they do, whether or not they have access to carbon capture and storage will become important. Not all of them will be able to either afford or justify it, because they are too distant from where the carbon sinks are. There is a probability that enough capacity will start to come off stream for it to be picked up.

On top of that, the imposition of the emissions trading tax will start to free up some of the very difficult to recycle plastics, which could be used to make SAF. There is also an interesting stream of waste wood that will become available, particularly as some of the rocks start to fall away, which will start to happen in a couple of years’ time—and assets that at the moment are making renewable electricity out of waste wood will lose their rocks. We also need to remember that it is the local authority that is paying the energy from waste company to move it away.

I have recently been involved with some economic analysis. We assumed that for the first wave of sites there would be a 100% discount. In other words, rather than the local authority paying, it would get rid of the waste for free. The developer would not pay for it themselves, but the local authority would still save the money. We thought that would be necessary to give local authorities the comfort to take on the exposure. Later on, there might be scope for it to become a little more competitive, because people will get more comfortable and there will be more confidence in the technology.

I do not think that we simply have to bail them out. I think there might be something around a guarantee of some description that simply says to a local authority, “Look, if you give a contract to one of these companies and it fails—if it can’t live up to that contract—and you have to put it into landfill and pay the landfill tax, there could be some kind of keep-whole mechanism,” just to encourage them over the line.

The other thing that you could consider is looking at the waste hierarchy. Simply moving this from being recovery to recovery-plus would send a very strong signal to local authorities that putting it into SAF is a better use of their waste than simply incinerating it and turning it into electrons.

[Ms Minns]

Q Building on that, we heard from a couple of witnesses earlier today about the waste hierarchy, but in your view, is there a point at which local authorities should be looking at their local plans for waste and minerals? My local authority is already receiving applications for gasification plants, and it is not alone in this. If they come on stream, they could deprive the SAF producers of the materials that they would want to acquire. At what point do local authorities need to be thinking ahead when looking at their waste and mineral plans?

Philip New: This is quite a challenging conundrum. Right now, the safe place to put your waste is into an incinerator to make electrons. Is that the best place for the journey to net zero or for the local authority’s long-term economics? That is less obvious. It is difficult to put all the obligation on the local authorities to make the right, wise, long-term choice, when they are dealing with some very short-term pressures. This is where I think some extra signals—whether through some kind of mechanism that gives them comfort that they will be kept whole if things do not work out as planned, or some adjustment to the waste hierarchy—could play a helpful role.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q Welcome, Mr Maynard. For this session, we have until 4 pm. Please introduce yourself for the record.

Geoff Maynard: Good afternoon. I am Geoff Maynard, a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport and a member of its aviation policy group. We meet regularly, maintaining links with universities, industry, airlines and environmentalists to assess developments in the sector, and to advise and inform Governments and the aviation sector on the best way forward, balancing the needs of the environment and the airline sector.

[Greg Smith]

Q Good afternoon. Does the Bill get that balance right? Will it increase UK production of SAF to the point that we have domestic fuel security, or is there a better way of decarbonising aviation fuel?

Geoff Maynard: I think the short answer is yes. It meets that requirement because, unless there are some incentives for SAF—which will cost more than the kerosene that would otherwise be used—there is no incentive for the aviation industry to use it. That presents a problem because there is then no environmental benefit, which we desperately and quickly need. The Bill is a good way forward, as we see it.

[Greg Smith]

Q But it is the mandate that tells them they have to use it. The Bill is about domestic SAF production.

Geoff Maynard: But production is important. You could have a situation in which there is a mandate but nobody can acquire the fuel, except at a totally extortionate price. There would then be pressure on the Government to revise the mandate. That is how we see it.

[Greg Smith]

Q That is a very fair answer. On the cost basis, the Government have said that the end-user cost—as opposed to the cost to the airline or the producer—of buying a plane ticket is plus/minus £1.50 on a fare. We have heard from multiple witnesses today that that is potentially an optimistic figure. Where does your organisation’s analysis put it?

Geoff Maynard: It depends on where you are within the mandate. If you are looking at low mandates, up to about 10%, then the £1.50 figure is probably correct, but as we move further on, it seems unlikely that it will be quite as low as that.

[Greg Smith]

Q Where does your organisation see the price of SAF going in the medium and long term? In theory, if the Bill works, SAF production in the United Kingdom will increase exponentially. Therefore, the unit cost—the per litre or per tonne cost—will come down. How long does your analysis suggest it will take us—as a country, as opposed to a global market—to be able to supply SAF to the airlines at a cost that is closer to the fossil-fuel equivalent today?

Geoff Maynard: On the face of it, you would expect the cost to fall, but the problem is that there is only a limited amount of raw materials for the generation 1 and 2 fuels to proceed. You will have to move forward to meet the requirements; you will have to move to power-to-liquid fuels, and they are going to be more expensive to produce. Therefore, at some point, as they kick in, to meet the overall figures, the cost base will rise. That is why we believe that, in the longer term, it will be slightly more expensive because there are not the cheaper feedstocks that are currently available.

[Tom Collins]

Q As you mentioned, this is an enabling Bill and what will really count is how the RCM rounds are designed. You have talked about the need for us to realise economies of scale and advances in technology as we move through larger and larger availability of feedstocks. Do you see that kind of mechanism as being a useful vehicle for us to make those economies of scale and bring that innovation to bear?

Geoff Maynard: The short answer is yes, I do. I think it will be very effective. As many previous witnesses have said, it provides a guarantee to investors that they will get a return on their money. A point that perhaps has not been made is that it gives quite a lot of authority to the Secretary of State. If he sees that the process of moving to SAF is slowing, he can instruct the counterparty to let additional contracts and thus speed up the process and the amount that we have. There is a considerable degree of confidence that, properly used, it will produce the desired results.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Mark Maslin from the UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation. We have till 4.20 pm for this session. Welcome, Professor Maslin. Would you state your name and so on for the record?

Professor Maslin: I am Professor Mark Maslin. I am a professor of Earth system science at University College London and the founding director of the Centre for Sustainable Aviation.

[Greg Smith]

Q It is always good to get an academic perspective on these matters. We can get locked into all sorts of technical discussions and lose the bigger picture. From your work in the UCL centre, is there an academic view—a big picture view—on which of the technologies that the Bill could support through the price mechanism to scale up production in this country has the best chance of breaking through and being a long-term solution, on a scale that will give us domestic fuel security and at a cost that will not drive commercial passengers and holidaymakers away from the airlines?

Professor Maslin: We take the very large view that the only way to make the international aviation industry net zero is by SAFs. Electric short haul—possible in the next 20 to 30 years. Hydrogen—forget it; it is never going to work and any pilot will tell you, “Not a chance.” That is just so we have that laid out there.

We need SAFs both UK-wide and globally, and we are talking, as an academic institution, with very large airlines that want to produce SAFs in their own country. As academics, my colleagues and I would not pick one technology. What you need to do is what you are doing, which is having a levy that says, “If you produce SAFs, you will then have this benefit.” Then, you will work out which technology comes to the fore, whether that happens to be alcohol production or waste. You should stay agnostic to the successful SAFs output.

[Greg Smith]

Q That is very helpful. You may have heard me ask previous witnesses about the cost to the end user. The Government’s analysis is that it would end up being plus or minus £1.50 on the airfare, but a succession of witnesses have not been willing to put their name to that, or even to go as far as saying that they think that that is a conservative estimate. Where does your analysis sit on that?

Professor Maslin: Our analysis is slightly different because it is looking at the industry as a whole. On the airline side, there is a worry that these costs will literally be shoved on to the airlines. Many of us do not realise that the difference between this industry and others is that it is a very narrow margin industry. If there is any change in geopolitics, companies can go bust—for example, Finnair. Airlines are worried about this levy system, not necessarily because of the extra cost, but because they are not reassured that when there is a surplus, which goes back to the actual producers, it will be then be passed back to the airline. Again, they are happy with the up and down mechanism, but there seems to be no way of shunting that back to airlines to say, “Okay, you have done well, so you can get some money back.” That is more the concern.

Adding £1 or £2 to the price of a flight does not concern the airlines from the passenger point of view—it will not put passengers off. What will put them off is when the airlines suddenly realise that if you multiply that by 550, which is the number of people in an A380, you suddenly start to bankroll quite a lot of extra money that has to be found. I am hedging my bets, so I will not tell you that it will be higher or lower than £1.50. That is a very small amount per individual, but for the companies that are trying to make aviation work and are positive about trying to move to net zero, this is the perfect time to push, as they have suddenly woken up to the fact that they are laggards.

[Tom Collins]

Q As someone who works in research and innovation, you will be familiar with the UK pain point, where we are often excellent at planning the technologies at low technology readiness levels, and then we lose them to that mid-level valley of death. The UK is strong in sustainable fuels at the research level; this mechanism is intended to help us to navigate through the valley of death, and to reach scale and economic viability. Do you think it is a good mechanism for that and that it will help us to break that trend in the UK?

Professor Maslin: Other levy systems that have been used in the energy sector have been very successful, so I am personally very positive about this because it gives a guarantee. We have seen what I call the solar rollercoaster: suddenly everyone has solar panels, and then suddenly all the companies go bust. What you are doing, very sensibly, is trying to level those bumps in the road. That worked for offshore wind and it should work for this, but there also needs to be support through other mechanisms, such as R&D and mechanisms designed to support small and medium-sized enterprises, so they can get the research they need, to go from “Wow! That’s a brilliant idea!” to being world leading. This is a great mechanism, but the Government need to use the other mechanisms to fund those companies to develop as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now move on to the Minister, and we have until 4.40 pm for this session. I suspect that we will be interrupted shortly by a Division, but I think we should proceed. Minister, while you have been active in our proceedings today, taking notes and so on, could you please introduce yourself for the record?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane): Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I am Mike Kane, and I am the Minister for aviation, maritime and security.

[Greg Smith]

Q Minister, no doubt we will be able to go through much of this on Thursday and next Tuesday, but a central feature of the debate on Second Reading was the ultimate impact on airfare payers of the price mechanism in the Bill, on top of the mandate. You were very clear at the Dispatch Box that it was plus or minus £1.50. I have no reason to doubt that, but some of the witnesses today have. Is there some more work to be done by the Department as the Bill progresses to kick the tyres on those assumptions? How confident are you that it will stand the test of time, given that multiple witnesses today have challenged that number?

Mike Kane: As the Minister, may I start by thanking all Committee members and witnesses for their time today? I think it is a great question. We have a world-class aviation sector and, if we want to stay world class, it is absolutely essential that we pass this Bill. It is part of our manifesto commitment. We introduced the mandate on 1 January for 2% on the demand side, and this now begins to give investment to the supply side.

You are absolutely right; we have to remain competitive in the aviation market if we are going to remain the third largest on the planet, and one of the most advanced. The figure we have from the departmental analysis teams is that it is plus or minus £1.50 of the price of a ticket over a year. That is less than my Bee Network bus fare, where Andy Burnham keeps the cost below £2. That is what we are looking at.

You ask how we are going to look at this. To answer in all seriousness, we are going to continue to monitor and control by managing the scale of the number of contracts we let. This gives the Secretary of State—whoever it is, from whichever party it is in the future—the power to look at what is happening and scale up or down if the market is badly distorted. We feel that there is no big impact on consumers taking their annual holiday to the south of Spain once a year. They will continue to do that unaffected.

[Greg Smith]

Q Thank you. That is helpful. Can I also ask for your views on a couple of other areas of evidence we heard today? The first is about a point that also came up on Second Reading: the protection of UK intellectual property as contracts are let and participants come forward to take part in the price mechanism. Has the Department done any more thinking on UK IP, so that we are not just producing SAF, of whichever technology, within the United Kingdom for our own fuel security, but doing so with genuinely UK technology driving it?

Mike Kane: As we said, we are agnostic to the technology. As we let the contracts, that is where the innovation will come.

There is a wider question across Government and UK security about intellectual property, and of course we will keep in contact with our colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade who look at that. The world is looking to us at the moment, as Lahiru from EasyJet said this morning, because we are the first doing this. We want to maintain the intellectual property by being first in the world to do this and then, as the companies come forward with the innovative technology, we want to properly IP that and maintain the competitive advantage in the UK.

[Greg Smith]

Q This is my final question before we get to go through the Bill in detail on Thursday and next Tuesday. Accepting the agnostic position, has anything you have heard today from the various companies who have given evidence, be that global giants such as Shell, UK-based innovators such as Zero Petroleum or the companies developing SAFs from waste, changed your thinking on whether there might be emerging winners and losers, given some of the challenges that we have heard about—not least the municipal waste challenges?

Mike Kane: As the Minister leading on the Bill, I would say, “My kingdom for a chemistry degree.” Actually, Mark said something that I thought was very pertinent towards the end: we just have to allow the technology to emerge. That way, as we get to the power-to-liquids and the harder piece to do, in five, 10 or 15 years, there will be a market for it. The beauty of the Bill is that we can let contracts over five or 10 years.

Personally, even though Exxon has reservations about this measure, the only emotion I would convey to Exxon is thanks for producing this fuel now, in this country. Exxon is happy about the SAF mandate; its issue is with the revenue certainty mechanism. That is an area where, once the market is established, the Government have an exit strategy; once the market begins to work, the then Secretary of State will have ways out of it, because Government will not need to be in it once we have established it.

[Chris Vince]

Q The evidence session has been very positive—I think you would agree—with a lot of positive evidence about the Bill and sustainable aviation fuel in general. I have the same question that I have asked a number of those giving evidence today: will you elaborate on what you think would be the risks and potential disadvantages to the UK, if we were to stall on the Bill and not pass it on Third Reading?

Mike Kane: First, I thank you, Chris—you have been a great advocate for aviation since you came to Westminster in 2024, with Stansted airport near your constituency. The No. 1 risk is not doing this—that is the risk. I think Matt from Heathrow and Rob from Airlines UK said that in our approach to getting to net zero by 2050, we have a number of Government policies—airspace modernisation, leadership at CORSIA, the emissions trading scheme, the £2.3 billion investment in the Aerospace Technology Institute and hydrogen regulatory development—but that 40% of that pathway is the Bill. If we do not pass it, we are in serious trouble about decarbonising the industry. That is the key risk.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Will everyone kindly ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent or, ideally, off? We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first; in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in that debate simply by bobbing.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw it or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment, including grouped new clauses and schedules, they need to let me know. Decisions are taken in the order in which amendments and new clauses fall in the amendment paper. I hope that that explanation is helpful.

Clause 1

Direction to offer revenue certainty contract

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) The terms under subsection (1)(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.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

[Greg Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. As I have throughout the passage of the Bill, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am taking a safety-first approach here—and the donation from Nemesis of synthetic road fuel for a constituency surgery tour last year. That is not relevant to sustainable aviation fuel, but I want to be entirely transparent about it, as I have been throughout the passage of the Bill.

Before I speak to amendment 3, a broad comment about all the amendments I will speak to today is that, fundamentally the Opposition are not a million miles from the Government on the Bill. However, as I am sure you expect us to do, Mr Western, it is our job as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to kick the tyres and ensure that the Bill is as strong and workable as it can be. We share the ambition to decarbonise aviation and ensure that everybody still can fly for pleasure or business, and that businesses can move goods around the world using air freight.

It is in that spirit that I tabled amendment 3, which aims to ensure that the producers that come forward for the various contracts consider the full breadth of the sustainable aviation fuel technologies available. On Tuesday, we heard oral evidence from manufacturers of wholly synthetic, waste-derived and feedstock-derived sustainable aviation fuels. It is important to look at the panoply of fuels in relation to the long-term environmental impact and the practicalities of producing them today.

As I said on Second Reading, my big fear, which led to my tabling the amendment, is that industries might be stood up only to be turned off again in 10 or 20 years, as the technology becomes redundant. For example, in the oral evidence session on Tuesday we almost had a debate about the possible pitfall of there not being a waste supply to create waste-derived sustainable aviation fuel. Many local authorities up and down the land, my own in Buckinghamshire included, are tied up in 10, 20 or even 30-year financial obligations to, for example, the financing of energy for waste incinerators, which in some parts of the country are connected to heat networks. It may therefore not be possible for councils to say simply, “No, we want to move our waste to a equally productive but different form.” Those contracts exist.

The point of the amendment is to ensure that we look through that very clear lens to see which of the technologies available for producing sustainable aviation fuel will have the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact in the long term. From the evidence we heard the other day, it is clear that some technologies are at a different point of development from others, but none is actually that far away.

For example, the evidence we heard from Zero Petroleum was that it is ready to scale a wholly synthetic production facility right now. Of course, that does not happen overnight—it takes some considerable time to build any facility—but the scalability is able to happen right now. The Government should reflect on that point and should not look just at the technologies that are available right here, right now. I would argue that, too often in this country, we look for alignment with the technology that is available today, when that which is only hours, days, weeks or months away may well be better and worth waiting for.

That is the point of the amendment: ensuring that we get this right for the long term, so that we have a supply of sustainable and, I hope, synthetic—entirely man-made from air and water—fuels available for this country, so that we have the liquid hydrocarbons there, available for purchase, using the price mechanism which sits at the heart of the Bill to get production going, so that our aviation sector can continue to flourish and be available for all that wish to use it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. We often discuss our bicycles and their technology, but today we have to talk about the revenue certainty mechanism, which I am glad we are doing.

The RCM is part of the Government’s agenda to decarbonise aviation in the United Kingdom. I will address the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, but first I put on the record my thanks to him and other Opposition parties for their general support for what we are trying to do in the Bill.

This Government back synthetic power-to-liquid SAF, which is why we have introduced a separate power-to-liquid sub-obligation, the SAF mandate. We have a separate power-to-liquid pot in the advanced fuel fund, which we are funding up to £63 million. Any RCM contracts awarded will be on the basis of the design phase of the project, including technological pathway and feedstock designation. I hope that answers the hon. Member’s worries about redundancy, because the process will evolve.

Making changes to feedstock requirements or fuel type after contracts are awarded would be extremely challenging for producers. Instead, during our contract allocation process, it is for the Government to decide on the right mix of SAF that will be supported under the revenue certainty mechanism. Given that, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to direct the counterparty to enter into a revenue certainty contract with a SAF producer. The Secretary of State will decide who gets revenue certainty contracts through an allocation process. Making the leap from lab to commercial scale is difficult for SAF producers—we heard that in the evidence sessions on Tuesday. Commercial plants typically cost £600 million to £2 billion, so they need to attract a lot of investment, yet first-of-a-kind plants often struggle to get investment because there is no clear, predictable market price for SAF. The revenue certainty mechanism will address that.

Under the revenue certainty mechanism a SAF producer will enter into a private law contract with a Government-backed counterparty that sets a strike price for SAF. If the producer sells SAF for less than the strike price, the counterparty will pay the difference. If the producer sells it for more than the strike price, it will pay the counterparty. This follows the example of similar schemes in the renewables sector, which showed that a private law contract with a Government-backed counterparty is a rock-solid commitment that will drive investment into projects.

As we heard in our evidence sessions on Tuesday, British SAF producers are ready. They have the tech and the innovation; they just need the final piece of support from the Government to take off. That is why SAF producers, airlines, environmental groups and investors back these measures.

A Government-backed counterparty will enter into the contracts rather than the Secretary of State, because investors value the day-to-day independence of a Government-owned private company and its insulation from political change. The counterparty will also have expertise in contract administration. This follows the model of contracts for difference schemes in other renewables sectors, where the Low Carbon Contracts Company, a Government-owned body, enters into the contracts, rather than the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

When we consulted on how the revenue certainty mechanism should be administered, stakeholders strongly supported having a counterparty. The clause ensures that the Secretary of State can exercise control over how and on what terms the counterparty enters into the revenue certainty contracts. This is consistent with the approach for similar schemes. The Government will set eligibility and assessment criteria for the competition to allocate contracts, which will focus on ensuring value for money, maximising the benefits of UK SAF production, and supporting viable projects. Any restrictions on our ability to decide which projects to allocate contracts to would affect those objectives and jeopardise the whole scheme.

The allocation process and the terms of the contract will need to be consistent with the requirements of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which makes sure there is oversight of the mechanism by the Competition and Markets Authority through the mandatory referral process. The oversight will ensure that the objectives of the revenue certainty mechanism address the subsidy control principles set out in that Act. This includes ensuring that the scheme addresses an identified market failure, that any funding provided is proportionate to achieve that objective, and that any distortions of competition, investment or trade are minimised effectively.

Clause 2 provides that producers must be notified of a direction made under clause 1 that affects them. This provides transparency and ensures that producers are aware of any directions towards them. It also gives the Secretary of State powers to revoke a direction and its effect, which protects the Government from entering into a contract where a producer has not met the criteria defined during the allocation process due to unexpected circumstances. We need to ensure that the taxpayer and the sector are protected, and this clause ensures that we can remove ourselves from the contract negotiation process if any issues arise.

Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the counterparty to maintain a register and publish the revenue certainty contracts, subject to any necessary redactions. This will ensure transparency by keeping a register of successful applicants and information on specific agreements, and make it clear which SAF producers have received contracts and on what terms. We will also continue to publish information on the volume of SAF supplied under the SAF mandate. These publication requirements will balance transparency and the commercial and confidential nature of contracts and negotiations. We believe that any stronger requirements to publish information may make producers reluctant to enter into negotiations or affect our ability to ensure value for money.

[Greg Smith]

I accept many of the arguments that the Minister has put forward. I note he acknowledged that, off the back of the evidence sessions on Tuesday, all the current technologies are ready. That is a really important point for the Committee and the whole House to reflect upon as the Bill progresses. There has been something of a narrative from the usual vested interests in the country suggesting that one technology or another is not in the right state to be able to move forward, or to produce sustainable aviation fuel at the scale we need as a country. It is very welcome that the Minister acknowledged in his remarks that the technologies are already to scale, whether the fuel is HEFA-derived, waste-derived or entirely synthetic following the Fischer-Tropsch process at large.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I will make one or two brief comments on the new clauses that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. The official Opposition have some sympathy with new clause 2. It is always sensible with any new legislation to ensure, within a reasonable timeframe, that it is doing what it was meant to do. We can all debate things when they are a new idea in Committee and in the House, and on paper they might seem as though they are going to be all fine and rosy, but of course we can never predict that with 100% certainty. The review that new clause 2 would bake into the Bill—we can all do the parliamentary arithmetic; it will become an Act at some point in the near future—seems fundamentally sensible.

I understand where the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, is coming from with new clause 6, because of course by definition aviation is a global industry. By practicality, the vast majority of flights leaving these shores are going to other countries. I therefore understand why the hon. Gentleman would seek a degree of co-operation on the fuel that airlines leaving UK airports and landing in other countries will have to refuel with. Those airlines will have to use the fuel that is available in France, the United States of America, Australia, India or anywhere else. That level of co-operation is important.

I would merely push back a little in arguing that we need to keep a careful eye on not just the European area; it needs to go much further than that. An enormous number of UK aircraft will be refuelling in countries all over the world. It is about trying to get that certainty of supply of a level of fuel that aligns with what we are setting down as our values—the blends that we, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have baked into the SAF mandate.

The other side of the coin to the Bill is that we should seek to use our influence abroad to achieve things in other countries. We will probably be unable to do so in many of them, but it does not hurt to have that overview and ambition to be the world leaders on sustainable aviation fuel, and to see whether we can encourage others to follow our lead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Clause 11 creates new civil penalties that are necessary to secure the payment of the levy and compliance with regulations. Any penalty will be limited to a maximum of the lesser of £100,000 or 10% of the turnover being penalised. This penalty can be imposed for failing to pay the levy and failing to pass on the benefits of surplus payments to customers in accordance with the regulations under clause 10(1)(b). This penalty is consistent with similar penalties under the SAF mandate. The clause also allows these penalties to be adjusted in line with inflation.

The schedule sets out the procedure for notices, appeals and recovery of penalties. It ensures that anyone who has to pay the penalty will be told why, how much they have to pay, their right to appeal and the deadline for making any payment.

I will also speak to Government amendment 2, which inserts “or Northern Ireland” after “Wales” in the schedule. The amendment will ensure that an unpaid penalty is recoverable in Northern Ireland as if it were payable under an order of the county court, as is the case in England and Wales. The amendment corrects a drafting error and does not reflect a change in policy intention.

[Greg Smith]

I do not have a great deal to say on the provisions, other than that it is always regrettable when Northern Ireland is forgotten and has to be inserted via an amendment.

On the clause, I have no problem with financial penalties for failure to comply with the law, so I am not attacking the clause per se, but what will the appeal mechanism be? When it comes to law that involves financial penalties, a company will often have a legitimate case—force majeure, or whatever it might be—as to why it has been unable to comply with the letter of the law, and it is always important, as a matter of natural justice, for an appeal mechanism to be in place. Does the Minister intend to enable appeals where such financial penalties are given?

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. Because this will be a matter between the counterparty and the companies invited to bid, it will be subject to normal contract law, but I am happy to write to him on the matter of appeals more specifically.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Financial penalties for failure to comply with levy regulations

Amendment made: 2, in the schedule, page 10, line 28, after “Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”.—(Mike Kane.)

This amendment ensures that an unpaid penalty is recoverable in Northern Ireland as if it were payable under an order of the county court, as is the case in England and Wales.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12

Power to direct designated counterparty

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 12, page 7, line 12, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty to report on—

(a) the impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the proceeding 12 month period;

(b) a projection of the expected impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the following five year period.

(4) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph (a) before Parliament.”

Amendment 4 focuses on UK IP, which I alluded to earlier. Given that we have been told throughout the passage of the Bill, and the Opposition agree, that we need to underpin domestic sovereign fuel security, there should be a provision in the Bill that gives preference to UK IP and UK producers—not just those that might happen to make the fuel here, but those that are using UK-derived innovation and technology to do so. Of course, we exist in a global marketplace and are often reliant on imports, but it would be regrettable if the Bill enabled the standing-up of industries that are based entirely on foreign-owned technology. That is what the amendment seeks to correct.

[Mike Kane]

I concur with the hon. Member about domestic fuel production, particularly in the uncertain geopolitical world that we face today, but amendment 4—

[Greg Smith]

I spoke to amendment 5—I apologise.

[The Chair]

Order. Minister, given that the Opposition spokesperson spoke to another amendment, perhaps we could allow him the opportunity to say a few words on amendment 4.

[Greg Smith]

I apologise, Mr Western, for getting ahead of myself. I went slightly cross-eyed as I looked down at my notes, and have two amendments back to back. I stand by what I said, and maybe we can save some time later as I have already made my comments on amendment 5. We all make mistakes; we are all human.

Turning to amendment 4, then, much has been made of the cost to the end user. We had a good debate on Second Reading in which all agreed, across the House and all political parties, that the challenge, as we decarbonise and move to net zero, is that everyone must still be able to do the things that they want to do—to fly and move goods around—but in a cleaner, decarbonised, and net zero way. We have been the first in the western world to legislate for that by 2050.

When I heard the Minister say—in both the private briefings that he gave before the Bill was introduced to the House, for which I am grateful, and then on the Floor of the House on Second Reading—that the net impact would be only plus or minus £1.50 on an ultimate airfare, I was delighted. I took him at his word. I thought, “Fantastic. That is something that consumers will surely be happy with”—particularly if it is on the minus £1.50 side of the equation. Yet, in the evidence sessions on Tuesday, I am not sure that a single witness was willing to put their own name to that plus or minus £1.50 fluctuation. Some witnesses went even further by saying they thought that was—I hesitate to use this word—a conservative estimate.

The point of amendment 4 is to try to ensure that we get something baked into the Bill that acknowledges the ultimate potential cost to the end user: the consumer, the person, any of our constituents who wish to book a flight to go on holiday or on a business trip.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The hon. Member reflects the concern that we all have to make sure that our constituents can continue to go on holiday, and that trade can continue to happen, but does he agree that, in addition to some of the information that we heard, there was also a concern about the cost of doing nothing? That could actually cause costs to go much higher than any estimate given by anyone in the evidence sessions, therefore we should proceed as quickly as we can.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point; I do not think that we are misaligned on that argument. Yes, we need to move to sustainable aviation fuel, preferably at the better end of that technology. It is this very Bill that will ensure that we can, as a country, move faster towards that aim with—I have used the phrase before—the other side of the coin of the Bill, which is the SAF mandate. When the Conservatives were in government, we were heading towards that, but I fully acknowledge that it is the new Government who have introduced it to the House. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a cost to doing nothing, but it is incumbent on all of us on behalf of our constituents, and the businesses that operate within our constituencies and require the use of air freight, to ensure that we are not legislating for something that will put an undue additional financial burden on them.

The point of the amendment is to embrace the Minister’s commitments at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, and in the briefings beforehand—which, I repeat, I was grateful to him for putting on—and to ensure that as the Committee potentially allows the Bill to go on to Report, and further through the parliamentary process, we are confident in those numbers, and about the impact that we, collectively, as a Committee and ultimately as Members of Parliament, are putting on the statute book. It is in that spirit that the amendment has been put forward. I ask the Minister to ensure that the projections he has reported from the Dispatch Box come to fruition, so we do not end up looking back in probably a few years’ time, as opposed to a few months’ time, and discovering that the plus or minus £1.50 was much worse than that, as some of the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday suggested.

[The Chair]

As the Opposition spokesperson has spoken to both amendments, I invite Members to speak to amendment 4, and to amendment 5, in clause 12, page 7, line 12, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty, where a venue certainty contract would result in a new production facility, to prioritise entering into any such contracts with producers that will use UK owned technologies in that facility.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Well done to the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire; he pulled it out of the fire there with the amendments. He is right that we are putting SAF on the statute book. We should have put it on the statute book years ago, which is why it was in our manifesto and we are doing the right thing now. I will address the questions about £1.50 in a moment.

Amendment 4 tabled by the hon. Member would put a requirement on the counterparty to report on the effect of the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism on air travel prices. Once operating, the revenue certainty mechanism is expected to make minimal changes to fares with an average ticket price, as we have said, decreasing or increasing by up to £1.50 on average per year. I remind him that that is less than a bus fare on Andy Burnham’s Bee Network in Greater Manchester where I live. I would offer to pay it, but it is quite cumulative over time and I do not have that type of resource—I am happy to fund the hon. Member for one year at £1.50 if he so wishes. That figure comes from a DFT analysis.

The costs of the scheme and the impact on ticket prices will be kept under continual review. The Government will also set the approach to the allocation of contracts, the number of contracts awarded and the scale of support they provide. Those controls will help to minimise any potential impacts on airfares. The costs of the scheme will also be reported in the DFT annual report and accounts in the usual way. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked whether the figure refers to the mandate or the revenue certainty mechanism. I assure him that it is just the revenue certainty mechanism.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to you for rescuing me, Mr Western, by grouping both amendments in the same debate. I made a mistake, so I put my hands up to that.

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I will not press the matter to a vote but, as with the earlier amendment, when projections are made I think it is incumbent on the Government to find a way of giving comfort to all the travelling public and all those businesses that use air freight that the provisions of the Bill—I fully accept the comments of the hon. Member for Wimbledon on the wider effects of the mandate—will not produce a much higher cost to them when they go on their holidays or business trips or move goods around the world.

Ahead of Report, will the Minister and his team in the Department look at ways to kick the tyres on those presumptions—in particular given the evidence we heard on Tuesday—and check that they are robust as possible and have the confidence of industry? I would be grateful for that, and we may well return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 13 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months of the Act’s passing, reviewing how we can better secure the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production.

The success of the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel ambitions will rely not only on bold targets and optimistic projections, but on the reliable availability of the resources needed for manufacturing. Bioethanol will be a resource that can be part of the manufacturing process for SAF, and help support a low-carbon industry in the UK, yet while the Government continue to laud their commitment to green aviation, they have stood by while domestic bioethanol production is at risk from Donald Trump’s bully boy tactics.

Since the signing of the UK-US trade deal, the owners of two UK bioethanol plants based in Hull and Teesside have threatened to close the sites as the trade agreement fundamentally undermines their business position. This Government have given US ethanol producers a 1.4 billion litre tariff-free quota—equivalent to the UK’s entire annual demand for the product—and completely undercut the industry, making the UK vulnerable to the whims of, to put it at its mildest, the mercurial Trump Administration.

The new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of plant closures on SAF production potential, set out options to mitigate supply risks and, crucially, recommend the policy steps needed to promote a stable domestic supply of bioethanol. We cannot afford to leave this to chance, or to the good will of a US President who, as we all know, simply cannot be trusted. If the Government are serious about scaling up SAF production, they must ensure that the raw materials are available. That means a proper strategy to support and stabilise the UK’s bioethanol sector.

[Greg Smith]

I absolutely understand and appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from with this new clause. This topic came up in the oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading.

It is of great concern that the slightly lower tariffs deal done with the United States of America has clearly and materially threatened UK production of bioethanol, which of course has many uses. Many of us on the petrol station forecourt will have seen the curious E5 and E10 labels on the petrol pumps, which is about the ethanol blended with the regular fossil fuel. Our consumption of it as a country is particularly high.

As we are debating the potential future of bioethanol in sustainable aviation fuel production, it is incumbent upon the Government to reflect, within the scope of the Bill, on how much domestic supply there can be. So much of the Bill is underpinned by sovereign capability and fuel security—a point on which the Opposition and I think the Liberal Democrats are equally aligned on; it is so important—and so surely this new clause must also be important to the Government. I ask the Minister to reflect on that when he responds.

[Mike Kane]

I am extraordinarily proud that we have a Prime Minister and a Government who are rebuilding the UK’s reputation across the world once again, building trade deals with our closest partners across the planet, whether that be India, America or the recent agreement with the European Union. That is where Britain should be—leading and involved, not on the fringes as we have been for many years.

We are debating sustainable aviation fuel, but this is also about decarbonising the planes that will fly in our skies for generations to come. That US trade deal is zero tariff on aviation technology, which is a huge deal for this country, making it a world leader again in the future.

However, I am worried for the workers and families who have been affected by the trade deal. Ministers and officials, including the Business and Transport Secretaries, have met the companies consistently during this challenging time—those companies were struggling regardless of the time—to understand their concerns, discuss what action could be taken and to support them, because that is what good Governments do. The Department for Business and Trade is in discussions on requests for support from the UK bioethanol sector. As a responsible Government, there is a series of strict criteria and well-established due diligence processes that we must follow to consider such requests.

While I would like to see a thriving UK bioethanol sector, we would not expect a significant impact on the SAF mandate if there were to be a reduction in that sector’s production. That is because the UK bioethanol plants use crops that are not eligible for the SAF mandate. The SAF mandate, which is the framework for the supply of SAF in the UK, sets targets based on the availability of waste feedstocks rather than crop feedstocks. The SAF mandate is a global scheme and can use fuels from all around the world, providing an opportunity to draw upon a diverse pool of feedstocks.

However, we also want to encourage a UK industry. In January, the Chancellor announced £63 million of funding this year to help grow UK supply of SAF through the advanced fuels fund, which has been further extended in the recent Budget through to 2029-30. The SAF revenue certainty mechanism—the subject of the Bill—will also boost investment in UK SAF production.

Finally, under the SAF mandate, a formal review of the whole scheme has been built into the legislation, with the first review taking place in 2030. That will provide an opportunity to make an assessment on the availability of SAF supply. The above steps demonstrate how many of the recommendations set out in the hon. Member for Wimbledon’s new clause are already being undertaken by the Government. Given that, I ask him to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making with new clause 4, but I would argue that it is unnecessary; the whole point of the Bill is to decarbonise aviation. As the Minister said himself, and as I hope the Committee will accept, the Bill was conceived and finds its origins under the last Government, and it was then carried through by this Government, so it is something that we can rightly be proud of on both sides of the House. As we are leading the world on this issue, I am not sure that new clause 4 is necessary.

However, new clause 5 is more interesting, because it goes to the very crux of the debate we had earlier on the various technologies that can produce sustainable aviation fuel in the United Kingdom. It goes without saying that, while all forms of sustainable aviation fuel—as we know it at the moment—are greener than their fossil fuel equivalent, there is significant variation in the greenhouse gas and carbon emissions between using blends or 100% sustainable aviation fuel in an aircraft. The merits of new clause 5 go to the absolute centre of the debate on which of those technologies, or which of those great innovations, can deliver the closest to net zero over the coming years and decades, if not net zero itself.

If new clause 5 were baked into the Bill, and ultimately the Act, it would be interesting to see how it would enable us judge among those different technologies. I have talked in the House many times about the importance of whole-system analysis, which is an analysis not just of the effect while the jet engines are turning and the planes are in the sky, but of the whole impact on greenhouse gas and carbon emissions of manufacturing the fuel and what is done with the waste product afterwards, particularly carbon. New clause 5 would go to the heart of discovering that.

One of the things that we have seen in evidence, and that we have talked before about in the Chamber, is the effect when certain fuels are derived, in part, from atmospheric carbon capture—the carbon emitted post combustion, which comes out of the tailpipe of the aircraft, is the same amount of carbon that is recaptured from the atmosphere to make the next lot of fuel. New clause 5 has the merit of enabling us to command the Government to review that, which is why His Majesty’s Official Opposition have sympathy with it.

[Luke Taylor]

I rise briefly to press this question to the Minister: if the Government oppose the new clauses, how are they are going to incorporate their intent? I think they probably agree with the intent but are probably just resistant to their being outlined as they are. I ask the Minister to go into as much detail as he can on whether that will happen through the jet zero taskforce or something else.

[Mike Kane]

I always enjoy listening to the rasping oration of the hon. Member for Wimbledon.

[Greg Smith]

Rasping?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I do not have the answer in front of me, but I commit to providing the hon. Gentleman with an answer in due course. I thought the point he was making was about whether we are being open and transparent across all sectors in the UK in showing how we are decarbonising the aviation sector. [Interruption.] I do now have the answer. Who knew? The miracle of mobile telephony—it will save writing my signature to him with the electronic pen. The SAF mandate and statistics include details of feedstocks and the origin of the SAF. I hope that answers his question, but if he wants more information—we are all keen on this—I would ask him to please keep in touch.

New clause 5, entitled “Increasing greenhouse gas saving potential of sustainable aviation fuel”, was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The SAF mandate is the UK’s key policy to decarbonise jet fuel. It does that by securing demand for SAF, by obligating the supply of an increasing amount of SAF in the overall UK aviation fuel mix. The SAF mandate rewards SAF in proportion to the greenhouse gas savings its achieves. That will encourage SAF developers to improve continuously on their greenhouse gas savings. To ensure that the SAF mandate reflects the latest technological and commercial developments, there will be continuous monitoring of trends and the impacts of the mandate. Formal reviews will be conducted and published at least every five years, with a formal review in 2030. The formal reviews will already include certain elements of the new clause, namely the minimum greenhouse gas savings threshold and the minimum targets for supply of SAF. Following the review, there will be an opportunity to update the legislation as needed.

[Greg Smith]

The central question is whether that review, when it comes, looks at the greenhouse gas savings while the aircraft is in use, or gives a whole-system analysis, from the production and use of the fuel to the benefits of using the by-products, post combustion, to make more fuel. That is an important clarification that we need.

[Mike Kane]

My kingdom for a chemistry degree! I will let the hon. Gentleman know the answer to his question in due course.

To go back to the point, new clause 5 would duplicate the process already embedded in the SAF mandate legislation. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Fourth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 8 calls on the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months on the merits of converting disused oil refineries and other existing industrial sites into sustainable aviation fuel production facilities—and there is an opportunity to have such a report early on. Many Members present, including, notably, the hon. Member for Falkirk, have spoken about the strength and possibilities of SAF to reinvigorate and reuse industrial sites.

The UK has several disused oil refineries and industrial sites, which already possess critical infrastructure—storage tanks, pipelines, grid connections—and are often located near skilled workforces familiar with complex industrial processes. That presents a real opportunity to repurpose existing assets, accelerating the deployment of SAF production, supporting local economies, and reducing the cost compared with greenfield sites, but we must proceed with a clear understanding of the technical feasibility, operational requirements and environmental considerations for such conversions.

Environmental remediation, site preparation and ensuring community support are complex challenges that require careful evaluation. The new clause would mandate a thorough, evidence-based report that would address such technical, economic and environmental factors, and include consultation of a wide range of stakeholders, including SAF producers, the oil and gas workforce, unions, environmental organisations, local authorities and academic experts. The findings will help the Government to shape policies and incentives that maximise the benefits of such conversions where appropriate. I do not think we can simply leave it to market mechanisms; the Government need to intervene here.

This is not about preserving the fossil fuel past, but transitioning our industrial heritage and workforce, and some of our dying economies, to a new sustainable future. The UK’s industrial regions deserve a just transition that leverages their existing strengths to help to power the green economy. The new clause would be a step towards securing the resilience and growth of a domestic SAF industry that can create good jobs, strengthen supply chains and reduce reliance on imports. I urge the Minister to welcome this practical proposal, accept the new clause and commit to a clear timeline for delivering the report. The future of UK aviation depends on not only ambitious targets but pragmatic steps to make those targets achievable and bring the country with us. The new clause would help us to take one such step.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

New clause 8 has considerable merit. It is always preferable where new industrial facilities are to be built—in this case for the production of sustainable aviation fuel—for those identified sites to have had former brownfield status and former industrial use. I have no argument with that element of the new clause.

The one note of caution I have on the new clause is that many of the existing sites—certainly oil refinery sites—are not necessarily located in the right places currently for certain SAF technologies. That includes the e-fuels and power-to-liquid solutions, which require, as part of the process, electrolysis and the creation of green hydrogen. Of course, if the hydrogen element that goes into making the SAF is not green hydrogen, the whole problem becomes rather academic—we could still make the fuel, but the reality is that it would not be as green as we want it to be. Those SAF production facilities, by definition, would need to be located in places with potential large-scale offshore wind, electricity production or, possibly, nuclear generation.

If we look across the world at such fuel plants that have been created, Porsche, for example, chose the hills of Chile to produce its particular fuel, because it can leverage off the wind power that it can get up there. In our country, Orkney seems to have been a popular site for harnessing the offshore wind technology available up there. While I fully support the principle that underpins the new clause—for many SAF production sites to be on former industrial or oil refinery sites—I simply wish to add the note of caution that they might not be suitable for every application and technology out there.

[Mike Kane]

On new clause 8, the hon. Member for Wimbledon is right to talk about deindustrialisation. Growing up in the 1970s, I saw the impacts of that, particularly on the east side of Manchester, with the chemical and mining industries being wiped out. In this day and age, we are still getting over that in my great city. I reassure him that we are supporting the SAF industry, in part, to grasp this opportunity for deindustrialised areas. Emerging SAF projects are often located on former industrial sites, and I remind the Committee that, if we do this right, our low-carbon fuels industry can support up to 15,000 jobs and £5 billion to the economy by 2050.

I also reassure the hon. Member that work is ongoing across Government on the future of our refineries. We are acting urgently in response to the deeply concerning news of insolvency at Prax Lindsey oil refinery, and have put £200 million into the National Wealth Fund to back investment at Grangemouth. I want that work to continue at pace, and am conscious that specific sites will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Commissioning an additional separate report would not be beneficial, and would risk delaying potential investment decisions. Given that, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Thank you, Mr Western, for chairing the Committee. I also thank the Clerks, Hansard Reporters and Doorkeepers for overseeing proceedings. The Committee also benefited from the expertise of our witnesses and those who provided written evidence. As this is a hugely technical Bill and the world is watching us, I pay a massive tribute to the civil servants in my Department who worked on it.

I thank all hon. Members who made this issue a manifesto commitment at the general election. I thank the Opposition for supporting the Bill and for their valuable contributions and insights. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, and all other Committee members. I thank them for their expertise and insight, and for the broadly positive, collaborative nature that they brought to the Committee. We all want the SAF industry in this country to grow and succeed so that we secure our world-class aviation sector’s future. I look forward to further engagement with hon. Members on the Bill.

[Greg Smith]

I associate myself with the Minister’s thanks to everyone who has worked so hard on the Bill, particularly the civil servants; I welcomed the ability to discuss the Bill with them in a private briefing before Second Reading. I also thank the Doorkeepers, Hansard and the Clerks for ensuring that the Committee has run smoothly.

It is quite a pleasant experience to engage with a Bill in opposition when there is fundamental agreement on the direction of travel. The other Bill Committee of this Parliament on which I was shadow Minister was for the Employment Rights Bill, where we did not enjoy quite the same level of consensus, but to meet the challenges of decarbonising our aviation industry it is important that this Bill progresses rapidly.

However, I urge the Minister, who has been kind and engaged throughout the process, to continue to reflect on the points that I have raised in Committee and that the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), raised on Second Reading, as well as the many worthy points that the Liberal Democrats have raised. If we can keep going in the spirit of cross-party working and reflect on some of the points about UK intellectual property—making this a UK success story, making the UK a world leader and ensuring that the technologies that emerge genuinely do what they say they will—then I think all of Parliament, not just the Government, can be proud to push the Bill through.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.