Tuesday 15th July 2025
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesSustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 View all Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 15 July 2025 - (15 Jul 2025)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Q
Doug McKiernan: On the first part of the question, given my knowledge of the sector as an engineer, I do not believe that there is a long-term solution other than power to liquid. At the moment, in the ASTM fuel standards, there are a lot of bio-based, sugar-based and food-waste solutions. In my view, those are not truly scalable, and their cost will only ever go up, because of the shortage of land and so on. The power-to-liquid side is truly scalable. The feedstock is air, water and renewable energy. It is extremely clean, and it gives the industry the opportunity—in, say, 10 or 15 years’ time—to move to fuels that are even more performant than current fossil-based fuels.
We are very supportive of the Bill, and we think it will be useful for us if it goes through. It will give confidence to the sector and bring investment, which then helps to bring capability to the UK. It is a great way to kickstart the e-fuels industry, which is the medium to long-term solution, not a short-term solution. We have been working in this sector for only five years. Because of our education system, we probably have some of the best talent in this sector globally, and we are able to recruit that.
We have already made significant inroads into the quality of the fuel, which is over and above anything else that is now available—and when I say that, I mean globally available. This little company that we have—and it is little—has been able to outperform some of the bigger competitors in the field. Towards the end of this year, we will submit our product to the ASTM governing body to get it certified. The intellectual property that we are generating is key to the UK. We need to make sure that the IP is generated here in the UK and kept here because I believe that in five years from now all the big decisions around e-fuels—all the important ones—and the freedom to operate will have been worked out, and we do not want that to be worked out anywhere other than in the UK. It will enable us to kickstart the energy generation within the UK so that we have a sovereign capability for energy generation. I hope that answers your question.
Greg Smith
Q
Doug McKiernan: That is a very good question. I think we are in a race. At the moment we need the Bill to give confidence to investors. That will help us to scale. That is the main benefit in the short term. With regard to the IP, there needs to be a mandate somewhere in Government to support core e-fuels development. A lot of small companies at the moment are not getting that, so we are at risk of going abroad with the technology. The Aerospace Technology Institute heavily sponsors hydrogen and electric, but does not really support the core technology of e-fuels. Although we have this mandate, which we think is great, there is a bit of a gap there that could do with addressing.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Q
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
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
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
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.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Q
Doug McKiernan: That is a good question. I am not a particularly good judge of financial investment—I am a technical person—but I looked at the quotas for the e-fuels, and if they went further, I believe they would drive the development of the technology harder, because it would bring more investment into that particular area. To me, 3.5% by 2040 seems quite low—I think that we could probably scale up and do blends where that would be significantly higher.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Doug McKiernan: There is no question about it. The people who we have recruited have been researching, and have done not only doctorates but post-docs in this area. They have been working in it for nine or 10 years, hoping that there was a company out there that would recruit them and turn their R&D into a reality. These people are very passionate about their career and what they want to do. They are not going to work for the money; they come to make a difference. We have recruited a lot of those people. They will go wherever the company is that will make what they want to do happen.
Mr Kohler
Q
Doug McKiernan: Our technology at the moment has to be scalable. When I go to the Jet A-1 ASTM committee at the end of the year, it has to be scalable. That is part of getting of getting the certification. We have to have a scalable process as well as a quality of fuel—so yes, we are there.
The Chair
We have a minute left, but there are no further questions from Members. I thank the witness for his evidence.
Examination of Witness
Ruben van Grinsven gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Ruben van Grinsven from Shell International. This session will have until 2.40 pm. Can you introduce yourself for the record, Ruben?
Ruben van Grinsven: Good afternoon. My name is Ruben van Grinsven. I work for Shell and I am based out of the Netherlands, at The Hague—the former headquarters of our company, which has now moved across the street. Shell is active in quite a large part of the value chain of aviation refuelling. We provide both SAF and fossil aviation fuel to airline customers today. We do the blending, we do the transportation and we do sourcing, which means that we buy both aviation fuel and SAF from across the world to meet our customers’ needs. We are also actively looking at the production of generations 1, 2, and 3 of SAF.
Greg Smith
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: That is a really good question. We are looking globally at various opportunities to build SAF production plants. The second and third generations especially are more challenging than the first generation. To make the investment case robust, we need to solve a whole number of challenges—some are around ensuring that we can make the technology work, and some are around financing. But a lot of it has to do with the value of the product that we make, and the certainty around the value of the product.
The revenue certainty mechanism being discussed in the Bill is very compelling. There is always a combination of different factors. It is partially fundamentals about whether we can get the right feedstocks, but part of it is also about the certainty we have about the price we are going to get for our products. The revenue certainty mechanism is absolutely very helpful.
Greg Smith
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: There are two elements. One is whether we can invest in a UK plant. That is hard to tell at this point in time for two reasons. We do not fully understand all the details associated with the Bill. I think the principles are very promising, but there are many things that need to be detailed out, which, at the end of the day, will decide how appealing the investment is going to be. There is a lot of that.
Can UK-produced SAF be competitive in a global market? I think that depends a little bit on the type of technology, but it is also very timebound. At this point in time, this is not the cheapest place to make e-SAF, just because power is more expensive than other places in the world. But if we continue to build out the renewables, as I have seen in plans before, I think there are going to be more affordable electrons around that can then be converted into e-SAF. In the longer term, e-SAF can be competitive.
For other technologies, I think things are less location dependent. Ethanol to jet, for instance, is very feedstock dependent, and I think that the UK can be as competitive as other places. Again, the fundamental competitiveness is one element. The other element is whether the whole investment case makes sense, and part of that is financing —and part of the financing is driven by revenue certainty. It is not just the fundamentals but the whole package that determines the attractiveness of the investment.
Greg Smith
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: I do not know. I do not know exactly what the price projections are for renewable power in the UK. It is hard to guesstimate that, so I do not know.
Graeme Downie
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: Ideally, you want the market to take care of it. As evidenced by a lack of investment to date and by a lot of feedback from industry, it is difficult for investors now, without the revenue certainty mechanism, to invest. Is it essential? That is a very black-and-white question. I think it is going to be extremely helpful to convince people to invest.
We absolutely support the Bill because additional SAF production in the UK is going to be helpful for decarbonising the aviation sector, and we very much support that. Additional supply projects in the UK are going to be very helpful to meet the targets and help decarbonise the aviation industry. Yes, we very much support the Bill.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: I am afraid I cannot fully answer that question because it is not the part of the business that I am in. I am not importing SAF to the UK, so I do not know how trade limitations are currently impacting SAF supply. I would have to ask a colleague and come back to that question. It is also hard to predict what the future is going to bring for global trade and how protectionism will impact the global free trade of all types of fuels.
If you produce domestic fuels, that is, of course, going to be helpful if you want energy security. I must say, though, that if you look at the volumes that we are talking about today, the energy security element in the early days is going to be limited because of the volume of the fuels involved.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Q
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
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
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.
Chris Vince
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: Especially for the second and third generation, SAF needs to develop. I think the consensus is that HEFA-based SAF is, at this moment, the most mature and affordable, so it is a great option. However, we also all believe that we are going to run out of feedstock at a certain time.
If you want to continue decarbonising aviation, you need additional forms of SAF—and that is where the second and third generations come in. We need to start developing those now, to learn how it is done and establish the technology and the fundamentals behind it. Starting that now is essential, and doing it in the UK could potentially give you a head start. If you do this before everybody else, you would have a technological and commercial head start, which could be an advantage.
Greg Smith
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: The principle makes sense: at the end of the day, additional cost will find its way to the end user. We do not have enough information at this point in time to calculate what the cost is going to be because a lot of the details of the Bill are unknown. We would like to better understand how this is going to work, what the volumes are, what the timing is going to be, and how we will organise the contracts between the supplier and the off-taker. There are a lot of things that we do not know at this point, and therefore it is difficult to model what the final cost of the levy is going to be for the end consumer. I do not know; it is difficult to answer.
On top of that, I think it is going to change over time. Over time, if the market is short and the prices are high, money might flow towards the levy, so it would be like a negative levy but then it might turn into a positive levy. It is very difficult to assess that and put a number on it.
Mr Kohler
Q
Ruben van Grinsven: Again, that is hard to judge because we do not have the full details of how this is going to be done. I agree that it is a very thin-margin business, so we have to make sure that the levy is distributed properly, and that we do not give certain people a disadvantage or advantage just based on calculation methods. We need to design it very carefully so we do not disturb the market too much. We will be able to assess that much better when we have more details about the Bill.
The Chair
I thank the witness for his evidence.
Examination of Witness
Matt Gorman evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Matt Gorman from Heathrow airport. For this session, we have until 3 pm. Welcome, Mr Gorman. For the record, can you please introduce yourself?
Matt Gorman: Sure. I am Matthew Gorman, the carbon strategy director for Heathrow airport.
Greg Smith
Q
Matt Gorman: Let me start by saying that we take this issue very seriously, for the reasons you have outlined. It is central to our business. SAF is key to delivering the industry’s net zero transition plan: it is about 40% of the solution. I do not think that anyone can forecast the future costs and prices with exact certainty, but I will say that we test all our demand forecasts for Heathrow against a range of different carbon price scenarios, from low to high—“high” being the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s high scenarios. We do that because it is important for us to understand and our investors to understand, and because climate disclosure legislation now requires us to share that information in our annual report. We have concluded that demand for flying from Heathrow remains robust even in high carbon price scenarios in future. We are confident about that.
The Government have shared their analysis on the revenue certainty mechanism and the reasons behind it. That is one of the carbon costs that consumers will bear—there are clearly others—but I come back to the point that all our forecasts have shown that demand is robust.
Greg Smith
Q
Matt Gorman: It is a good question. We welcome the Bill. As SAF is so important, the sector and Heathrow have advocated over a number of years both the mandate, which was passed as legislation at the beginning of the year, and the revenue certainty mechanism. It has benefits for energy security, green jobs, growth and decarbonisation. That has been one of the drivers for the sector to support it. The decarbonisation benefits are clear. On jobs and growth, earlier witnesses talked about the industry studies showing up to £10 billion of GVA and 60,000 jobs by 2050.
Energy security is one of those reasons. As SAF is a key part of the industry transition plan around the world, there will be global trading of SAF. Kerosene is a global commodity today; SAF will be in future. We think we will import some. However, the sector is supportive of domestic production, which is why we are so supportive of the Bill. I should say that Heathrow is not directly in the fuel value chain—we do not buy, make or sell fuel—but we are very involved in the debate, because it is so significant. All the fuel producers and investors we talk to say that the revenue certainty mechanism will help to unlock investment decisions in the UK. I am not sure whether the Bill could be improved to do that even more. I do not have a view on that.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
Q
Matt Gorman: That is a good question. We have not studied it in those terms. We have published a plan to get to net zero, and there are four key tools in the toolkit. SAF is one; zero-emission and hydrogen-powered aircraft are others. More efficient aircraft and more efficient operations deliver a huge amount, and there are greenhouse gas removals for anything that we cannot cut within the sector.
SAF is important. We have always said that a combination of a mandate requiring production and incentives to stimulate investment in the UK is important. We are delighted to see the Government progressing with the Bill: we would like it to be passed as soon as possible, and we would like the consultation on the implementation to move forward. I would simply say that SAF is very important and that the Bill is very important to driving UK production.
Julia Buckley
Q
Matt Gorman: It would be much more difficult to produce in the UK; all the investors and fuel suppliers we talk to say so. There are huge advantages in doing that—for jobs, growth and energy security, as well as for decarbonisation .
Julia Buckley
Q
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
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
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
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.
Mr Kohler
Q
Matt Gorman: On the first question, I touched earlier on the fact that the EU and the UK have taken different trajectories, certainly into the longer term. I will be a little bit careful in what I say, because we are just finalising our thinking on what we submit to the Government, but increasing ambition with SAF will be important in the UK as we build confidence in production and scale-up of the technology. We can see a case in future to be more ambitious with the UK mandate. I think the Government said that they want to keep that actively under review, which we support.
On the question of tankering, it happens to a limited extent today. We do not fly the aircraft, but our understanding, from when we last looked at it several years ago, is that on short-haul aircraft in particular, where there is a very rapid turnaround and you do not necessarily want to take time to fill up the aircraft at the other end of the route, the CO2 penalty was not huge in terms of the industry overall. I am not close enough to comment on whether the levy poses a particular challenge there, but when the Government get to the stage of consultation on the detailed design of the mechanism and are working with the industry, it will be important to design it in a way that avoids that wherever possible.
Amanda Hack
Q
Matt Gorman: It is a great question. All the evidence from our polling of customers, as well as what we read in regular polls and consumer surveys, shows that people are broadly concerned about climate change and environmental issues generally. In terms of aviation, they see that there is a role for customers, but they are clear that the industry needs to set out a plan and take action. They understand that airports do not necessarily fly planes, but that we clearly have a responsibility. They expect us to set out the plan, communicate it and take action at the airport where we can. In that sense, all the evidence shows that consumers support us taking action.
As the answer to an earlier question alluded to, the net zero transition will have some costs to consumers. The challenge is how we keep those costs as low as possible while reaching the goal of net zero. I think the balance of the mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism is well designed to achieve that. We think that domestic production in the long term so we are not reliant on imports—we have discussed the energy security angle—is a good way of helping to manage price certainty in future. Consumers are supportive, engaged and willing to pay a bit more to support the transition to net zero, but the industry and Government need to take action to manage it cost-effectively.
Mr Kohler
Q
Matt Gorman: If we start with the mandates out to 2030, we at Heathrow do not see a particular challenge in the UK’s adoption of a more ambitious mandate. We very actively supported the 10% mandate for the UK. As I say, it is really important that we start to get SAF flowing and to produce it in the UK, with the support of the Bill.
In the longer term, through the work we are doing and our submissions to Government, I expect us to say a bit more about the long-term ambition for the mandate in the UK, but we have not quite finalised that. I will be happy to update the Committee in writing later in the summer.
The Chair
There are no further questions from Members. Thank you for your evidence, Mr Gorman.
Examination of Witness
Josh Garton gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Josh Garton of the Green Finance Institute. For this session, we have until 3.20 pm. Good afternoon and welcome, Mr Garton. For the record, will you please introduce yourself?
Josh Garton: I am Josh Garton, technical director at the Green Finance Institute.
Greg Smith
Q
Josh Garton: I think that the revenue certainty mechanism that is being proposed is a really good start to getting finance into the sector. Undoubtedly it will not be the only thing that is required: there are other risks that need to be addressed. The revenue certainty mechanism addresses price risk, as it is designed to, but other challenges remain for the second and third-generation fuels, and they may need to be addressed as well. I think that it is the best solution for addressing price risk. As other witnesses have described, when we speak to our colleagues in Europe and elsewhere, they see the package of regulation that the UK is proposing as some of the most promising in the world. The UK will become a very promising place to invest in SAF.
On your question about the price for the end consumer, it is very hard to forecast what that will be. There are a lot of forecasts out there. It obviously depends on the cost of production, the blending of the fuel and many other factors, but the most important thing is that the mechanism for transferring the cost to the consumer be done in a very equitable way, so that you remove any competitive advantages or disadvantages resulting from airlines and other players in the industry potentially gaming the system. I would say that that is a more critical element to consider.
Greg Smith
Q
Josh Garton: I think that imports will definitely play a role, particularly for the first-generation fuels. The structure of the mandate provides space for second-generation fuels, which are quite novel with the sustainability requirements attached to them, so the UK will be a good place for producing them. The technical design of the mechanism, which is not set out in the Bill, will be what is most critical to ensuring that the mechanism is adequate for facilitating investment.
David Reed
Q
Josh Garton: We are most active here in the UK and Europe with sustainable aviation fuel and the investors that are interested. We deal with commercial banks, private equity and other investors, and they are all very enthusiastic about the prospect. Unquestionably, they want to deploy capital into this space, but they will not be throwing out their investment rulebook when it comes to their risk-return profiles and the way that they assess risk. For that reason, we need things like this revenue certainty mechanism in place to provide confidence that investors, when they deploy capital in this space, will get the returns they need to justify their investments, or that lenders providing debt capital into this will get the returns they need within the regulatory frameworks in which they operate.
Amanda Hack
Q
Josh Garton: Yes, I think there are. As I said, the revenue certainty mechanism seeks to address price risk primarily. The mandate deals with volume, and it provides that volume certainty in the market. When we think of the second and third-generation fuels that we need to develop to meet the aviation decarbonisation targets, these are somewhat novel technologies—in fact, they are novel technologies—and there is no market for the fuel at the moment. That means the technologies themselves are not commercially mature yet, so even with a revenue certainty mechanism in place, there is still a level of technology risk that some investors are not willing to tolerate at this point in time.
We need further support to help the first-of-a-kind projects get through FID, even with the revenue certainty mechanism in place. That can include deploying things like first-loss guarantees, or other forms of Government involvement, such as being the first lender through something like the NWF taking a slightly more risk-on approach to the financing of these first-of-a-kind projects. That way we can prove that the technologies are commercially viable, and then help scale the sector.
Ms Minns
Any international comparator.
Josh Garton: In green finance, we will all have observed that the geopolitical narrative is changing. In the UK and the EU there is a more favourable environment for green finance than over the other side of the Atlantic. There is still a great appetite here, albeit within those risk tolerances that the different types of investors require.
Greg Smith
Q
Josh Garton: To go there? Are you talking about the first-generation fuels?
Greg Smith
Well, first and second, until we get to third.
Josh Garton: It is certainly a consideration, but I think most investors are very cognisant of the fact that the third-generation fuel, while absolutely necessary in the long term, has some way to go to evolve to that point. There is a lot of space still for the first and second-generation fuels to develop, but there will be some consideration about not building overcapacity in those sectors.
Greg Smith
Q
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
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.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Philip New. For this session we have until 3.40 pm. Welcome, Mr New. Just for the record, could you introduce yourself?
Philip New: My name is Philip New. A couple of years ago I was commissioned to prepare a report for the Government on the development of a UK SAF industry. Before that, I used to be responsible for BP’s global renewable energy activities.
Greg Smith
Q
Philip New: The main conclusions from the report that I did were, first, that the SAF mandate as laid out—it was at a slightly more formative stage then than it is now—was a really smart way of trying to define the market mechanisms, the targets and the obligations framing a new market. The question then was what other mechanisms would need to be in place, having got the demand side largely mapped by the mandate, to enable supply to occur.
My first thought when I saw the RCM was that there was very little that was needed: if you believe that the market will be short of SAF, as many people do, with a buy-out price and a target, you would expect the product to price close to the buy-out price—that which is available. That sends a very strong price signal to investors. I was unfortunately thinking of that from my historical perspective as a strategic investor and had underestimated the conservatism of the banking community. It was clear to me that they were pushing very hard—perhaps because they had grown very comfortable with the idea of a CFD in other parts of the green transition—and they were really enthused and insistent on the idea of a revenue certainty mechanism. The way that the RCM has emerged so far is very highly aligned with the proposals that emerged in that original report. From that point of view I would say, “So far, so good.” The mandate is evolving well and the RCM feels pretty much where it needs to be.
The questions that are still out there, as I think Josh Garton was referring to, are specific to very first-of-a-kind technologies. Part of the issue with the second-generation products is that, while the feedstocks are already wastes, they are often already being used in other sectors. There needs to be, I think, some greater degree of comfort to enable some of those wastes to be bid away without wrecking the project economics of the SAF developer. A good example is black bin waste. The prospect is that by having more competition for black bin waste, we reduce costs for local authorities. It is really nice if we can get there, but for now, while these technologies are so uncertain and regarded as such a risk, it is difficult for local authorities to commit to them with enthusiasm, because they are afraid that they will end up paying landfill fees if they do not manage to do it.
That is one example suggesting that there should be some more comfort around feedstocks. The rest of the answer are the mechanisms that could be put in place to smooth some of the risk around the very first projects. The risks there are around integrating new technologies for the first time and then getting through some of the operating teething problems, because everyone involved will be coming across those issues for the first time. It took me about four years to get a much simpler plant up and running to a point of satisfactory operation. We should not underestimate the challenges of getting those initial assets over that first set of hurdles, but the RCM is an absolutely necessary part of the mix that needs to be put in place.
Greg Smith
Q
Philip New: When I first engaged with this, I had exactly the same thought. However, a few things are starting to emerge that sit on the more optimistic side of the balance of risk here.
First of all, over time there will be more and more pressure for the energy from waste manufacturers to access carbon capture and storage. It is not at all the cleanest way of generating an electron in this day and age. It would be reasonable to expect that over the next 15 years, we will see a number of those assets get to a point where the contracts are expiring. They will then need to contemplate refinancing, and if they do, whether or not they have access to carbon capture and storage will become important. Not all of them will be able to either afford or justify it, because they are too distant from where the carbon sinks are. There is a probability that enough capacity will start to come off stream for it to be picked up.
On top of that, the imposition of the emissions trading tax will start to free up some of the very difficult to recycle plastics, which could be used to make SAF. There is also an interesting stream of waste wood that will become available, particularly as some of the rocks start to fall away, which will start to happen in a couple of years’ time—and assets that at the moment are making renewable electricity out of waste wood will lose their rocks. We also need to remember that it is the local authority that is paying the energy from waste company to move it away.
I have recently been involved with some economic analysis. We assumed that for the first wave of sites there would be a 100% discount. In other words, rather than the local authority paying, it would get rid of the waste for free. The developer would not pay for it themselves, but the local authority would still save the money. We thought that would be necessary to give local authorities the comfort to take on the exposure. Later on, there might be scope for it to become a little more competitive, because people will get more comfortable and there will be more confidence in the technology.
I do not think that we simply have to bail them out. I think there might be something around a guarantee of some description that simply says to a local authority, “Look, if you give a contract to one of these companies and it fails—if it can’t live up to that contract—and you have to put it into landfill and pay the landfill tax, there could be some kind of keep-whole mechanism,” just to encourage them over the line.
The other thing that you could consider is looking at the waste hierarchy. Simply moving this from being recovery to recovery-plus would send a very strong signal to local authorities that putting it into SAF is a better use of their waste than simply incinerating it and turning it into electrons.
Ms Minns
Q
Philip New: This is quite a challenging conundrum. Right now, the safe place to put your waste is into an incinerator to make electrons. Is that the best place for the journey to net zero or for the local authority’s long-term economics? That is less obvious. It is difficult to put all the obligation on the local authorities to make the right, wise, long-term choice, when they are dealing with some very short-term pressures. This is where I think some extra signals—whether through some kind of mechanism that gives them comfort that they will be kept whole if things do not work out as planned, or some adjustment to the waste hierarchy—could play a helpful role.
David Reed
Q
Philip New: I think the key change has been in the United States. When I wrote that report, it was in the context of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The concern was that we might be out-competed by investment in America, and we would end up being a net importer of stuff from America, not just in first-generation SAFs but in second-generation SAFs. They have lower energy costs, which are very important in these sorts of industries, and their build costs are about 20% less than ours. That was a real worry then.
Especially coming out of the big, beautiful Bill, America is out of the game. That is kind of a good thing at one level, because it means that, particularly with the way the mandate is designed around second-generation SAFs, we now have a globally unique position. We could therefore become an incubator for a series of technologies that will have to play a significant role in aviation decarbonisation over the next couple of decades. The bad news is that if we fail to get this new industry kick-started, I do not think we can hope to rely on imports from somewhere else to get us out of trouble. It will mean that we will not meet our mandate targets.
David Reed
Q
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
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
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
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.
The Chair
Thank you for your evidence, Mr New. We will now move on to the next panel. Before I call our next witness, Mr Geoff Maynard, I say to colleagues that there may well be a Division around 4 pm, or perhaps 4.05 pm, so we may or may not get through the whole of this session before then. If there is a Division, we will go and vote. Return within fifteen minutes maximum, please. If there is another vote, which I do not think there will be, it will be a further 10 minutes.
Examination of Witness
Geoff Maynard gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Geoff Maynard: Good afternoon. I am Geoff Maynard, a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport and a member of its aviation policy group. We meet regularly, maintaining links with universities, industry, airlines and environmentalists to assess developments in the sector, and to advise and inform Governments and the aviation sector on the best way forward, balancing the needs of the environment and the airline sector.
Greg Smith
Q
Geoff Maynard: I think the short answer is yes. It meets that requirement because, unless there are some incentives for SAF—which will cost more than the kerosene that would otherwise be used—there is no incentive for the aviation industry to use it. That presents a problem because there is then no environmental benefit, which we desperately and quickly need. The Bill is a good way forward, as we see it.
Greg Smith
Q
Geoff Maynard: But production is important. You could have a situation in which there is a mandate but nobody can acquire the fuel, except at a totally extortionate price. There would then be pressure on the Government to revise the mandate. That is how we see it.
Greg Smith
Q
Geoff Maynard: It depends on where you are within the mandate. If you are looking at low mandates, up to about 10%, then the £1.50 figure is probably correct, but as we move further on, it seems unlikely that it will be quite as low as that.
Greg Smith
Q
Geoff Maynard: On the face of it, you would expect the cost to fall, but the problem is that there is only a limited amount of raw materials for the generation 1 and 2 fuels to proceed. You will have to move forward to meet the requirements; you will have to move to power-to-liquid fuels, and they are going to be more expensive to produce. Therefore, at some point, as they kick in, to meet the overall figures, the cost base will rise. That is why we believe that, in the longer term, it will be slightly more expensive because there are not the cheaper feedstocks that are currently available.
Tom Collins
Q
Geoff Maynard: The short answer is yes, I do. I think it will be very effective. As many previous witnesses have said, it provides a guarantee to investors that they will get a return on their money. A point that perhaps has not been made is that it gives quite a lot of authority to the Secretary of State. If he sees that the process of moving to SAF is slowing, he can instruct the counterparty to let additional contracts and thus speed up the process and the amount that we have. There is a considerable degree of confidence that, properly used, it will produce the desired results.
David Reed
Q
Geoff Maynard: We have had some discussions around the edges with the RAF, if I can put it like that. They recognise the need that, at some point, they perhaps ought to be using SAF. It is certainly possible for them to do so, albeit not necessarily to the same percentage that you can use it in commercial jets, as I understand it, because the engines have not been designed for it. There are some issues to resolve before they can use it in the way that the commercial sector does. Does that answer your question?
David Reed
Q
Geoff Maynard: Yes, because the use is much greater. There is a lot more SAF to be used in the commercial sector than there is in the military sector.
The Chair
Any other questions? No. Mr Maynard, thank you very much indeed for your evidence this afternoon. We are grateful to you for taking the time to meet with us.
Examination of Witness
Professor Mark Maslin gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Mark Maslin from the UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation. We have till 4.20 pm for this session. Welcome, Professor Maslin. Would you state your name and so on for the record?
Professor Maslin: I am Professor Mark Maslin. I am a professor of Earth system science at University College London and the founding director of the Centre for Sustainable Aviation.
Greg Smith
Q
Professor Maslin: We take the very large view that the only way to make the international aviation industry net zero is by SAFs. Electric short haul—possible in the next 20 to 30 years. Hydrogen—forget it; it is never going to work and any pilot will tell you, “Not a chance.” That is just so we have that laid out there.
We need SAFs both UK-wide and globally, and we are talking, as an academic institution, with very large airlines that want to produce SAFs in their own country. As academics, my colleagues and I would not pick one technology. What you need to do is what you are doing, which is having a levy that says, “If you produce SAFs, you will then have this benefit.” Then, you will work out which technology comes to the fore, whether that happens to be alcohol production or waste. You should stay agnostic to the successful SAFs output.
Greg Smith
Q
Professor Maslin: Our analysis is slightly different because it is looking at the industry as a whole. On the airline side, there is a worry that these costs will literally be shoved on to the airlines. Many of us do not realise that the difference between this industry and others is that it is a very narrow margin industry. If there is any change in geopolitics, companies can go bust—for example, Finnair. Airlines are worried about this levy system, not necessarily because of the extra cost, but because they are not reassured that when there is a surplus, which goes back to the actual producers, it will be then be passed back to the airline. Again, they are happy with the up and down mechanism, but there seems to be no way of shunting that back to airlines to say, “Okay, you have done well, so you can get some money back.” That is more the concern.
Adding £1 or £2 to the price of a flight does not concern the airlines from the passenger point of view—it will not put passengers off. What will put them off is when the airlines suddenly realise that if you multiply that by 550, which is the number of people in an A380, you suddenly start to bankroll quite a lot of extra money that has to be found. I am hedging my bets, so I will not tell you that it will be higher or lower than £1.50. That is a very small amount per individual, but for the companies that are trying to make aviation work and are positive about trying to move to net zero, this is the perfect time to push, as they have suddenly woken up to the fact that they are laggards.
Tom Collins
Q
Professor Maslin: Other levy systems that have been used in the energy sector have been very successful, so I am personally very positive about this because it gives a guarantee. We have seen what I call the solar rollercoaster: suddenly everyone has solar panels, and then suddenly all the companies go bust. What you are doing, very sensibly, is trying to level those bumps in the road. That worked for offshore wind and it should work for this, but there also needs to be support through other mechanisms, such as R&D and mechanisms designed to support small and medium-sized enterprises, so they can get the research they need, to go from “Wow! That’s a brilliant idea!” to being world leading. This is a great mechanism, but the Government need to use the other mechanisms to fund those companies to develop as well.
Tom Collins
Q
Professor Maslin: I have been very lucky, because in the past I have been able to get funding from Innovate UK and even from the TSB before that—that is how old I am. Innovate UK needs direction, with top-down prioritisation of this sector for the UK. Sometimes Innovate UK has stuff coming in, then selects what it thinks is good, but I think you need to mandate, in concert with the Bill, that it focuses on SAFs and makes that one of its priorities.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I have realised that Professor Maslin was an undergraduate tutor of mine quite a few years ago.
Professor Maslin: Oh, this is becoming a real embarrassment; it just makes me feel really old. But it is great to see you in a position of power.
Joe Robertson
Q
Professor Maslin: I think that is deflection. The Bill is absolutely required. You need to support this fledgling industry; as with any of our green industries, we need to support it so that we can be world leading.
SAFs are going to be the future. There are 14,000 planes in the air at any moment, and in 30 years’ time they will hopefully all be flying on SAFs. If we can get our industrial might to actually produce the technology, patent it and push it forward, we will be ahead of the curve, because everybody else is starting to throw money at it.
Amanda Hack
Q
Professor Maslin: That is a huge, huge question.
Amanda Hack
Sorry.
Professor Maslin: No, no, I think it’s great. Forgetting schools, I think we need reinvigorate engineering in universities—and I say that not coming from an engineering background. The reason is that, at UCL, we have a huge faculty of engineering and some real areas of expertise, but we need to build those up. We need the chemical engineers who can train the next generation to go into SAFs. We need to energise that.
At the moment, the problem is that the university sector is creaking and underfunded, and top universities are doing things on a shoestring. It seems slightly ridiculous that I am going out to the middle east to get funding to support research into SAFs, but we are having to be entrepreneurial and sell our talent around the world.
David Reed
Q
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
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.
The Chair
Thank you, Professor, for a very interesting contribution. We very much appreciate your time today.
Examination of Witness
Mike Kane MP gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move on to the Minister, and we have until 4.40 pm for this session. I suspect that we will be interrupted shortly by a Division, but I think we should proceed. Minister, while you have been active in our proceedings today, taking notes and so on, could you please introduce yourself for the record?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane): Thank you, Mr Pritchard. I am Mike Kane, and I am the Minister for aviation, maritime and security.
Greg Smith
Q
Mike Kane: As the Minister, may I start by thanking all Committee members and witnesses for their time today? I think it is a great question. We have a world-class aviation sector and, if we want to stay world class, it is absolutely essential that we pass this Bill. It is part of our manifesto commitment. We introduced the mandate on 1 January for 2% on the demand side, and this now begins to give investment to the supply side.
You are absolutely right; we have to remain competitive in the aviation market if we are going to remain the third largest on the planet, and one of the most advanced. The figure we have from the departmental analysis teams is that it is plus or minus £1.50 of the price of a ticket over a year. That is less than my Bee Network bus fare, where Andy Burnham keeps the cost below £2. That is what we are looking at.
You ask how we are going to look at this. To answer in all seriousness, we are going to continue to monitor and control by managing the scale of the number of contracts we let. This gives the Secretary of State—whoever it is, from whichever party it is in the future—the power to look at what is happening and scale up or down if the market is badly distorted. We feel that there is no big impact on consumers taking their annual holiday to the south of Spain once a year. They will continue to do that unaffected.
Greg Smith
Q
Mike Kane: As we said, we are agnostic to the technology. As we let the contracts, that is where the innovation will come.
There is a wider question across Government and UK security about intellectual property, and of course we will keep in contact with our colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade who look at that. The world is looking to us at the moment, as Lahiru from EasyJet said this morning, because we are the first doing this. We want to maintain the intellectual property by being first in the world to do this and then, as the companies come forward with the innovative technology, we want to properly IP that and maintain the competitive advantage in the UK.
Greg Smith
Q
Mike Kane: As the Minister leading on the Bill, I would say, “My kingdom for a chemistry degree.” Actually, Mark said something that I thought was very pertinent towards the end: we just have to allow the technology to emerge. That way, as we get to the power-to-liquids and the harder piece to do, in five, 10 or 15 years, there will be a market for it. The beauty of the Bill is that we can let contracts over five or 10 years.
Personally, even though Exxon has reservations about this measure, the only emotion I would convey to Exxon is thanks for producing this fuel now, in this country. Exxon is happy about the SAF mandate; its issue is with the revenue certainty mechanism. That is an area where, once the market is established, the Government have an exit strategy; once the market begins to work, the then Secretary of State will have ways out of it, because Government will not need to be in it once we have established it.
Chris Vince
Q
Mike Kane: First, I thank you, Chris—you have been a great advocate for aviation since you came to Westminster in 2024, with Stansted airport near your constituency. The No. 1 risk is not doing this—that is the risk. I think Matt from Heathrow and Rob from Airlines UK said that in our approach to getting to net zero by 2050, we have a number of Government policies—airspace modernisation, leadership at CORSIA, the emissions trading scheme, the £2.3 billion investment in the Aerospace Technology Institute and hydrogen regulatory development—but that 40% of that pathway is the Bill. If we do not pass it, we are in serious trouble about decarbonising the industry. That is the key risk.
Tom Collins
Q
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
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.
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
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
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.
Mr Kohler
Q
Mike Kane: I think clause 6 gives us flexibility. That is what is key in letting the contract. We have made some principle statements here. This is industry-funded; we do not think the taxpayer should pay for the decarbonisation of aviation. We know that at the moment it is a small amount of what transport emits nationally, but because it is one of the harder-to-decarbonise areas, we know that the graph will go up over time. That is why we are funding the fuel suppliers, at the top of the chain here, so that the costs are spread as this goes lower down the chain and eventually to the passenger.
Mr Kohler
Q
Mike Kane: The first thing I would say in response to your question, Paul, is that this is a very technical, short Bill, but there are huge challenges ahead. I want to compliment my officials, who have worked extraordinarily hard to get to this point, and also industry who have worked with us to get to this point. As we go to the strike price and the levy, we will continue to work with industry to make sure we get that right.
Somebody described it earlier—I think it was Mark again—as being like a seesaw. It will go up, it will go down; but by letting the contracts or drawing them in, we can keep that balance in equilibrium, as far as humanly possible. That is the quality of this. While that is not the answer you might want to hear about the end piece, there will be scrutiny of the Secretary of State and of this, and of the legislation, and that will be covered by the Competition and Markets Authority. There will be many levels of scrutiny of how well Government are delivering this.
The Chair
I am sure Hansard will pick it up, but just for the record, Minister, you have mentioned Mark twice. I believe it is Professor Mark Maslin you are referencing, rather than the Chair, who of course remains neutral—and is not in a seesaw chair.
Mike Kane: You are always Mr Pritchard to me.
Graeme Downie
Q
Mike Kane: First, you are a great champion for Edinburgh airport in your constituency. You know the value of aviation to local communities in particular and you have championed that since you have been here.
Does the Bill give you innovation? I am not sure it does. I think it gives you a platform for what you want to do, in terms of the contracts that we will let going forward, which are about going from HEFA and first generation, to second and third generation. This gives you the substructure to build that capacity for intellectual property, inviting bids for various ways of doing things, and then protecting and supporting that, and bringing new entrants into the market. I think that is what the Bill does.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Mike Kane: This will depend, again, on the contracts. I know that you are a neighbour to the Grangemouth refinery, where there could be potential in the future. We know that SAF can be made from a wide range of feedstock, including household waste. The SAF pathways are developing rapidly, and will do even in the weeks and months while the Bill goes through. We just need to make sure that this legislation adapts to the technology and pathways that are coming forward, which will involve further discussions with DBT, other parts of Government and possibly local authorities.
Euan Stainbank
Q
Mike Kane: The requirements to support specific technologies’ feedstock today may be out of date. Again, if we were to pass this legislation and get to Third Reading, that gives us flexibility, as the Secretary of State has ability to change it. If we feel that the HEFA cap needs to change, we will be able to change it. If we want to move up the gradients of the types of SAF that we use, it gives us the ability to do that through the letting of the contracts.
Lewis Atkinson
Q
Mike Kane: First, you have been a big supporter of sustainable aviation fuel in your constituency, because you have the Wastefront tyre-to-fuel plant, so your constituency is already benefitting from jobs that have been created by that company. The Bill also allows us to scale up the technologies that we want to use, which could be of particular benefit to the north-east. I am also the maritime Minister, and we have announced £1 billion investment at the Port of Tyne for LS Cables, and Teesport is about to announce big investments in sustainability as part of our clean energy mission. The mayor, Kim McGuinness, is absolutely tied into this agenda, and using the whole north-east coast to support our green energy mission is vital.
You are absolutely right that the pressure on ticket prices could be downward. Very recently, there was an article in The Sunday Times by the International Airlines Group, which hedged its SAF supplies a long time ago in advance of this. It says that it will now, as an airline, have a competitive advantage in the price of ticketing over the next few years, because it got SAF at the right price at the right time.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, thank you, Minister, for your evidence this afternoon. That brings us to the end of today’s session. The Committee will meet again at 11.30 am on Thursday 17 July to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Kate Dearden)