Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I very much welcome this step to push the aviation industry into a sustainable future. I encourage Members to join the APPG and come along to our meetings if they want to find out more about sustainability and the future of aviation. I worked in the aviation industry for 16 years before being elected to this place, and I studied aeronautical engineering for four years before that, so it would have been remiss of me not to come to the Chamber today to share with hon. Members my expertise on the subject, but I will try not bore them.

I welcome the support for future technology and the investment previously announced by the Government. We have massive and historical expertise in aviation here in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and we really must grasp the opportunity to develop those skills and that technology further. It is an incredible opportunity for UK plc and we need to grasp it. I want to pick up on a comment by the Secretary of State in her opening speech about airspace modernisation, because it is relevant to the discussion. We must grasp the opportunities of airspace modernisation, which have the potential, as she mentioned, to deliver shorter, more direct and more efficient flight routes. But as MPs, we must engage with the process. We must understand and learn about how that is happening around us. It is inevitable, but we must get the best for our communities. We must understand and engage with that process as it goes along. It is an incredible opportunity.

Over the past few months, the APPG has been hearing about the technologies that we have today. Of particular interest is ZeroAvia, which is already flying a hydrogen-electric, zero-emission aircraft in the UK—it has a hydrogen fuel cell with electrical propulsion, which offers completely zero-emission flight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) mentioned, this is only a stepping stone to the truly zero-emission flight that we really need to capture.

If hon. Members will forgive me for boring them slightly, the Breguet range equations that I learnt about for my degree are the reason why an Airbus A380 will take off from London at 580 tonnes and land in Sydney at around 340 tonnes. The burning of fuel throughout the journey means that it is able to maintain the range and maintain the flight levels that the burning of the fuel and the reduction in the weight require. That is one reason why liquid fuel will almost always be required for very long-haul flights, no matter how far we progress with hydrogen and electrical power plants for short and medium-haul flights.

That amplifies the need not just for the current second-generation SAF production, but for looking at alternative fuel sources such as algae-derived SAF. Others have correctly made the point about the reduction in residual waste, which is the current fuel source for a lot of biodiesel for the development of SAF. As those sources decrease and the cost potentially increases, we need to look at truly zero-carbon sources of SAF.

I will not bore hon. Members more. In closing, I will just echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and of my party and encourage the Minister to go further and faster to achieve truly zero-carbon and lower-noise aviation technology so that we can continue to enjoy the incredible freedoms and opportunities in both economic activity—jobs, skills and trade—and the broadened horizons that aviation has offered us for more than a century. Long may it continue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 350 and the Noes were 176, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

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

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) should never be ashamed of being a geek of any kind. I definitely do not have his knowledge of formulas or anything like that, but I certainly am a self-professed aviation geek who has spent probably far too long sitting at the end of runways watching planes land for hours on end. When I was in high school, I used to cycle with one of my friends who lived close to the end of Edinburgh airport runway to just sit and watch aircraft come in—to the point that one time, the police came along and asked why these two 14-year-olds were sitting at the end of the runway watching aircraft land. I can assure everyone that nothing untoward or illegal was happening—we were just being that sad and geeky. I think that was the problem the police had; they did not believe that that was what two 14-year-olds were intending to do.

[Luke Taylor]

I would challenge the hon. Member’s commitment to aviation spotting if, during university, he did not take a date to the final approach at Heathrow airport and have her observing the flights coming in for a good two hours. He may be a geek, but he is not quite there yet.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It would rather depend on whether the date ended up marrying him, wouldn’t it?

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

That is noted and recorded.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I have met a number of the groups that will be presenting today. In fact, I met Rob only yesterday for information on the Bill and its content.

[The Chair]

That is noted and on the record.

Examination of Witnesses

Paul Greenwood, Rob Griggs and Gaynor Hartnell gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luke Taylor]

Q Thank you for joining us. I think we are in a slightly unusual position, in that we are all competing to try to make slight improvements to legislation that we all agree is necessary and positive. My question is about the source of the funding for the RCM. The Government made it clear that their preference is that it comes from a levy on users. An alternative, which we see in other jurisdictions, is that it comes from ETS sources, which would slightly more directly couple the emissions component to the consumption. The intention to not predicate the source of funding on the money being provided is clear. Do any of the panellists have an opinion on those two options and the path that the Government have taken for the funding source?

Gaynor Hartnell: There are really only two options for the levy: airlines or aviation fuel suppliers. A large part of why aviation fuel suppliers were chosen may have been because, administratively, they are the obligated party when it comes to the mandate. They are expected to pass the cost of the mandate through to airlines—their fuel customers. They would be expected to pass the cost of the levy to airlines, or indeed, if the levy actually brings in money—these are very small balances of money in comparison with the balances to do with the mandate—they would be expected to pass those costs back to the customers. The aim is to deal fairly with a fairly small amount of money. It is not the additional cost of the sustainable aviation fuel; it is just the cost of levelising and stabilising it, which is a sliver in comparison.

Rob Griggs: For us as airlines, the funding is a critical issue about fairness and accountability. As Gaynor said, the understanding is that the levy will be on the supplier. The issue for us is that we understand that the costs are likely to be passed through to airlines. We just want to make sure that that is transparent. We have seen through the early stages of the mandate that there is some concern that excessive compliance fees are perhaps being put on to the SAF. Voluntary SAF seems to be a lot cheaper than mandated SAF and there is not necessarily a clear reason for that. We want transparency in terms of how the levy is passed through.

As Gaynor said, in theory, if the market price for SAF is high—if there is relatively little of it—it is likely that the suppliers will actually pay into the counterparty. We want to make sure that if money is essentially being paid back to the counterparty from the producers, that money does not just go to the suppliers and sit there. There should be a transparent mechanism, however it works, through which that money then comes back to airlines and airline customers. It has to work both ways, essentially.

How do you do that? We have looked at ETS for a long time. You are right that in the European Union, the emissions trading scheme funds are used: for example, to help to close the price gap on SAF. We are not doing that, which has competitiveness implications for UK SAF, separate to the RCM. Of course there are ways to make sure that it is a two-way street.

Paul Greenwood: We have to recognise that if the desire is to pass the cost on to the passengers, the airlines and the people who are shipping freight around the world by plane, then we should put the charge on them. That is the most direct way of doing it. There are charges now that are put on airlines and on freight directly. There is no reason why you cannot do this as well. I do not buy the argument that it is a relatively small amount of money, therefore we should just put it on to the fuel suppliers and they should deal with it. I do not think that is right. I certainly do not agree with the idea that this is because “the polluter pays”—that is erroneous and a false statement.

We do not know how much this will be, because we do not know how many projects there will be, what the costs will be, or how the CFD mechanism will go. We do not know what the cost of this will be. I support what Rob is saying: if this is something imposed upon us, I do not wish to profit from it but I do want to pass 100% of it on to the consumer of my fuel. The only way I can do that is if I know what it is ahead of time, so that I can bill them the exact amount of money so they pay the exact amount. At the moment, this legislation talks about market share, but market share moves and changes. Therefore it is a very imprecise way of doing that.

Ours is a very fine margin business. If you get this wrong, you will make the UK a less attractive market. We have to understand that fundamentally people will do different things around their molecules. One data point worth remembering is that about 70% of the jet fuel consumed in the UK at the moment is imported. Effectively, we rely on people bringing jet to market to sell it profitably. If they are uncertain around the cost of that jet fuel, they will potentially look to sell it into different markets, which can lead to energy security and market dynamic issues. There are unintended consequences here that need to be thought through very carefully.

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

Q I thank the panel for coming to give evidence. Rob, in your opening statement you spoke about this being an enabling Bill. Could you touch on what you think the next steps would be were the Bill passed? I also have a basic but important question: what do you all see as the impact of this Bill, whether positive or negative, in terms of environmental and economic benefits? Is there a risk in not getting on with it?

Rob Griggs: To take the second point first: on the environmental side, UK aviation is committed to net zero 2050. We have not wavered from that commitment, and SAF is a hugely important part of that. It is doing the physical and metaphorical heavy lifting for our road map to get there. We need to do a lot of things—there is no silver bullet—but the last industry road map we all agreed had SAF at around 40% of the decarbonisation to 2050. That number will obviously change, but it is hugely important. The UK has a world-leading aviation industry, which does a huge amount for the UK economy. We believe we can grow and decarbonise, but we cannot do that without SAF. It is hugely important for both its economic and social benefits.

In terms of next steps, we fully support the Bill, and we hope the process can go as quickly as possible to get that certainty for investors and help to get those first plants built. For us, it is then down to the importance of scheme design and ensuring that we look to get that balance right for the most cost-effective decarbonisation to meet all those objectives: what size of scheme, how many and what type of projects are supported, what proportion or volume of SAF it would be looking to support and, through that, how you ensure there is competitive tension between those projects that are bidding for support and those projects that do not think they need support. It is about getting that right to ensure that we are getting best value from the projects that will deliver best bang for their buck and can produce the volumes that we need quite quickly. There are a lot of different technical elements.

Then there is funding and the transparency around that—how do we ensure it works and is accountable? If we have a scheme in place that is delivering SAF as cost-effectively as possible, it is starting to produce some, we have the quantities we need by 2030 and we are avoiding buy-out—if all those things happen together, enabled by the RCM, that is the outcome we are looking for.

Gaynor Hartnell: In terms of what is next, yes, there is a lot of detail involved in thinking about how the contracts are structured. We expect to engage with officials in great depth on that.

You asked about the environmental benefits; do you mean the environmental benefits of SAF generally, or the specific environmental benefits of producing SAF in the UK, which is what the Bill is about?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Q Building on the point Mr Ervine made about the potential wider economic contribution of SAF, I am particularly interested in the jobs. We have heard that 70% of existing fuel is imported, and therefore a significant part of your economic supply chain is essentially providing economic benefit overseas. Could you say a little more about—if we get this off the ground, as it were—how far you think that value chain and economic benefit will shift into the UK from imports? In particular, could you talk about the potential regional economic benefits of SAF, as opposed to being concentrated on London and the south-east?

Jonathon Counsell: From our modelling and analysis, we still want to have the flexibility to import SAF, because there is a global market there and we do not want to put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage by saying that all mandated SAF has to be produced in the UK. We still want access to imported SAF, particularly 1G SAF; we do not think the UK has much competitive advantage in producing 1G SAF. We think roughly 50% feels about right, and you have to compare it around that. Our view is that, of the mandated SAF, approximately 50% should be produced here in the UK—but, as I said earlier, not all of that will need the revenue certainty mechanism.

One of the key points that I want to make is that the revenue certainty mechanism is for those plants that cannot get funding: they are early stage, first-of-their-kind technology, and cannot get tracker funding because it is perceived to be too high risk by the investment market, and they cannot get that revenue certainty through any other mechanism, so therefore they rely on this mechanism. We think that roughly half of that 50% will need the revenue certainty mechanism.

A good example is LanzaJet in Teesside, the speedboat project that I mentioned earlier. That does not need the revenue certainty mechanism because we at IAG are providing the company with a long-term committed take-or-pay offer. We are giving the revenue certainty to LanzaJet, so that project does not need it; but other projects do, typically including the municipal solid waste projects that take black bag waste. They are at a very early stage, using less mature technology, and they are massively capital intense projects. They definitely need the revenue certainty mechanism, so we must ensure that it is targeted.

As Luke said, we think that by 2030 there could potentially be 10,000 extra jobs in the UK from that UK production. We can share a piece of analysis that we did through Sustainable Aviation that showed what that looks like for each region of the UK. We think there is certainly potential to build plants in Wearside, Teesside, Humberside and south Wales; if we get the policy right, we think there could be up to 14 plants within the next 10 years, which will deliver £1.8 billion in GVA by 2030.

However, the big prize will come in 2050: 60,000 jobs and £10 billion in GVA. We are creating a new energy industry for the UK. I have to congratulate the Government: we have potentially the most powerful package of SAF policy in the world, with the mandate, the revenue certainty mechanism and the advanced fuels fund. Taken together, they mean that we are the envy of the world and we have a huge chance to be a world leader on SAF production.

Lahiru Ranasinghe: To add to that, it would also enable UK aviation to grow. Our estimates are that each aircraft based in the UK supports around 400 jobs and £27 million of GVA. We have over 150 aircraft in the UK as it is, we have three aircraft going to a new base in Newcastle shortly and we absolutely intend to continue with the growth in the UK. By having the RCM unlock SAF production and SAF supply, that opens the doors to us to continue growing, while also decarbonising. That is a massive part of the economic benefit that the RCM helps to unlock, beyond the obvious effects of supporting jobs and production on the ground in the SAF industry.

Luke Ervine: Just to add a note on benefits, it is important to recognise the cost of not having the RCM. We have spoken a lot today about the buy-out. The UK is unique in its ambition to have a 2G SAF mandate, so the cost of not having the RCM is important. If we do not have it, we pay buy-out, and then we are going to lose out regionally to other areas, such as Europe and the US, that do not have those 2G SAF mandates, so it is important that we recognise that there is a cost of not having the RCM.

[Luke Taylor]

Q Thank you all for joining us. The evidence that you have given so far has been very helpful. There was a question earlier about waste hierarchy and the availability of waste feedstocks as one source of raw fuel or raw material for some of the second-generation SAF. Is enough being done across Government, in a holistic way, to ensure that the goals of the SAF mandate, the RCM and this Bill are achieved? Is enough being done to ensure that the things that are needed—waste feedstocks, the reforms to planning and energy production for eSAFs—are in place? What is going to hold back what we are trying to achieve in this Bill, and what needs to be done elsewhere?

Jonathon Counsell: That is a really strong point. There is a key question about the waste hierarchy, which Gaynor spoke to. Currently, waste going to SAF is treated the same way as incineration or energy from waste, but the analysis is clear that we can get twice as much energy capture from producing SAF than from producing energy from waste. We feel that you are getting a lot more bang for your buck from using waste to produce SAF than from other things, which we think should be reflected in aviation being prioritised in the waste hierarchy.

On renewable energy, last year the Sustainable Aviation road map made it quite clear that 3G SAF—where you basically electrolyse water to get hydrogen and you capture CO₂ from the atmosphere—is going to take a lot of renewable electricity. We are going to need a lot more of that within the UK if we are going to support a domestic power-to-liquid market.

Luke Ervine: In addition to that, we need to think about other areas of SAF, when we talk about SAF having a nominal value associated with its ability to reduce greenhouse gases. We are working alongside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Department for Business and Trade to understand how carbon can form part of the solution, and decarbonising the SAF that we are producing is also key. We are also working side by side with the Treasury to understand what the revenues from the ETS look like.

That has been quite successful in the last few years, especially since the advent of the jet zero taskforce, which was a really key turning point. I think we are going to continue in that vein to work cross-departmentally and across industry to work through some of these finer details. I think it has been very useful to be part of the Jet Zero Council; we are actually a co-chair, alongside Mike Kane, of the jet zero taskforce. Carrying on in that vein is very important and useful.

Lahiru Ranasinghe: This also enables us to reduce our dependence on used cooking oil imported from elsewhere in the world as a feedstock for first generation SAF. A strategic move towards 2G and 3G also gives more flexibility and capability for the market to scale up in the long-term, and allows it to use waste products from the UK, as opposed to having to ship it in from China or south-east Asia.

[Graeme Downie]

Q You alluded to this earlier, but have you done any work with your customers—either passenger or freight—on how much they care about SAF specifically, or sustainability more generally? If you were not working towards the kind of targets that you are, do you think that would impact customer choice? Do you see this as a competitive advantage between yourselves, or globally as well? Also, to pick up on something that Jonathon mentioned earlier, do you think there is enough in this legislation on what needs to happen after, if it is passed, to encourage the necessary investments, particularly in third-generation SAF and beyond that?

Jonathon Counsell: On the customer perspective, we did a lot of surveying of our customers, and it is no surprise that there was a bit of scepticism about offsets and all the history with those. When it comes to SAF, I think there is general recognition and support: people think, “You burn a lot of fuel, so it just makes sense that you are trying to find a lower carbon fuel.” There is a lot more acceptance of that. We have always offered voluntary schemes for our customers to offset their emissions. We provide offsets, carbon removals and SAF. The uptake is very low, but SAF is proving quite popular, so I think there is greater acceptance of SAF as a solution for aviation than some of the others.

What I will say is that corporates have gone gangbusters—if I can use that technical term—on SAF, and we do something called SAF Scope 3. A lot of the big corporates set very ambitious net zero targets by 2030, particularly professional services firms such as consulting firms, banks and law firms. When they do their carbon footprinting, a huge proportion is from their flying activity, so they come to us and say, “I want to address my carbon emissions”, and we can offer them SAF. We can sell the carbon attributes as what they call a Scope 3, and that has literally taken off. Most of the SAF that we bought last year came with a SAF Scope 3 deal from a corporate. That is fantastic, because we can use that revenue to reinvest and buy more SAF. From a corporate market, there is definitely very good acceptance of the power of SAF to reduce our emissions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

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

[Luke Taylor]

I just have a pushback or challenge on the comments about SAF being popular. An earlier pushback, too, was on the £1.50 per passenger on top of tickets. Does that suggest that this might be easier to sell—easier to promote—to passengers than you might have suggested in the first place? I think the suggestion was that certain demographics and certain airline customer groups will be more or less in favour and able to pay it.

Lahiru Ranasinghe: To add to that, for us, the average leisure traveller would say—to put it in colloquial terms—“It’s your problem to solve. We want you to do it, but we’re not going to pay for it.” With corporates, they have their own corporate targets, so from a B2B—business to business—perspective, they want to hit those.

Jonathon Counsell: I will answer the risk question. Yes, without the policy, we have no 2G SAF, so we would be dependent on the 1G market, which will cap out in the early 2030s. We are not going to achieve our decarbonisation targets without 2G SAF. That is the biggest risk without the Bill.

The biggest risk with the Bill is buy-out. If the incentive does not produce enough SAF—we understand the buy-out is there to manage short-term supply shortages, but if we have long-term buy-out, which we have seen in the ground transport fuels market—that is policy failure. Essentially, that huge cost is £6,000 per tonne of SAF, and if that cost comes straight back to the airline, it will go on air fares, but you do not get any decarbonisation—you get huge cost and no decarbonisation. That is our biggest risk.

Luke Ervine: Some of the risks of the RCM that we need to be cognisant of include covering too much of the mandate with the RCM. We do not want to lock ourselves into high prices forever and a day. Obviously we want that to stimulate the part of the market that needs that support, so we want to leave enough room for competition.

The other thing we need to think about is how suppliers might bear some of the risk that is presented in the RCM—how some of the cost of capitalising the fund, or any cost of compliance failures that they may face, might be passed through to airlines and consumers. That key area of transparency is therefore important. This needs to be well thought through, but we also need to do it quickly because we are reaching a pivotal point in terms of buy-out where we will have to just pay for no decarb.

Lahiru Ranasinghe: Ultimately, the RCM is a derisking measure. It is a stepping stone towards what we want, which is a functioning SAF market. It is a complicated challenge. There is a lot of work to be done over the coming stages and throughout the process to make sure that we end up with a competitive UK SAF market so that producers can compete on a global scale, and, crucially, we as airlines can compete on a global and European scale by keeping flying affordable and continuing to grow in the UK. On an environmental level, if there is x amount of growth coming through the UK, which is supporting an environmentally robust SAF mandate, and production in the UK, as opposed to that going elsewhere in the world, that is driving sustainable growth on a global scale.

Jonathon Counsell: On the amendment question, I do not think we need to look at any amendments at this stage. On the targeting of the scheme, we should make it an opt-in scheme for the projects that need it. We do not want a blanket scheme to cover all 2G SAF because that is not needed, but we could have projects opt in with some qualifying criteria—for example, projects that are early stage, first of a kind or high risk, and that cannot get funding without the scheme.

I would not say SAF is popular—that is probably going a step too far. It is fair to say there is greater acceptance of SAF as a solution, but let us be clear: nobody wants to pay for it. However, we accept that there is a cost to the net zero transition, and our job is to minimise that cost as far as possible.

[The Chair]

Euan, do you want to follow up on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

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

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

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

[Luke Taylor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Euan Stainbank]

Q What effect has anticipation of the RCM and the corresponding timetable, which I imagine your companies are now working to, had on your ability to make a final investment decision? Can you give us as much detail as possible about your current plans, spades in the ground and such?

Noaman Al Adhami: Our project is a £2 billion investment. We need the RCM to be able to reach FID. We already have lenders on board, and that is the requirement they have asked us to secure before reaching FID. Our project was part of the windows of the advanced fuels fund. The original plan was to start construction by 2025—this year. We were planning all our development activities to be ready to start construction this year. Unfortunately, that is now not possible, because the RCM is now pushed to the end of 2026.

Yes, immediately after I sign the contract—the day after—I will start constructing the site and reach FID. I will technically be ready by the end of this year. I am finishing FEED. We have invested more than £70 million in this project so far and we will finish FEED by the end of this year, so technically I am ready to start construction after the end of this year.

If there are delays, we are worried. We are broadly very supportive of the Bill; our issue is timing. If I do not get the RCM by the end of 2026, then the project will be delayed, and then I will not be able to produce SAF as planned starting from the end of 2029, and then provide the market with the SAF quantities by 2030, when it is required, as per the mandate. The second-generation SAF is required in 2030. I will not be able to do that if there are delays.

Sophia Haywood: We are currently in the FEED phase, which is front-end engineering and design—we are really good at acronyms in this space. Basically, what that means is that we are looking at the facility specific to the site and designing everything up with the site. It is a really important stage, before we then go to a final investment decision. We are expected to go to a final investment decision next year. That is what we came out publicly and said. Any policy uncertainty in this space, even if it is for a good thing, creates questions, but at the moment we are still working towards that timeframe.

One of the things we are hearing at the moment on access to finance is a lot of positivity towards when you get to that final investment decision space. But again, who knows the full impact that this will have on the broader markets in the financial space as well? All eyes are on the UK; they have been, first with the SAF mandate, and now with the RCM. Also in Europe, there is a lot of looking to what the UK is doing.

This is undoubtedly going to have an impact, but in all honesty it is very difficult to say right now what that impact could be until more details are available. From our perspective, the development of the scheme as swiftly as possible and, as Jonathon Counsell said, the competitivity within that, is important. It is about as much swiftness as possible. We are very supportive at the moment of what is happening.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Q You have given a really helpful view of the long-term solution. I do not think many would argue with PtL being the solution for the industry. This question is similar to one I have asked other panel members: how do other parts of Government, other levers and other enablers need to be brought in place to enable you to do what you need to do? What conditions does the Bill need to set? What do you see as the main challenges for the Government to act? You have spoken about skills. What else needs to be done in the Bill to enable you to be successful and for the Bill to achieve what it needs to achieve?

Doug McKiernan: Coming back to the IP, there needs to be some sort of support for e-fuels core technology development. That is very important. If you want e-fuels to be part of the future, we need to make sure that that research is supported in the UK and that when it is supported in the UK there is proper IP regulation of that. That needs to be mandated as part of the support from the Government.

What is happening in the aviation area is clearer cut, because you cannot get the energy density into an aircraft with hydrogen or electric, so it is kind of obvious, but I think it is a solution for a lot of the fossil-based fuels, including gasoline and diesel. I think what we will end up doing is that, if we can develop that core technology, it is then transferable to other sectors, and with that we will be able to deal with the real problem, which is the end-to-end solution of getting renewable energy to the consumer. That is the real challenge.

At the moment, we are talking about sustainable aviation fuel, but actually there is a lot of energy in the North sea that is not getting used because of the challenge of the cost of getting it from there to the consumer. This is where e-fuels come in. The Bill would help to move us in the right direction to start to tackle that problem, because you would have these companies with the new tech working out how to make that viable. There is a very good, well researched paper by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the US and the Department of Energy. It was done back in 2021.

I had a conversation with our CEO and the board one day and realised, “We’re not actually a fuels company, although we’re called Zero Petroleum and we’re making jet fuel and gasoline. We’re actually an energy transmission company, because all the problems we have with renewable energy are solved by liquid hydrocarbons”. If you look at the paper I referred to, done back in 2021, the cost of getting energy from the North sea in a cable to the consumer is probably forty to fiftyfold what it is if you wanted to do it with a liquid hydrocarbon. That is the fundamental problem that we are going to struggle with going forward. We are slowly going to morph as technology and engineering rather than policy dictate what the solution is.

[Luke Taylor]

Q Just for clarity—forgive my technical inexperience—what you are suggesting is production of the hydrocarbon at the source, at the base of a wind turbine, which is then collected in tanks rather than transmission over cables?

Doug McKiernan: Correct. Within that report, there were also comparisons to hydrogen—that was a sixfold increase over a two-foot oil pipeline—and to ethanol, methanol and ammonia. It looked at how you get energy from A to B in the cheapest operational expenditure and capital expenditure form. That is a fundamental. The cost of getting the renewable energy is what all the engineering will come back to. I believe the renewable energy will be in remote locations, a bit like oil today. Ultimately, we are going to put renewable energy in those places. Hopefully we do not cover all the fertile soil with solar panels and we can generate it elsewhere, and then use the power-to-liquids to get it from A to B.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Q Using carbon dioxide to produce SAF is a wonderfully seductive and brilliant solution. You are addressing the regulatory obstacles, but what are the technical obstacles?

Doug McKiernan: To be perfectly transparent with everybody, with carbon dioxide at the moment I think the direct air capture, compared with where we are, is a bit of an Achilles heel. It is probably around two to four years behind in its scale-up, in terms of being able to keep pace with our scale-up, but actually there is plenty of biogenic carbon dioxide around for large-scale commercial plants here in the UK, which could be a stepping stone to the direct air capture. A lot of the work with direct air capture at the moment talks about the cost of it; you can sequestrate the carbon dioxide in the ground. That is not what we want to do as a petroleum company; we want to put that carbon dioxide into a liquid fuel, and then it is net zero. You have carbon dioxide and water coming out of the exhaust—whether that is a turbine or internal combustion engine. If you capture the carbon dioxide again with the direct air capture, you are then net zero.

When you integrate that direct air capture with our process, the cost of direct air capture is probably reduced by 80%, because we have an exothermic reaction going on, and the majority of the cost in direct air capture is in the de-absorption of carbon dioxide. Once you have absorbed it from the air, you have to heat up the catalyst again—or the material that has absorbed it—to get the carbon dioxide out again, and we have an exothermic reaction. We would not have those costs associated with our process. Integration of our direct air capture with our power-to-liquid solution in three to four years’ time would be quite a mature technology, and definitely scalable within the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

Q I want to put on the record that I have an airport in my constituency, so many relevant companies are based there.

You are a global company in a global marketplace. The airlines I have spoken to want to source SAF from UK markets. How attractive is that to your organisation as a global business—responding to your customers’ wanting you to deliver locally? How much does that play a part in that investment?

Ruben van Grinsven: I am going to answer in a slightly similar way. My role is very much investigating and developing supply assets. I am really looking at building SAF plans. I am not very familiar with how customers demand locally produced fuel. In general, customers look for affordability and, therefore, at price and eligibility legislation. At this point, those are the more driving factors for people to buy certain fuels.

[Luke Taylor]

Q Mr Downie stole my question, so I will develop it a bit further. The RCM sets the levy on to the fuel producers who will likely pass it on to passengers. You operate internationally and see mechanisms being implemented elsewhere in the world. We mentioned the alternative of using the ETS to fund the RCM. How do you see the advantages of one system or the other, and where have you seen alternatives implemented elsewhere that have worked well?

Ruben van Grinsven: That is a good question. First and foremost, the UK is ahead of pretty much everybody else when it comes to developing those mechanisms. I know the EU is basically inspired by the RCM and trying to come up with a similar framework, which it will be announcing in September in the sustainable transport investment plan. I think the initial thoughts are indeed to fund that through ETS.

I do not have a strong preference between ETS-funded or levy-funded. The most important thing is that it is clear, transparent, consistent and predictable. Once we know the details and find out how the whole mechanism will work, we can perfectly live with the levy mechanism—as long as it works practically. So we do not have a strong preference between ETS or levy funding.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

Q You have just mentioned that you are looking broadly at SAF production and how that is going to play out into the future. Compared with other northern European countries, the UK has excellent access to renewable energy, and we had a very early responding hydrogen industry. What do you see as the UK’s unique opportunities in SAF production?

Ruben van Grinsven: There are two elements. One is the fundamentals: affordable renewable energy, other feedstocks, then the cost of building plants, labour, and everything else. At the moment, in terms of the fundamentals of renewable electricity, the UK does not have a clear advantage because power prices are slightly more expensive, and most of the renewable power in the UK is intermittent. That is an important thing that needs to be overcome.

You have a slight disadvantage compared with, for instance, the Nordics, such as Sweden and Finland; they have a lot of hydro and stable baseload renewable power. On the fundamental side, especially for power, I think there are other places that are currently a bit more competitive. However, many of the other elements, such as feedstock supply, labour and knowledge, are quite similar.

The biggest differentiator is probably the legislative and regulatory landscape. You are creating a market through mandates, which I think is extremely powerful. If you also increase investment certainty through an RCM, that element is unique and, at this point in time, very helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Buckley]

Q My second question is about your role at Heathrow. We heard from earlier witnesses that, because the generation fuels are drop-in fuels, they are fairly confident that they could rely on existing infrastructure for storage and so on. As the person in charge of Heathrow, our largest airport, how confident are you that existing infrastructure and storage spaces can accommodate drop-in fuels?

Matt Gorman: Very confident, from everything we hear from fuel suppliers in this space. Looking at the different bits of infrastructure, starting briefly with aircraft and engines, the main aircraft and engine manufacturers are in the process of certifying all their aircraft to run on 100% SAF. In a sense, we do not have to worry about that problem immediately, because—apart from dedicated flights—we do not have 100% SAF flowing through pipes, but that is clearly their goal. I forget the exact dates, but I think that by the end of this decade they will all be doing it, if not before.

On pipelines and aircraft infrastructure, one of the main reasons that we have focused on SAF is that it requires upstream investment in production facilities, but it does not require changes in airport infrastructure or planes. That means that as soon as you can start producing SAF, you can start cutting carbon. As an illustration, at Heathrow, partly in anticipation while waiting for some of the Government market signals to develop and kick in, we introduced a landing charge incentive—a financial incentive. It started at 0.5% a couple of years ago, and now 3% of all the fuel being used at Heathrow is SAF, which has dropped into our systems without any issues. I should also say that 17% of the total global production of SAF is now uplifted through Heathrow.

[Luke Taylor]

Q My question is relatively straightforward: does the Bill go far enough to allow us to proceed with aviation expansion and be consistent with our climate change goals?

Matt Gorman: This Bill is part of a package of measures from the Government, and I think it is absolutely vital. I see the Bill and the SAF mandate as equally important, with the SAF mandate driving a requirement for 10% SAF and with the Bill encouraging investment in domestic production. Those are vital tools, and the Government are taking a range of other steps. I am not here as a spokesperson for the Government, but the jet zero strategy outlines a range of measures to support the ongoing development of more efficient aircraft, which is a key tool in our toolkit, along with modernising airspace with the new UK airspace design service, which is vital for more efficient airspace, and support for new hydrogen technology and greenhouse gas removal. This is a vital part of that package.

[Luke Taylor]

Q The SAF mandate is 10% by 2030. The EU target is much lower: 6%, I think. Our target goes up to 22% by 2040, but elsewhere the target increases more dramatically. As Heathrow is such a large user—17% is a massive component—will the mandate be achievable alongside the goals and targets set out in the Bill? You have said that other things need to be done and that this is part of a suite, but I guess the question is whether this is enough. Do you need to see more aggression and more ambition, with investment in firms through skills and through the measures we have drawn out from previous witnesses around the protection of IP? Do you see this as enough?

Matt Gorman: I think this is a very strong start from the UK. I was smiling when the Shell representative said that the EU had been inspired by the measures that the UK is taking. Joking aside, I have talked to fuel suppliers and investors to get a sense of how they are seeing the market. They say that this package, with the mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism, is a really strong policy package from the UK.

To answer your question, Heathrow has been invited by the Government to submit updated proposals for our expansion plans by the end of this month. Within them, we will be setting out our views on our future trajectory to net zero. We think that the mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism are vital. The Government have already said that they want to keep the mandate levels under review; you are right that although we are more ambitious to begin with and the EU is less ambitious, the EU takes over. Our view is that heading more in the direction of the EU’s ambition over time will be important for Heathrow and for aviation generally, but we will keep that under review.

It is really important to get started and make a strong start in this decade, to show that as well as producing SAF globally for use in the UK, as we are already doing, we can produce it in the UK.

[Tom Collins]

Q You have mentioned that the UK is taking a strong leadership position on this stepping-stone technology with SAF. If the UK were to prepare itself now, early on, to be in a leadership position in sustainable aviation using hydrogen, what do you think that would look like?

Matt Gorman: I think it would look broadly like what the UK is doing. We think about it in three buckets: the plane, the airport infrastructure and the regulatory environment. It is worth remembering that UK aerospace is one of the jewels in the crown of our manufacturing sector. We have a very long history in aerospace, and the Aerospace Technology Institute funds some of that technology development alongside the private sector. That is important.

With airport infrastructure, we have always said, certainly for Heathrow, that we do not want to be a blocker. We do not want a hydrogen plane to be designed but not able to fill up at our airport. We keep an active watching brief on technology developments. We have taken a stand at Heathrow to trial hydrogen technology so that we can understand and build understanding. That is partly to influence the regulatory environment so that we are supporting the roll-out of hydrogen.

The latest views from manufacturers are that we will probably start small with hydrogen—small plane sizes and small ranges—and build confidence there before getting bigger. However, that could play a real role in domestic connectivity. I think we are doing the right things, but it is a both/and with SAF and hydrogen, not an either/or. I would also say that SAF is the solution that we know exists today and that we can deploy today, so we need to get it moving.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

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

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

[Luke Taylor]

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

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

[Luke Taylor]

I admire your faith that that narrative might fall away, but I agree with the rest of the answer.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions, thank you very much indeed, Mr Garton, for your evidence today.

Examination of Witnesses

Philip New gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed]

Q Just a small follow-up, if I can. You are saying that the biggest change is the US pulling back from innovation and production of SAF. Is that in direct response to what the Chinese are doing?

Philip New: No. For most global markets that have started to look at SAF, the preferred mechanism has been to impose some form of mandate—even China has put in place the beginnings of a mandate mechanism. None of them are as ambitious as those in Europe and the UK, but that is the normal mechanism. The reason for that is simply that SAF costs more than aviation fuel. Left to its own devices, an airline in a very competitive industry is unlikely to voluntarily buy more SAF than it needs to buy. If it has big corporate clients that want to offset some of their scope 3 emissions and are willing to pay a premium to have their flights decarbonised, that is fine, but there is a real limit to how big, dependable and investable that market will be.

That is where America is right now, and it is because of the structure of the other incentives in the American mechanism. A critical part of that was a change in the big, beautiful Bill, in which the premium given to SAF producers was removed completely. They now get no more money than those making diesel for ground transport use, but it costs more money to make SAF. The airlines do not have an incentive to buy SAF because there is no mandate, and the producers do not have an incentive to make SAF because it costs more to make and they get less credit from the American mechanisms in place to support renewable fuels.

[Luke Taylor]

Q As a good Liberal Democrat, I want to talk about bins again. Incineration and energy recovery facilities are broadly seen as the least worst options. If there is now an alternative, lots of us will be very interested in the opportunities for local authorities and for making conditions better for our residents. If that means cheaper bin collection, we will all be in favour.

I have questions about the big picture. It has the potential to disincentivise recycling. Does the increasing value of SAF feedstock undermine the efforts to recycle? Another, more technical question is: could plastics recycling be better diverted into this process to solve a lot of the problems we have with exporting plastics for recycling and the energy used to do that?

Many of our energy from waste facilities are now linked to heat networks. Is that bigger picture being considered—not just producing electrons, as you say, but using waste heat for district heating networks? There is a bit of additional complexity.

That leads into the bigger question of the holistic view across different Departments and the incentives that the Bill creates, which I am sure are all positive. It promotes better, more sustainable options in different Departments. Is enough work being done elsewhere for this to work within the bigger system? You have 15 minutes.

Philip New: My roots are as a fuels and energy guy, so I will not be able to respond with much expertise to the more specific questions about the waste sector. However, I will do my best by starting with the general statement that I think you are quite right that the second that waste becomes more valuable than an alternative use of that waste, you have to start questioning whether it is really waste. Funnily enough, that is more of an issue in some of the first-generation products that we are using, where the waste is becoming more valuable than virgin vegetable oils. That is a different issue, but it is very important.

In this case, as long as people either do not get anything for waste or have to pay to get rid of it, the risk of it distorting other parts of the hierarchy is manageable, particularly with a sensible degree of oversight and monitoring. I would not lose too much sleep about that. You will have to help me with the other part of the question.

[Luke Taylor]

Q It is the broader question of how this sits within the system. The implications of this Bill are really broad in the way the incentives will come into a whole different set of markets, including agriculture, waste and local government.

Philip New: First, I challenge the suggestion that this is an incentive. I think of it more as an insurance policy. If you are a recipient of the insurance policy, if it turns out that the market price is higher than you contracted for—your strike price—you will end up paying. The counterparty will be in receipt of money from the participants in the scheme. It is not a one-way incentive.

One of the charms of the RCM is that it is nicely balanced. If you are worried that the market will go long and there will be lots and lots of lower-priced product that undermines your economics, the RCM is a great way of giving you insurance that your investors will stay whole and happy.

On the other hand, by taking it on, you are sacrificing your exposure to the upside. That is the premium you are paying. I think the balance that has been designed into the RCM is a really attractive way of keeping everyone honest while still enabling investment to flow into the sector. I do not think it should distort the underlying drivers or mechanisms.

That having been said, I worry about the range of sectors that a successful SAF industry will touch. It has the potential to touch them in a very positive way, but it is also exposed to some inadvertent—I would not call it negligent—inattention in somewhere that does not feel a very strong ownership of the space, which could really mess things up. A degree of conscious, whole-system understanding of what it takes to enable a brand-new sector to emerge, and providing some co-ordination of that, would be welcome. Whether that looks a little like mission control in the electricity transition or something else, I do not know, but something to provide more comfort would be important. It touches many parts of the economy and many Departments.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Q Mr New, in your report you say that one of the key asks for industry is around confidence. We have talked a lot about revenue confidence today, but I want to go over that a little bit. You ask how the UK Government can demonstrate that they will stay the course, and I guess the core of that is political confidence.

Since your report, of course, we have had a change in Government, and who knows if there might be another one over the investment cycles we are talking about here? Could you say a little about your assessment of how a Bill—putting something in primary legislation, as this does—helps to provide the political confidence that you believe investors are looking for, and also, frankly, helps to mitigate the actions of the varying parties in Parliament as we approach this issue?

Philip New: There were two big pushes from the investment community when I was writing the original report connected with the RCM. The first was that it would just be nice to have that revenue certainty in the first place, and that is what we see in other parts of the green transition.

The other speaks directly to this point. They were very nervous that there might be a change to the mandate design, the mandate targets or something at some stage in the future, and that that would so change the market dynamics and the pricing dynamics that all their assumptions would go out of the window. They were not going to be satisfied with any number of assurances from the Government, because Governments change their minds, so they wanted a bilateral contractual arrangement, which is another feature of the RCM. A big driver of its original definition was precisely to respond to that very concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed]

Q Professor Maslin, thank you for being with us today. You talked powerfully about the international nature of this technology set. If a country or business is not going through a good time, that technology might not come through the supply chain. From a UK perspective, where are the main weaknesses with the international supply chain? As a follow-on, are any hostile states actively trying to weaponise elements of that supply chain?

Professor Maslin: The first thing is that we have to work out a way of being self-sufficient in SAFs. If you want the mandate and the Bill to work, we have to have that self-reliance. The problem that is the quality, quantity and supply of SAFs around the world are highly variable. They are not as good as you think they are. We therefore need to be able to protect our own regulations by having a homegrown community.

On weaponisation, no, I have not seen any evidence that hostile states are going after SAFs at the moment, because they are a very small percentage of the aviation mix. At the international level, it would be helpful if the Chicago accords could be renegotiated so that you could tax aviation fuel internationally, even if the tax was small—$1 per tonne, or something like that—to shift the balance away from aviation fuel and towards SAFs being more accountable. I doubt that will be possible in these interesting political times, but that is the problem we have. We are able to tax aviation fuel internally but not internationally. Therefore, at the moment, there is no aviation fuel tax on international flights, which would be a really nice mechanism. Of course, you can see that as weaponising against the fossil fuel industry.

[Luke Taylor]

Q May I start by heartily endorsing your encouragement of engineering as a career or an education? As an aeronautical engineer before I came to this place, I am available for motivational speeches whenever necessary.

From my discussions with industry on the Bill up until now, I am not quite sure that I am convinced about being agnostic to SAF production, source and mechanism. My worry is that it does not give enough ability to shape the environmental benefit of that SAF stream and to incentivise the most beneficial SAF production, such as PTL compared with the earlier gen SAFs, even 2g SAFs. Does the Bill as presented give enough of the right mechanisms to incentivise the right sort of SAFs that will be most beneficial and provide us with the greatest environmental benefit?

Professor Maslin: The Bill provides financial security for industries producing SAFs, which I think is essential. I do not think it has real tweaks to favour particular SAFs—whether you want to do that or not is another matter. The problem is that some SAFs have a better environmental signature, and they are better, but we are going to run out of those.

Ultimately, the real SAFs that we are going to be looking at globally are massive algal productions and artificial kerosene, whereby you produce huge amounts of energy, and you use water and CO₂ from the atmosphere to actually create kerosene. That is extortionately expensive at this moment in time. However, as I said, if there are 14,000 planes, going up 4% per year, by 2050 you will have a very large number of planes in the air at any one moment in time. There will not be enough waste, cropland or algal stuff to produce the SAFs we need. Generations 4 or 5 will be the ones that ultimately look after the aviation industry. I would still say to be agnostic; I cannot believe I am saying this, but let the economics work its way through at the moment to see who comes out on top in the UK, and then take through the next generation.

[The Chair]

Professor, thank you for your evidence and for illuminating us with the alumni in our midst.

Professor Maslin: It is amazing where my students end up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Collins]

Q We heard some of the evidence about how effective the RCM could be in light of the difference that CfDs have made. You have already explained how to manage the levers and the number of contracts allocated to get the economics right, but can you explain how that sits alongside the SAF mandate to help us to steer UK innovation and maximise the opportunities for the UK to lead in this sector?

Mike Kane: When we came into Government in July, we had two key aviation policies. The first was airspace modernisation, and we set up the UK Airspace Design Service and passed it into legislation just the other week. In addition to improving resilience in our skies, we hope that that measure will stop planes circling and allow those that currently do not fly in a straight line to fly in a straight line, which reduces the cost of fuel—to go back to the shadow Minister’s point. Lahiru from easyJet said in his evidence that the best energy is the energy we do not use, and airspace modernisation helps us with that piece.

The second part of our manifesto commitment was SAF. After we were elected, we laid the mandate for 2% of all aviation fuel in the UK to be SAF. That came into force on 1 January. Airlines are sourcing SAF and getting supplies of it, but too much of it comes from abroad. While we have a good industry in the UK, companies need the confidence to scale it up.

I will make no party political points, but four or five years ago we were promised that by 2025 five plants would be up and running. If I were going there, I would not be starting from here, but we are getting on with doing this now. I think everyone on this Committee can be extraordinarily proud that this will be the moment that we stepped up and began to decarbonise the aviation industry.

[Luke Taylor]

Q I have one straightforward question, and one that is a little more spiky. First, we have heard a lot about the need to work across Government to ensure that we get the most effective outcome from the Bill. From all the evidence we have heard, it seems to be the right thing and structured well, but how do we ensure that municipal waste streams match up with incentives for heat networks, waste hierarchies and that sort of stuff? We hear a lot about mission-based Government—is that what will give the advantage to being able to co-ordinate across Departments? Will you give us an account of what you are doing so far to pull those Departments and different groups together to make sure it works?

Mike Kane: To get any Bill this far, as any Member will know, it has to have consent right around Government. The Government know exactly what we are doing in a joined-up way. To answer your mission question, we have said that we want to be a clean energy superpower, and this Bill helps us to do exactly that. It gives us sovereign capability here on UK shores to do that; not only is that the right thing to do, but, in the increasingly uncertain geopolitical situation we face, it is becoming almost essential.

The other mission that we have is growth. Today, I heard some very big figures on what that could mean. Our Department figures show at least £5 billion GVA added if we do this, and about 15,000 jobs—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. I am suspending the Committee for a Division in the House. We will try to get back as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now continue with our proceedings. I call Luke Pollard to continue—[Interruption.] Sorry, you are not a Minister of State yet, but you will be soon, I am sure. I call Luke Taylor.

[Luke Taylor]

Q Thank you, Mr Pritchard. Minister, your first answer was very helpful. My second question is on a theme that I have brought up a couple of times, and which echoes the evidence around ETS funding from a couple of the witnesses. I am going to be a bit pointed, but if you had had the choice and the permission from the Treasury to get the funding from the ETS, rather than passing it on to firms and then passengers, would you have seen that as an optimal solution, in these constrained times?

Mike Kane: As the departmental Minister, I want to avoid the pitfall of commenting on Treasury policy, but I did hear some earlier evidence that £500 million came in from the ETS. What did they get back for it? Well, £2.3 billion of investment in the ATI, which is looking at engine capacity, hydrogen and reduced noise technologies. We are investing more than we ever have in that area. We are also now aligning, or are in negotiations to align, our ETS with the European Union. That would give us a bigger market, and therefore help aviation in this space.

In addition to the £2.3 billion, the Chancellor recently announced £63 million for the advanced fuels fund. The Government are putting their money where their mouth is. As part of the work that I have done this year to restart our confidence in aviation, I set up the jet zero taskforce, which is jointly chaired by me and the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), at DBT. There is an awful lot of joined-up thinking in this area.

[Amanda Hack]

Q In terms of SAF’s growth potential, I would be interested to hear more about how smaller organisations can get involved and how we can ensure that lots of businesses benefit from this huge step forward for our economy. A lot of SAF production will be in coastal areas, but my constituency, which has an airport, is inland. How can that growth potential reach all parts of the UK?

Mike Kane: Indeed, and Amanda, you are a great champion of East Midlands airport in your constituency—I have Manchester airport in mine, and I see from day to day the benefits that growth brings in terms of jobs, skills and inward investment. You make exactly the right point. Good strategy is turning what you have into what you need to get what you want.

We have industrial heartlands dotted right across our nation, including in our coastal communities. They are almost oven-ready to host the technology, inward development and jobs. Our analysis, which was a minimum compared with those of everybody else in the room, is that this would create 15,000 jobs in the next few years and £5 billion in GVA. Those jobs are in many of our run-down coastal communities and industrial heartlands, so this is a win-win on many levels—in terms of decarbonisation, carbon capture, production and the regeneration of parts of our nation that have been left behind for far too long.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I rise very briefly to speak in favour of new clause 2, which I have tabled. Generally, the intent was to provide a check-in and reporting mechanism for the success of the Bill. We are all in favour of its objectives; I think that it is the care, and the attention to understanding how it is progressing, that is needed. I therefore ask the Minister what measures will be taken by the Government to achieve the aims of the new clause. Will that be through the jet zero taskforce, or will there be another mechanism for us to understand and monitor the progress and success of these measures? I would be interested to hear his response on how that might be done.

[Mike Kane]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Let me start by addressing the point made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, about the overview and ambition of this legislation. We are the first legislature in the world to attempt to create this revenue certainty mechanism. The SAF mandate was a key commitment in our election manifesto last July, and the eyes of the world, as some of our witnesses said the other day, are on us doing this work, because people are following our lead. I therefore want to bake in the competitive advantage of being ahead of the game in this area, and being a world leader in this area too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

The clause will enable the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to the counterparty to ensure that it can always meet its liabilities under the revenue certainty contracts. The intention is that the counterparty will be funded through the levy payments from suppliers of aviation fuel in the UK. The power is a back-up to assure SAF producers and investors that the counterparty will always be able to meet its obligations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Black bin waste

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament, guidance on the opportunities available for local authorities in England to support the production of Sustainable Aviation Fuel through the use of black bin waste.

(2) Within six months of the publication of guidance under subsection (1) the Secretary of State may, by regulation, require local authorities in England to prioritise the creation of sustainable fuel in the disposal of their black bin waste unless the local authority deems it to be significantly financially disadvantageous to do so.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must define the meaning of ‘significantly financially disadvantageous’ for the purposes of this section.

(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Luke Taylor.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Taylor]

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

I move the new clause simply to discuss some of the interesting issues that it raises. In the evidence session on Tuesday, we heard about the opportunities for the diversion of residual municipal waste into the production of second-generation SAF. We have heard from many in Committee this morning about the challenges to do with the incineration of waste and the impact of that on our communities, but a lot of us maintain, or agree, that that is the least worst option. The opportunity here is that there is a slightly less worse option for the disposal of that remaining municipal waste.

New clause 1 aims to give the Minister a bit of a nudge towards examining the opportunities and how the waste hierarchy could reflect how that waste is potentially reused. There are also broader questions not only about the residual waste but about plastics recycling, such as whether there is an opportunity to incorporate changes in the way that plastics recycling is prioritised, and whether it is a suitable feedstuff for SAF. New clause 1 is an opportunity to raise some of those questions, and for the Minister to give some assurances and responses on them.

[Mike Kane]

I think the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has a point, in that the public will be interested in how this is made. Advanced-waste SAF, including SAF made from non-recyclable municipal solid waste, is a key part of the SAF industry. We have backed and invested in this kind of SAF in our grant funding programme, the advanced fuels fund, as I mentioned earlier, and we are backing it again in this Bill, providing the revenue certainty that advanced waste-based SAF producers need to attract investment and scale up fast.

The hon. Member’s new clause, however, is not what the SAF producers need, and would place more burdens on our local authorities. There is nothing preventing local authorities from using their municipal solid waste for SAF production if they believe that it provides the best value for money and environmental outcomes. We heard in evidence the other day, when waste actually has a value to it, is it waste any more?

However, municipal waste often needs to be pre-treated and processed before it is used in SAF production. This often means that SAF producers look to buy their waste from processors, rather than from local authorities. We do not believe that access to municipal solid waste is currently a significant barrier for UK SAF production, and it is likely that discussions on the availability of municipal solid waste would happen once a project is close to taking a financial investment decision. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Review of the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a report reviewing measures to encourage the supply of materials for Sustainable Aviation Fuel.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an assessment of the impact of the closure of bioethanol plants on the ability to encourage overall increases in sustainable aviation fuel production;

(b) options for mitigating any adverse impacts on the availability of supply of sustainable aviation fuel by the closure of bioethanol plants;

(c) recommendations for any necessary Government action to promote a stable supply of bioethanol for Sustainable Aviation Fuel.”—(Mr Kohler.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report outlining measures to encourage the supply of materials for SAFs, including considering the impact of bioethanol plant closures on encouragement to increase supply.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[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.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

A latter day Hilaire Belloc, in my humble opinion. However, on this occasion, the hon. Member for Wimbledon will no doubt know that I disagree with him.

Committee members will be aware that SAF is considered to be essential in achieving net zero for aviation medium and long-haul flights, which account for about 80% of CO₂ emissions from aviation. The Government update Parliament and the public regularly on the progress towards net zero targets across the economy, including by laying in Parliament an annual statement of emissions and annual publications of official greenhouse gas emissions statistics. They include granular detail on emissions from all economic sectors, including domestic and international aviation. Furthermore, the Climate Change Committee reports to Parliament each year on progress in reducing emissions, including for transport, and there is a statutory duty on the Government to respond to the points that it raises.

To address the points raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, we continue to publish statistics on the volume of SAF supplied each year in the UK and under the SAF mandate. Together, these measures provide a clear picture of progress towards decarbonising aviation, so I would ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw his new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

The Minister has spoken about the tonnage from SAF, but the real question is whether statistics and information will be available on the sources of each of those SAF types, so that we can examine how each of the various streams of SAF production are contributing and also understand the net carbon benefit. He has talked about the carbon production from the burning, but we need to see the detail of the SAF streams to understand the benefits and the progress towards decarbonisation in more detail. Is that something the Government might consider?

[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.