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.

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.

Blue Badge Eligibility

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on not just securing the debate and championing her constituents so well in her speech, but bravely telling her own story as part of it, just as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) did.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond for His Majesty’s Opposition on an issue that cuts to the heart of how we treat some of the most vulnerable people in our society, not least those facing the life-changing impact of cancer treatment. The blue badge scheme has long been a vital way in which we support people with severe and permanent mobility difficulties to live independent lives, to stay connected to work, community and family, and to access essential goods and services.

Under the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000, local authorities are tasked with issuing badges in line with clear national eligibility rules. Those rules, rightly, focus on the practical impact of a person’s condition on their day-to-day mobility, not simply on their diagnosis. The principle is sound, but in practice, there is, as we have heard, a glaring gap.

People undergoing aggressive cancer treatment, for example, can suffer debilitating side effects that severely restrict mobility. Nerve damage, fatigue, pain and weakness can make walking even short distances impossible, yet because those impacts are deemed to be temporary, the people involved often do not qualify for a blue badge, as the impediments might not last three years. This is not a small oversight. It means that people who are in the fight of their life are too often forced to fight an additional battle just to park near a hospital, their local shops or community services.

Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local councils have powers to create local traffic regulation orders that allow temporary parking concessions for residents with short-term impairments. However, we know, and I am confident the Government must know, that in practice that is patchy and inconsistent. Some councils offer short-term medical parking permits; many do not. Some cancer patients are fortunate enough to find clear guidance and a fair process; too many others are left to navigate an opaque local system at the very moment when they are least able to cope with yet more paperwork, forms and stress. It is simply wrong that whether a cancer patient can access parking support depends on where they live and whether their local council happens to operate a discretionary scheme or chooses not to.

The previous Government rightly reminded local authorities of their powers to provide the concessions, but that was never intended to be the long-term answer. We need a fair, unified solution that does not depend on a postcode lottery of local good will. I hope that the Minister will correct this impression when she responds to the debate, but under this Government there seems to be no commitment to update the outdated 2000 regulations in order to recognise the reality facing thousands of cancer patients and others every single year. Nor is there any progress on national guidance to make short-term exemptions consistent, automatic and easy to access. It is not good enough to say, as the Government still seem to say, that councils can just sort it out locally. The evidence is clear: the local patchwork approach has failed. Cancer does not care about council boundaries.

We need a simple, nationally recognised exemption for cancer patients whose treatment has a severe short-term impact, or potentially long-term impact, on their mobility. That could mean a standardised temporary permit supported by NHS trusts, so that patients do not have to fight for evidence or explain themselves twice. This is not about changing the core principle of the blue badge scheme. It is about bringing it up to date with the real-world experience of people who urgently need that help. It is about accommodating patients living with cancer, which the Government already classify as a disability from diagnosis and as long as people live with its effects.

I urge the Minister and this Government to listen to charities, to NHS professionals and to patients themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling gave the powerful examples of Sandy Burr and Bev Evans, constituents living with severe, agonising mobility challenges because of this disease and because of injury, yet still falling outside the national blue badge criteria. Now is the time to work on a cross-party basis to close the gap once and for all. Our country prides itself on compassion. It is now time for the Government to show that in practice. That can happen by ensuring that nobody in the fight of their life is forced to fight for a parking space too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

To achieve growth, businesses rely on our world-class logistics and haulage sector. Given that Logistics UK said that it was “disappointed” that the logistics sector had not been identified as one of the foundational industries in the industrial strategy this week, what happened? Did the Department for Transport go into bat for our logistics sector? Did it lose the row? Or did it not bother? What will the Secretary of State be doing to ensure that our logistics sector is seen across Government as foundational to any growth mission?

[Heidi Alexander]

It is my understanding that the logistics sector was pleased to be recognised as a case study in the industrial strategy. I know that it welcomed the announcement in the spending review of £590 million to progress the lower Thames crossing, which is a key strategic freight route. For many years the sector has been talking to us about improving the route from the south-east to the midlands and the north. Unlike the previous Government, this Government are finally getting on with the job. We have taken the planning decision to grant consent to the crossing and are making money available through the spending review to improve the country’s critical freight routes.

[Greg Smith]

The Secretary of State clearly has not listened to Logistics UK—I hope that at least she knows where the lower Thames crossing starts and ends. Let us turn to another foundational industry to transport and growth: fuel. Elizabeth de Jong, chief executive of Fuels Industry UK said about this week’s industrial strategy:

“we are disappointed not to be named explicitly as a ‘foundational industry’ today, given the vital role of the fuels sector in enabling growth”.

Why has our transport-critical fuels sector also been left behind by the Government?

[Heidi Alexander]

This Government’s industrial strategy sets out the sectors that have the potential to deliver economic growth and for which are competing internationally for mobile capital investment. My colleague the Minister for the Future of Roads and I meet repeatedly with the industry, be that to discuss fuels or freight and logistics. We are determined to get our economy firing on all cylinders, and we know what critical role the sectors he talks about play in that.

HS2 Reset

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I gently say to my hon. Friend that the Mayor of the West Midlands might have something to say about his great city being seen as the end of an extension to the London underground line. It is completely right that our two great cities—Birmingham and London—are connected with high-quality rail services. Although this is a difficult day in exposing the state of the project, I have no doubt that in time it will be a railway we can be proud of.

I also say to my hon. Friend that I am aware of forecast capacity constraints between Birmingham and Manchester and in other parts of the country. We are investing, through things such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade, in improving connectivity to other great cities in the north of England. We are determined to ensure that everyone, no matter where they live in the country, has an excellent public transport system that they can rely upon.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

My constituency has been devastated by roughly 26 miles of HS2, and I have consistently warned this House—during the previous Parliament and this—through the lens of the miserable experience on the ground in Buckinghamshire, about the reasons for the cost overruns, poor governance and everything else that the Secretary of State has highlighted in her statement today. If she must persist with this wrong project with a new delay, will she give a commitment to my constituents and the rest of the county of Buckinghamshire on how much longer they will have to live in misery as part of a building site? More importantly, will she look urgently at unlocking some of the mitigation funds that we are finding incredibly hard to access and get spent on the ground? That would be of some small, tiny comfort to my constituents who are living in misery.

[Heidi Alexander]

It is essential that we proceed as quickly as possible with the remaining civil engineering works that will have affected the hon. Member’s constituents to date. If he wishes to write to me with details of the problem he has experienced with accessing mitigation funds, I will raise that for him with the chief executive of HS2.

Hydrogen-powered Aviation

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) not only on securing the debate but on setting out the case for hydrogen aviation so clearly in his opening remarks. The Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill last week was but the precursor to this Westminster Hall debate—this debate was trailed in that one. I also congratulate all other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

It is a pleasure to speak for His Majesty’s Opposition in this important debate on the policies of the Government of the United Kingdom on hydrogen-powered aviation. Aviation is a sector that underpins global connectivity, international trade, and regional economic growth, but its long-term sustainability requires bold innovation, and a clear policy framework that supports low-carbon propulsion technologies while enabling British industry to lead.

Let me be clear: hydrogen is not a hypothetical solution. It is a practical, viable and strategically critical path forward for decarbonising flight. The UK has a golden opportunity to lead the world in this technology, not just by developing aircraft but by creating the entire hydrogen aviation value chain, from production and distribution to propulsion and maintenance. When combusted purely, hydrogen emits only water vapour, unlike kerosene, obviously, which produces carbon dioxide. Moreover, unlike battery electric aircraft, hydrogen aviation scales better over distance and payload, making it suitable for not just short-term hops but future regional and potentially transcontinental routes. That is not only good for the planet, but good for Britain.

According to the Aerospace Technology Institute, the UK could generate up to £34 billion in GVA and support 60,000 jobs by 2050 through hydrogen powered aviation. That is thousands of skilled engineering, manufacturing and research and development roles across the country. These areas stand to benefit significantly from hydrogen aircraft production, airport infrastructure retrofitting and fuel supply chain development. In Bristol and Gloucestershire, Airbus and GKN Aerospace are already laying the groundwork for hydrogen propulsion and systems integration. In the midlands, particularly in Derby and Coventry, Rolls-Royce is developing hydrogen combustion engines in work that has the potential to sustain and expand our world leading turbo machinery industry. In Teesside, the Conservative Government-designated hydrogen transport hub is pioneering fuel production and logistics, with Teesside international airport poised to become a hydrogen aviation testbed. In Scotland, Prestwick airport is leading hydrogen aircraft trials and Aberdeen is already a recognised centre for hydrogen fuel development. Belfast, home to Spirit AeroSystems, is well positioned to play a central role in manufacturing structural components for the hydrogen aircraft of the future.

A successful future-focused aviation sector means more than environmental progress; it means greater reliability and connectivity for passengers, and competitive ticket prices driven by fuel efficiency. For business, it means faster, lower emission logistics, better access to export markets and the growth of regional airports as hubs for commerce and investment. There is an important distinction to be made here, and one that we in this place must be honest about. While hydrogen fuel cells offer lower energy losses and may suit smaller aircraft or drones, it is pure hydrogen combustion that offers the best chance of achieving decarbonisation for medium to large aircraft, especially within the constraints of airframe weight and power density. Combustion also enables more rapid retrofit of existing aircraft designs and is more compatible with current maintenance ecosystems and airport infrastructure. Simply put, hydrogen combustion is the most practical, scalable route for commercial aviation and the UK should be focusing investment accordingly.

It was the Conservatives in government who recognised that early on. Under the jet zero strategy established in 2022, we committed funding to Project FlyZero, supported by trials by ZeroAvia and Rolls-Royce. We ringfenced funding for hydrogen infrastructure at UK airports. We laid the groundwork for the SAF price mechanism that this current Government is carrying through with the SAF Bill. We established the hydrogen transport hub in Teesside, where our fantastic mayor Ben Houchen, now Lord Houchen, oversaw a combined £23 million funding package to kick-start the local hydrogen-based economy. We also made Britain one of the first countries to support regulatory frameworks for hydrogen-powered flight trials.

Turning to the new Government, the mantle has clearly democratically passed to them, and the test on whether hydrogen aviation can succeed lies with them. The promised expansion of the aerospace growth partnership, sadly, has been watered down. The Aerospace Technology Institute’s hydrogen propulsion roadmap seems to have stalled, and companies at the cutting edge, from Cranfield to Kemble to Prestwick, report difficulty in accessing follow-on support, despite clear potential and private co-investment. The Government must stop conflating hydrogen policy with overreliance on electric-only solutions, which simply cannot be scaled to long-haul aviation. A narrow vision such as that would be misguided; it is actively stifling British leadership in this vital sector. If we want to lead the next aviation revolution to match our leadership in jet engines with leadership in zero carbon propulsion, then ambition must be matched by action. That means committing long-term funding for hydrogen combustion propulsion research and development, providing meaningful and long-term support for airport hydrogen infrastructure trials, especially in regional hubs, accelerating the certification and regulatory pathway for hydrogen aircraft and aligning hydrogen production strategies with the wider UK aviation sector.

The hydrogen age is not coming. It is here, and unless the Government correct course, the opportunity to lead it will pass us by. The last Conservative Government laid the foundations for hydrogen-powered aviation. I very much hope that this Government, and this Minister, do not allow the UK to lose that legacy through indecision. I challenge the Minister, who is very thoughtful on this subject and has the best interests of aviation at heart, to ensure that hydrogen is part of that future.

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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

At the Transport Committee in April, the Secretary of State admitted that under Labour’s watch,

“waiting times for access to driving tests hit new highs.”

For all the talk of a new plan, she then admitted that the Government only aim to reduce driving test waiting times to seven weeks by “summer next year”. That is no good for young people waiting, needing the freedom to drive to get to college or work now, is it? When will the Government see the real urgency for real people and pick up the pace?

[Lilian Greenwood]

We are acting to fix the mess that the shadow Minister’s Government left behind. Our seven-point plan is being implemented, and last month, the Secretary of State announced additional measures. We are determined to succeed where the last Government failed.

[Greg Smith]

I do not think the Minister has got the memo that she is in charge now. The Government cannot hide behind the same old excuses and try to blame others, as average test volumes are now lower—on a month-by-month basis—than they were in the previous two years. In quarter 1 alone, nearly 100,000 fewer tests were conducted than in the same period in 2024. The average waiting time for a driving test in the UK sits at 22 weeks—over five months. That is up from 17.1 weeks in July 2024 and 20.4 weeks in February 2025. For all the Government’s promises, there has been no actual delivery. Why has capacity not increased or, at the very least, stayed the same as when we were in charge?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman is not listening. We are implementing the seven-point plan, but turning around the mess and the problems that the Conservatives left us takes time. I am determined that we will see the results, that waiting times will come down and that we will support learner drivers. It cannot be done overnight when we are trying to fix 14 years of mess.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage—and possibly for the Netherlands—(Olly Glover) on securing this important debate. In just an hour of Westminster Hall, we have had many contributions, far more than normal, including from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who I served on the Transport Committee with in the last Parliament, and who of course now chairs that Committee, and from the hon. Members for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and, of course, my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo).

I saved that one for last because the hon. Member for Henley and Thame spoke of the Haddenham and Thame greenway, which I have always supported. A significant chunk of it falls in my Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, from the village of Haddenham through to the Oxfordshire border. I believe we have a meeting coming up to discuss how to progress that. It is a project that should go ahead, for many of the good reasons that have been outlined by others in this afternoon’s debate, but it has a potted history of falling over at various hurdles, most recently as we came out of the pandemic. I gently say that it was actually Oxfordshire that pulled the funding plug on the project at that point, but I am delighted that it is back on track and that we are making progress.

The importance of road safety and how we improve it is something that we should all consider very carefully. There are always improvements that can be made to road safety, not least outside schools, and it is important that we reflect on those tragedies that some Members have spoken about that have occurred outside schools. Any death or injury of a child is one too many, and we must all take steps to prevent those. Indeed, nowhere is road safety more important than outside schools. To declare an interest of sorts, with three children—two at primary school and the youngest due to start primary school this coming September—it is something that I consider very carefully.

It is through that rural lens that I will make my first comments. It is undoubtedly the case that in many rural communities, no matter how much parents, or indeed the children themselves, may want to cycle or walk, the practical realities of not having a school in every village, of 60 mph country lanes with no pavements connecting villages, often going some distance, mean that many parents simply have no choice but to insist that they drive their children to school or that their children get the bus—where such a thing is still available. Indeed, although I do not want to set off the grammar school debate, in counties such as Buckinghamshire that have grammar schools, there is some considerable distance for that age cohort of pupils to travel—going from the edge of the county to get to the grammars in Aylesbury or Amersham, for example—where cycling or walking simply would not be practical.

While I want to encourage those who wish to cycle or walk to school, for some, driving is a necessity due to time. People have busy lives; all our constituents have busy lives; we have busy lives. To accompany a child, particularly of primary school age, on a walk or cycle to school may take significant time out of that parent’s, carer’s or guardian’s day—time that they may not have. It is therefore important for us not to judge those parents who make the choice to get their children to school by a different route.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I hope the Opposition spokesperson can do me a favour: a charity in my constituency headed by David Dixon, the bicycle mayor for Tynedale, and supported by No. 28 Community House in Hexham, is trying to get Northumberland county council to support a pretty innovative cycle to school initiative in Hexham. However, it is falling on deaf ears with the Tory group in Northumberland County Hall. Could the hon. Gentleman possibly have a word with some of his colleagues there?

[Greg Smith]

I think I am grateful for that intervention. I am not sure whether I have any contacts in the Conservative group on the hon. Gentleman’s council, but I will gladly see if I can get that message passed to them.

In the limited time we have available, I would like the Minister, when she sums up, to consider a few practical points about how we might start making this problem better. I will start with getting the basics right. When I drop my middle child to school—a rural primary school in a village—I watch a particular taxi driver pull up on the zig-zag lines every single morning. The dirty look I give him does not appear to be doing very well in stopping that behaviour. If we cannot enforce the basic rules that we already have outside schools, what hope do we have of making it better? I ask the Minister to reflect on how we can better enforce those rules and implement the important points that many hon. Members made about yellow line parking and pavement parking.

I also ask her to consider the physical infrastructure near schools, such as narrowing sight lines, which force drivers to slow down; there is a lot of evidence out there about those and other physical infrastructure such as chicanes. On the question of speed—I promise that I will draw to a conclusion very quickly, Mrs Hobhouse—we have heard examples from the Netherlands, but I have seen examples in France and some parts of the USA of variable speed limits outside schools at drop-off times. Can that be considered in this country, perhaps to answer the very good challenge laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth)? There is a lot more that can be done in this area, and I urge the Minister to get on with it.

Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as it relates to the use of synthetic fuel donated for my summer surgery tour last August.

My concerns about this statutory instrument, unlike my concerns about other recent pieces of parliamentary business, are narrow, which means—this will be a relief to Members from across the House, I have no doubt—that my remarks will be brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have never had such a big cheer.

I thank the Government for bringing forward sensible reforms, which will decrease the regulatory burden and provide more flexibility for category B licence holders. Many of the reforms are sensible steps that were widely supported in the consultation during the last Parliament. It is unfortunate, but unsurprising, that the Government’s so-called plan for change did not involve scrapping the limitations in this statutory instrument. Narrowing the scope of eligible vehicles from alternatively fuelled vehicles to zero emission vehicles is a mistake that cannot be ignored. As we transition to new technologies, we as a country must be less prescriptive. Too often, Governments want to tell industry and innovators what to do, and I am afraid that the restrictive nature of this measure risks hampering our country’s attempts to reduce emissions.

Let me be clear: my concerns are not a judgment on whether the Government are right or wrong to suggest that zero emission vehicles will be most effective. The issue is rather that limiting the measure’s scope to a smaller subset of non-petrol and non-diesel fuels makes them far too narrow.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the regulations could be of serious detriment to the UK’s synthetic biology research community? Significant effort is going into the creation of engineered bugs that can turn renewable matter, such as sugar cane, into fuel for internal combustion engines. In a circular economy, that would represent a completely renewable source of energy that would be carbon neutral throughout its entire life cycle.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point, which I have been making for many years. I certainly did so during my time on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and outside this place, as I have engaged with the classic car sector and all parts of the industry. He is right that there is a big innovative drive for sustainable fuels, if I can call them that. Some of them derive from feedstocks, others from waste matter, and they work in the internal combustion engines that we already have—in jet engines as well as motor vehicle engines.

There are also entirely man-made synthetic fuels that require no such feedstocks. They do not require food to be grown in order to be burned. There are innovators on that in this country and all over the world. For example, Zero Petroleum, just next door to my constituency—just over the Oxfordshire border at Bicester Heritage—has developed a fuel that works in every jet engine and every internal combustion engine that we enjoy today. It is entirely man-made; it is literally made out of air and water. It is a mixture of green hydrogen with atmospheric carbon capture. However, the ZEV mandate and the approach that the Government are taking in this statutory instrument rule that technology out of order, because there is still carbon at the tailpipe. The regulations ignore the fact that the carbon at the tailpipe is the same volume of carbon that is captured out of the atmosphere to make the next lot of fuel. In fact, a whole-system analysis shows that technology to be carbon-neutral—one volume of carbon is in a perpetual cycle. However, no matter how much Ministers and the Government claim to be technologically neutral, the test at the tailpipe, and the test in this statutory instrument, which explicitly refers to zero emission vehicles, rather than alternatively fuelled vehicles, do in fact mean that the Government pick a technological winner at every step, rather than letting our great innovators innovate.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and experience of alternative fuels. He perhaps understands this statutory instrument better than I do, but I understood that it was about the weight of vehicles, and that an alternative fuel going through the internal combustion engine does not result in additional weight. Will any of the technologies that he is describing result in additional weight, and might they therefore fall foul of the limits in the regulations?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is fundamentally about weight, but on the point about synthetic fuel, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) drew me on to a moment ago—I rarely need asking twice, given the number of years I have spent talking about this—it is true that there would not be an addition of weight. However, there would be for some alternatively fuelled systems. For example, in the case of hydrogen, the fuel tanks have to be much more robust. They certainly are in a hydrogen combustion vehicle, of which there are very few. As far as I understand it, it is only JCB that has developed the technology for a construction plant, but there could be an application to road vehicles in the future. Hydrogen runs at about 700 bar in the fuel tank, so we obviously would not put it in an existing car’s fuel tank; it simply could not take the pressure. There would be weight implications for such a system.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

It is interesting, when sitting in the Chamber, to hear colleagues’ expertise on subjects that we did not know they had expertise in. I wish to draw my hon. Friend back to a slightly different subject, which he was beginning to touch on. Electric vehicles, which of course have batteries, tend to be far heavier than equivalent vehicles with an internal combustion engine. Some of the vehicle combinations that the Minister talked about—for example, he mentioned a vehicle and a trailer not exceeding 7 tonnes gross vehicle weight—would vary in weight depending on whether the car or van was electric. That might affect a person’s decision to change from a vehicle with an internal combustion engine to an electric vehicle.

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend makes an accurate point. In some ways, the statutory instrument seeks to address that point. However, he is right that when real people out there in the country make choices on their vehicles, they will make practical decisions such as the one outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), rather than looking at some of the other things the Government from time to time wish they were thinking about when they make those choices.

To make rapid progress, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the consultation was conducted, 25% of respondents —I accept that that is only a quarter—favoured retaining alternatively fuelled vehicles on the basis of the extra flexibility offered by the current alternative fuels definition, particularly for hard-to-transition use cases. That is a small subset, but we risk limiting the capability of industry and technology if we close down the possibility of innovation. There may be occasions when the additional weight would be beneficial to those alternative fuels. However, without flexibility we will not know the answer. Those 25% will have to maintain the status quo. However, we believe we must let the technology decide, not the Government, to ensure that those hard use cases are not abandoned.

For those who may not be aware, the Government have already withdrawn this SI to correct a drafting error. All the Opposition are asking is for them to do exactly the same: amend the error, bring back the changes, and allow the reductions in regulation without the restrictions on alternative fuels. That is not only the right approach, but the fair one.