Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Report stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, after “of” insert “UK-produced”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments to clause 1 provide that a revenue certainty contract can only relate to UK produced aviation fuel (as defined).

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their extensive engagement between Committee and Report. Amendments 1, 2 and 4 in my name will ensure that the Secretary of State can enter into revenue certainty contracts only where the supported SAF is produced at a facility in the United Kingdom. This will provide the industry with a clear signal of support. I hope that this measure reassures noble Lords that I have considered the contents of the amendments tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Grayling. I thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement in reaching this position. I urge noble Lords to support the inclusion of these amendments in the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the House that I was unable to be here in Committee because of a family crisis. I am very glad to be here today and to welcome these amendments. I have no intention of moving my own amendment since the Minister has addressed my concerns. The important thing was to ensure that nobody could game the system: that we knew that we were supporting UK manufacturing and not somebody playing a fast one on us by shipping mostly complete fuel to our country, polishing it up a bit and claiming it was British. The Minister has done that with these amendments and I very much welcome them. I am grateful to him and I support them.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I wish only to congratulate my noble friend Lord Grayling on his amendment and, further, on having persuaded the Government to table alternative amendments that have the same effect as his. We have no objection to those amendments.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for Amendment 5, which we debated in Committee, and for his contribution. I am very grateful to hear from all noble Lords that the amendments that the Government have tabled deal with the issue that was raised in Committee.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 12, after “of” insert “UK-produced”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, so the House might believe that I am immediately against all this sort of thing, but that would not actually be true. I am certainly in favour of proper CO₂ accounting, hence my support for Amendments 14 and 15.

We cannot do another Drax, dare I say, where we end up with a situation that sounds very renewable and sustainable, but when we peel the surface away, we are actually generating more CO₂ in creating the final outcome than by doing nothing. My concern if we allow crops, particularly if they are imported sustainable fuels that are derived from crops, is we do not have the CO₂ accounting arising in the UK, and we pat ourselves on the back and say how marvellous and virtuous we are, but the reality is that we have increased global CO₂ on an undertaking that is anything but sustainable.

I would like an assurance from the Minister that, as we progress the sustainable aviation fuel future, there is proper mindfulness about the CO₂ effects of what we are doing. One of my grave concerns about the power-to-fuel ambitions is that they require such a huge amount of energy in the creation of the fuel that, by the end of the process, we will have actually created a lot more CO₂. I hope that we have learned something about CO₂ accounting, particularly on the back of the Drax experience, which allows virgin forests from North America to be cut down, presumably powered by petrol. It then goes to drying mills run by gas, is put on a diesel-powered train to a shipping port, comes across the Atlantic by a diesel-powered ship and is then burnt in a power station in the UK, and, hey presto, we say that it is zero-carbon. We have to do better than that as we progress a net-zero future. I do not want to see us conned and just kidding ourselves and the public that we are doing something for the right reasons when actually we are creating more CO₂. I would like that type of assurance from the Minister.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to prevent the revenue certainty mechanism supporting power-to-liquid sustainable aviation fuel projects. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, noted, Amendment 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, produces the reverse, in that it would require the Secretary of State to enter into at least one revenue certainty contract with a SAF producer that is using power-to-liquid technology.

We believe that there is value in potentially supporting power-to-liquid fuels because they have a high greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential, lower competition for their feedstocks and lower risk of wider environmental issues such as land use change. Adopting either of these amendments would limit the Government’s negotiation flexibility by setting criteria in advance, which could ultimately reduce overall value for money in the contracts agreed.

The Government will establish a fair and transparent contract allocation process to assess each project’s costs, benefits and risks. It is important that government retains the flexibility to support a range of technologies if they can deliver cost-effective greenhouse emissions reductions and support the SAF mandate obligations—and, to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, whenever they are able to do so. He cannot predict the future any more than I can, and in any event, there is a sunset clause to the Bill which means that it can be extended in five-yearly increments. We are currently developing our approach to allocation, and we will publish an allocation strategy which outlines our approach to different SAF technologies and how the revenue certainty mechanism will support mandate targets.

On Amendments 14, 15 and 16, our intention is for HEFA technology and feedstocks to be excluded from RCM contracts because HEFA SAF—I am sorry about all these acronyms—has already overcome many of the barriers to investment that the revenue certainty mechanism seeks to address. However, the SAF market is at an early stage and uncertain, so the legislation needs to remain flexible to allow for potential future changes in the market to which the revenue certainty mechanism may need to respond.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Could the noble Lord kindly repeat the beginning of that statement where he talked about the Government’s intentions on HEFA? It is important that the House hears exactly what the Minister is saying about that.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Of course; I am very happy to repeat it.

Our intention is for HEFA technology and feedstocks to be excluded from RCM contracts because HEFA SAF has already overcome many of the barriers to investment that the revenue certainty mechanism seeks to address. However, the SAF market is at an early stage and uncertain, so the legislation needs to remain flexible to allow for potential future changes in the market to which the revenue certainty mechanism may need to respond.

I hear noble Lords’ concerns on growing crops for purposes other than food; the sustainability criteria in the revenue certainty mechanism will align with the sustainability criteria in the SAF mandate. This will be implemented through the eligibility criteria within the contract allocation process and will reflect the latest market and technological developments.

We are actively monitoring trends to ensure that the policy keeps pace with technical and commercial developments. Therefore, we have launched a call for evidence on the eligibility of crops in the SAF mandate, which will run until 16 March this year. It asks for evidence on potential benefits, risks and trade-offs of using crops in SAF production. In answer to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, about carbon dioxide, I am sure that evidence on that will be provided as a consequence of that call for evidence.

The call for evidence does not propose any changes to the SAF mandate. Should there be a case to review the feedstock eligibility criteria, it would be subject to consultation, and any changes would require amendments to legislation. We would not want to exclude specific feedstocks in the Bill in case updated evidence proves that they meet the sustainability criteria for eligibility in the SAF mandate.

In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on the position of the United States, we note that, but we will run the consultation first to understand the evidence arising from the questions we have asked.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Ravensdale, for tabling their amendments and ask that they do not press them based on the actions already being taken to give flexibility and ensure value for money.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

May I press the Minister a little on the point the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made? I listened very carefully both times he said it. The Government’s intention, unless something changes, is to exclude HEFA. Can he commit that if that intention changes and the Government direct some contracts to be issued which include HEFA, a Minister will come to the Dispatch Box to set out clearly and explicitly what has changed and the evidence that supported that change?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a fair point. I mentioned the call for evidence precisely because it would be useful to have evidence from any party that cares to give it about using crops, for example. I am happy to say that in those circumstances, somebody should come back and say something about that position.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

I thank the Minister for making that strong statement from the Dispatch Box on the intention to exclude HEFA technology and feedstocks. That is further than the Government have gone before in their statements. It sets out a clear direction of travel for the legislation and the revenue certainty mechanism, and I thank him for that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 25, at end insert—
““UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel”: sustainable aviation fuel is “UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel” if any part of the process for converting any feedstock into the fuel takes place in the United Kingdom.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my first amendment to clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I am responding to Amendment 6 in this group, which seeks to cap the length of revenue certainty contracts to a maximum of 10 years. On the face of it, this might appear to be neat and disciplined but, in practice, we conclude that it is both arbitrary and unduly restrictive.

The noble Lord spoke about the need to control costs and we agree with that. It is also important, as we discuss this, to recognise that the Bill covers a range of technologies and huge investments going into them, but it may also include emerging technologies. Ten years is not derived from any settled evidence about what different SAF projects will require; it is simply a round number that seeks to be written into this primary legislation.

Some plants with high upfront capital costs and long asset lives may need longer-term revenue support to be financed at all, particularly in the current high interest rate environment. Others, especially later or more standard projects, could be perfectly viable on shorter contracts, which I am sure is the Government’s intention for many of the projects that will be considered. However, a single statutory ceiling takes no account of any of that diversity in these emerging markets. It is not really for us to know more than the Government and their officials, as they have details that we do not.

This amendment is also restrictive because it removes one of the Government’s key design levers. The ability to adjust contract length between technologies and over time, in response to costs and market maturity, is fundamental to achieving value for money. If we fix 10 years in the Bill, any future Government who judge that a 12-year or 15-year term is necessary to secure a first-of-a-kind project would be unable to do so without further primary legislation. This rigidity could also play into commercial hands, encouraging developers to structure bids around fixed terms in ways that actually undermine the very affordability that is spoken about.

While the intention is understandable, imposing an arbitrary timeline would remove the flexibility and pragmatism that any evidence-led scheme requires. It would, in effect, ask the Government to negotiate with one hand tied behind their back. We do not believe that this amendment is helpful in this emerging market, but we do think it is important that contracts are reviewed. On that, I ask the Minister, in the context of reporting later on, whether the length of caps that are imposed under the Bill is something that he would be prepared to include in the reporting information that will be made available.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 6 would require that the Secretary of State set a maximum contract term for revenue certainty contracts before exercising the regulation-making power in Clause 6. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the overall intention of the Bill, which is to generate a new and growing United Kingdom industry that, I hope—contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said—will be financed in the United Kingdom as well.

We are currently consulting on the detailed design of the revenue certainty mechanism. The consultation provides the rationale behind the indicative heads of terms, which sets out the framework for principal terms and conditions that could be included in a revenue certainty mechanism contract. As highlighted in the Government’s continuing consultation, we propose a 15-year term for all contracts. This aligns with the expected 10-year to 15-year debt repayment period that SAF producers will encounter. It is important that this flexibility is retained and not restricted by detailing a contract length in the Bill.

Final decisions are subject to the continuing consultation, which will inform the detailed design of the full terms and conditions of revenue certainty mechanism contracts. In answer to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I am sure that we can find a reporting mechanism that sets out the actual length of those contracts. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to withdraw Amendment 6.

--- Later in debate ---

16:32

Division 1

Amendment 6 disagreed.

Ayes: 188

Noes: 258

--- Later in debate ---

As drafted, the Bill gives the Government a clear, predictable route to bring the levy into force and the allocation contract under the transparency criteria. We believe that this is the better course of action. Again, reporting requirements secured in the previous group will help to monitor all these issues. I share the aims of value for money, clarity and fairness around the revenue certainty mechanism. We support the aims of the Bill but are concerned that the amendments are too arbitrary and would in many cases have unknown consequences, reduce flexibility and have serious consequences for the Bill’s ability to go forward.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this debate. Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seek to address how funds from the levy are used. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord from the Dispatch Box that money raised through the levy will be used only to support eligible SAF plants in the United Kingdom, and that that is already set out in the Bill.

Clause 6 restricts the costs incurred by the counterparty under the revenue certainty contracts and in carrying out its functions under the Bill. Under this clause, the levy funds will be used only to meet the cost of the revenue certainty mechanism scheme. It is important that the counterparty is able to recover its costs, which include the cost of administering the contracts, the levy and the payment of surpluses.

Amendment 10 intends to ensure that there is a specific mandatory point at which the supplier becomes liable to pay the levy. The Government agree with the intention of the amendment but believe that it is unnecessary because Clause 6(7) already provides that a person becomes liable to pay the levy at the same point when they become liable to an obligation under the SAF mandate.

On how individual levy contributions are calculated, it is important that the Bill provides sufficient flexibility to ensure that final levy design decisions deliver our design principles, including simplicity, solvency, affordability and fairness. The Government are currently reviewing responses to their recent consultation on the detailed design of the levy and engaging with stakeholders to deliver these objectives. I remind noble Lords that the regulations made under Clause 6(1), to set out how the levy will work, will be subject to scrutiny under the affirmative procedure, which will give Parliament the opportunity to continue to consider the approach.

Amendments 17 and 18, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, seek to prevent the levy being imposed until a domestic sustainable aviation fuel producer is approaching readiness to receive payments under the Act. I reassure the noble Lord that the purpose of the levy, as set out in Clause 6, is to meet the costs of payments made by the counterparty to SAF producers and to cover the counterparty’s administrative costs. The costs of payments under RCM contracts will be insured only once eligible SAF is being produced and sold by producers who have entered into RCM contracts, which is the outcome sought by these amendments.

The Government are currently reviewing responses to their recent consultation on levy design. Some stakeholders have expressed a desire to build up a reserve fund prior to the first producer payments, which could help smooth out the costs of the scheme and help manage risks of underforecasting required payments. As the Government consider their response to the consultation, it is important that the Bill retains a degree of flexibility around levy design, which will be set out via secondary legislation and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment 11, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, intends to introduce a standardised rate for the levy. We are currently reviewing responses to our recent consultation on the detailed design of the levy and continue to engage with stakeholders to help inform the drafting of levy regulations. Within the consultation, we sought views on the publication of a forecast levy rate, expressed in pence per litre, which could help provide greater transparency for the supply chain.

The Bill as drafted does not specify a particular mechanism and allows the Secretary of State to consider a range of options for calculating the levy paid by individual companies. It is important that the Bill retains a degree of flexibility around levy design, which will be set out via secondary legislation and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore, I do not consider the amendment to be necessary.

To reassure noble Lords, the Government are live to the potential impacts of different levy designs and recognise industry’s desire for certainty and transparency, while ensuring fairness and affordability for the consumer. We recognise that the levy must be dynamic and responsive to the changing market, while ensuring that the counterparty has funds to make payments under the scheme. But, to be clear, this levy will not be used to generate unnecessary funds and will raise sufficient money to cover only the counterparty’s costs under the revenue certainty scheme.

Although final decisions will be informed by the consultation, we are exploring options that deliver this and many of the proposals, and options set out in that consultation could help provide greater certainty and transparency. As I have said, the levy regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which will allow further parliamentary scrutiny. I hope noble Lords will note the steps the Government have taken in the levy design and that they therefore will not press their amendments.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a detailed explanation of the situation. I am greatly reassured by what he said. What matters in all this is that we provide the right balance. This is something the airlines are calling for, but we do not want it to unduly penalise fare payers, and to end up with disinvestment in conventional aviation fuel. I am reassured by much of what the Minister said, but I am looking to him and his colleagues to ensure over the coming months that that balance is properly found, so that we do not end up with legislation that has unintended consequences.

The Minister made a point about the reserve. I proposed six months because I believe it essential to have a short period of reserve building, but it must be short—it cannot be year after year. That was the point of my amendment. I am reassured by what he said, and I shall watch with interest what the Government do, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, concerns the potential impacts of this Bill on airline ticket prices. I entirely understand the motivation behind the amendment. Passengers and airlines deserve transparency about how the levy costs will flow through to fares. However, this transparency is already in the Bill, and this amendment is not a particularly good way to improve on it. These Benches accept that there will be reasonable and affordable costs involved in introducing a revenue certainty mechanism, which will reflect the necessary investment to drive the transition to sustainable aviation fuel. However, we cannot support this amendment, for several practical reasons.

Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State within one year of Royal Assent to publish a report assessing the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on ticket prices, including whether the average increase exceeds £1.50 per ticket per year, followed by further annual reports for as long as the mechanism operates. The intention is fair, but the proposed process is largely unworkable in our opinion. The mechanism will take time to design, consult on and implement. Contracts will not be allocated immediately, and levy collection will ramp up gradually as supply chains mature. Within 12 months, there would be no meaningful data to analyse, only speculative modelling. A report produced on that basis would lack credibility and offer little value to Parliament or consumers. In the early days, as required by this amendment as drafted, it would provide very little value or information at all. Moreover, the Bill and its associated frameworks already provide robust reporting obligations, so, again, this is not a choice between providing transparency through this amendment or having no transparency.

The Government will lay a report before Parliament on levy design, contract allocation, production volumes and market development. These will give Members regular insight into the performance and the cost trends associated with the Bill.

In addition, airlines, which are best placed to assess the costs passed through to fares, will report on their sustainable aviation fuel uptake and related costs under the SAF mandate and wider aviation reporting requirements. That industry-driven data will provide a timelier and more accurate picture of the real-world price effects than a separate government study could ever hope to achieve.

There are also serious practical and cost concerns. Calculating per-ticket impacts would require access to commercially sensitive data, such as flight occupancy levels, which the Government do not hold and cannot compel airlines to divulge without imposing disruptive burdens. Establishing a separate, perpetual reporting duty would therefore create unnecessary bureaucracy and expense without improving transparency.

The Government expect that airlines will readily report on the impact of the Bill on air tickets. The practical solution is to build on existing reporting channels and refine them through guidance if needed, rather than introducing an additional obligation that cannot deliver meaningful insights at the required pace.

We share the desire for transparency and recognise that costs must be visible and fairly borne for this market to work, but Amendment 12 would not be the right way to do that. The information it seeks will already be available through integrated, industry-based reporting mechanisms. Ministers and officials both expect that this will be reported. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment and support the Government’s practical approach to these problems.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, bearing in mind the diligent research of noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on sustainable aviation fuel, I have resisted repeating the general aims of the Bill, but I want to say in respect of Amendment 12 that the Government are committed to keeping air travel affordable for UK holidaymakers and UK air travellers while fostering the development of a United Kingdom sustainable aviation fuel industry.

As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it will take time for contract negotiations, for sustainable aviation fuel plants to be constructed and for the fuel itself to be produced and sold before any meaningful effect on fares can be assessed. The Government’s cost-benefit analysis, from which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, quoted, of the revenue certainty mechanism that was published last year is the most reliable estimate of the likely impact on passenger air fares over this period. Given that little has changed since that cost-benefit analysis was produced, the amendment is unnecessary, as it would merely produce the same answer. I hope my explanation is sufficient for the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it was open to the Minister to take up the offer of my noble friend Lord Harper and suggest that any infelicities in the drafting of the amendment—for example, the requirement that the first report should happen within the first year—could be dealt with through his offering to bring forward an amendment himself at Third Reading that was drafted with the benefit of government legal advice, but he has not done so. He has no difficulty with relying on speculative reports that claim to estimate the cost of this measure, but he does not want reports based on actual experience at due time in the future.

As I say, there is a voice that is not being heard in this, except from these Benches, and that is the voice of the consumer. We will not give up on the consumer, and I wish to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 12.

--- Later in debate ---

17:24

Division 2

Amendment 12 disagreed.

Ayes: 186

Noes: 251

--- Later in debate ---

Anyway, we are coming to the end of consideration of an important Bill. I hope that the relatively large number of noble Lords who are here feel that they have benefited in some way from listening to this debate. It was a dull matter in Committee—just three or four of us stuck in Grand Committee—but it is nice to know that there are others taking an interest in it today. I started out knowing nothing at all about sustainable aviation fuel, but I feel I know a great deal more now. If noble Lords feel the same, we will all have achieved something to our benefit in the course of Report.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I might constrain myself to discussing the amendment before us. In that respect, I offer my thanks to both the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who have followed the course of the Bill very closely. I have listened very carefully to everything they said. I am grateful for their scrutiny on this particular subject and I am pleased to have the opportunity to address it in more detail.

I recognise the need for transparent and accessible reporting to monitor the effectiveness of the RCM scheme. I will continue to explore options for reporting on the RCM scheme, including by using existing reporting. For example, we are already publishing statistics on the volume of SAF supplied each year in the UK under the SAF mandate and we will continue to do so. This covers the total volume of SAF supplied to the UK, the fuel type and greenhouse gas savings from the SAF supplied.

The renewable transport fuel obligations statistics and reports, which cover costs and the fuel supplied into the UK, are published regularly. We are taking a similar approach with the SAF mandate. Additionally, a formal review has been incorporated into the SAF mandate legislation, with the initial review scheduled to occur by 2030. This process will facilitate an evaluation of the availability of SAF supply. We will consider further options for reporting, including interactions with the emissions trading scheme reporting on the use of fuel by aircraft. These existing publications will provide an extensive picture of the UK SAF market, as well as the revenue certainty mechanism scheme.

We remain absolutely committed to transparent reporting that is comprehensive, regular and accessible in one location, once the revenue certainty mechanism has contracts in place. In addition to the above, this could include requirements for producers to share information with the counterparty. This would be consistent with how the counterparty for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero contracts for difference schemes publishes information on contract terms and levy rates. As raised earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we will include the length of RCM contract terms in our transparent reporting.

The current live consultation on indicative heads of terms for the revenue certainty mechanism contracts proposes potential options. However, we will need to continue to seek views from industry on the mechanism for this reporting, so further work will be required before we can finalise our approach.

In response to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we continue to work closely with my noble friend Lord Whitehead’s department on the global availability of feedstocks as sustainable fuels. While I cannot commit my noble friend Lord Whitehead to a meeting, I do sit opposite him in our palatial ministerial office upstairs, so I will mention to him my noble friend Lord Berkeley’s interest and I will see what he says.

I hope that what I have said about reporting is sufficient reassurance for the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, not to press Amendment 13.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his support for my amendment. From listening to the debate, I think I am living in a different world from the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Moylan, who seem to have an unhealthy obsession with these Benches’ and my personal contributions, rather than the Bill before us, no matter how dry it might be.

This amendment and the previous amendment that was discussed are completely different, as the Government have recognised. I am grateful to the Minister for listening and agreeing to the intent of my amendment on the effectiveness of the RCM scheme, which looks to make sure that we have some comprehensive reporting in one place, so that we can understand how effectively this scheme is working.

I thank the Minister for listening and responding to our suggestions in this area—both mine and my noble friend Lord Russell’s—and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13.