Lords Chamber

Thursday 20th November 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:09
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Whitehead
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories, King, head of the Commonwealth, King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all spiritual and temporal, and all other our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come.

whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Alan trusty and well-beloved Alan Patrick Vincent Whitehead commander of our most excellent order of the British Empire to the state degree, British Empire to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Whitehead, of Saint Mary's in our city of Southampton.

And for us, our city of Southampton. And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto him the said give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Whitehead, to have and to hold unto him for his life. Willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, pre-eminence, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster, the 19th day of November, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Alan Lord Whitehead, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to
11:13
None Portrait Oral questions: Water and sewerage companies as consultees on nationally significant infrastructure projects
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The Lord The Lord Frost The Lord Frost oral The Lord Frost oral question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lord Frost oral question Baroness McIntosh of Pickering. I beg leave to ask the question, standing in my name on the Order
11:14
11:14
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
None Portrait Oral questions: South Western Railway: performance since nationalisation
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second oral question Lord Strathcarron. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:34
None Portrait Oral questions: Compensation awards to victims of child grooming scandals
-

Lord O'Neill question Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne standing.
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
11:54
11:56
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Well, as.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A as I've said, the the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is an essential part of the government's policy. We remain committed under that treaty to the aspiration of a nuclear free world, which may seem a long way off at the present time, but that's the aspiration that we have. All I can say with respect to have. All I can say with respect to this is to reiterate again, the complete commitment that the government has to the nuclear government has to the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty to the meeting next, next year in New York.

meeting next, next year in New York. And what we want to see is, as I say, that conference being a success. But let me be saying, the success. But let me be saying, the UK remains an active participation in all of the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty forums. I Non-Proliferation treaty forums. I think alongside the commitment to maintain for as long as it's necessary, and nuclear deterrent. I necessary, and nuclear deterrent. I think the commitment we also have to that nuclear non-proliferation treaty is important as well.

And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

treaty is important as well. And I think that's good UK government policy. My Lord. That concludes our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. That concludes our questions for today. Any members who wish to leave the chamber may who wish to leave the chamber may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I have I have Lords.
11:58
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have Lords. We now come to some instruments previously debated in Grand

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee. Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Productions) Regulations 2025. And two other motions the Baroness Twycross.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Twycross. My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to. Move the motion. Standing in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Move the motion. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. En bloc. The question is that the three motions in the name of Baroness motions in the name of Baroness Twycross be agreed to en bloc as many as are that opinion will say content the contrary not content. content the contrary not content. The contents have it Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025 the Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. My Lords, I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. Question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents contrary not content. The contents have it. Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Amendment Regulations 2025. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Taylor of My Lords, I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the motion. Standing in my paper. Question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents have it questions. On a statement
11:59
12:00
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
from within their own ranks and implement them. There is another welcome truth that the Home Secretary has implicitly accepted that up to now, the government's measures to tackle illegal migration have failed. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we have spent many hours debating in this House, is woefully inadequate to deal with the issue. My Lords, it is a shame that it took the government so long to realise this, but we are where we are. We will now have to have another immigration and asylum bill next year, because the government are too slow to reach the logical conclusion that their plans are not working.

These new announcements are at least a tacit acceptance that that bill did not go anywhere near far enough to seriously tackle small boat crossings. There are a number of proposals here that are very similar to amendments I tabled at Report stage of the Border Security Bill amendments the government completely opposed. It is heartening to see that they have finally come round, but it might have been easier for all of us if the government had compromised earlier. For example, the government opposed my amendment to create third country removal centres.

The noble or the Minister criticised that for wanting to rehash the Rwanda policy, but that is a complete falsehood. The Rwanda policy would have sent illegal migrants to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. The amendments I brought to the border security bill would automatically reject that asylum claim brought by an illegal migrant, and then return them to either their home country or a safe third country. Their claims would not be processed in Rwanda, because they would never be allowed to make the claim in the first place.

That amendment was about having safe third countries where we can send failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants who cannot be returned to their home country. Now, in their policy statement, the government says, and I quote, we will continue to explore the use of return hubs which are safe. Third, countries that failed asylum seekers can be sent to instead of their country of origin. Negotiations with a number of countries are ongoing, unquote. This is precisely what we were pushing the government to do, and I am pleased they have announced they will look to send failed asylum seekers to safe third countries.

But this could all have been much easier if they had come to this conclusion earlier. The government have also announced changes to the appeals procedure. The statement says that the Home Office will create a new appeals body staffed by professional, independent adjudicators. They do not, however, mention whether this appeals body will run alongside the first tier tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber or replace it. So could the noble Lord, the Minister, please clarify this? Are the government going to be running this new body alongside the judicial appeals tribunals? If so, how would they decide whose appeal is heard before which body? Or are they proposing to abolish the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal and replace it with the Home Office review body? If so, then that was exactly what I proposed by way of amendments 46 and 47 to the Border Security Bill, 128 peers voted against that report on the 5th of November.

If they had changed their mind on this, it is very embarrassing, to say the least, and disappointing for them to vote against that proposal and then come up with something very similar. Lord Low, the Home Secretary, has claimed she is following the lead sent by set by Denmark, but this is only a partial truth because Denmark requires asylum seekers to prove full time employment for several years before they qualify for permanent residence, the government's plans extend the waiting time to get indefinite leave to remain to ten years.

Once a person's refugee status has been granted and they entered legally, this would be 20 years for those who entered illegally. But this does not impose any conditions. Theoretically, a person could enter illegally, languish on benefits for 20 years, and then be granted the right to indefinite leave to remain. Whilst I am pleased to see asylum status become temporary, and for anyone whose home country becomes safe to be returned there, it is absolutely wrong that a person could enter illegally and still be allowed to remain, especially given the government's opening of new safe and legal routes.

If we are to have legal routes for refugees, then we absolutely cannot reward those who enter illegally. That will make even more of a mockery of the whole system. Why would a person bother to apply for the legal route if they know they can board a boat and be allowed to stay here? The government needs to follow this plan to its logical conclusion and ban asylum, human rights and protection claims from any illegal migrant. Finally, the plan to reform article eight is all well and good, but the government has to know that this will not be enough.

Whilst we have the Human Rights Act in force and our party to act, we will face the same barriers to removals that we do currently. Reforming the interpretation was simply allow crafty human rights lawyers to find innovative new ways to circumvent it. Only a wholesale repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the can finally remove the legal barriers to deportation. The government has started moving in the right direction, as my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition said, we will support the government in making these changes, but I do fear that there will not be enough and that the government will end up coming back to us next year with further changes.

If they simply accepted that fact now, and we were to go even further with these changes, it would save us all a lot of time down the line.
12:06
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am minded. To think of the. Title of that great film, The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Title of that great film, The Good, the bad and the ugly, and I'm afraid these proposals have all three within it. And I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I. Just want to go through some of those, starting with the positive. We do support. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government's intent. To bring order in the asylum. System, and we welcome. The announcement of new. Capped

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The announcement of new. Capped safe and legal routes for refugees. These pathways. With security checks and controls.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

controls. Are the correct. Way to. Fulfil the UK's responsibility to those. In need.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In need. Confirmation that the government will not leave the European welcome. As is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The recognition that early legal advice should be a core part of the advice should be a core part of the appeal system. Moving on to the the. Impractical the argument that asylum seekers should contribute is asylum seekers should contribute is undermined when they are denied the means to earn their way. Denmark means to earn their way. Denmark allows asylum seekers to work after six months. Why is the government persisting in stopping asylum persisting in stopping asylum seekers from working when there is no evidence that this is a pull factor, we question the assumption of the UK as a magnet, given that we receive far fewer asylum seekers per capita than our European neighbours.

Home office analysis itself found that asylum seekers have little to no understanding of welfare policies before arrival. Shared language, diaspora communities and perhaps even colonial connections are the primary drivers for asylum seekers taking irregular routes to the UK. Can the UK government provide evidence rather than simple assertion in this matter, revoking the duty to support risks, creating more destitution and pushing more asylum seekers towards illegal working and exploitation? What assessment has been made of this risk? What action is the government taking to avoid passing the financial strain onto already struggling local authorities? The use of immoderate language is also unhelpful and risks stoking division.

Why does the government feel the need to create a whole new asylum appeal structure? Why not simply expand the existing system? My Lords, the most severe criticisms target the core protection model and its administrative fallout. Poor protection requires a status review every 30 months and delays permanent settlement for 20 years. In my view, both unnecessary and cruel. This prolonged state of instability will inhibit successful integration by making it difficult for refugees to secure tenancies, employment or higher education.

The Home Office is currently struggling with a backlog, yet this policy would impose what has been called bureaucratic Magnus, requiring a huge increase in capacity to review the status of an estimated 1.45 million people by the end of 2035, potentially costing £872 million. Does the government accept these figures, or has it alternative ones, to offer? Scrapping the refugee family reunion route pushes children and spouses into the hands of smugglers, directly contradicting the goal of safe migration.

Has this risk been assessed? How long? How will the long term separation from family impact the refugees ability to contribute and reduce their reliance on state support? Will the government be detaining and deporting children who were once accepted as refugees, but subsequently not so when their home country is deemed safe? Given that Denmark's temporary protection scheme clearly failed to result in returns for Syrians, how does the government justify the massive cost and profound uncertainty imposed by the UK version? What's the timescale for these changes? When will they be implemented and how long and what method will be used to implement them? And finally, does the government agree with the report in the newspaper that deport deportations will be retrospective? I quote from the newspaper, it means that if a refugee has not already been granted indefinite right to remain before the Home Secretary's new legislation comes into force, they will be deported if their home country is subsequently deemed safe by the government.

I look forward to the government's responses to these questions. questions.
12:11
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Here Lord Dobbs report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lord Brooke Lord Davies of Gower and I'll try and answer his questions. First of all, I'm grateful for where he has welcomed grateful for where he has welcomed the proposals from the government, and I remind him that the reason we're undertaking these reforms is we're undertaking these reforms is we have inherited a very broken system, a system which has been in operation now for 14 years, where operation now for 14 years, where the number of asylum claims has risen, where the backlog has grown, where the deportations have not where the deportations have not existed, where they are rightfully proposed to exist.

And we have a proposed to exist. And we have a duty on behalf of the British people to take some difficult decisions to sort this out. Now he mentions that the border security bill, which we have completed bill, which we have completed passage by one Commons amendment, has not been effective. Let me remind him that we have introduced remind him that we have introduced a border security commander who has negotiated deals with France, negotiated deals with Iraq, negotiated deals with Iraq, negotiated deals with the Germans, has been put on a legal footing by this bill.

We have put extra this bill. We have put extra measures in place to support penalties for people smugglers, which will now be, once royal which will now be, once royal assent is achieved in place, to actually take some further deterrent effects on people deterrent effects on people smugglers to end that vile trade, we put in place mechanisms to stop the use of boats, and the manufacture and use of boats to seize engines and to do other things which, once the Royal assent is agreed, will be in place.

So I don't accept his contention, first and foremost, that the border security bill, about which we placed many hours of discussion is pointless. But I have to say to him that, you know, the government has to keep these issues under review. There is self-evidently a broken system, which is why we've put in place additional people to speed up the backlog. And these measures before the House today in the statement will be brought forward in legislation, are subject to consultation, but will also look at a range of other issues we need to take to fix the system we've inherited from the noble Lord and his political party.

Now, he may not like that. I don't want to politicise that. I want his support for this. But we've had to take those steps because of where we are, and I think that is reasonable. And the support he has given for some of those steps are particularly good. Now. He's mentioned, for example, the tightened criteria. I think it is fair and proper that if a country is deemed safe after two and a half years, that the individual concerned is encouraged and supported to return to that country, or as is in this proposal, can apply for a different route through work or study to get permanent residence downstream.

But if the country is safe, then it is perfectly reasonable to look at how we can remove that individual in the proposals. There is tackling increased enforcement on illegal working. I think it's perfectly reasonable to actually put some pressure and heat into the system to tackle people who are being employed illegally, to look at increasing the checks, increasing the right to work checks, providing digital ID requirement, which I suspect he will oppose to ensure that there's mandatory right to work checks and collaboration to verify companies.

I think that's reasonable. I think it's reasonable to look at return hubs, not Rwanda, not £700 million being wasted, not two people being removed voluntarily, but to discuss proper return hubs where people don't have safe countries, but where their asylum claims have failed. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to remove people whose asylum claims have failed because their asylum claims have failed. That is perfectly reasonable to do. I think it's perfectly reasonable to do what we're doing in this proposal to speed up assessment and appeals.

He asked about the first tier tribunal. We're going to put extra hours into the first tier tribunal, and we're going to ensure that we look at improving the legal system to get appeals dealt with and tribunals dealt with much more quickly. I think it's reasonable. And this is again, where we'll have a bit of blue and red water between us. It's reasonable to actually be committed to the European Convention of Human Rights, to be committed to legislation to uphold human rights, but actually to say, if you want to look at how we can tweak that, to make sure it acts in the interests of our country, at the same time as being part of our international obligations, which is where we are.

He wants to leave those conventions. I don't, the government doesn't, but we need to make sure we make them work in a better way to deal with this issue. I think it's reasonable for us to do all of those things, and I hope and look forward to his support on them. Now, again, I welcome from the noble Lord German his welcome. It's been overlooked in this, but there are safe and legal routes that we want to develop as we have done, for example, and bespoke schemes potentially, as we have done for Iraq and for Iraq.

Sorry for, for the for, for Ukraine and also for Syria. There are bespoke routes that we can develop. There are safe legal routes that we can look at in this statement. My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary has said that we wish to to look at doing that. We are committed to human rights, but we are committed to looking at these particular issues. We will encourage people to look at the work route, if necessary, for safe and legal routes and work routes, and we will ensure that there are a range of other issues to examine.

Now he takes he takes issue with the the core protection issue that we have before us in this proposal here. I think, again, it's reasonable, given that where we are to look at how we can ensure that those people are assessed very quickly within two and a half years, 30 months, if the country is safe for return, they can return. If not, let's get that asylum claim approved. Well, let's get that asylum claim rejected and the individual then returned.

I think that is reasonable proposals. I think it's reasonable that we look at family reunion, but I think it is also reasonable that if individuals and he asked about child deportations, I don't want to see child deportations. But what I want to see is if people have failed their asylum claim or if indeed they are a foreign national offender, of which we have many languishing in UK jails at the moment, that we find mechanisms to return those individuals fairly and properly to the communities if they are safe or if not, to look at the issue that we've talked about here, about an alternative holding establishment at the moment, all of this will be consulted on.

And he asks again about when and how this will be brought in. There will be legislation brought before both houses of Parliament at a point to be determined. And the consultation will take place. But I ask all those noble Lords who may and ladies who may criticise the proposals, is are they happy with the status quo? Do they think the status quo is a good place to be? I think nobody in this room, in this chamber will will say the status quo is a good place to be and therefore my objectives with the Home Secretary in the Home Office is to look at ways in which we can maintain our international obligations, welcome genuine refugees and asylum seekers, but also speed up a broken system to make sure it works effectively.
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to my noble friend. Well, what we're seeking is international reform. To the application of article three. We're going to work with partners to reform the application of the prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment. Now, that means that we do have to discuss with our partners and get joint agreement. But it's an objective. The government is committed to. It's one that will be tested. It'll be in our consultation in due course. And on article eight, we will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of article eight.

And that will be legislation will be subject to scrutiny, but it will be within the spirit of maintaining our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights application. I think there are fair and legitimate objectives, and I hope that my noble friend will, in due course, support them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Ended by saying that her reforms were designed to bring unity where others seek to divide.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. My greatest worry about them is that making refugee status only that making refugee status only temporary and subject to review and deportation every 13 months will deportation every 13 months will have the opposite effect. It will not bring unity. It will not encourage community, it will not encourage integration. And it isn't very British. The Attlee government very British. The Attlee government didn't try to deport Lord Dubs in didn't try to deport Lord Dubs in 1945.

The attempt to send round 1945. The attempt to send round south London trucks, generating hostile environment and telling people to go home, was called off people to go home, was called off very quickly because of the public revulsion. I remember being formed revulsion. I remember being formed to see the crowds in Glasgow blocking the streets to prevent the blocking the streets to prevent the deportation of their neighbours. I have two questions for the for the
12:22
12:23
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Let me try and answer. I think three broad issues within that, if I may. The first is the reduction in time from five years to to 30 months. That is not a at the end of 30 months you are deported. That is, at the end of 30 months, an assessment will be made as to whether, going back to the noble Lords point, the country that you've come from is deemed to be safe. Now again, I hope and this is the the purpose of speeding up other measures in this, that we don't have long backlogs on asylum claims in the first place, because parts of the problem of why people are waiting five years and beyond is because the asylum claims are not met.

And again, from our perspective, if asylum claim can be met and speeded up, then a decision is taken to grant asylum, in which case the individual has asylum again, admittedly with a longer period for final settlement, or they are removed from the country under a deportation route. So the purpose of that is to try to again put some energy into the system to get that speeded up very quickly. He's asked about safe and legal routes and the annual cap. Now the Home Secretary is going to examine this and consult on this as part of the proposals.

But I think it's perfectly reasonable to try and set an annual cap in discussion with where our refugee convention and other obligations are to see whether or not, you know, what can the country bear in terms of housing support and everything else in that annual cap is based on community capacity. And then we can, in my view, as we as we want to do, look at safe and legal routes that help support individuals to come here rather than using the illegal routes, which are, I think, across the house, universally condemned.

And we will maintain the flexibility that we've got for things like the Ukraine scheme and the Gaza scheme, because we don't know yet if I'd have been putting this before the House six years ago, we wouldn't have been talking about a Ukraine scheme. Who knows what's going to happen next. We retain our international obligations to do that. Now. Again, he's asked about retrospection. That will be part of the discussion and that will be part of the consultation that that takes place. But legislation will be brought forward which will address what happens going forward.

And that will be subject to tests by both houses of Parliament. by both houses of Parliament.
12:26
12:27
12:28
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
Forward to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This statement. There's not a word in it that wasn't true. On the day he became Prime Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

day he became Prime Minister. So it's it's. Just welcome. The government's got to where it's got to. And the noble. Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord. The Minister, referred to our record. My recollection is every time we propose tough things, they time we propose tough things, they were opposed by the party opposite. I don't remember us ever being challenged because we weren't being tough enough. But my question is tough enough. But my question is this having read through the statement carefully and the policy document, there are a number of document, there are a number of measures that require changes to the immigration rules, which is obviously secondary legislation.

But there are a number, as has just But there are a number, as has just been referred to, that will require amendment to primary legislation. And certainly my sense of the Home And certainly my sense of the Home Secretary's demeanour is she feels this is a very urgent matter to deal with. So can I ask the deal with. So can I ask the Minister, has the legislation been drafted and is it ready, and when is it going to be introduced? Is it is it going to be introduced? Is it going to be introduced in this session to carry over, or is it going to have to wait until the next session of Parliament? If it's
12:34
12:34
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:40
None Portrait Legislation: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill - second reading
-

Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill. The
12:40
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to present the Sustainable Aviation Fuel SAF bill for Second Reading today. My Lords, firstly, I'd like to welcome and congratulate the Right Reverend Prelate and the Lord Bishop of Chester on making his maiden speech in your Lordships' House today. I look forward to hearing his contribution to this important debate, and to his many contributions in the months and years ahead. If we are to be an outward, confident trading nation that is connected to the world and leading the way on innovation, we must move as fast as we can towards a greener, cleaner future for flying.

Domestic transport accounted for 29% of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions in 2023. Aviation is currently the second largest contributor and faces unique barriers to decarbonisation. By 2040, it is set to overtake road vehicles as transport's largest emitter. SAF will be key to decarbonisation, a drop in solution that can be used today in today's aircraft. With today's infrastructure, SAF also has huge economic benefits with the wider low carbon fuels industry potentially supporting up to 15,000 jobs and contributing up to five £5 billion to the economy by 2050.

SAF is not the only measure that we are supporting to address emissions in the aviation sector. The government is supporting the development of more efficient and zero emission aircraft technologies, and announced a further billion pounds of funding for the Aerospace Technology Institute to help spur green aerospace innovation. The Civil Aviation Authority, supported by my department's funding, is shaping regulations for zero emission aircraft through its hydrogen challenge. Alongside this, we're advancing airspace modernisation to enable cleaner, quicker and quieter journeys.

The government is also establishing a UK airspace design service with the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Service Nats, who are working together to launch this by the end of the year. Turning to aviation fuel, the government, alongside industry, is working collaboratively to ramp up the UK's SAF industry. The UK stands at the forefront of global efforts to decarbonise aviation. When this government came into power, we acted immediately by laying the Statutory Instrument for the SAF mandate, which came into force on the 1st of January this year.

We've also invested £63 million in 17 projects through the Advanced Fuels Fund, which will drive growth, support good jobs and deliver emissions reduction. The Revenue certainty mechanism RCM introduced in this bill is a scheme designed to support the UK to support UK SAF production to drive growth and opportunity across the country. It addresses the lack of clear, of lack of a clear and predictable market price for SAF. One of the biggest constraints on investment in UK SAF production. The RCM builds on the established precedent of contracts for difference in the renewables sector.

Under the RCM, a SAF producer will enter into a private law contract with a government owned counterparty, which sets a guaranteed strike price for SAF. If SAF is sold sold for. Under this price, the counterparty will pay the difference to the producer. If SAF sold above the price, the producer will pay the difference to the counterparty. It is important to emphasise that no final decisions have been taken on how the strike price will be determined. The RCM contracts must set a strike price that finds a balance between securing the appropriate protection for the producer and its investors, whilst also providing value for money for the scheme and wider sector.

This is a new and emerging market. This will be the world's first SAF RCM and it will de-risk SAF projects by addressing barriers to investment in a nascent market that is using innovative technologies like similar schemes in the low carbon electricity sector. This will help provide a greater certainty of future revenue, help attract investment into first of a kind SAF plants, and support growth and opportunity across the country. Turning to the piece of legislation, there are four key areas of the bill.

Firstly, the bill will enable the Secretary of State to designate a counterparty that is wholly owned by government. Secondly, the Secretary of State can direct the counterparty to enter into private law contracts with SAF producers, guaranteeing a price for the sale of eligible SAF over a period of time. The mechanism is there to support the development of a first of first of a kind plant by increasing investor confidence, whilst first of a kind plants are likely to be more expensive than future plants, supporting them allows for future cheaper plants to get constructed and start producing SAF.

The contract allocation process will be designed to maximise competition, with all contracts to be underpinned by robust technical and commercial due diligence. To ensure that successful projects represent value for money. Thirdly, this bill will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a levy on suppliers of aviation fuel in the UK to fund the RCM. This will allow the to collect a levy to cover the costs of issuing payments under contract scheme. It is right that the costs of decarbonising air travel should at least be partially borne by the aviation sector, rather than the taxpayer.

We are levying aviation fuel suppliers because placing the levy higher up the supply chain spreads cost across the sector, and because aviation fuel suppliers will benefit from the greater volumes and lower prices for SAF that the RCM will create. The RCM will only provide support if SAF is actually being produced. If a project fails, then there's no obligation on the government to provide support. Whilst novel technologies can have a higher can have high failure rates, we can support multiple technological technology pathways to minimise risk and strengthen the UK's project pipeline.

Fourthly, the bill will also enable the Secretary of State to enforce certain provisions imposing financial penalties. Secretary of State may impose a financial penalty on a person that fails to comply with levy levy regulations, or fails to comply with requirements under regulations made that ensure any paid out surplus is used to benefit fuel suppliers customers. This is a comprehensive and focussed bill that lays the foundations for a thriving UK SAF industry by delivering investment certainty, cutting emissions and securing the long term sustainability of the aviation industry.

More SAF supply and lower prices are good for the aviation sector and ultimately good for those who wish to fly. This bill is an essential part of securing our world class aviation sector's future, and we want them to do it sustainably. I look forward to engaging with my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords on this piece of legislation. I beg to move. The question is that this bill
12:48
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

be now read a second time. My Lords, it's a pleasure to contribute to this debate on the contribute to this debate on the Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill and your Lordships' House. And I should perhaps begin by declaring an interest as Vice-Chair of the aviation All-Party parliamentary Group. I don't intend to make a lengthy speech, but I do want to touch on the essential ingredients, the of the bill. And that, of course, is the introduction of a revenue certainty mechanism to support the production of sustainable aviation fuel in the UK.

We know, of course, that the government currently imposes a mandate on the aviation industry that 2% of aviation fuel used in the UK must be SAF. This target is set to rise to 10% by 2030 and 22% by 2040. Somewhat ambitious, I believe, but nevertheless it is the target. I've met and spoken with representatives of all aspects of the industry at their request. Over the last year. Airport owners, airlines and SAF producers to name but a few. They all have one thing in common, and that is a genuine desire to see the introduction of lower carbon alternatives to conventional aviation fuel, which is, of course, very encouraging, particularly when you look at some of the other sectors.

And worthy of mention, perhaps, is that on the domestic front, in 2022, the Royal Air Force and industry partners carried out the world's first 100% SAF flight in an RAF Voyager and Airbus project, which I might add, with wings constructed in Wales. We know that most of the SAF currently produced is HEFA based SAF, that is to say made from hydro rated esters and fatty acids, hence the acronym HEFA. This is derived from oils and fats such as cooking oil. A 2025 market report produced by companies in the sector stated that globally, 82% of SAF current capacity relies on HEFA technology, which is limited by available feedstocks.

Moving forward, we look to second and third generation SAFs from solid waste and other materials. The Climate Change Committee, the independent advisers to the UK government, Climate Risk, said in its 2025 report to Parliament that SAF supply was sufficient to meet the government's current SAF mandate, that 2% of aviation fuel must be SAF. However, it said meeting the government's 10% target by 2030 was uncertain as production of different forms of SAF would need to scale up. The Climate Change Committee said SAF producers must now start to diversify away from HEFA based forms of SAF.

If the 2030 target was to be achieved. Which brings me on to the main points that I wish to raise with the government today. I believe that this bill will be successful if it includes the necessary provisions to protect existing SAF production in the UK and maintain its competitiveness in the international market. There are a number of global renewable companies who are in the process of developing techniques to produce low cost, low carbon SAF who have chosen to conduct business here in the UK.

And I know this to be true because I've met with them and they see the UK as a convenient climate in which to operate. Coupled with the SAF mandate already in force, this can make the UK a leader in green aviation fuel production. But if the government is serious about building a UK SAF industry and capturing the green jobs and fuel security benefits of doing so, the revenue certainty mechanism needs to be introduced at pace. Other major economies are moving ahead with their own plans to support domestic production, particularly in Europe, through the EU's Green Deal industrial plan, which provides billions of euros in incentives.

And if the UK policy incentives do not keep pace with these markets, this will at best delay production and at worst mean companies move their global hub and associated production facilities overseas. So I ask the Minister, how seriously does the government take the need to move at pace to retain companies developing SAF in the UK? And does he agree with me that if SAF production is to be viable for developers, then they will require early access to the designated counterparty for revenue certainty mechanism negotiations ahead of the bill's ratification, but also was keen to attract foreign investment.

Can the Minister say what steps the government are taking to ensure that grants from the advanced field funds are being directed to support British technology? And finally, can I ask the Minister what assurances can the Minister give to the travelling public that the government's estimated impact of ticket prices of between -150 to plus 150 is accurate? International Airlines Group commented during the Committee stage. In the other place that some elements have not been included in the calculation, noting the cost would be nearer £10.

So I look forward very much to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister's response on those points. My Lords, we. Do look. Forward to.
12:53
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forward to. The maiden speech from the Bishop of the Noble Prayer, right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chester, and we welcome him to the House. My Lords, we are generally supportive of the measures in this Bill. We have some concerns about areas of government policy that lie beyond the scope of the bill, and we have a few questions about the details. To put this bill in its legitimate context, it will help reduce CO2 emissions from aviation.

But it is not a magic bullet alone. It is not a sustainable answer to the challenges that we face. Aviation is, of course, one of the hardest sectors to abate and is one that is expected to show continued and rapid upward growth. Aviation, my Lord, is critical to our economy and our way of life. It moves some 240 million international passengers and 2.4 million tonnes of freight each year, adding one, adding £14 billion GVA to the UK GDP The industry also supports 1 million associated jobs and £4.2 billion in associated passenger duty aviation.

My Lords accounts for 7% of the UK carbon emissions, but this figure is due to rise significantly to 11% in 2030 and 16% in 2035, unless decisive action is taken on a broad range of fronts beyond the scope of this bill, we will not meet those targets. My Lords, net zero 2050 is not optional. It is imperative we on these benches do not wish to challenge any UK's family's right to a holiday. I want to be clear that the more it needs to be done and that we have concerns about over expansion of our airports on these benches.

Sorry to be clear. When we debate this bill, we need to be clear that 15% of people in this country take 70% of the flights taken, and we need to change that. The climate change Committee was clear in 2023 when they said that SAF alone is a risky strategy. My party would reform the Air Passenger Duty to target the most frequent flyers. We would ensure that we have an escalating passenger duty so that those that fly most frequently pay more.

We also oppose overexpansion of the airports, particularly in the South east. This government has chosen to take a different path, and it will be for them to balance this path of increased airport expansion against their climate change commitments and targets. Therefore, we welcome the bill, but we note the caveats that we have. SAF is widely considered as the main available pathway available today to decarbonise our aviation SAF can cut the lifecycle emissions by up to some 70% compared to conventional jet fuel.

It is, as we heard, a drop in tech fuel that can be used alongside existing aircraft and infrastructure. The SAF mandate, passed last year, starts at 2% and rises to 10% by 2030 and then to 22% in 2040 from 2040, obligations will remain at 22% and unless there is greater certainty of supply, the SAF mandate could, it is claimed, deliver up to 6.3 megatonnes of carbon savings each year by 2040? On these benches, we welcome the revenue certainty Mechanism.

This will serve to strengthen investor confidence and unlock significant capital investment in the production facilities that are necessary to be based here in the UK. It allows for that long term stability and long term contracts through the guaranteed strike price. And as the Minister have said, this is a mechanism that's been widely used in renewables sector and we know that it works. It will provide certainty to these suppliers. The approach is logical. The industry will stand to benefit from cheaper SAF, and it will also spread the cost widely throughout the industry.

We recognise the UK's approach and the long term mandate, and the proposed revenue support, and the degree of certainty that it will provide to help with this transition. Indeed, the UK is seen as an example of best practice, with ambitious targets and support mechanisms. Establishing a home-grown low carbon fuel sector will bring significant jobs and benefits to the UK industry and the wider society. Can I ask the Minister to update the House on the progress of negotiations that are ongoing, with industry running parallel to the bill? And can I ask the government further when they'll be able to provide details on how the strike price will be set and what mechanism will exist for adjustments? When does the government anticipate that the first contracts will be signed? My Lords, while we welcome this bill, we stress that staff SAF is only a first step.

It's not merely blending fuels, it is also seeking alternative, more sustainable, climate friendly options for the longer term. And that needs continuous investment and innovation in the next generations of technologies, which include battery electric and hydrogen fuelled. The bill sets the policy framework, but crucial details are left to subsequent negotiations. We have several key several key questions regarding the bill's ambition, scope and technical design. The SAF mandate requires 22% of jet fuel to be sustainable by 2040. But I ask the government this means that 78% of fuels will still be polluting just a decade before our net zero deadline.

So can I ask the government how they will achieve this target? In addition, the European Union has a higher target of 70% by 2050. So what action will the government take to bring further alignment, not just with our EU partners, but also more internationally? We also have some concerns about the SAF and feedstocks and the amount of cooking oil that's imported. Imported. It is important that we have a reliable domestic supply. We note also some concerns about bioethanol and the closure of plants, particularly the Virgo plant in Hull and impact of US trade deal and subsidies on US ethanol.

So we are concerned about potential for future bioethanol plant closures. What consideration has the government given to the inclusion of intermediate cover crops such as catch and cover, and scalable feedstock outside of the HEFA cap to expand the resource base with with competing, without competing with food markets? We believe that the transition to a sustainable aviation industry must be strategically linked to our existing industrial base. So can I also ask the government what actions they are taking to use to to see the existing industrial plants are brought back into use to, to make sure that the planning system is fit for purpose and ensures that these plants can be brought online quickly.

While the government is committed to undertaking a comprehensive assessment of these industrial sites to see that they're brought back online, given the importance of public trust and accountability, transparency is paramount. The funding levy should also not be placed. Undue financial burden on air travellers. So can I ask the government what impact and what review they'll have to ensure that the levy does not include further burdens on air travellers? How will the government in. Sorry? Finally, for the sake of public accountability, can I ask, is the government amenable to ensuring that the the airlines report publicly on their use and the amount of staff that they're supplying? We broadly welcome this bill, but this bill alone is not a sustainable long term solution, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we call for greater monitoring, transparency and openness. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I declare my. Interests as a chief engineer working for Atkins Wireless and co-chair of legislators for nuclear,
13:02
Lord Ravensdale Portrait Lord Ravensdale (Crossbench)
-
-
co-chair of legislators for nuclear, and also look forward to the main speech of the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chester. I do support the bill with the caveat that costs to consumers of these measures must always be front and centre with all of the freedoms that cheap air travel has opened up to people from all backgrounds in recent decades. But I do accept that there's a strategic need to invest in the long term sustainability of aviation fuel for the UK, and that we do need a revenue certainty mechanism alongside the the mandates.

So, my Lords, three, three broad points that I have to make. My first point is around the definitions within the bill of fuels that are eligible for the revenue certainty mechanism. So if we go to clause 16 that defines sustainable aviation fuel as aviation fuel, that is renewable transport fuel and renewable transport fuel is then defined in the same clause as anything that is or is treated as renewable transport fuel. For the purposes of chapter five, part two of the Energy Act 2004, and it refers to sections one, three, 1d and one three, two.

Now, my Lords, I propose the amendment to the Energy Act 2023 that led to 1.3 1d, which treats recycled carbon fuels and nuclear derived fuels as renewable transport fuels, and this amendment was therefore a key enabler for this bill and enabling support for second generation and types of third generation SAF. However, this does require secondary legislation to take effect and treat these fuels as renewable transport fuels. This hasn't been completely done for the surface transport, renewable Transport Fuel order, for it's only been done for recycled carbon fuels, but has been done for the sustainable Aviation Renewable Transport Fuel Order.

So my Lords, we do have quite a convoluted legislative route here between various acts and between secondary legislation. So can the Minister please confirm that recycled carbon fuels and nuclear derived fuels are within the scope of the revenue certainty mechanism as outlined in this bill? Because clearly recycled carbon fuels are going to be very important near term and over the medium to long term, nuclear could well be a significant source of synthetic fuels due to the potential economic efficiency it brings to hydrogen production, whether that's high, high temperature electrolysis with the current pressurised water reactor plants, and looking further ahead, the sulphur iodine cycle in advanced high temperature nuclear plant.

My second point, my Lords, is around the powers that the government is taking in the bill. Now, the government has clearly stated that it does not intend to offer contracts for first generation SAF based on HEFA, hydrogenated esters and fatty acids. So I wonder if this should therefore be stated in the bill. The government should only take on the powers it needs. Given that this bill is a framework for the long term. So I believe that the powers in the bill, or there is a case that the powers in the bill should be limited to second and third generation sustainable aviation fuels.

I don't foresee any good reason why HEFA fuels would need such support. So I believe this could be clearly stated in the bill. My third point, my Lords, is around value for money and competition. Now, we rightly heard a lot of discussion in the other place around cost consumers and the analysis on the the £1.50 impacts on airfares. The Minister clearly stated we need to get the right balance between investors and consumers with the prices that are negotiated.

But another way of looking at this, my Lords, is on the competitive structure within the bill. Now, of course, the way the bill is structured around bilateral negotiations rather than a competitive process is what is needed for the the SAF market at this stage, noting its immaturity, an auction process such as that which we have for offshore wind isn't perhaps appropriate at this stage. However, this bill does need to be fit for the longer term. My Lords, competition is the way to drive down costs for consumers in the long term, and this has been demonstrated in more mature markets such as offshore wind.

So longer term, we we do need that mechanism for auctions and competitions within the bill. But looking through the bill, I can't see a mechanism for setting up such a competitive process. So in other government legislation, for example, the Energy Act 2013 for CFDs for renewable energy generation, that clearly states provision may by regulations may include provision for the determination of a matter on a competitive basis. And we also have that in the Energy Act 2023 for low carbon hydrogen, which also clearly states provision falling within subsection may include provision for the determination of a matter on a competitive basis.

And this bill makes no provision for regulations to cover the determination of a matter on a competitive basis, or indeed for allocation frameworks. So I would be grateful if the Minister could state whether, in his view, a competitive framework is covered by the Bill as written and if not, whether it it should be because the bill should be fit for the future to avoid the need for future legislation in this area and structured to minimise cost to consumers, which in the end will be enabled through competition.

Now, my Lords, I would make one final point. This bill will go a long way to realising second and third generation SAF production in the UK, but the government does need urgently to address broader challenges as well, not least our high industrial electricity prices. I've spoken to a number of companies who want to set up SAF plants, who want to set up related infrastructure in the UK, but they simply can't make the numbers stack up when our electricity is four times as expensive as competitors such as the USA.

This is a very energy intensive industry. So alongside the measures in this bill, we need to address the fundamentals also to ensure that we're being fair to consumers and that we're minimising required subsidies. So I hope the government will think about the broader framework as well, and not just see this as a problem

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be addressed through subsidies. My Lords. I thank. You. For your. Warm welcome.
13:09
Lord Bishop of Chester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Chester (Bishops)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Warm welcome. Although I confess that sustainable aviation fuel was not the subject I imagined I would be the subject I imagined I would be addressing. When various of you have given me advice about maiden speeches. I am grateful, though, for your wisdom, for your warmth, and for your welcome, and especially that of the doorkeepers and staff of this House. It seems perhaps I should have taken you rather more literally when you said I would be working with high flyers,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and rather less literally, when you pointed out that not everything was rocket science. Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh. I speak, my Lords, as one born almost 2500 miles from where we sit. almost 2500 miles from where we sit. Indeed, the first serious journey of my life was by air back here to the UK. I'm also a father and like the UK. I'm also a father and like the rest of this noble house, entrusted with passing on entire to entrusted with passing on entire to the next generation, this good earth sustainability matters. The good Lord provided us with many good Lord provided us with many things, but a spare planet was not among them, at least in this age.

And it is this balance of pragmatism that means I speak largely in support of the bill. On largely in support of the bill. On the one hand, we need to be real about air travel being vital to modern life. It builds community, modern life. It builds community, enables encounter, and it crosses divides. My own diocese, that of divides. My own diocese, that of Chester, serves communities in two nations and 23 local authorities. nations and 23 local authorities. It spurns urban spans, urban and rural wealth and extreme poverty.

rural wealth and extreme poverty. We gaze at the universe from Jodrell Bank. We support half of the Mersey's industrial life. We the Mersey's industrial life. We rejoice in our schools and in Chester University, and we cherish our world renowned zoo. Indeed, according to the I newspaper this morning, we also have Warrington, which may be Britain's hardest working town, who knew all our part of the life of the diocese. From the newest migrant to the most established amongst the Cheshire set, from those who take penalties on the sporting field, to those who serve a very different type of penalty.

We are linked to the world both by Liverpool Airport, which is in the Diocese of Liverpool, just across the River Mersey, and Manchester Airport, where you actually land in the Diocese of Chester, but disembark in the Diocese of Manchester. And my Lords, to repeat myself, the Diocese of Chester touches two nations. I serve a border people, just as I did in my former see of Berwick upon Tweed in Chester. We have several parishes which are all or partly in Wales, my Lords, or as I should say, the ugly.

We are doing right now. I apologise for my lamentable Welsh accent, but I am learning a little bit of Welsh because, well, partly because I carried on with Duolingo long after lockdown. But much more importantly, communication is a vital gift for those of us who nurture and curate community and in communication. We need to learn to speak and to listen, and that is almost always best done in person and directly. Indeed, I would argue that one of our primary vocations in this noble House is to be with and to listen for.

Few disciplines are more vital in the search for wisdom, and that is the search I so often witness in your Lordships' House. The question for me is not so much how we can be great again, but how we can be present and kindly. Present greatness is great, but grace is greater. Air travel does more than build community. It enables partnership and commerce. It is a vital part of the defence of our nation. As I witnessed when offering chaplaincy to our armed forces, it is the backbone of much international aid provision and it enables care for people and the planet.

Chester Zoo, for example, serves ecosystems around this world and the relative ease of transport is one factor in this. My own experience working in the university sector showed just how much journeys matter in the service of education. Air travel is vital and it is here to stay, but its environmental impact must be addressed, which means that net zero matters. But it's not the only sustainability consideration. Mike Berners-Lee points out when ostensibly discussing the environmental impact of bananas, that the problem is not only emissions, but where they are released.

Sustainable fuel is far from carbon neutral, and whilst it shortens the life cycle of released carbon in the sense that it releases carbon, which is only recently being captured, it also moves that carbon into the upper part of the atmosphere where they are most harmful. So I welcome this bill's creation of an economic framework framework in which SAF becomes a viable investment. I welcome the balancing of the use between investment by directing costs towards those who make use of the service, in effect, taxing flights to enable more sustainable flights seems very sensible to me by itself, though I argue that this bill does not do nearly enough.

The move it encourages from first to second, and then vitally to third generation SAF is essential. Hinet, in which the University of Chester is a partner, which makes use of the geology and the industrial infrastructure in the northwest, is one other expression of this kind of investment. The production of green hydrogen, which combines captured carbon with sustainably electrolysed hydrogen, really is the holy grail here. Although learnt any budding and noble theologians note that I do not use that term in a technical sense.

Alongside this bill, we must invest in rail and environmental road transport if we are to progress to sustainability. It cannot be right, to my Lords, that well over half my return trains from this place to my home in Chester seem to be delayed or cancelled. I would like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, what the projected timescales are for substantive provision of third generation SAF, and whether consideration is being given to roll out this technology beyond aviation.

This bill, though, helps us play our part in global well-being in every sense. The question with which I come to this House is not so much how we make Britain great again, as I mentioned earlier, but rather how we make Britain kind again. Such kindness and responsibility is what leads to greatness in a manner which actually lasts and which embraces all. And in this, this bill matters. Our infrastructure must line up with our fundamental identity and our core vocation if we are to thrive.

My Lords, this bill represents one structural step, but it's a step in the right direction, and I support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my Lords, I rise to. Welcome this Bill and to commend the government for bringing forward
13:16
Lord Raval Portrait Lord Raval (Labour)
-
-
a serious and long awaited framework to decarbonise the sector that accounts for an ever rising share of, the Minister said of our national emissions. But before I turn to aviation fuel, an altogether more uplifting and sustaining subject commands our attention. It is an extraordinary privilege and an honour to congratulate the Right Reverend Prelate. The Bishop of Chester on his outstanding maiden speech, a contribution that displayed the wisdom, moral seriousness, humour and quiet authority with which he will flourish in the work of this house.

If I may declare a personal interest, long before he was a bishop, the Right Reverend prelate joined a senior Faith in leadership programme that I directed across residences with rabbis, imams, priests, business leaders, medics and public servants. I observed firsthand the depth of his character. He remained firmly rooted in his own tradition while offering genuine friendship across boundaries. In our digitally recorded conflict simulations designed to test even the most devout, he kept his cool, listened with generosity, mediated with a humility that enabled others to shine.

And, as I recall, he won. I learned then that although he had read mathematics at Cambridge, with every conventional avenue of worldly success open to him, he could not escape a deeper calling to ministry. As warden of Cranmer Hall and vice principal of Saint John's, Durham. He nurtured generations of leaders and equipped them to grapple with exactly the kinds of questions he has raised a few moments ago about community, purpose, presence and belonging. His recent doctoral thesis offers a further window into his nature a pastor scholar, attentive not to abstractions, but to how real people grow, collaborate and serve.

In it, he explores the call to integrate a leadership that is rooted ultimately in love and, in the words of the Right Reverend prelate himself, a combination of spiritual, emotional, rational and pragmatic intelligence reflecting a relational understanding of humanity. My Lords, we mark. We meet. As was underscored by the previous debates immediately before this one, and indeed this one. We meet in a time marked by a by polarisation, disaffection, a growing distance from once trusted institutions, and the unsettling acceleration of trends intensified by digital habits, including, regrettably, the amplification of hatreds that distort our public square.

The Right Reverend prelate brings precisely the countervailing gifts this moment requires not only the intellect, analytical clarity, logic and tech savviness to address these forces. He's really brainy, but the pastoral breadth to speak, as he reminded us only moments ago with the communication and genuine connection needed both for those who share his convictions and for those who feel unheard or left behind. It is often communities whose social anchors have shifted, who can be drawn towards simpler, louder narratives.

The right reverend Prelate offers instead an approach. That sees diversity not as a difficulty to be managed, but also including a tapestry of human intelligences to be woven for the common good. Such leadership is not merely timely, it is essential. We look forward to, and indeed need the Right Reverend prelate statesmanship in this House. So if I may now turn briefly to the bill before us, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, working alongside the SAF mandate, provides clarity and confidence.

Industry has long sought, with first of a kind plants costing between £600 million and £2 billion and typically running at a loss in their early years. The Revenue certainty mechanism. Is a critical enabler of the investment this industry requires. This is precisely the sort of pragmatic, investment led policy that creates jobs, strengthens supply chains and positions the United Kingdom to lead in clean aviation technology. But ambition must meet delivery. Industry modelling suggests that announced UK SAF projects may deliver only around half of the volume required under the 2030 mandate, unless further policy and investment steps are taken.

Meanwhile, total UK greenhouse gas emissions, including aviation and shipping, amount to approximately 414 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Aviation will not decarbonise itself, and this bill helps ensure that the UK does not fall behind while others race ahead. I therefore strongly support its direction of travel. My question to the Minister concerns the feedstocks that will power this transition. As has been said, many early SAF pathways rely on using used cooking oils, industrial residues and critically black bin bag and other residual wastes.

As we rightly reduce such waste and increase recycling, how does the government's modelling ensure a stable, sustainable and ethically sourced supply? And how will Ministers balance emerging SAF demand with existing waste to energy plants and local authority waste reduction targets, so that one green ambition does not inadvertently undermine another?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Om Shanti. Om it's it's. A particular pleasure to to
13:23
Lord Grayling Portrait Lord Grayling (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

A particular pleasure to to follow on from, I thought, a very well articulated tribute to the right reverend Prelate, and I'd like to offer him my congratulations as well for a very well made, a very thoughtful and very appropriate maiden speech. He will undoubtedly make a major contribution in this House, and I think all of us welcome him to this place. Let me also start, ironically, by also referring to my entry in the Register as an adviser to Atkins, as well as to Hutchinson.

But it's a particular pleasure for me to speak in this Second Reading debate. Two years ago, I was responsible for an amendment to the then energy bill, which mandated the government to set up a revenue support mechanism for sustainable aviation fuel in the UK. I stopped after getting 56 conservative signatures on the amendment, which proved enough just about to finally jilt the government and particularly the Treasury, into action and starting a process which has brought us to this point today.

And I'm glad that I'm also going to be speaking alongside my noble friend, who followed on from that by playing a significant part in delivering us to the point we're at today. Lord Harper, another example of why this is a genuinely bipartisan bill the debates, differences, discussions about the detail. But there has been strong support across all sides for the principles that underlie the bill recognised they needed to do something. And I'm very pleased that Ministers in the current government have continued the work that we started and has delivered this piece of legislation which I strongly support, albeit with some caveats and questions, which I want to push the Minister on today and in committee.

And subsequently, I do think there are some things that need to be tightened up and some questions that need to be answered. But the principle, I think, is absolutely right. And for me, the reason this all matters is very simple. The aviation industry is under growing pressure over its carbon footprint. Now, whether you are an opponent of net zero, whether you're a supporter of net zero, to my mind is completely irrelevant to this debate. This is actually about the market pressures on the airlines themselves, and particularly from a younger generation of of potential customer, where flight shaming has become more visible.

And so the industry has got to address those concerns, and we have to help them address those concerns and to help them address the industry's impact on the environment. So it's not just about politics, it's actually about what is commercially necessary for what is one of our most important economic sectors. And of course, that is why Virgin Atlantic, Boeing and Rolls-Royce collaborated on the groundbreaking transatlantic pioneering flight using sustainable aviation fuel two years ago. We were both on that flight.

It was a very unique experience, and it's why also, I know that most of the industry strongly supports this legislation. It's why the last government brought forward plans for the SAF mandate, and why this government continued to introduce the mandate at the start of this year. So why then, do we need a revenue certainty mechanism of the kind set out in this bill? Our airlines could just buy stuff from overseas. The initial product being used in this country is almost certainly going to come principally from the United States.

Well, there are two very good reasons why this bill remains necessary. First of all, our aviation sector is, as I say, a key part of our economy. It's the strongest sector in Europe. It's it's fundamental to our region's, to the economy of so many different parts of the country. Do we really just want to import the fuel it needs for the future, or is it better to encourage serious investment here of the kind that companies like Alfen are planning for Teesside, like parts of the country that clearly wants and needs investment? Even in a world of free markets, sometimes I really think we need to make sure that we do some important things for ourselves, and I think we can have a successful SAF sector in the UK which brings investment and which creates jobs.

But SAF plants require a very large amount of capital, and investors are always cautious about new markets and developing technologies. The truth is, the first plants in the United States, of which there are just a handful, received investment support from the Biden administration. The EU is poised to introduce its own revenue certainty mechanism. The Minister was right to say that ours is the first in the world, but it's not going to be the last. So it comes down for me to a straightforward choice.

Do we want a SAF industry in the UK, or do we just have to depend on imports? And I don't think we have to. My view is that we do need that industry in the UK, and I really strongly support this bill as a result. But there's also another reason for caution about buying SAF from elsewhere. I think the UK approach is much smarter and much better in the United States. SAF is being produced primarily from corn in the EU. SAF will be produced for what is called, we heard HEFA.

In other words, basically used cooking oil. I absolutely do not support growing fuel in fields that can be used for growing food. I've long been uneasy about the practice of growing crops for purposes other than food, but I think it is mad to use the space that the world needs to feed itself to grow aviation fuel. The UK has right also to accept, I think for now, that HEFA will be needed for the time being. But also we need to understand that it's not going to be there forever and it's right that its future use is capped.

There are serious question marks about the availability of HEFA, and the suggestion is also there that it's often not really used cooking oil at all, but near virgin oil that has been doctored to create the semblance that it has been used in a kitchen. And of course, much of it comes from the Far East and South. Mandates are going to spread there, too, and so there is absolutely no certainty of supply going forwards. So the UK's approach, which has been to push quickly towards SAF produced from biowaste, of which we have quite a lot here already.

And then of course, of course, in due course from municipal waste has got to be the right one to me. Now this really is the nirvana around sustainable aviation fuel. If we can turn our waste what we put in our black bins each week into fuel oil, removing the impact of landfill and incineration and the rest, that has got to be a good thing. But I do have a question for the Minister, and this is the first of the points I want to put to him.

There are rumours around the government wants to allow first generation saffron crops here. I really hope that is not true. And I'd ask the Minister to set that one to rest by confirming there are no such plans. We should not be growing agricultural crops to turn into fuel. Now we've taken a said, a much smarter approach in this country to deliver aviation fuel that has a positive environmental impact. We must not see that compromised in any way. And then there are a number of other issues I have with the bill that I want to put to the Minister, issues that I want to see addressed in the debates ahead of us, and at least one which I'm very committed to asking the government or this House to put on the face of the face of the bill.

My first concern is about how the levy is applied on conventional aviation fuel manufacturers. I know that the government's initial intent was to assign the levy based on the previous year's market share. I genuinely do not think that approach is viable. It misses out the impact of changes in the composition of the market, which could mean a new player facing a period without charges and able to undercut the existing market. The levelling up process that then will come way down the track after a long period of time when there had really been a price discrepancy between the two and a competitive advantage, the newcomer.

And also, if someone disappears from the market and we've seen two refineries close in recent times, such a delay would also cause complications for the counterparty. So I do think that the mechanism to apply the levy has got to be immediate. I mean, I don't really understand why it can't just be done per barrel of fuel as it leaves the refinery or as it leaves the terminal. And I think the Minister needs to explain to all of us why that can't happen.

And I appreciate that's going to come in secondary legislation, but I think we really do need to understand how it's going to be applied, and it's got to be done in a timely way. It can't happen way after the event. I was grateful to the Minister for spending some time with me and allowing his officials to spend some time with me, and I know they've thought about this, but I do ask him to to to put now some of the government's thinking on the record about this so we can understand where it's going as we go through the bill.

My second concern is there's got to be a direct link between the commencement of the levy and the opening of the first SAF plant. Now, we don't realistically expect the first plant in the UK to be operational much before 2030, and so the levy can't start until close to 2030. Otherwise we'd be raising money which passengers are paying more for and just leaving it sitting in the bank. So it's really important that there has to be a a clear linkage between the arrival of SAF manufacturing in the UK and the application of the levy.

And actually, when we're talking about time frame, one other thing I'd just ask the Minister to consider at the moment, because the fact there's not an awful lot of SAF capacity anywhere in the world, what we mustn't do is be applying the mandate on a ratchet scale up to 2030, in a way that is detached from the reality of the availability of SAF in the marketplace. So I would ask him to keep monitoring the mandate as we go towards 2030 and make sure we're not actually out of kilter with the availability of SAF for the airlines to actually put in their planes.

Third concern I'd ask the Minister to address. There has got to be no legal doubt whatsoever that the proceeds of the levy will only be used to support investment into the manufacturing of SAF in the UK. There's just got to be a proper safeguard against any other part of government going, oh, that's some money there. We'll have that for something else. It does happen. It has happened in other countries, in similar areas. We need that certainty in the bill. But the thing I think is the most important addition to the bill, and I'd really ask the Minister to go away and think about this, because I think it must be in primary legislation.

So there is no doubt in the courts going forward. There has to be absolute certainty that the revenue support mechanism is only going to be used for the manufacturing of SAF in the UK to support the production of SAF in the UK. There's got to be no legal doubt about this, no loopholes whatsoever. And the Minister knows the government already knows that there are loopholes out there. There are people trying to take advantage of those. Governments already had to stop one multinational in the hydrogen marketplace from benefiting from UK financial support, while planning to produce part of its product in the Middle East.

It would be relatively easy for a manufacturer of SAF to import an intermediate fuel into the UK, processes e-SAF and claim the benefits that the RCM would offer. The legislation has got to be absolutely categoric that cannot be allowed to happen. So what I'm after is the bill to say very explicitly that any certified fuel that is a component of SAF has to be manufactured in the UK, and that only the feedstock can be imported. Of course, there'll be times if we buy Biowaste from other European countries that's perfectly reasonable.

But we can't produce is a kind of three quarters finished fuel that you just adjust and turn into SAF at the end and claim that should benefit from the from the revenue support mechanism. So only the feedstock will I countenance being imported. And hopefully as we see the move towards urban municipal waste and even sewage turned into fuel, even that will not be necessary. But that's really, really important that we have that on the face of the bill. Courts do strange things. They interpret laws in in different ways, the ways that sometimes those in Parliament don't expect or don't want to be the case.

We've got to have absolute certainty on that in primary legislation. And I mentioned this now to the Minister ahead of committee to give him advance warning that I really do want to explore this in detail. So, my Lords, I believe this bill to be essential to the UK benefitting from a new industry that we have ourselves mandated as central to one of our most important sectors. It makes no sense to tell airlines to buy SAF, but then ignore the opportunity to produce it here and let other governments incentivise their own investments and their own industries instead.

I'm very glad that both the last government on this one accepted the intent behind that amendment two years ago, and I look forward to seeing this bill pass into law. But our job in this House is to make sure it needs no loopholes, and then to encourage the government to get on with the secondary legislation. So the contracts and the constructions can begin as quickly as possible. Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support this bill. I'm not often I'm not often known to be not often I'm not often known to be supporting aviation, but this one is the first time there's been a is the first time there's been a serious attempt to reduce the carbon emissions, and at the same carbon emissions, and at the same time, it'll also can be used to help the millions of households across Britain who actually don't have access to gas.

I spoke about this in in the debate in the energy
13:36
13:36
13:37
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
oil. But, my Lords, there's 1.7 million homes in the UK serving about 4 million people that are off the gas grid and only rely on heating oil. Now, there'll be heating oil. Now, there'll be suffering at the present time when it's really cold. And then the mostly in the rural community areas, mostly in the rural community areas, which alternatives such as heat pumps. Well, they work sometimes, pumps. Well, they work sometimes, but not always, but what's come out but not always, but what's come out of the recent debate is that HVO hydrogenated vegetable oil is a hydrogenated vegetable oil is a renewable fuel that can cut emissions from home heating by up emissions from home heating by up to 88%, compared with kerosene that's used at the moment.

And it works as a drop in replacement. You just tip it in the tank as I don't know, because I haven't tried it, know, because I haven't tried it, but the the reason for my bringing it up again this morning is that. HBO is a by-product. It's only about 30% of the output from SAF. And as SAF production goes up, we can increase the domestic supply of h o. The Ministers have rightly said that HEFA HBO will play will play a vital role in our aviation decarbonisation journey, and I certainly agree with it, but it looks as if the SAF mandate will accelerate that growth from I think it's about 2% of jet fuel demand today, rising to 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040.

And that's enough HVO to provide a 66% or so blend of heating oil, which will sort out the decarbonisation needs of most off grid homes. So especially at this time of year when it's really cold, it's just something this is a benefit not only for the aviation industry, but also for people that live in the countryside or can't connect to alternatives. And my Lords, just we need the right mechanism, as other noble Lords have spoken about.

Section 159 of the Energy Act 2023 gives the government the power to create a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation, which is mirrors from what the Labour government did with the Transport Fuel Obligation last time. I was really pleased, therefore, to read an announcement from the government on Tuesday this week about a consultation on this. And I know that the industry, this is the industry that provides the SAF and other similar material working with off grid customers, has built up a considerable bank of evidence and data to show that this policy will actually benefit both the consumers and the environment.

So I hope now that the consultation will allow things to move forward at pace. I was interested to read that the Irish government recently confirmed its intention to implement a renewable heat obligation, confident that their feedstocks are available to supply its off grid homes. And that's terribly important, as the noble Lord Sewell Lord Grayling was referring to. If there's enough feedstock, then it'll it'll work. The market will work. So, my Lords, I think this is an opportunity to deliver a win win.

Cleaner skies and warmer homes. And I do hope that my noble friend will discuss this with his new, I think, new ministerial colleague, Lord Whitehead Lord Whitehead, who we introduced today, who's got a lot of experience to the confirm the Irish government's conclusion and to commit to implementing section 159 swiftly following the consultation. And on that basis, I hope we can have a win win solution for aviation and home heating.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I welcome the right reverend Prelate of Chester and I was absolutely delighted to hear
13:41
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
was absolutely delighted to hear him remind the House that there is no spare planet because quite honestly, the rate at which we humans are trashing our planet suggests that we actually do think we can go to Mars or do something spectacular like that and still live a good life. And I'd like to point out that if we destroy this very beautiful planet, or make it less and less beautiful, less and less diverse, that means our lives will be utterly constrained as well.

Now, I do like to say something nice about the government occasionally, if I possibly can, and I noted the noble Lord, the Minister's statement at the start saying, you know, this aims for a greener, cleaner future for aviation. That's a very noble aim. But of course it's impossible, I'm afraid, unless we radically rethink how we're going to deal with it. About 25 years ago, when I was on the London Assembly, we London Assembly members and the mayor had who was Ken Livingstone at the time, had a presentation by Heathrow.

They promised, remember, this is 25 years ago. They promised they could could become sustainable within a few years. They claimed they should be given permission to expand because they would soon be polluting less. Now. It took us a couple of years, but the mayor and the assembly soon realised that Heathrow had lied. It still lies about expansion and pollution. It lies about how important it is to the economy and about how much public subsidy it gets. The truth is that the aviation industry cares about profits, not the environment.

You can no more have sustainable aviation aviation than you can have a crocodile with a conscience. It just doesn't exist. There's absolutely no techno fix for the pollution that aviation causes. The Royal Society worked out that to reach net zero for aviation fuel. Is this what we're calling jet zero? So snappy we need at least half the UK's agricultural land to grow the raw materials. And that would be over two thirds if farmers only grew rapeseed. Now that means less wheat, less barley and fodder for livestock.

That means higher prices for cereals and food. We already have food inflation due to floods in some areas and droughts in others. Last year, the 2025 UK harvest was the second worst on record. If the government wants farmers to grow jet fuel instead of food, then prices in the shops are going to rise in order to keep the planes flying. As we enter the era of climate crisis impacting on world food production, our country will have less farming land but will want more of it devoted to support the oxymoronic idea of sustainable aviation.

In the past 25 years, the UK has lost 770 100,000 hectares of farmland, contributing to a 12% fall fall in food self-sufficiency. That decline is about to get worse with the disastrous planning bill the government has passed. I love the effort going into expanding renewable energy and battery storage, but as the climate committee pointed out, that doesn't stop aviation becoming the number one contributor to emissions in the next few decades, this government has lost all claim to be a green government, with its attack on nature in Britain and with its decisions to expand aviation.

The go ahead for the expansion of London City Airport, Luton, Gatwick and Stansted means an extra 51 million passengers per annum. If the government adds Heathrow to that total, then that's an extra 65 million passengers. If all those extra flights resulted either extra emissions or in extra farmland taken up growing jet fuel, that means rising food prices and more public subsidy. Of course, the reality is that we won't switch two thirds of our farming land to jet fuel. This whole bill is greenwash, designed to provide political cover for aviation expansion and their bigger profits.

The real solutions are to tax private jets and the ultra frequent flyers, to stop short haul flights and make train journeys cheaper and more reliable. The solution is less flying. Not this fiction of sustainable aviation. I am not trying to somebody over here said flight shame people. I think that it is understandable that families want to go on holiday once a year. But as the noble Lord there are, Russell pointed out, 70% of flights are taken by 15% of the population.

Now, that suggests that those people are grabbing their unfair share of the pollution that we can each expect to produce. And so I really would like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, if he doesn't approve of making train journeys cheaper and more reliable and actually putting a tax on private aircraft and on frequent flyers. I did say to the owners of Heathrow 20 years ago, much to their annoyance, if you want to show how environmentally you are, then go ahead fix the major problems of noise and air pollution.

Stop ruining the climate. And once you've done that, then and only then can we have a conversation about expansion of airports and of aviation. And I'm so disappointed with this government that it can't see that I recognise they feel the need to go ahead and explain that aviation can go on just as it is, and just as it has been in the past,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but that simply isn't true. My Lords, first of all, let me declare my interest as a non-executive chair of Rvl Aviation. non-executive chair of Rvl Aviation. And then I also want to add to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent maiden Prelate on his excellent maiden speech. I thought I did think before he started, I was wondering before he started, I was wondering whether he was going to set out the Church of England's policy on sustainable aviation, and I was pleasantly surprised by the excellent contents of his speech, and I look forward to his further contributions in the House and the.

The bit I will remember is his particularly remember is his particularly remember is his injunction to be kindly present, which I think is something we should all strive to do. And if I
13:48
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
should all strive to do. And if I ever require a referee or someone to provide a reference for me, I will think of the noble Lord Lord Raval and who spent, I think, most of his speech. Rather than talking about this bill saying fantastic things that the right reverend Prelate would have been too humble to have said himself. And he painted a a very rich picture of the right reverend Prelate skills. And I look forward to, as I said, his contribution in the future.

The noble Lady, Lady Jones will not be surprised to know that I disagreed with almost every word of her speech. Just on on flying. She she did reference. The ability of people to go on holiday. I think we had a very interesting test case during the pandemic when we not not for this reason, but we effectively told people they couldn't fly. And it was very clear from my experience then as a member of Parliament, listening to constituents, the breadth of the reasons that people value aviation, the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chester touched on some of them about bringing people together, enabling people to see friends and family around the world.

It's not just about holidays, it's about bringing people together. And I also don't share the noble Lady's distaste for frequent flyers. Most, most of the people that do frequent flying are people who are involved in business, involved in investment globally, involved in growing both the British and the global economy. And that is essential to generate the wealth that we will need to green the economy and to make it more sustainable. We're only going to have public acceptance of a lot of this if we also make people better off.

And so I think it's incredibly important that we support flying. We enable more people to fly. I want people who currently don't have the opportunity to fly, both in the United Kingdom and globally, to have the chance to do so. But, but, but where I do agree with the noble Lady is we absolutely need to do that in a sustainable way, and that will be done by the use of, of technology. And I'll just move on to the subject of this bill in a moment.

But it's also worth just saying that there are actually a range of technologies that are available. And it's interesting that the aviation industry that's airlines, airports, the aerospace sector that are involved in developing the technology and manufacturing the planes are I think I was I was surprised when I was Secretary of State, the unanimity across the industry about the importance of sustainability and decarbonising it. We never had any arguments with the industry or had to try and push them in this direction.

They were already there and moving at pace, and I found that incredibly encouraging. So there's technology around hydrogen fuel cells, and innovative companies like Zeroavia are based in the United Kingdom who are working on that technology, which will be available in the future. There are companies developing will. Come on. I'll talk about SAF in a minute. There are also companies working on electric planes. There's also the important work that the government's doing on airspace modernisation that we kicked off when I was Secretary of State.

That's also going to make a contribution. And in order to get to net zero aviation, we will also for the bit, you can't abate this technology in terms of the planes. We will also need to use carbon capture and storage. And I know a great deal of work is going on in that space as well. And the government, I was very pleased, carried on. Its slightly renamed it, but that's a minor detail but carried on with our Jet Zero Council, which they now call the Jet Zero Taskforce, which brings together the industry and government and academia, and also, importantly, representatives from the Climate Change Committee who provide helpful advice to the Jet Zero Taskforce, but also therefore learn about where the technology has got to to inform the advice that the Climate Change Committee then provides to the government.

And so that is very welcome on sustainable aviation fuel itself. My noble friend Lord Grayling referred to the VS 100 flight that Virgin Atlantic put on, funded by them, but also supported by a contribution from the the taxpayer as a result of a competition run by my my my predecessor. That flight took place in November 2023. It captured an enormous amount of public interest and attention. It was one of the rare occasions that I was able to do the morning round from Heathrow Airport, standing in front of the plane.

Great backdrop, but also had a really good response from broadcasters who found the whole thing very interesting. Had done great explainers for the public to explain some of this technology and and wished us well with the endeavour, which is not something that broadcasters usually did to government Ministers who were doing the morning broadcast round. But it was also it didn't just capture attention in Britain, but it actually captured attention around the world. And when I was then shortly afterwards went to the climate change conference, Cop 28, I was able to speak about that particular flight, and it was a very good example of Britain leading the way in this area and demonstrating the value of technology.

We then introduced or started the introduction and developed and did the consultation of the SAF mandate, which is effectively providing the demand side of the equation for sustainable aviation fuel. And I'm very pleased again, that the present government has been an enormous amount of continuity in policy in this area and have continued with that approach. On the supply side, the Minister referred to the excellent work being done by the Aerospace Technology Institute, which I would also support. And in terms of the domestic production of sustainable aviation, fuel, the capital cost of that which has been referred to, including by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, has been supported from the Advanced Fuels Fund.

And I think the third round of that has recently taken place. The first round happened when we were in government, and I'd be interested if, in his winding up speech, if the Minister can provide us with an update, perhaps on where those the development of those plants has got to and when we might see my noble friend Lord Grayling suggested one time frame for that, and Davis as well. The Minister can give us an update on progress in this area, and it would be helpful as well, if he set out the value, which I think my noble friend Lord Grayling touched on the value the government places on domestic production of sustainable aviation fuel.

And I think part of the case for that, there's a national resilience case, because again, we saw during the pandemic, countries, regardless of the contractual obligations that businesses had very much protected their domestic supply of this sort of fuel. And you can very quickly find that your reliance on getting this from overseas rapidly dries up. So I think actually having some domestic resilience is actually very important. And I'd be grateful if the Minister set out the government's view.

Now, turning to the purpose of the bill specifically, which is the revenue certainty mechanism, my noble friend Lord Grayling touched on this, and I remember very clearly his what I might term his rebel amendment to force the pace on this. And it was it was good that he provoked that debate. Now, I have to confess, I took quite a bit of persuading when I was Secretary of State about the need for the revenue certainty mechanism. And I'll just say a few words about that, because I think it's it's helpful, I think, imposing some questions to the Minister, both here and when we get to committee.

So I was very clear when the industry was lobbying for it. And indeed, my noble friend, I was very clear. I wanted to understand what the market failure was that we were trying to fix with the revenue support mechanism. And I think we've ended up with a clear enunciation of it. In the explanatory notes for the Bill. And the Minister touched on this in his opening remarks about the need to develop first of a kind technology that's not currently in existence, which requires a significant amount of capital and is a very high level of risk.

The caveat, though, is when I had some of these discussions in some roundtables, both here and in the United States with with some of the investors, they understandably quite like the idea of some guaranteed demand for a mandate. And they also quite like the idea of guaranteed pricing through a revenue certainty mechanism. And I did gently point out to them that they do have to take some risk in this process in order to justify the return. And so I think the trick here is not to remove all risk, it's to get the risk to the level of comparable investment projects, so that we make sure that you get appropriate levels of investment.

But what we've got to guard against is what's happened in some of the rest of the energy sector, where you get very long run contracts guaranteeing returns to investors that are higher than are strictly necessary, with the costs being paid for by the consumer. And it's very important that when the detail work is done here, that we get the balance right between getting the investment in the domestic SAF production, minimising the cost to the consumer and getting the length of those contractual terms right.

And I don't pretend that's easy, but it's going to be very important to do that. So I think at committee we will be having a discussion. I think about how you how you design the levy obligations on the fuel suppliers. And my noble friend Lord Grayling touched on some of the detail questions around there, how the levy interacts with the UK's emission trading scheme, the Corsia scheme that's been set up internationally, and the EU scheme, and particularly as the the the free allocations expire for aviation under the Emissions Trading Scheme.

There is an argument that is made by some that actually it's it's payments under the emissions trading scheme that should be used to fund sustainable aviation fuel plants, rather than creating yet another obligation. And I'd be interested if the Minister set out how he and the government see those schemes interacting with each other to make sure that consumers are paying more than once. The final point I wanted to make is just to raise the point that was also touched on by my noble friend Lord Grayling about the composition of sustainable aviation, fuel and the international dimension.

For this. Now it's quite right, and I agree in principle with what Lord Grayling said about not using food crops or land that could be used for food crops to produce a SAF. But there is one thing that I think we do need to be realistic about, which we maybe shouldn't have to, but we do. There is a big lobby in the US which my noble friend touched on that wants to use corn ethanol for SAF. And now normally I would be very much against that.

The only argument in favour of it is whether it may be necessary to engage the US administration, which isn't enormously well disposed towards sustainability and net zero about what international agreements we may need to have with them. Because I think it's really important in this area to keep the United States administration broadly aligned, given that aviation is, by definition, an international industry, it's going to be quite difficult to decarbonise the industry if the United States is heading in a different direction.

So I'd be interested to know what discussions the British government's having with the United States government about trying to keep them in this space, and whether and what sorts of discussions are going on with fuel providers. That would be the only argument, I think, for using food crops for this. If by doing so, it meant that we could keep the United States in this place. But in summary, my Lords, I strongly support aviation. I strongly support making it more sustainable. That will be done not by stopping people flying, but by using technology.

All of the technology, sustainable aviation fuel is the technology solution that's going to be available first. It's available now. The Virgin flight that I referred to demonstrated that you can have a 100% sustainable aviation fuel flight that works. It's a drop in fuel with existing technology and the revenue certainty mechanism that's enabled by this bill. If the design of it is correct, and we'll test some of that in committee, I think will help get that domestic production up and running.

So with those caveats, I support the bill and look forward to further debate in committee with the Minister. And I suspect, a number of the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords that are here today. My Lords, first.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to add my congratulations to the Right Reverend Prelate for Bishop of Reverend Prelate for Bishop of Chester on his entertaining and informed speech. I think he should
14:03
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Conservative)
-
-
informed speech. I think he should moonlight and take a second job on the Climate Change Committee. It's a great pleasure for me to follow my noble friend Lord Harper, who rightly stressed that we should lead the way, continue to lead the way in developing new technologies, and perhaps the government could pay more attention to the absurdly high level of electricity costs in this country and the high levels of taxation. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for introducing this bill today.

I have been a frequent flyer for most of my working life and still travel regularly overseas, especially to the Far East. So I declare my interest to set out in the register, especially in connection with advising Japanese companies and British companies with regard to their Japanese business. My noble friend Lord Grayling knows a great deal about this subject and made a compelling speech. The rapid adoption of SAF is still broadly supported by the Conservative Party, but I believe the science have been shifting on the whole question of how quickly and at what cost businesses and individuals should be compelled to adopt a net zero and clean energy agenda.

In particular, if the larger carbon dioxide emitters such as China and developing countries in Africa and Asia are not imposing similar constraints on market forces in their countries, I think that logic suggests that we shouldn't do so either. It seems to me that the effect of the act is to distort the market for sustainable aviation fuel. I suspect that the cost of this distortion will ultimately be borne by consumers. The bill is about the creation of a revenue certainty contract, which will effectively insulate the quango which will be created as the counterparty from market risk.

I am very sceptical about the government's claim that the net cost per passenger of implementing the Revenue Certainty mechanism will be between -1.5 and plus £1.50 per passenger. How can this be possible if the cost of the SAF itself is going to be more like £10 per passenger? In any event, ticket prices have soared beyond our wildest expectations over the last few years. So whether the cost of the RCM amongst one cup of coffee or 100 cups of coffee isn't really relevant, my Lords, I'm also not certain that forcing an increase from 2% to 22% of the SAF component of aviation fuels over the next 15 years is likely to save the planet.

Could the Minister tell us whether the government will interfere with airlines freedom to refuel their aircraft in other jurisdictions at will, including those which have not imposed any mandate for inclusion of SAF, or which have imposed a less onerous The Minister to tell the House what evidence there is that fuel economy and, crucially, safety are not at all impacted by the quite steep and burdensome mandate imposed on an already challenged aviation sector. My noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, in his interesting speech, encouraged me to be more positive about SAF and to recognise its benefits and its importance.

But he did point out that the government's mandate will be difficult to achieve without diverging from HEFA based SAFs, and there is doubt about whether second or third generation SAFs will work well or not. There are more than 160 ships powered by small nuclear reactors, and the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale rightly drew attention to nuclear power as a potential source of power for aircraft. In particular, he pointed out that high temperature gas cooled reactors enable the production of hydrogen at scale, and hydrogen technologies are already capable of powering aircraft.

Airbus plans to have commercial hydrogen aircraft in service by 2035. Unfortunately, the government's hydrogen strategy doesn't recognise the role of nuclear in producing hydrogen at all. And I would ask the Minister why this is the case. Our Japanese friends are disappointed that we are moving so slowly with their project to develop the high temperature, gas cooled reactor technology with the National Nuclear Laboratory, and believe that Poland may be a better partner than we are likely to be.

My Lords, could the Minister tell the House about the counterparty? He is going to have a great number of powers to direct it. How many people will it employ, and what does he expect will be its annual cost of operation? This bill is designed to enforce a piece of industrial policy. Is the Minister certain that the counterparty will be well placed to manufacture SAFs competitively in this country, given our very high energy costs? Surely, my Lords, if either the taxpayer or the consumer is going to have to pay for the cost of the counterparty and its activities, it follows that the legislation should require the government to monitor costs, and the counterparty should be required to prioritise British technologies.

Could the Minister tell the House why the government declined to accept a perfectly reasonable and sensible amendment to require transparency over the effect of any revenue certainty contract on ticket prices, both on a one year view and a five year view. I note that Jonathan Council of IAG, in his evidence at the Committee stage of the bill in another place, raised the question as to whether the government's estimate of plus £1.50 to -£1.50 really included all elements of the counterparties costs.

If the government did not like the amendment moved by my hon. Friend Richard Holden, could the Minister not undertake to bring forward the government's own amendment to achieve the same purpose as it is beyond doubt that the public and the consumer are entitled to know that the costs of this new foray into industrial policy will be strictly monitored. How does the Minister propose to ensure that the counterparty will ensure that any contract leading to the establishment of a new factory will prioritise the use of British technologies? If the Minister is able to tell the House how we can ensure that new factories will prioritise the use of British technologies, we would certainly welcome that.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's winding up speech and to working with other noble Lords to improve the Bill, which I believe is absolutely necessary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The carbon content of fossil fuels has been accumulating over aeons by the removal of carbon dioxide from the Earth's atmosphere, by biological processes of photosynthesis, depending on on photosynthesis, depending on on chlorophyll and powered by sunlight. And such processes are highly And such processes are highly efficient in their use of energy, but they are far too weak and gradual to remove from the
14:11
Viscount Hanworth Portrait Viscount Hanworth (Labour)
-
-
atmosphere the quantities of carbon dioxide that have been emitted by burning fossil fuels. To capture this carbon dioxide, artificial processes are required that are far less efficient than the biological processes and far more consumptive of energy. Only by an expenditure of a large amount of energy that could be supplied by nuclear fission, and possibly in the long run, by nuclear fusion, can there be any hope of cleansing the atmosphere of its excess of carbon dioxide? And according to a recent analysis, about 3% of carbon emissions are due to aviation.

And this figure is rising. And we've heard that it's about 7% of UK emissions. And jet aircraft consume high octane kerosene, which is refined from petroleum. And each flight powered by hydrocarbons adds a burden or adds to the burden of atmospheric carbon dioxide. And if global heating due to carbon dioxide is to be addressed, then something must be done to staunch the carbon emissions of aviation. The problem here is that there is no viable means of powering long haul aviation other than kerosene, which has an unequalled energy density.

Moreover, the technology of jet turbines, which developed over the past 80 years, is not easily replaceable. Electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells can be used in short haul aviation, but their weight penalty precludes their use in long haul aviation, and hydrogen, which has been used to power space rockets, has been proposed as an alternative aviation fuel. But hydrogen has a very high energy content per mass, which is significantly greater than that of gasoline. But but it has a low energy density per volume, meaning it requires a large space to store it even when compressed or liquefied.

Liquid hydrogen has an energy content of about 5.6 megajoules per litre, whereas gasoline has about 32 megajoules per litre, which is almost six times as much. Now, use hydrogen to power aircraft would require a technology radically different from the current aviation technology, and it would take a long time to develop and its efficiency in transporting passengers would be severely limited by the storage requirements of the fuel. And if we were to sustain the present aviation technology, then we need to develop sustainable aviation fuels, or SAFs.

And the ultimate requirement for such fuels is that they should emit to the atmosphere no greater quantities of carbon dioxide than are removed from the atmosphere for the purpose of creating their their carbon feedstock. At present, the so-called sustainable aviation fuel, which forms a very small proportion of the total supply of fuel for aviation, depends on a carbon, a carbon feedstock that originates in biomass, and such aviation fuel cannot be relied upon to reduce significantly the net emissions of carbon dioxide.

They can have a beneficial effect only if the net supply of biomass can be increased to cover their use, and there are three cases to consider. First, the carbon feedstock might be grown for the purpose without displacing any other processes, but this is unlikely to happen. Secondly, the feedstock might be freely available, such as materials that would otherwise be consigned to landfill. And finally, and at worst, the production of the feedstock could displace other activities such as the growth of foodstuffs.

Only in the first case, where there might be a net increase in photosynthesis. Could there be a subtraction from atmospheric carbon dioxide. In other cases, the emission of carbon dioxide from burning the fuel would be more rapid than if it had been, if it had resulted from the natural decay of the feedstock, which might gradually add carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere. And it should be observed that would, unless it is burnt, will lock away carbon for many, many human generations, and therefore forestry products should not be used as a carbon feedstock for synthetic fuels.

Sustainable aviation fuel. To observe its name only if its carbon content can be removed directly from the atmosphere by the so-called technology of direct air capture. The bill that we are debating has the ambition of stimulating the production of sustainable aviation fuels, and it proposes to do so via minor financial interventions modelled on those that intend to encourage investments in renewable means of generating electricity. That the bill itemises three levels, or generations of self-production. The first generation of SAFs are made from hydrogenated esters or fatty acids derived from oils or fats, such as used in in cooking oil, and the second generation are made from from waste sources, including so-called municipal waste, solid municipal waste.

Indeed, the third generation of SAFs, also known as a power to liquid hydrogen aviation fuel, are to be made by combining hydrogen produced by electrolysis, electrolysis, and carbon monoxide, which can be produced by from captured carbon dioxide. And regarding the first generation of SAFs, hydrogenated esters and fatty acids, or chip fat as commonly described, because that is their major source, are already pre-empted to produce biodiesel, and there's a good deal of mystery and doubt surrounding the second generation of SAFs, their primary feedstock, which is described as municipal solid waste, is poorly defined and different processes will be needed to cope with with different categories of waste.

A website of the British company Johnson Matthey, which is proposing to build plants in the US and in Germany to produce second generation SAFs, mentions a variety of sources for the carbon feedstock, including agricultural residues, forestry, biomass, captured carbon dioxide and this ill defined municipal solid waste. And at the heart of the. The second generation of SAFs is the. The venerable Fischer-Tropsch process, invented in Germany in 1925 and used extensively in Germany during the war to create synthetic fuels using coal as the predominant carbon feedstock.

The process generates hydrocarbons from syngas, which is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, and the syngas will be the product of a gasification plant, which must be specific to the nature of the primary feedstock. If this process were to take carbon dioxide from captured industrial emissions, then it would be emitting to the atmosphere carbon that might otherwise be sequestered in the ground. And the conclusion of this critique is that the only sure way of reducing aviation emissions would be to capture the carbon directly from the atmosphere, and in that case, the Fischer-Tropsch process would continue to be used to synthesise the fuel.

And the bill appears to to envisage a gradual transition between the three generations of SAF production. And it imagines that this can be achieved by financial incentives that could be structured by the government. There would be no other government intervention and the government would bear no costs. The costs would be covered by levies on the aviation industry and maybe by the suppliers of hydrocarbon fuels. And this is a weak proposal for addressing a crisis. The bill has been inherited from the Conservatives, and it bears the marks of their social and economic philosophies.

And one might have expected a more interventionist approach from a Labour government. One is reminded of how an early post-war Labour government sought to revolutionise the supply of power to industrial and domestic users by creating a completely new industry, the nuclear industry and a similar endeavour would be required to create a sustainable aviation fuel industry. But there's little indication that this will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forthcoming. My Lords, I speak today in strong support of the Sustainable
14:20
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist Portrait Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Conservative)
-
-
strong support of the Sustainable Aviation Bill, a measure that is not only timely but essential if the UK is to maintain its leadership in clean aviation, deepen its energy security, strengthen our competitiveness in a rapidly changing global landscape. And I welcome the noble Lord. The Minister's opening speech, in which he confirmed the government's desire to encourage many different technologies being developed to produce SAF and I am grateful for the letter we received yesterday following the oral session on the bill last week.

Can I also take this opportunity of apologising to the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chester, and to the other five noble Lords whose contributions I missed owing to having to leave my own debate in the Moses room in Grand Committee. But I look forward to reading their contributions in Hansard. And to start, I must declare my interest as the unpaid chair of EQ Flights Advisory Board, a government backed project seeking to harness the power of nuclear energy to deliver SAF at scale.

Its power to liquids technology is known as third generation. Aviation remains one of the most challenging sectors to decarbonise, even as new technologies and aircraft efficiencies develop, the industry will continue to rely on liquid fuels for many years to come. Sustainable aviation fuel provides the most scalable way to cut emissions, but this transition will not happen without clear long term signals. Industry needs confidence, stability and a durable policy framework. Exactly what this bill is designed to provide. A critical part of this transition is long term certainty.

Projects of this scale cannot proceed on short term signals alone. They require the revenue certainty mechanisms that give investor confidence over the lifespan of the asset. Without stable, predictable support, the capital simply will not flow and the UK will miss the opportunity to build these industries here at home, and UK aviation will support jobs abroad instead of on UK soil. A clear RCM framework is therefore vital if we are to attract investment and give industry the confidence to build it will.

It is what allows companies to commit communities to benefit and supply chains to grow with confidence. We must also recognise the distinction between what can be delivered now and what must be delivered over the long term. In the near term, bio based feedstocks are essential. They are proven available and capable of delivering real emissions reductions today. But bio feedstocks are ultimately finite. They cannot meet the total future demand of global aviation. The long term solution is power to liquids. Synthetic aviation fuels producing using clean energy and made from nothing more than air and water.

These fuels offer deep decarbonisation potential of tailpipe emissions and can mitigate other greenhouse effects such as contrails. To achieve this, they require large quantities of firm, low carbon power, which is where the UK has a unique strategic advantage for in the decades ahead, advanced nuclear technologies will be critical to producing the clean electricity, the hydrogen and the high temperature heat needed for sustainable aviation fuel at scale. The UK's positive and forward leaning nuclear policy means we are exceptionally well placed to become a world leader in nuclear enabled, sustainable aviation fuel.

But for this to happen, we must give nuclear investors the long term certainty that they require. Advanced reactors, by their very nature, demand longer revenue certainty mechanisms if they are to deliver affordable, sovereign, clean energy for the industries of the future, the government must ensure that consistency between technologies is maintained and the absence of a defined carbon intensity for nuclear derived SAF in the SAF mandate creates some uncertainty and therefore additional risk for investors. This barrier to the use of nuclear energy for SAF production risks the UK missing out on investment and the jobs that would inevitably follow.

Investment in nuclear derived SAF projects. Globally, the potential for sustainable aviation fuel is now widely understood, and competition to become a world leader is intensifying. Countries and regions are moving quickly to secure the investment, the skills and the supply chains that will anchor these new industries. For decades, the European Union's Refuel EU initiative provides strong market signals and long term clarity for SAF deployment across Europe. If the UK is to keep pace and indeed to lead, we must provide the same level of long term certainty.

A clear RCM framework is therefore vital if we are to attract investment and give industry the confidence to build domestically. Sustainable aviation fuel production can underpin a new generation of green industrial hubs, creating skilled jobs, strengthening economic resilience across all corners of our country. The aviation sector may be the final consumer, but the industrial benefits will be broad and enduring. The transition to sustainable flight will not be achieved with a single measure, but this bill is a cornerstone, providing the certainty required to unlock investment, encourage innovation and build the infrastructure that will power aviation for decades to come.

If we get this right, we will not only decarbonise one of our hardest to abate sectors, we will secure thousands of future facing jobs and reaffirm the UK's position

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as a world leader in clean aviation. My Lords. Firstly, can I congratulate the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Firstly, can I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on his excellent maiden speech and his commitment to
14:25
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
speech and his commitment to sustainability and rail, which is music to many of our ears in this house, and I look forward to working with him in the months and years to come. My Lords, as we've heard today, the Sustainable Aviation Bill aims to encourage investment and sustainable aviation fuel in the UK by creating a mechanism to guarantee a certain level of revenue. The bill provides for a guaranteed strike price, where price is guaranteed for a producer selling SAF over a defined period, and the GSP will be funded via a levy on the aviation industry, specifically through a variable levy on all aviation fuel suppliers over a set period.

Now, this new legislation should help industry meet its requirements under the SAF mandate introduced in January this year, which specifies that at least 10% of all jet fuel used in flights taking off from the UK from 2030 must be made, with sustainable fuel rising to 22% by 2040. And this is clearly an area where the UK is absolutely trying to lead the way in decarbonising the aviation sector. However, it should be noted that aviation, whilst all the benefits in terms of it, connects people and businesses, it was responsible in 2022 for almost 30 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, as we've heard, to about 7% of the UK's total emissions.

And as I understand it, even as emissions from other sectors decline, aviation share is projected to rise to 16% by 2035. This is not compatible with our net zero targets. So sustainable aviation fuel is not a silver bullet, but it is a step forward to help us in this challenging environment for other noble Lords have described the Liberal Democrat benches welcome these steps to decarbonise our aviation industry, including investment in sustainable aviation fuels. However, we do see SAF as just this first step and we want to see it offer a real low carbon alternative.

We believe the government should set out how it will go beyond securing investment in SAF and ensure that longer term, this measure complements rather than detracts from investment in zero carbon flight technology. We want to see greater innovation, research and development to make the UK the world leader in zero carbon flight. And SAF should be a springboard for that objective rather than a final destination, helping the UK transition to truly climate friendly options such as battery electric platforms and hydrogen fuelled models.

As these technologies develop now, there is a lack of clarity about what level of zero carbon flight the government is aiming for, if any. So perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister can advise, and it's very hard to square an objective of net zero aviation by 2050 without measures. Alongside SAF to cut emissions and make climate friendly flight a reality. And of course, it's hard to look at the decarbonisation of fuel use in aviation. Whilst this government seems intent on expanding airports and therefore many more flights such as Gatwick and Heathrow to name just two airports, but there are a number of areas where we will be probing further through Committee stage.

There are some concerns about the levy and the need to ensure that there are no loopholes, progress is monitored and published and that we are aligned with our European and global neighbours, or even ahead of them. And looking at international examples. The EU refuel EU aviation regulation requires a minimum blend of 2% SAF in 2025, rising to 70% by 2050, and it focuses far more on both fuel suppliers and airlines. And as we've heard from the noble Lord Lord Grayling, it's considering its own revenue support mechanism as well.

Singapore and Thailand mandate started a 1% blend in 2026. Japan and South Korea are considering mandates starting some way off in 2027 and 2030. And in China, there is a SAF mandate at 2%, which increases to 15% by 2030. Elsewhere, India and Brazil are considering their own SAF mandates and then in the US, whilst there is no mandate, there is government support, as we've already heard, to boost production in the form of tax credits and other incentives. So whilst there is no consensus on the route map for sustainable aviation fuel and how to support its growth in developing this mechanism, I'd ask the government what international examples has the government considered to help shape its approach? And this bill before us today? Now, the levy on fuel producers is not necessarily the wrong approach, but key details are missing and could have unintended consequences if regulations are poorly designed.

So leaving the mechanism to be determined later provides useful flexibility for a new and emerging industry. However, assurances, I think, are really needed on how the mechanism will be designed. Now, one particular issue that has been raised by industry and by other noble Lords today is that the levy is based on historical market share, which could cause problems. It is not clear if new market entrants might avoid paying the levy if they have no prior market share, so perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister, can clarify another important issue I've picked up from talking to producers such as Neste is that whilst industry in general supports the creation of a revenue certainty mechanism as a means to strengthen investor confidence and indeed unlock the significant investments required for SAF production, there is concern that a level playing field is guaranteed internationally.

There is a strong feeling that revenues of the levy should not be used to support production of SAF that is subsequently exported. This should be about developing and supporting our own UK industry and needs. The levy should be focussed on ensuring SAF supply at an affordable price within the UK. Since the UK and EU SAF mandates, I understand that we have seen an increase in the cost of SAF, so this mechanism should help with the supply of SAF within the UK and help to ensure a stable price.

And I've also been talking to operators that use SAF and one such example is DHL. In 2024, DHL used 73,000 tonnes of SAF in its own fleet, which is 3.5% of their total fuel share. This is in addition to investing in its fleet to decarbonise and its ground handling equipment to to move to fully electric. We need to ensure all operators are looking at their whole operations to decarbonise, not just to rely on SAF to effectively tick the green box.

And the final issue that has come up in discussions and has been raised by many noble Lords today, including my noble friend Earl Russell, is a concern that the levy will filter down and potentially cost passengers and airlines significantly. Could the noble Lord, the Minister, explain what assessment the government has carried out and assure the House that passengers will not be significantly penalised? The combination of a long term mandate and the proposed revenue support mechanism clearly offers a high degree of regulatory certainty, which is crucial for attracting the significant capital investment needed for SAF production in the UK.

I hope the Minister can assure us on the important points raised today and as we move forward to Committee stage of this bill, the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my Lords, what is one to say? The easy part is to start by joining other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, on Prelate the Bishop of Chester, on his entertaining and interesting maiden speech, and to welcome him
14:34
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
maiden speech, and to welcome him and and the many contributions he will no doubt make to your Lordships' House in the future. My Lords, when the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, even without the support of the Green Party, all agree in supporting a measure who can withstand them. Some might call it groupthink. Others might see in it the spirit that defeated fascism in Europe. But here we are. We have huge support for this bill from all quarters of the House.

But it is, I'm afraid, the job of the official opposition to express a degree of scepticism. Our debate has ranged very widely indeed, whereas the bill has a very narrow focus. Many have spoken of it as if it were a net zero measure. I dispute that the net zero measure was the SAF mandate that was put in place as the noble Lord, the Minister said before Christmas last year, November, I think it was, which mandated airlines to use a certain quantity of SAF in their fuel, increasing every year over a period, and set out in a Statutory Instrument that was certainly a net zero measure.

But I think very few noble Lords were open in saying that this bill is not a net zero measure as such, but it is an industrial policy measure. In fact, I think it was really only my noble friend Lord Grayling, who was absolutely explicit about that. And he was explicit also in saying that he supported that industrial policy. It's an industrial policy that says that we not only have to generate not only have to require SAF to be used by airlines in this country, but we also have to be the producer of that SAF.

And he gave reasons. He said, why would you want to use foreign producers? Why would you want to import your SAF? But there are answers to that. I'm told it's it's there's no future in being an old fashioned Thatcherite and believing in markets that people like me are terribly out of date. But the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, made it clear that SAF mandates are not confined to Britain and the European Union, or countries all over the world with SAF mandates. She mentioned Thailand and Singapore, and I'm sure there are many others as well.

SAF is a global business. There is an argument that, of course, you might be able to import your SAF more cheaply and have a more efficient market. If you weren't actually insisting on producing it all yourself. But nonetheless, the Conservative Party, when in power, and the Labour Party today have decided on this as a matter of industrial policy. So what can possibly go wrong? Even though it's hard to see what comparative advantage the United Kingdom has as a producer of SAF and the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale pointed to one element which seemed to me to be pretty damning of our comparative advantage, and that is argued, our very high by international standards, our very high electricity costs.

And he pointed out that this is a very electricity hungry process, the production of SAF. Nonetheless, that has to be ignored and overridden and noble. And the government, having decided to be a leader in this uncertain field, and it is an uncertain field because, as I think we've agreed, if there are three stages of SAF, there is HEFA, which the government doesn't want to subsidise, as I understand it, even though, again, as the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale pointed out, the bill appears to be drafted so that it could, and we need to examine that more closely in committee.

But assuming the government doesn't want to subsidise HEFA, that leaves us then with none HEFA SAF. But actually the processes for producing non HEFA SAF are highly uncertain and some of them are first of a kind. We don't even know that they are going to work, but we're putting in place a revenue certainty mechanism mechanism so that investors can find out for practically no risk whether they're going to work. And this is going to be of advantage to the national economy.

There is, of course, beyond that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Pinnock, Lord Hanworth, Edgar pardon, Lord Hanworth said, there is, of course, a power to liquid option, but the government doesn't appear to believe that that is worth investing in at the moment, even though that in fact is being pursued with the support of tax credits in the United States. As I understand it, with a plant, a large plant in Texas. Anyway, having decided that this is our industrial policy, we've got to find a way of subsidising it.

And the Treasury has discovered, of course, that contract, this wonderful thing, the contract for difference, which is a form of subsidy, that means they don't have to shell out any money because the cost of the subsidy is passed on to the consumer. It is contracts for the difference which have given us the very high electricity costs which I referred, and the noble Lord Lord Ravensdale referred to earlier, that are apparently crippling to the process that we're embarking on.

And so we're to have not a subsidy, but a contract for difference. And we're to set up a counterparty which is going to be able to, to, to to work that out, and they're going to have the skills to negotiate with the hard faced lawyers sent by the investors so as to get absolutely as my noble friend Lord Harper said, absolutely. That price, which offers an appropriate level of reward for the very low level of risk the investors are taking, but not a penny more.

And and our negotiators will be able to manage that and land that to perfection. And they'll have the resources to do that. And so we go on, my Lords, a whole series of questions have been raised by noble Lords, which I suspect are going to form the basis of our discussion in committee. I have a few questions I could add myself. One is whether the Minister can clarify whether the government has made an assessment of the compatibility of the revenue certainty mechanism with the non-discrimination requirements of the WTO.

Article three four of the of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, particularly in relation to the differential treatment between qualifying SAF and imported non-qualifying nonfossil aviation fuels such as HEFA. Also, will the Minister indicate, and I do assure the Minister, I don't expect him to answer these questions at the despatch box necessarily, though it would be very, very impressive if he did. Can the Minister indicate whether the government have assessed whether the RCM would constitute a subsidy for the purposes of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures, and whether any risk of countermeasures or formal dispute settlement from other members has been identified? And there are further questions, I'm sure, that I can bring up in committee.

But for the moment, there we are. We stand solidly behind this bill, but we do see very large numbers of holes in it. We're far from convinced that it is going to do the job that the government has said it will set out to do, whether it can be done at a price of £1.50 per ticket, seems to me something else worthy of exploration. Indeed, it seems worthy of exploration. What that actually means. Because since the mandate increases every year, at which point does the £1.50 come in? Surely the cost per ticket would rise over the course of time as the mandate requirement rises over time? But so not only how it was calculated, but what it actually means is something we will explore.

But for the moment, we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and what has been in response to what has been a very lively and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very well informed debate. My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged in today's Lords who have engaged in today's lively debate on the Bill. I have listened with much interest to the excellent points being raised across your Lordships' House, and I
14:43
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
across your Lordships' House, and I will attempt to answer some of the questions now. We also, of course, have the Committee stage of the bill in which we can explore many of these issues in greater detail. In the meantime, I will follow up as soon as I can and some of the issues that I cannot answer now. But I am grateful for such a wide, general, wide cross-party support for this. For this important measure, I think the first thing I should say is to compliment the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of of Chester.

On his maiden speech he said sustainability matters. I'm so glad he said it and I'm so glad he said it in English, because he might have been able to say it in Welsh, and I couldn't have responded. The government. And of course, I'm grateful for his support of a vital sustainability measure for air transport, essential for the nation's wealth and indeed its defence. And the only other thing I should say to the right reverend Prelate at this point is I'm sorry about his train service, and I'll speak to him separately about the about the trains to Chester.

As I say, I'm grateful for for the support of of of many of the many noble Lords who, who, who have spoken. The noble Lord Davies of Gower. Was supportive. I think the points he made and the questions he asked are all about, as many of the other points were about making early progress. And the government is pursuing this bill now as it as it did with the SAF mandate in order to get on and do this, because getting on and do this, doing this is absolutely what what we're seeking to achieve.

He also referred to the price of the net effect of this on the price of airfares. There's a number of other noble Lords have done. Our best estimate is plus or -£1.50. We are confident of that, but I'm very happy to explore that further. In in committee. We don't believe it's plus or -£10. We believe that we have, at least for the moment, explored the cost that would fall on our on on air passengers. The the, the noble Lord Russell.

Again, a number of his points were all about progress. And I think this bill is evidence of the government making progress. The he referred to the as other noble Lords have done a about the point of the first tranche and subsequent subsequent tranches. We do, of course, need to be moved beyond HEFA. Feedstuff food feedstuffs. And that is the point of the further tranches of the revenue support mechanism. And he also referred to the sustainability of UK plants, which is why the government's put 63 million into the Advanced Fuel Fund for the very purpose of making sure that there are plants in this country which can produce sustainable aviation fuel and and that the plants themselves are, are, are sustainable.

The noble Lord Ravensdale referred to competition in due course, and the bill does include the. The bill does include the opportunity for the Secretary of State in due course to run tenders or auctions as a means of as a means of developing this market. The noble Lord Raval we talked about wastes and foodstuffs. We we will, as we go through this, have regard to the overall effect of this on the provision of of sustainable aviation fuel. I'm very grateful indeed to the noble Lord Grayling for his his detailed and compelling speech on this subject and for his, his his great interest.

He talked about. The not allowing crops to be made into SAF we we have committed to publishing a call for evidence by the end of this year on the use of crops in the SAF mandate. The aim is to improve the evidence based on crop evidence base on crop based production, following suggestions from some stakeholders that certain types of crops could be used to increase supply without compromising our approach on sustainability. But we will get information provided through that call of through that call for evidence, and we will consider.

What we find out. He referred particularly also to to the use of data and how and how the how the market prices is, is, is, is determined and the counterparty will be responsible for determining market and should do by using data that data that suppliers submit to the SAF mandate reporting system. Our live consultation seeks views on whether the assessment period uses volume data from an earlier period or as as he as he suggests that he doesn't think that's that sensible or uses forecast volume data.

So we'll have more discussion about that, I'm sure, in in due course, the he also makes a very strong point about the the this the support only being used for production in the United Kingdom. Certainly any we we intend only to support eligible SAF plants in the UK and and I'm sure we'll discuss that. We'll, we'll we'll discuss that further. It's a strong point and I will consider it before before we get to the Or as we get to the Committee stage, the noble Lord Berkeley talked about cleaner skies and warmer homes.

And I should say to them that I am aware of the consultation on alternative heating solutions, and we are working with with our colleagues in DESNZ to, to to move those forward. The noble Baroness Jones frankly doesn't agree with this at all, and I don't I don't think that the points that she's making about aviation, we've discussed before, I think really the point is that actually this is a move towards net zero. We are trying to make aviation more sustainable.

It isn't going to stop overnight. It is important for the economy of the country. The mandate will save some net additional 54 million tonnes of CO2. And actually her other point about frequent flyers, the government altered Air Passenger duty last year, which does have an effect on more on more frequent on more frequent flyers. Again, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Harper who's who had some very substantive, substantial points to make on this subject. And he referred to the flight, which I believe he was he was a passenger on with 100% sustainable aviation fuel.

If I may, I will respond to the points that he made in detail. I'll try to do it before the Committee stage. If if I may, the noble Viscount Trenchard is perhaps not so supportive of this, though in the end, he said. The noble Viscount said, said he, he I think he said he was. But this is an important thing to to do. We should be trying to move into a market which self-evidently can be a success for British industry if we if we approach it properly.

And I think that government intervention, as justified by a number of noble Lords this afternoon, is the only way to do this. He's very sceptical of the effect on pricing on on passengers. Again, I'm, I've no doubt we'll we'll discuss that at the Committee stage and afterwards he of course wants safety not to be compromised. And in fact none of us would want to compromise safety. But I think it I think it's only right to point out that since since another noble Lord from his own benches was on a flight.

Holy power, holy, powered by the sustainable aviation fuel, I doubt whether he'd risk himself. And I hope he wouldn't. And and we are committed to this being absolutely safe. And we're also committed, incidentally, to fuel economy that he also mentions the noble Lord Ravensdale referred to nuclear and hydrogen, that the government has clearly not not not put its mind against any solution here. And indeed, the investment in the significant funding put towards investing in technical solutions and the way in which this SAF processes is to develop, I think encourages other other solutions and, and, and will encourage British industry, particularly to look to other solutions in longer in the longer term, in the longer term future, we will of course, prioritise UK technology.

That is the point of doing this and that's a good thing, a good thing to do. My, my, my noble friend Viscount, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth I think is probably again not supportive, not supportive because he doesn't agree with the general principle. But somehow he thinks that despite all that we're doing to be at the forefront of global global action on this front, and the 63 million we put into the advanced fuel funds, that somehow that's not enough, and that there should be some red blooded approach to this.

I would contend to him that actually, this is a pretty red blooded approach to this from the government. Significant sums of public money are being put into it, and we believe it is. It is the right thing to do. The noble Baroness Bloomfield referred to nuclear SAF produced using nuclear energy is and will be eligible for the SAF mandate, and we've provided funding to support the development of this technology through grant funding program of the Advanced Fuels Fund. We are clearly on a on a journey here, and I note her proposition that that actually it will need longer term support.

Although the bill is limited to a term of ten years, the support term is not limited to ten years. And that's and she, I hope notes that that's one of the reasons. One of the reasons why the noble Baroness Pidgeon, of course, has has strong, strong points. I think we are, as I would say, on a on a journey with this we can discuss in committee the consistency of the of the trajectory of our journey with, with the EU and with other countries who have set themselves different, different targets.

And and of course, it isn't the only measure. So zero emission flying is not just about SAF. It couldn't be. To that end, we've we've talked about airspace modernisation, which the noble Baroness knows about. We've looked at 2.3 billion, up to 2.3 billion funding over ten years to extend the Aerospace Technology Institute, announced in the modern Industrial Strategy in June to look at low and zero emission aircraft. We're looking at reducing aviation emissions through schemes such as the UK Emissions Trading Scheme in carbon pricing, and we're also seeking to address the non-co2 impacts of aviation.

And she's correct, of course, in referring to to looking at all everything to do with carbon reduction in flying, not not just aircraft, aircraft, fuel and technology, but the operations surrounding aircraft. And she mentioned the she mentioned the activities of, of in that respect of DHL, her major use of major use of of of airlines of aircraft and then lastly the noble Lord Moylan for whom I have huge respect. But he appears to see a conspiracy between all the parties here to do something which he, he he is.

He doesn't seem supportive of, which is to have an industrial policy which gives British industry the chance to develop and and do something new in the world and actually develop jobs and processes which will lead to a bigger economy. And and in that, I think he's he's not he's not in the same place as some of his colleagues on his own benches. But I think that he's wrong because actually, this is not only an industrial policy, but a step towards net zero.

He mentioned power to liquids and we have invested in the Alternative Fuel Fuels Fund in in that he asked a couple of very detailed questions about the about the World Trade Organisation. And of course, I'll be delighted to to write to him with the answers. He was right in supposing that I was unable to answer it from the Dispatch Box just now. Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate today, and I welcome the support of of of many of those who have spoken in favour of the Bill's measures.

The SAF will kick start the UK SAF industry, attracting investment and creating jobs by addressing the market and investment uncertainty and SAF production. It will enable the UK to lead the way to greener, greener aviation. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this bill be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion will say are of that opinion will say content content the contrary not content. The contents having.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the commitment motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Question is that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this bill be committed to a grand committee as many. This bill, I beg your pardon? Be committed to a grand committee. Be committed to a grand committee. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, say content. Content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Any members who may wish to leave Radio Radio Equipment Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 Lord Leong.
14:59
None Portrait Orders and regulations: Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025 - motion to approve
-

My Lords, I beg to move that the
14:59
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
House approves the Radio Equipment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. My Lords, I note Regulations 2025. My Lords, I note the regret motion tabled by the noble Baroness Baroness Hoey and will respond to the points raised. will respond to the points raised. However, first I will outline the context of this instrument which was laid before the House on 13th October 2025. This instrument relates to radio equipment which relates to radio equipment which encompasses a broad range of products including smartphones, laptops, fitness tracking devices and other connected or small devices.

Under the Windsor devices. Under the Windsor framework, the Radio Equipment Directive 2014 stroke, 53 stroke EU Directive 2014 stroke, 53 stroke EU continues to apply in Northern Ireland, ensuring the dual access to both the UK internal market and to both the UK internal market and the EU single market. In 2021, the European Commission adopted European Commission adopted Delegated Regulation EU 2022 stroke 30, with supplements the Radio 30, with supplements the Radio Equipment Directive, and introduces additional essential requirements for certain categories of radio for certain categories of radio equipment.

The additional essential requirements apply to internet connected radio equipment, connected radio equipment, including consumer connected Connectable electronics and smart devices. Such equipment must be constructed in a way that protects networks, safeguards users personal data and privacy, and prevents fraud. Furthermore, radio equipment, whether internet connected or not, that is covered by the EU Toys Directive or which is intended for children, childcare or is wearable on the body, must also be constructed so that it protects user data and privacy.

This requirement took effect on 1st August 2025 and already apply in Northern Ireland. So my Lords, this instrument therefore only seeks to ensure effective implementation and enable enforcement by amendment. Amending the UK's Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 as they apply in Northern Ireland. These regulations implemented the Radio Equipment Directive into UK law and apply across the whole of the UK, though some provisions apply differently in Northern Ireland. My Lords, I will now outline how this instrument meets its purpose.

The UK's Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 set out essential requirements for radio equipment before it can be placed on the market. This instrument adds the additional essential requirements mandated in Commission Delegated regulation. EU 2022 stroke 30 to the UK's Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 as they apply to Northern Ireland and enables enforcement. Manufacturers must undertake appropriate conformity assessments. The European Commission recognises three technical standards that addresses cyber security requirements, which manufacturers may use voluntarily to demonstrate compliance.

The Radio Equipment Regulations 2017 already make it an offence to supply or place non-compliant radio equipment on the market by adding new, new essential requirements to the regulations as they apply in Northern Ireland. This instrument extends the scope of which existing offences of that existing offence, the Northern Ireland Department of Justice has confirmed that this extension is proportionate and will not adversely affect the criminal justice system. Enforcement bodies will continue to act in line with the regulator's code, and we expect that in almost all cases, compliance will be achieved through engagement and support without the recourse to criminal penalties.

My Lords, I would now like to address the regret motion tabled by the noble Baroness Baroness Hoey, which relates to public consultation and impact on small businesses. As explained, the requirements of delegated regulation EU 2022 stroke 30 already apply Northern Ireland. So this instrument simply enables enforcement and ensures effective implementation in line with our legal obligations under the Windsor framework. My officials have engaged with industry groups and trade associations representing businesses of varying sizes and anticipate little, if any, impact on the flow of goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

This is because many UK businesses, already in scope of the requirements of the Commission delegated regulations. EU 2022 Lord Rook 30 supply the EU market as well as the UK market and have already taken steps to comply. My Lords, additionally, manufacturers of CE marked you EU compliant radio equipment can continue to place those products on the GB market, meaning that the same CE Mark products can be placed in the whole UK market as is already the case. Relevant consumed products connecting to the internet or network will need to comply with the UK's existing product security and telecommunications infrastructure or strict regime, which came into effect in April 2020 for manufacturers in Northern Ireland producing qualifying goods in scope of the Commission's Delegated Regulation EU 2220 2230 continues to benefit from unfettered access to the rest of the UK market as set out in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

Manufacturers of qualifying NI goods can therefore continue to make full access of their dual market access. While we expect impacts to be very limited. We will continue to monitor the functioning of the internal market. My Lords, we are providing support to industry to comply with these new regulations requirements. Rather, the office for Product Safety and Standards published a factsheet for business earlier this year on the Commission's delegated regulation, which was welcomed by industry and will provide further guidance to assist businesses to comply with this instrument.

My my Lords, I hope this provides reassurances that the expected impacts of this instrument are minimal, have been appropriately considered, and that support for business has been provided. My Lords, in summary, this instrument enables effective implementation of Commission Delegated regulation. EU 2022 stroke 30 in Northern Ireland by amending the UK's Radio Equipment Regulations 2017. This ensures effective implementation, enables enforcement and ensures compliance with international law which facilitates Northern Ireland continued unique dual market access.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move. This regulation is approved by the House. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment Baroness Hoey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hoey. Thank you, my Lords. I rising obviously to move and to speak to
15:06
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
obviously to move and to speak to my regret amendment, and I welcome the noble Lord Leong to his position. It's I think about the third noble Lord now that we've had hamstring sis. So I think we're gradually getting round all of them. It's very nice to see noble Lady Anderson, of course, who is is very, very involved with Northern Ireland, very supportive of Northern Ireland, very much respected in Northern Ireland now as noble Lords. I think the noble Lord has has laid out in detail why this is happening with a lot of words and a lot of explanation.

But the reality is, of course, the reason it's happening is because the United Kingdom government signed up to a Windsor Framework Protocol, which is now ensuring that in legislation after legislation, Northern Ireland is being treated differently in order to comply with the EU law. We are therefore now required to update the EU law as defined in our 2017 regulations, to take account of the new directive. The way in which the regulations before us today seek to comply with this, what I would call a European Union diktat is by applying a new regulation six A into the United Kingdom regulations with respect to how they apply to Northern Ireland.

Only. The legislative change does not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom, does not apply to Great Britain. These regulations provide us with an object lesson, which is why, despite what I know or I see, there is an absence of the Liberal Democrats here today. That's because the Liberal Democrats tend to think that these should be hidden away in the committee room, and they fail to understand that when it's an affirmative regulation, we have the right to bring it here to the chamber.

And they the reason we do that is because these regulations actually provide us with an object lesson of all that's wrong with the Windsor Framework Protocol and the Irish Sea border that it creates in order to really understand the problems with these regulations and others like them, it's really quite important to assess them, not just from the vantage point of their immediate physical impact, which, of course, I will mention and speak to that. But it's also really important to consider the wider impact in Northern Ireland, part of the United Kingdom, the Irish Sea border arose from a decision of Parliament.

But unlike the decisions in relation to devolution and joining the European Union, the resulting arrangements were not operated consistently with its ethos as a representative body from the outset. From the very point of conception, they've been fundamentally alien to the political tradition we have in the United Kingdom, because they involve transferring law making powers for part of the UK to a government beyond the UK, to legislative arrangements that do not represent United Kingdom. And this deeply affects the part of the United Kingdom in question because, as participants in a political nation, a political, a political body politic that is nurtured, upheld and sustained by representative principles, this does not just take from them the ability to make some of their own laws.

It also necessarily disinherits us from a key aspect of our identity. And in this context, the Radio Equipment (Amendment) Northern Ireland regulations, along with all other imposed pieces of legislation, are deeply problematic. It is worth reminding ourselves that while the Northern Ireland Protocol was addressed through primary legislation since February 2023, every piece of legislation that has been introduced without any say from people in Northern Ireland to give has given effect that any piece of legislation that has been given, that has given effect to the Windsor framework has been by means of Statutory Instruments.

In this context, someone who happens to engage in perhaps some noble Lords today might only be engaging this for the first time. So they'll come into one debate and it will highlight the imposition of EU law in one narrow area. But this is very narrow, and we have to regard the cumulative effect of all the different pieces of Statutory Instrument that have been brought in and will be brought in in the past months and in the coming months. And that's why, along with noble friends, other noble friends from Northern Ireland, we will continue to bring these to the house, because the House needs to understand that it's not just one law.

This isn't just about radio equipment. This is about the whole way. Now that we are being governed in Northern Ireland. And that said, the explanatory memorandum. Memorandum makes it very clear and noble Lord, the Minister has gone through the effects, the far reaching effects of the Radio Equipment Regulations, and it really does need to. Everyone needs to read paragraph 5 to 3, 5 to 6 of the explanatory memorandum goes through all the different ways that it will affect not just the essential requirement not to harm the network or its functioning.

Applies to any internet connected radio equipment, consumer electronics, smart devices, the protection of user, subscriber, personal data and privacy also applies to the following radio. Radio equipment, where that equipment is capable of processing personal data, traffic data, or location data. Internet connected radio equipment and radio equipment, whether internet connected or not. That is one designed or intended exclusively for child care. Covered by the EU Toys Directive, or designed or intended to be worn on a strap to or hung from the body of clothing.

The and the final bit of the explanation is the essential requirement to ensure protection from fraud. Also applies to internet connected radio equipment. If that equipment enables the user to transfer money, monetary value or virtual currency. So it's a very wide ranging. But in turning to those who will be impacted by the legislation, the explanatory memorandum is very clear that the effects on business are far reaching. It states. This instrument will impact on manufacturers of specific types of radio equipment that are placed on the Northern Ireland marketplace.

Authorised representatives carrying out manufacturer's tasks on their behalf. Importers who place these products on the Northern Ireland marketplace, and distributors who make these products available on the Northern Ireland Market place. They do actually say that there's no or no significant impact on charities or voluntary bodies, but it's also very clear the impact on small businesses. The legislation, they say, does impact small or micro businesses. The legal requirements do not differentiate between businesses in terms of their size.

Therefore, it says we are unable to take any mitigating actions to minimise the regulatory burdens on small or micro businesses. My Lords, the officials who drafted this explanatory memorandum pass over these points very quickly, but without acknowledging and confronting the obvious implications of what has been said. This legislation only relates to Northern Ireland. It has an impact on small and micro businesses, and yet Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom whose economy is more dependent on small and micro businesses than any other part of the UK.

So if in in that sense, if you were actually told to apply this to one part of the UK, the Northern Ireland would be the last place to start because of the unusual size of its small business sector. So I would ask the noble Lords Minister, what practically is the government going to do to help those small businesses that are already drowning in an Irish Sea border of endless paperwork and bureaucracy? The Minister will recall, and certainly the noble Lady Anderson will recall, that the FSB Research Federation of Small Businesses, which was conducted.

And this, my Lords, is critical. It was actually conducted before the introduction of the RAC parcels border in May, the used farm machinery border in June, and the huge increase in labour labelling requirements on July the 1st, not to mention the arrival of the impending pet medicines in the Irish Sea border, which is due to come in in January 26th. Together with the application from the 1st of January of the much more demanding import control systems. Number two and this, this report demonstrated that 33% already of their GB suppliers had withdrawn since the arrival of the Irish Sea border.

So how much more could I ask the Minister, would the government like, how much more pain would the government like to devise for small businesses in Northern Ireland, this imposition of this EU legislation on Northern Ireland is effectively declared that while the people of England, Wales and Scotland are worthy of the right to stand for election, to make all the laws, or to elect a fellow citizen to represent them for this purpose, the people of Northern Ireland are only worthy of the right to stand for election, to make some of the laws to which they are subject.

So these these charges do not. These changes do not just have a narrow functional effect, such as some of our laws are made by others. They actually erode and undermine our place in the nation of the United Kingdom. And I don't think that's something that perhaps noble Lords fully appreciate until they themselves, perhaps as fellow citizens, find that it's been taken from them. In coming to terms with this, my daughters, we must also understand that the purposes of all these imposed laws is to create an All Ireland single market for goods.

The political importance, which is hard to overstate because the prerequisite of statehood, such as that achieving it, is described internationally as securing economic nationality. My Lords, one particular disturbing consequences of all this that once you have been subject to the laws of another country, another institution, you not only lose the right to stand for election, to make the laws to which you are subject or elect someone for this purpose. You also lose the right to be consulted about the law and the explanatory memorandum states the government has not undertaken a formal public consultation as this instruments provisions are confined to the implementation of provisions as required by the terms of the Windsor Framework, ensuring that Northern Ireland has in place EU derived essential product safety requirements.

In other words, the legislation has to be imposed because the EU has told us to and we signed up to it, so we don't need to bother with the consultation because there was no point. And the other striking feature about these regulations is that the explanatory memorandum and supplementary paperwork are distinctive in not volunteering, that the government will definitely align GB with the northern. The new Northern Ireland legislation opening the door to regulatory divergence in paragraph 91, it says many UK businesses also supply the EU market as well as the UK market, and have already taken steps to come into compliance with the Radio Equipment Directive.

We therefore do not anticipate any significant impacts on the supply of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Well, I think anyone in Northern Ireland will tell you that they've heard that before. And the UK's product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act sets a framework for the cyber security of internet connected products in the UK and works alongside Radio Equipment Directive provisions in Northern Ireland. The government intends to review, as being said, the operation of the STI in the coming years, including through an interim Post-implementation review in 2026, and will continue to monitor the functioning of the internal market.

I think that's actually very complacent, my Lords, and we could be left with legal divergence for a very long time. Why is the government not more energetically seeking to avoid legislative divergence? If most companies and GB will comply automatically anyway, why accommodate needless legislative divergence? And finally, my Lords, I want to pick up on the point that the explanatory notes suggest that these regulations are a good thing because they are part of the delivery of the wonderful dual market access, and we need to be absolutely clear that dual market access is a myth.

We have not secured a single piece of inward investment to access this special status because it does not exist. Businesses are not stupid. If there was a special advantage, they would have come in from across the world. Of course, you will find companies that would rather have the border in the Irish Sea, because their business is based on trading with the Republic of Ireland and not with GB, who say that they benefit and they will say that they benefit from the current arrangements. But if you drill that down, it's not because they get dual market access, it's because at the end of the day, while the Windsor framework fetters access to GB production inputs, it provides completely unfettered access to the Republic, i.e.

single market access to an All Ireland economy, which is what they actually want. The problem is that most Northern Ireland businesses are based on needing unfettered access to GB, which is denied them by both the red and green lanes. It is therefore a very clear net negative for the Northern Ireland economy as a whole, rather than a net positive, and I do wish that Ministers would stop putting this as being the every time the Windsor framework is mentioned, it becomes a thing that they say is why it why it is so great.

I'm looking here because I just want to end by reading out two copies of two emails that I got sent yesterday from Northern Ireland, relating to the medical, to the veterinary effect of which will come in in January. And it's to a lady who has pets and gets her veterinary medicine from GB. Thank you for your query regarding veterinary medication to Northern Ireland. Since Brexit, we have been operating under a grace period that has allowed us to continue medications to Northern Ireland.

However, this grace period will will come to an end on 31st December 2025. From the 1st of January, we will no longer be possible for suppliers based here on the UK mainland to ship any class of medical prescription, including prescription medication, to Northern Ireland. Another one. Good afternoon. Thank you for your email. We'll be stopping the last delivery to Northern Ireland in December the 19th. This is due to a change in the Windsor framework, which means medicines now need a Northern Ireland licence or EU licence to be sold there and cannot be imported free.

This is happening over and over again and what that means is that many, many pet owners who can't afford insurance, who go on to the internet to get the same medicine, cheaper veterinary medicine coming in from from Great Britain are not now going to be able to get it. And my Lords, we are saying over and over and over again, ridiculous things that are happening because the Windsor Framework Protocol and I am really kind of cannot understand how any sensible person, including government Ministers from the government, Ministers from the previous government, cannot realise that this is not in the long term interests of Northern Ireland.

So I move this regrettable movement with very great pleasure, but with sadness, that we are having still to come back to this house over and over again on this issue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that the regulations laid before the House on the 13th of October be House on the 13th of October be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by Baroness Hoey at has been moved by Baroness Hoey at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to. I too am very grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I too am very grateful to the noble Minister for outlining in detail the impact and the effect of the Statutory Instrument before us the Statutory Instrument before us today, and clearly setting out the reasons behind it as well. And I'm also extremely grateful to the also extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoy, for her motion of regret, which ensures
15:24
Lord Dodds of Duncairn Portrait Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
motion of regret, which ensures that there is a time in this House for your lordships to consider this latest piece of legislation, which has been consulted upon in Europe, drafted in Europe, devised in Europe, planned in Europe for the benefit of the European Union states, and is being implemented in part of the United Kingdom without any input into any of that process by any member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, any Member of Parliament or any member of your Lordships' House who had a staggering situation in modern Britain.

In a modern G7 country, to be subjected to this kind of colonial legislative process for part of its own country. It is quite remarkable, actually, when you think about it. And this latest regulation, which deals with a very important area which says the noble Baroness Hoey has outlined, covers a very wide range of equipment in Northern Ireland. And we'll have a lot of impacts, particularly on small and medium sized businesses. This is the latest in a long line of Statutory Instruments affecting a broad range, a very wide range of subjects, all listed in annexe two of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Last week we were dealing with dental amalgam because that's now under EU law and jurisdiction. Next week we will be debating in grant committee the issue of cars coming into Northern Ireland, whereby now the biggest selling car in Northern Ireland can't be shipped from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, even though we only sell from Great Britain into the Irish Republic. A handful of cars every year. But this is why consumers and car drivers and motorists in Northern Ireland are going to have to pay more.

Come to Britain to buy their cars. Modern modern United Kingdom. We have, as Baroness Hoey usefully reminded your lordships, we have a problem with veterinary medicines, which is going to come in in the 1st of January 2026. We have an issue to do with the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which again, is going to come in in the 1st of January 2026. In Northern Ireland, we have an issue to do with the sentencing Bill, which your lordships considered the other day in Second Reading, in which plans to deport people who come here may not be applicable, and part of the United Kingdom, providing a back door and a loophole for all sorts of nefarious activity.

We have. We have court challenges in Northern Ireland to immigration policy, to legacy problem, all based on the fact that they do not comply with and conform to European law through the Windsor framework. And not only are they ruled to be contrary, but they actually strike down legislation passed by this House in part of the United Kingdom. It's sad state of affairs, lamentable state of affairs, and it's a state of affairs that cannot endure in the long run, because sooner or later, even those who today are prepared to accept anything the European Union passes, because it's the European Union and because people who actually care about democracy, those those matters don't really matter as much to them.

But there will come a time when even nationalists in the Northern Ireland Assembly, those are not unionists will say, hold on a moment. Surely we should be making and devising and formulating the laws for the people that we represent. They may not wish to be part of the United Kingdom, but they do want to have laws imposed upon them by a group of countries who do these laws in their own interests. Consult with anyone in Northern Ireland, nationalist, Unionist or anyone.

So I would just make a plea on behalf of everybody in Northern Ireland, citizens elected representatives of all shades should be saying, hold on a minute. We would like to actually make these laws for ourselves. But here we are once again, looking at a piece of legislation which applies European law because it's in the annexe two of the protocol, and I'm not going to go through all the issues that the previous speakers have raised. The point about consultation, I think, is an extremely important one.

The explanatory memorandum implies. That more or less, because there is no room for amendment, the legislation must be imposed on Northern Ireland because the EU has decided this and passed this. There's no room for getting rid of it. Therefore, what's the point of consultation? That's in essence what the consultation part of the expanded addendum says on the regulatory divergence point. Again, when we're told that, as in so many cases, we're now told that, well, the rest of the United Kingdom may or may come into line with EU regulations and therefore mitigate the frictions between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

But often that is vague. Often it's not 100% and often it's very, very delayed. What happens in the meantime? So I'd be grateful if the Minister could actually outline in more detail the implications of regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the immediate implementation of this Statutory Instrument, and the current position in the rest of the United Kingdom, and in terms of impacts, again, the impact on small and medium sized businesses has been mentioned. I note, too, that at 9.5, there's an impact on the public sector because the enforcing authorities are the Northern Ireland district councils.

Now, I hear from council members all the time about the very, very straitened fiscal position they find themselves in. They are being lumbered continually with more and more investigatory and regulatory and enforcement and monitoring obligations and responsibilities as a result of European regulation made much more difficult because they are not there now in a very unique position of having to police this without any backup or support elsewhere in the United Kingdom, because it doesn't apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

So again, I'd be grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister, could tell us what resources will be given to district councils in this and indeed in other cases where they are facing extra, greater regulatory monitoring and enforcement obligations as a result of the Windsor framework. My Lord, I think it is useful and it is important that at least somewhere within this United Kingdom, some body and grateful literature Lordships' House is able to at least debate this issue because it won't be debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

It will be debated in the other place, but the fact that it is being debated is not a substitute for what should really be happening, which is that the development and processing of laws and they're coming through the normal legislative process, should be happening either in the Assembly or here. Not in Brussels, and not imposed on us, whether take it or leave it. Position. The House is free as opposed to reject this amendment and it be going to have a vote to see how many people would actually vote in favour of it.

Not that we're suggesting we should do that this afternoon, but there will come a point where we will have to test whether or not your lordships and indeed Democrats generally across the United Kingdom, are prepared to put up with this totally unsatisfactory position. And all Democrats, unionists, nationalists, non-aligned in Northern Ireland should be standing up and saying, as a self-respecting elected representative, I want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make the laws for the people that I represent and not delegated to someone else. Okay. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. First of all, I would like to declare two interests. I'm a member of the Secondary Legislation of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which considered this Statutory Instrument, and I'm also a member
15:33
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
of the government's Veterinary Medicines Working Group. I think it's important to declare those interests because they're relevant to the general debate on the Windsor framework. I would also like to welcome my noble friend, the Minister Lord Leong, and to this particular debate and to the ongoing issue of the Windsor framework. I acknowledge the noble Lady always regret motion. That doesn't mean I agree with it, because I am somebody that is a firm supporter of the Windsor framework.

I am a firm, and personally, I believe that we should be seeking to get back into the European Union because that is the best way to represent our interests. I believe we should be working towards dual market access, and that also means not decrying dual market access. It means actively supporting businesses seeking to achieve the benefits of dual market access for not only their businesses, but for the wider community in Northern Ireland. And I would like to remind noble Lords that the root cause of the problem is Brexit, and there have been various events over the last 17 years which have made the UK and which have undermined the UK economy.

In 2008 we had the economic crash, which impacted on many global economies. We had Brexit in 2016, we had Covid 19 and all the payments for that, and then we had the money to invest in in defence for Ukraine and in defence of democracy and to build up resilience against other powers such as Russia. But in this instance, Brexit ushered in the Northern Ireland Protocol and then the Windsor framework to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland.

I personally don't have a problem with that. As we argued at that time, back in 2016, the special arrangements were required on the island of Ireland, where two jurisdictions and two systems would apply, and hence we have the UK internal market and the EU single market. And I would honestly make a plea that politicians of whatever you should be encouraging people and businesses to avail of dual market access, and it's wrong to decry them. And I remind those who argued for the hardest form of Brexit, either in this House or in the other place, that in some ways we are paying the consequences for that.

And in relation to this particular Statutory Instrument, it was one particular Statutory Instrument. And this was remarked on that in relation to the Windsor framework, our Committee did not receive any submissions or comments, and that was a surprise because in relation to other Statutory Instruments related to the Windsor framework, we have received voluminous comments. And I would also say that the government has undertaken stakeholder engagement with a cross representation of stakeholders, including industry, trade associations and other government departments with an interest.

Unlike my noble friend, the Minister has said it will be subject to further, shall we say, review as part of the Radio Equipment Directive provisions in Northern Ireland, and I hope that that will prove productive. But what I would also say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The honourable commencement of her address to this chamber, said she's a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 39th report. And I noticed that the 39th report. And I noticed that the Department for Business and Trade Department for Business and Trade said in part 35, the Department, therefore, does not anticipate any therefore, does not anticipate any significant impacts on the supply of products from Great Britain to of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. If the reality turns out to be that there is a turns out to be that there is a significant impact, what does the hon.

Lady who's support of Windsor rectified?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rectified? And I thank the noble Lord McCrea for his intervention. I would sincerely hope that there are would sincerely hope that there are no particular difficulties, but if no particular difficulties, but if there is any hiccups in the situation, I hope that is part of the challenges and the operational the challenges and the operational difficulties that have presented themselves over the last number of themselves over the last number of months, that they can be ironed out, and that we have a listening government who will do everything within their power.

Working with the EU to ensure that that is the case. As I move on and to what else I would want to say? Undoubtedly we need the challenges, the delays and the lack of knowledge by businesses around the Windsor framework resolved. Therefore, I would ask my noble friend the Minister to outline when we will receive the responses to the following reports which highlighted those operational difficulties, those challenges, those that lack of knowledge for businesses operating within the framework of the Windsor framework.

Those reports are the independent monitoring report published two weeks ago. Lord Murphy's independent review, published in September, and our Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee's report, of which myself, noble Lady Foster and the noble Lord Dodds are members. And we discussed these issues yesterday. When will the government respond to those three reports, all of which highlighted the need for a resolution to the operational difficulties, because if operational difficulties and challenges exist for businesses, they should be resolved.

And to go back to the point of the noble Lord McCrea. I would imagine that is what he is probably referring to, rather than an outright rejection of the Windsor framework. Furthermore, as the noble Lord Dodds has said, we also need answers on cbam and we need clarification. What will people, in terms of electricity supply taking on board that we have a single electricity market in the island, on the island of Ireland. We need to know what framework will be operational from the 1st of January 2026 and what discussions have taken place with the EU regarding those interim arrangements for Northern Ireland.

I have spoken with representatives from manufacturing NI and they have told me that they have had no discussions with the government since November 2024. My Lords, and I say gently to my noble friend, the Minister in the front bench, this does need to be resolved quickly, and I would urge you, my noble friend, to work with his ministerial colleagues in the department responsible to resolve those issues and to provide clarity and clarification for businesses and all those involved in manufacturing.

And finally, reference has also been made to the veterinary medicines and the ongoing difficulties and challenges there. We do need a resolution to these issues, which are largely of a market and regulatory nature, but we need to know how many authorisations will be available and what authorisations, because of pack size in terms of those medicines will not be available. So we do need clear professional guidance, should be issued urgently and communicated to veterinarians and farmers in Northern Ireland.

The BVA and Noah, who I understand will be willing to help with this, but we need that briefing from the Veterinary Medicines Directive direct to the veterinarians, the BVA and the farmers, and also that an industry level coordination group is established to share confidential category level supply risk signals. Because many of much of this information, as I know from Veterinary Medicines Working Group, is confidential and commercial in confidence. They should be also able to agree clinical clinical fallback pathways for when authorised products are unavailable and able to use the two systems that thankfully, the government has brought forward and coordinate the communication to vets.

SKB PS, which are suitably qualified persons in probably agricultural merchants practices and producers. So I would urge my noble friend the Minister to obtain clarity on those various areas and they relate to the operational challenges and difficulties faced by those who have to work under the auspices of the Windsor Framework. For clarity, I support the Windsor Framework. I would like to see a route back to the European Union because I believe in full democratic accountability, and that can only be achieved through that mechanism and not be a decree of the Windsor framework, because that's simply, in many ways is a denial of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

democracy. When people argued for the hardest possible Brexit. Here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. Lords, I have been provoked to respond to what Baroness Ritchie has said, and I just found some difficulty in following. Now that difficulty in following. Now that might be more my fault and hers, but I think it's not. But that's by but I think it's not. But that's by the way she has said she went on there at some length about the dual membership. Well, let me be very clear to your Lordships' House clear to your Lordships' House today.

There are no no tangible today. There are no no tangible benefits from dual membership. But let me say this. What we get and let me say this. What we get and what we are getting is that we have unfettered access to the Republic
15:45
Lord Morrow Portrait Lord Morrow (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
unfettered access to the Republic of Ireland, our smallest market for fatter, in return for fettered access to our greatest market, namely GB. And I would hope that your Lordships' House would keep that in mind, and in particular the Minister. And I'm sure he's listening. And I know the lady beside him always listens to what we're saying. She might not always agree, but she certainly always listens and we commend her for that. My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and moving her regret motion here today.

I think that some people perhaps thought that after a while the people of Northern Ireland would submit to the indignity of having laws made for us by a foreign and sometimes hostile Parliament in which we are not represented, and that after a while we would all get round to accepting it, and sitting down and getting on with our life. But I want to tell the House today, as clear as I can say it, that just will not happen.

And the sooner government catches that on, then the sooner progress will be made. Now, as the noble Baroness pointed out, under this regime, not only are we not worthy of the right to stand for election, to make the laws to which we are subject, but we are not even worthy of the right to be consulted. We have to stand here and read this explanatory memorandum that basically say the law has to be imposed. So that would be the point of having what would be the point of having a consultation now.

And I suppose that while it is profoundly demeaning, I would have to say that I agree with the draughters of the explanatory memorandum. But crucially, that does not take me to the place of saying this is okay. It's not okay. It forces us back to the underlying injustice and the need to confront that. It is simply wrong to submit a nation to a foreign law making Parliament in which it is not represented. Now, I suspect every right thinking member of this House today, and I take it that all members are right thinking I'm sure they will even take that point very, very clearly and not need me to put it up and photographs or anything else.

And I appreciate that this undermines democracy and directly and transparently violates the Belfast Agreement, which is often held up as the guide that we must not ever, ever deviate from or change a word in it. Well, it's been well treated now. It's been kicked around like a political football, and it doesn't seem to have the same meaning that it used to have. My Lords, the rights of the people of Northern Ireland to unquote pursue democratically national and political aspirations, which can only be understood as an obligation to uphold these rights from the 1998 level, when we could stand for election, to make all the laws to which we were subject, or elect a fellow citizen to represent us in this.

But I want to be very gently say to noble Lords today that this is not just an indignity on the people of Northern Ireland who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. It is a gross indignity to the United Kingdom as a whole, because it involves 27 states, disrespecting the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, claiming the right not only to make laws for some of it, but also to impose international customs and border dividing the UK in two.

There is no other country in the world that I'm aware of that I know of, that has bowed to such an indignity, and it must trouble UK citizens wherever they live in this country, because it speaks of a government that no longer believes in the country it's supposed to govern. My Lords, it speaks of a crisis of confidence that it is deeply alienating, certainly to the part of the population that is in the language of David Goodhart in his important book, Road to Somewhere, someone rather than anywhere person.

My Lord, I am particularly concerned about the way the explanatory notes dismiss concerns about micro and small businesses. It has already been said in this debate. Today, Northern Ireland's economy is built on SMEs, small medium enterprises. It consists of that and these cannot be played down and ignored. Baroness Hoey is right to point out that in Northern Ireland we are distinctive because of the size of our small business sector. It certainly is the case that if one had legislation that would negatively impact small and micro businesses in relation to which one was legally prevented from offering from offsetting them, offsetting systems, Northern Ireland would be the least appropriate part of the UK to subject to such a law.

Please, could the Noble Minister tell us today and indicate and reconsider? Our small businesses have suffered enough this year with the arrival of the parcels border in May, the used agricultural machinery border already referred to in June, the new July labelling requirements, the coming into force of the new border control posts. Please could the noble Lord, the Minister, tell us what his government is preparing to do for small business in Northern Ireland? And finally, what is it going to do to prevent legislative divergence causing the UK to do the legislative splits? Why do the explanatory notes on this sound so much more relaxed about GB Northern Ireland divergence than earlier explanatory notes on legislation imposed on Northern Ireland by the EU? My Lord, we were assured.

That if divergence was happening, it would be tackled and corrected. But, my Lords, it is. Divergence is happening, but nothing is happening and I trust that the Minister will bear that in mind. Thank you, thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yay, yay! My Lords, I rise to address

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to address these Radio Equipment (Amendment) Northern Ireland Regulations 2025. This instrument.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This instrument. As the Minister has outlined, amends the 2017 Radio Equipment Regulations to ensure that additional essential requirements additional essential requirements covering cyber security, data protection and fraud prevention apply to certain categories of radio equipment marketed in Northern Ireland. My Lords, the Northern Ireland. My Lords, the objectives of these requirements are indeed sensible. In an era of are indeed sensible. In an era of ultra connected devices such as smartphones, watches, fitness smartphones, watches, fitness trackers and more, the need to protect personal data, prevent protect personal data, prevent fraud and safeguard network integrity is clearly, absolutely integrity is clearly, absolutely paramount for consumers rightly expect that the technology they in many cases entirely rely upon do many cases entirely rely upon do not expose them to unnecessary risk.

However, this instrument does raise broader constitutional and practical questions, as has been raised by many noble Lords. Firstly, it is another example of legislation applying in Northern Ireland that originates, unfortunately not from the Palace of Westminster, not from the Northern Ireland Assembly, but from
15:54
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
Brussels. My Lords, and whatever view noble Lords might have of the view noble Lords might have of the Windsor framework, it is undeniable that these rules are imposed under obligations that leave little room for domestic discretion. That is for domestic discretion. That is the reality which is a concern for many, including those in your many, including those in your Lordships' House. And secondly, while the Department for Business while the Department for Business and Trade assures us that the impact on businesses will be minimal, given that many firms minimal, given that many firms already comply to access EU markets, please allow us to scrutinise that claim for smaller manufacturers and distributors, particularly those focussed on the UK market, compliance costs and administrative compliance costs and administrative burdens may not be negligible.

We should ask, as was so well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, the noble Lord Lord Dobbs and the noble noble Lord Lord Dobbs and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow. Has the government actually undertaken a government actually undertaken a full assessment of the cost to SMEs, and what support will be available to businesses in Northern Ireland to navigate these requirements? My Lords, whilst we do not oppose measures that enhance consumer protection and cyber security, His Majesty's Loyal Opposition regrets that this instrument exemplifies the democratic deficit inherent in the current arrangements.

We would urge the government to provide greater transparency on the cumulative impact of these regulations and to ensure, above all, that Northern Ireland businesses are not disadvantaged

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and can remain competitive. Strive and flourish. Yay, yay!
15:56
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yay, yay! Yes my Lord. Firstly, may I thank all noble Lords for the warm thank all noble Lords for the warm welcome to to address this Statutory Instrument. In fact, when I was asked to take this Statutory Instrument, I thought it would be happening in the Grand Committee and we would have probably looked at it within for half an hour and be completed. But obviously we've got wider issues to consider today. So, my Lords, I'm really grateful for the support given across the House on this particular regulation, and I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this instrument and for all the excellent questions and contributions.

And I will respond to as many of the questions posed as possible. And if I run out of time, I will obviously write to noble Lords accordingly. May I first address the issue of the Windsor framework? My Lords, look, it's a Windsor framework. Perfect. Of course not. I mean, nothing is perfect other than being in a single market and customs union, but we are not there. That boat has sailed. But it's definitely better than the Northern Ireland protocol. So, my Lord, what's really important here is the Windsor framework has delivered substantial improvements to the operation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.

It has removed routine checks for the overwhelming majority of goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and ensured that supermarket shelves are stocked normally secured long term continuity of medicine supplies and restored the free flow of parcels for households and businesses. My Lord. At the same time, the government has always been clear that the Windsor framework is not the end of the journey, but a significant step forward. There remain areas where further work with the European Union is required, particularly around the practical implementation of the red and green lane arrangement and certain aspects of agri food certification.

So we continue to engage constructively through the Joint Committee to Reduce Burdens where possible, provide clarity to businesses, and ensure that the framework operates in a way that fully supports Northern Ireland's place in the UK's internal market. My Lords, let me address the noble Lady Baroness Hoey point about consultation and engagement for business. My Lord Sharma officials regularly and continuously engage consult with businesses, and many have found that many businesses are already coming into compliance. They have also issued guidance to support industry.

These engagement include UK retail and trade associations representing, for example, the manufacturers of small and large domestic appliances. They reported that there were no particular problems for this instrument relating to its impending GB to UK ni trade, and they are aware of from discussions with their member companies. They also welcome the government's guidance and confirmation that products can continue to be placed on the GB market, as long as they comply with the requirements of the STI act, where relevant.

My Lords, in addition, the government, the the government shares the EU's desire to ensure that manufacturers are considering measures to improve the cybersecurity of relevant devices devices. We are also looking at further options for securing digital devices, as evidenced by our recent call for views on enterprise connected devices, and will take into account arrangements in Northern Ireland, including impacts on SMEs. Now, Baroness Hoey also mentioned about the dual access is is a myth that companies are not investing.

I disagree, I mean, just last month, for example, the parcel delivery company evry announced the opening of a new £1.3 million EU gateway depot in Moscow, creating some 650 jobs which every themselves said would enable them to avail themselves of dual market access. My Lord Swire also bring up the point that the Lord Watts us about. New cars, which was I think was in today's papers. The government is engaging closely with manufacturers to better understand what is needed to sell vehicles on the market in Northern Ireland, and expects to make further announcements on the next steps.

He also asked about whether this would create divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of UK. But Lord Suri consider that additional legislative requirements, which this see puts in place in Northern Ireland, will have limited impact in practice. My officials have engaged in discussions with a range of industry stakeholders such as the Amda, which is the UK trade association for domestic appliances, and the British Retail Consortium consortium and government departments. These discussions have not identified any significant impacts or concerns for this instrument.

Many businesses across the UK have already adapted to the new requirements. We therefore do not anticipate significant impacts on the supply of products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The noble Lord Oates also asked about the district councils in Northern Ireland. I mean, my Lords, we work very, very closely with all relevant departments and bodies in taking forward our commitments to the UK internal market and the Windsor Framework, the office for Product Safety and Standards has, for example, produced a briefing note for Northern Ireland district councils on this Statutory Instrument.

May I now address some of the questions posed by my noble friend Baroness Ritchie? She she mentioned about the Lord, my noble friend Lord Murphy's review on the Windsor framework. The government is now considering Lord Murphy's recommendations and will provide a response before the legal deadline. She also been asked about the report from the independent monitoring panel. My Lords, the independent monitoring panel has confirmed that within its first monitoring monitoring period, 96% of the value of goods moved by freight from GB to NI qualified under the UK Internal Market System.

Therefore, the Internal Market Guarantee was fully met. Their report also contains an important set of recommendations to the government. The government will now consider its recommendations as part of its response to the independent review of the Windsor Framework. My Lords, my noble friend Baroness also asked about the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee on the Windsor framework. And I can say the government will consider this report carefully. It raises important issues which the government takes seriously, including how we can best support framework.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would my could I thank my noble friend, the Minister, for giving friend, the Minister, for giving way? Could I exhort him to implore his colleagues to provide speedy, his colleagues to provide speedy, expeditious responses to those reports because they're vital in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reports because they're vital in addressing the operational issues and challenges of the Windsor framework? Thank you. I thank my noble friend for that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend for that. And I'm sure as a former Minister, she would know that we will try our she would know that we will try our very best to get those done swiftly. I continue with, or rather I continue with, or rather furthermore to the question on the EU carbon border adjustment EU carbon border adjustment mechanism or caecum. Now, we have always been clear that we will apply the UK caecum across the UK, including in Northern Ireland.

The EU cbam does not apply in Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee has written to the government on this issue as of yesterday, and we will respond in the usual way. Baroness Richie and Baroness Hoey also asked about the Baroness Hoey also asked about the area or on veterinary measures. My Lord, the vast majority of veterinary medicine will remain available in Northern Ireland from the 1st of January. The government continues to engage extensively with industry and has announced two new schemes to support supply to Northern Ireland.

I come now to the question posed by the noble Earl Earl of Effingham on the on his point about impact assessment or assessment. An impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument as measures resulting from the European Union withdrawal. Withdrawal Act 2018 out of scope for assessment. However, my officials have engaged in discussions with a range of industry stakeholders and government departments on Commission Delegated Regulation 20 2230 and have not identified any significant impact or concerns for this instrument.

We therefore expect limited impacts, if any, on the supply of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Set out. This instrument ensures effective implementation in Northern Ireland of the Commission Delegated Regulation EU 20 2230, which applies additional essential requirements for manufacturers of certain radio equipment enabled and enables it to be enforced. I mean, as a former business person myself, I mean, I am constantly encouraging my colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade to engage regularly with micro and small businesses, and the government is committed to engaging and supporting all businesses, not only in the UK but also across Northern Ireland as well.

My Lords, many businesses have already prepared to comply with these new essential requirements, which came into force on the 1st of August this year in order to continue to supply the EU. My officials have not identified significant impacts on this instrument. In discussions with industry stakeholders, including trade associations. This is because many businesses have already adapted to these new requirements. We therefore expect the impact on the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to be very limited. This instrument ensures our compliance with international law in relation to Northern Ireland's continuing dual access.

My Lords, I am therefore pleased to commend this instrument and beg to move. This regulation is approved. Okay.
16:06
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Watts, can I thank the Lord, the Minister, for that response to the rather wide ranging debate which we've just had and which we tend to have on Statutory Instruments, because there seems to be no other way in this place of raising and having debates on the overall issue of the Windsor framework and how it's affecting Northern Ireland. I think the Northern Ireland officials in the Northern Ireland Office must have it very easy, because with all these eyes they simply exchange the word radio for motor car or dental and then produce the rest of the speech as more or less the same, because we hear every time, more or less the same response.

I appreciate that the noble Lord is carrying out his party policy. I was very disappointed, as I said, that there was no one here from the Liberal Democrats, because normally what they say is, of course it's all about Brexit. If we hadnt had Brexit, you wouldn't have a Windsor framework protocol. But I'm sure the Liberal Democrats, noble Lords will be pleased that the noble Baroness Ritchie seems to have taken up that mantle and indeed the noble Lord. The Minister himself said that the best thing would be to rejoin the customs union and the single market.

So is the Labour Party policy changed, or was that just a sort of throwaway line? Clearly, there was absolutely no need to have the Windsor Framework Protocol, because the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. They did not have on their ballot paper Northern Ireland to be left under 300 areas of law, absolutely outrageous. And the noble Lord, the Minister, or none of the Ministers who respond ever raised that kind of constitutional issue. All about the EU says we must comply.

But there was one bit of very much an agreement between the noble, the rest of the noble Lords who spoke, and the idea about the government dressing everything up as, oh, but you've got dual access. Dual access is really a joke. I mean, it hasn't hasn't produced a single job. And that's been confirmed by Invest Northern Ireland. We might have dual access, but we still the raw materials and all of that need to come in from Great Britain and through an international customs border.

My Lords, this, this particular see will affect small businesses. We've had no real response to what might be given in in mitigation to help them. We've had had no response to a number of the other questions. But what we're really saying and what the government is saying, I would say one positive thing I do welcome the noble Earl Effingham's Moor, shall we say. Critical response today to the sea. And perhaps that's just a little bit of movement within the opposition party as to actually accepting that what was signed up to in the Windsor Framework Protocol is not in the interest of the United Kingdom as a whole, never mind the people of Northern Ireland.

But I think what we ended up by saying, basically the noble Lord, the Minister, is basically saying, we didn't write this law, we can't change it. So you're just going to have to put up with it. My noble Lords will be relieved to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

know that I withdraw the amendment. Is it is it your lordships pleasure. That the amendment be withdrawn?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question. The question is that the original motion be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. Lords, I beg to move the House. Do now adjourn. Do now adjourn.
10:30
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Whitehead
-

16:15
10:30
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Whitehead
-

16:16
10:31
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Whitehead
-

16:16
10:31
16:31
10:58
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Whitehead
-

16:43
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page