Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

60: Clause 4, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(aa) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Where the Secretary of State makes a direction under this section, the Secretary of State must first—(a) consult persons likely to be affected by the direction, including communities in the vicinity of any airport or airspace affected,(b) undertake an environmental impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction, and(c) undertake a noise impact assessment in respect of the proposed direction.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult affected communities and complete environmental and noise impact assessments before making a direction under section 2 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021. It seeks to ensure that the exercise of the direction-making power is subject to scrutiny and community engagement.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to start the second day in Committee on this Bill. I open this group on airspace modernisation, consultation and charging and move Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lady Grender, as she is unfortunately unable to be here today.

The amendment is straightforward and seeks simply to insert a new subsection requiring that, before the Secretary of State makes any directions under Clause 4, three things must happen: a consultation with persons and communities likely to be affected; an environmental impact assessment; and a noise impact assessment. On these Benches, we feel that these additions are a basic requirement of legitimate decision-making where the power may have serious local consequences. The Clause 4 directions on airspace redesign are not merely a technical tidying-up exercise and can be used to alter flight concentrations, runway throughput, and the intensity and timing of overflight experienced on the ground. A ministerial direction made under this clause is capable, in substance, of facilitating additional capacity without ever being labelled as such.

As was said at Second Reading, the Bill is a blueprint; it is not the final product. It provides a framework that leaves the substance to future regulation. In that sense, as we have described, it is paving legislation. The Committee is entitled to ask what safeguards are built into that paving before being asked to drive on it. The Minister has given us reassurances that the Bill will not be used as a vehicle for airport expansion; we note and welcome those, and we accept them in the good faith in which they have been given. However, personal reassurances, however well-meaning, are not a legal safeguard. Ministers change, Prime Ministers change, Governments change, and interpretations can also change. The whole point of us seeking to put this duty into the Bill is to ensure that Parliament and the public can distinguish between a necessary operational change and one that, in effect, delivers additional capacity through the back door of airspace decision-making. Without mandatory consultation and impact assessment, the distinction cannot be realistically made. Even if it could be made, it would happen only after the fact.

Airport change proposals are already assessed through environmental methodologies, noise matrices and statutory directions. This should therefore be aligned with that pre-existing reality. For our communities, these matters are really important. Many, as we know, are already impacted by the noise and environmental impacts of existing airports, and future communities could be impacted by proposals under this legislation. These are real impacts on our communities, from noise late at night to environmental pollution. They should not have to rely on good will, however well-meaningly it is given. If the Secretary of State is to have this power, the Bill should state clearly what the procedural safeguards must be before it is used. That is exactly the point of Amendment 60. We are simply seeking to put a safeguard and some handrails in place around these powers. This is a crucial issue for us in our scrutiny of this Bill.

I turn briefly—I am sorry for speaking to these before others have managed to—to the other amendments in this group. In general, they all seek to do fairly similar things to Amendment 60. Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, would require a minimum 28-day targeted consultation with local communities, local authorities and airport operators before any direction on airspace redesign is issued. We have considerable sympathy for this amendment, for exactly the same reasons that I outlined on our Amendment 60. The 28-day objective is not onerous; it is fundamentally achievable. We hope that the Minister sees fit to put our Amendment 60, this Amendment 61 or some combination of them into the Bill.

Amendment 62, from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, would add the British Airline Pilots Association to the consultation list. We are broadly supportive of this amendment and recognise the central role that our pilots play, particularly in matters of safety. Their judgment and professionalism are essential in any plans to modernise our airspace and capacity. However, our concern is that the amendment, by its nature, names one organisation and does not, for example, name air traffic controllers. We would prefer it if the amendment was reworded to talk about consultation with representatives of the industry, as opposed to naming only one organisation.

Amendment 63, from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, would require the CAA to establish a blockchain-based audit trail for every airspace change program. We recognise that the underlying objective and purpose of this is to create a tamper-proof, long-term record of what has been decided, by whom and when. That is an entirely legitimate concern. In the past, too many of these decisions have been opaque; it has been extremely difficult for anybody to know what has been happening and what has been done by whom.

The requirements in this amendment, particularly those in proposed new subsection (3) for cryptographic security, 15-year retention and tamper-proof records, are all laudable aims, but we wonder whether naming one specific technology would make this a hostage to fortune in the future. We suggest alternative wording that asks for a secure, auditable and publicly accessible record, without prescribing the exact technology to be used. We feel that that would be a better way forward. It might be that the technology that the noble Lord suggests is the one that is chosen, but alternative wording would at least leave more scope for examination in the round.

Amendment 64, from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, probes with characteristic precision the rationale for allowing changes to be imposed under Clause 6 on persons who neither use nor benefit from the air traffic services in question. This is a serious point: the Bill should have open scrutiny of who bears the costs for these matters. I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on those points.

The final amendment in this group is Amendment 65, from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. It would require the Secretary of State and the CAA to have regard to the growth and sustainability of general aviation when setting charges and to ensure that charges on general aviation users are proportionate to the use that they make of air traffic services. General aviation is too often forgotten, and this seems a proportional requirement and a modest and reasonable ask. We look forward to the Minister’s response to it.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his comments on my Amendment 61. I will speak to it only briefly, because it is pretty self-explanatory.

The legislation rightly gives some power to the Government to intervene and, in effect, act as arbiter when it comes to airspace redesign. Airspace redesign has taken much too long. It started when I was Secretary of State and now, nearly eight years later, we are still not close to bringing it to fruition, yet it is fundamental to the future of the aviation sector in this country. It will unlock extra capacity and use next-generation technology to enable us to provide more respite to communities that are affected by aircraft noise, even though the level of aircraft noise, in the world in which we live, has dropped enormously over the past generation.

The Government rightly believe that they need some degree of arbiter powers in this, but I do not think that they should have those powers just to say, “Right, that’s the decision”. There is an obligation there—nothing at great length, because we know that government consultations can last for ever, take months to be responded to and all the rest, but with a simple process saying, “Look, that’s what we’re going to do. Is there anything we haven’t thought of? Is there something we’re not quite getting right here?” I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the wording of the amendment is what it is, but I would expect pilots’ organisations, air traffic organisations and all the rest to be able to input a view on this point.

I would see this as being not an isolated consultation but a standard government consultation—a short, snappy one—simply so that the organisations and communities that have a vested interest can come forward and say, “There’s something you haven’t thought of. This is going to have an adverse effect that you haven’t thought about. You really shouldn’t be taking this decision”. It would be improper for that process not to exist where the Government have what is, in effect, a pretty absolute power of direction under the legislation as it is at the moment. I very much hope that the Minister will take that on board and perhaps look to include something of this kind on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

In those circumstances, I will take away the noble Lord’s very detailed point and attempt to either explain why it does what I said, or alter it so that it does what I said.

Finally, I will address Amendment 65 from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I also listened carefully to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, on this subject. As experienced pilots themselves, they know better than most that general aviation is an important part of the UK’s aviation industry, covering a wide range of public service, commercial and recreational activities.

Clause 6 seeks to provide the Civil Aviation Authority with greater flexibility as to who can be charged for air traffic services provided under a licence. This will ensure that, as the UK’s airspace evolves, the cost of providing those services can continue to be recovered fairly and proportionately, in line with the user pays principle. I note the replication of the IATA view on this from the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and I will take that away.

As noble Lords will be aware, these costs are currently recovered primarily from commercial airlines as they are the main users of the relevant services. General aviation is largely exempt. The noble Lord is right that we do have in mind drone operations on operators and other unmanned aircraft. Ahead of any changes in future, the CAA has a statutory duty to consult on its proposals. Those whose interests are materially affected by its decision could appeal if they considered they had grounds to do so.

The CAA already has an obligation under the Transport Act 2000 to further the interests of operators and owners of aircraft, including in relation to the availability and cost of licensed air traffic services. This includes any that might be classed as general aviation to the extent that they are affected. Given this duty, the thorough and well-established processes for setting charges and the fact that there is currently no plan to create a new charge for general aviation users, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a really interesting and informative group. I know that we have spent a bit of time of it, but it has been time well spent in understanding the Bill. Four key points have come up. There is the whole issue of the need for modernisation, and the fact that it can provide environmental as well as safety benefits, but also the sheer complexity of doing that. Obviously, the powers given to the Minister under Clause 4 and the need for guardrails have come up as well and, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, there is consensus in Committee on the concern around those issues. There is the need for consultation, where I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Bray, put it really well; that needs to be meaningful. Finally, there is the issue of general inclusion and the Bill’s impacts on general aviation.

I am forever thankful to the Minister for his care and attention to these matters. We welcome his response on Amendments 60, 61 and 62. It is fair to say that we will reflect on his exact words and have a look at Hansard. These matters are complex and I welcome the words he has given. I am not certain, as I speak here, whether they will be enough or whether we will need to look at drafting a joint amendment on those matters. In any case, I am sure that we can have further conversations prior to Report on those issues.

I also note the Minister’s comments in relation to Amendment 63 and welcome the response from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about having the purpose rather than the technology as the vehicle. Again, we need to reflect on some of the Minister’s response around the risks. I note the reassurance that he gave about the CAA as a single source of truth and the systems already in play. With that, I beg to withdraw my amendment and thank noble Lords for the debate we have had.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

It may be that when I have read the Written Statement—the Minister can spell it out in a bit more detail when he responds—I am satisfied, but obviously I had not seen the Government’s Written Statement when I tabled the amendment and did not know it was coming today. It is well timed or badly timed, depending on your point of view. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says at the end of the debate and I will take some time after the Committee has finished to study the Written Statement in more detail.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lord, I shall speak to Amendment 114, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is unable to attend the Committee today. I will speak to both her amendments, this one and one in a later group. I am mindful of what the Companion says on these matters, so, just to be clear, these are my words and not hers.

This amendment seeks to insert a new clause imposing a climate duty on the Civil Aviation Authority and the Secretary of State. It would require the CAA, when exercising its functions under the Bill, to have regard to the target established by Section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, the carbon budgets established under the Act and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from civil aviation. It would also require the Secretary of State to have regard to emissions reductions when exercising powers under the Bill, to refrain from using those powers for the purposes of airport capacity expansion and to use them in pursuit of a strategy aimed at reducing airport capacity.

The case for the amendment is reasonably straightforward. Aviation is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise, but difficulty is not an argument for inaction. It is precisely because aviation is hard to abate that we need clear legislative direction now rather than later. Without it, the CAA risks operating in a policy vacuum, exercising its functions under this Bill, particularly new functions, with no statutory obligation to consider our national carbon budgets or our commitments under the Climate Change Act, specifically in relation to new powers. I argue that that is not a sustainable position; it warrants examination and perhaps further clarity. The duty the amendment would impose is well known and deliberately light-touch. To “have regard to” is not a command. It would not stand in the way of other duties that the CEA continues to have in carrying out its functions. It would simply require that, when those functions are exercised, it has one eye on the statutory climate framework that Parliament has already enacted.

It would be curious indeed if the Bill to modernise our regulatory aviation framework contained no reference whatever to our climate obligations. I should be transparent with the Committee that my Amendment 107 in a later group pursues similar goals in perhaps a slightly different way. I guess my motivations are similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

The CAA, particularly with its new powers, must be benchmarked against our national climate commitments. This and my future amendment both call for some form of reporting on that process. An annual account of the environmental efforts of the CAA’s functions and of its compliance with the climate duty is essential for meaningful future parliamentary scrutiny. Aviation’s contributions to emissions cannot be indefinitely treated as an afterthought in legislation. I hope the Minister recognises the constructive spirit in which the noble Baroness’s amendment is advanced, and I look forward to the Government’s response.

I turn briefly to Amendment 110, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harper. I thank him for his half-support, or support for one of our amendments, which is gratefully received. We on these Benches are supportive of his amendment: it is sensible and modest in its proposition. He asked some interesting questions of the Minister on the revisions to the Airports National Policy Statement that have literally just come out, and I would be interested in hearing the answers. We could have completely opposing views on whether we need Heathrow expansion but both accept this amendment. The point is not whether we support expansion but how it is reported and properly assessed. There needs to be a proper framework for doing that, so we are supportive of that.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on the subject in general. I have long been an advocate for airport expansion, particularly at Heathrow. On that note, I support the Government taking this brave step. Having lived in south-west London and under the odd flight path from time to time, I recognise that there was an airport there long before me and before most people who live in the area. It was unfortunately most regrettable—I now intend to be quite party political—that the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats relied on objecting to every element of expansion at Heathrow, whether for new terminals or runways. Most people would agree that we should have had a third runway more than 30 years ago, when the cost would have been substantially less.

My final point is that, while I fully support the Government pushing ahead with expansion and a third runway, the decision on this particular project, at a cost of £49 billion, with disruption to areas around the M25 and elsewhere, is completely wrong. I see it ending up like some of the other massive infrastructure projects that we have had in rail. I do not believe this is the best way forward. There should be a rethink. Other projects would be less disruptive but have not been fully considered. As a general point, I fully support the Government’s ideals to expand but think that the initial decision is wrong at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

I meant to stand up at the start of the group, but the noble Lord, Lord Harper, was a little too quick on his feet. I just want to point out that we now have bang on an hour to finish the remaining groups, which I think that we can achieve, if we have concision in our remarks. That would be very helpful.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I note the comment just made. I welcome the probing amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harper. That is useful in the Bill, so I thank him for that.

I will speak to my Amendments 106 and 107. Together, they seek to form a coherent case for environmental accountability in the regulation of civil aviation. Amendment 106 asks the Secretary of State within 12 months of the Act passing to lay before Parliament a report assessing its impact on passenger information, on low-carbon travel choices and on emissions from civil aviation. The Bill contains important consumer protection measures, but a consumer framework is only as good as the information that it generates and the behaviour that it manages to change. The amendment asks a simple question: once the Act is on the statute book, how is it actually working?

My amendment calls for a report, which must address four things. First, it must address whether consumers are receiving clear and consistent information about the carbon emissions associated with their flights. Currently, there is no standard for presenting that, and the report would help to establish whether the Act drives progress. Secondly, it must address whether consumers are genuinely comparing aviation and rail options at the point of decision. At present, they largely cannot and booking platforms are entirely siloed. The integrated comparison of journey time door to door, total price and carbon footprint and the whole booking simplicity just barely exist for people who want to be able to do that. For short-haul routes, where rail is a credible alternative, this is a serious market failure. Thirdly, and relatedly, it must address whether consumer awareness of lower-carbon alternatives to short-haul flights has improved. Evidence from France and Sweden shows that better information helps to shift consumer behaviour. Fourthly, it must address the overall emissions trajectory of civil aviation, which, as we know, is one of the most difficult to decarbonise. Demand management, through better information, has an unavoidable role to play while sustainable aviation fuels and zero-emissions flight technology continue to mature.

The amendment would also require consultation with aviation, rail and consumer representatives. It would require the report to include recommendations, not merely descriptions. If the Act is working, the report will say so. If not, Parliament will have the information that it needs to act.

Amendment 107 addresses a related but distinct gap: the absence of any statutory environmental duty on the Civil Aviation Authority itself, particularly in relation to the new powers in the Bill. The duty that I am seeking is deliberately light touch. The amendment says that the CAA “must have regard to”. It does not override safety, does not prescribe outcomes and leaves the CAA to weigh its environmental responsibilities against its other functions. It would simply require those commitments to be present when decisions are made.

Three specific matters in subsection (2) are carefully drawn out: reducing greenhouse gases and other environmental impacts; supporting biodiversity and natural environment, consistent with the framework in the Environment Act 2021; and improving resilience in the aviation sector to the physical effects of our warming and changing climate. This would be in the form of an annual report, which would also be published to Parliament. It might be that the amendment is clunky and not acceptable because of how I have drafted it. I am more than happy to work with the Minister between now and Report. If there is a form of wording that could capture some of this in a better way, I am more than happy to discuss it.

Finally, I will speak to Amendment 115 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. This amendment is straightforward in its purpose. It seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations by statutory instrument to reduce carbon emissions from private aviation. These regulations could impose restrictions on private aircraft operations, impose changes on private aircraft movements, prohibit specific categories of movements and make different provisions for different classes of aircraft. This instrument would be subject to the negative procedure.

We have not talked about private aviation yet, but it is important. There is a compelling case here. Private jet movements in the United Kingdom have grown by over 40% since 2020. The carbon emissions per passenger of a private jet are on average five to 14 times higher than those of a commercial flight, yet private aviation sits entirely outside the consumer and environmental framework that this Bill seeks to create. That is a significant gap. The vast majority of private aviation growth is coming from short-haul flights and private aviation is a big part of that. It is in precisely these segments where we have the strongest leverage to change consumer action.

We cannot meet our obligations under the Climate Change Act, as have heard, without using some of those levers. Short-haul flights and private aviation are two of the matters that we need to move the dial on. On these Benches, we have considerable sympathy for the principles contained in this amendment and I welcome the challenge. However, I am not fully supportive of the drafting. The powers in subsection (2) of the new clause are substantial. They are broad, restrictive changes prohibiting entire categories of movements, yet subsection (3) subjects them only to the negative procedure. For powers of this reach, the affirmative procedure would provide more appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. We would welcome a clearer policy framework sitting behind the regulation-making powers, rather than leaving it entirely to ministerial direction.

To conclude, I hope that the Minister can tell the Committee what assessment the Government have made of private aviation emissions and whether a levy, perhaps proportionally hypothecated towards sustainable aviation, has been considered alongside perhaps a restrictions-based approach. How do the Government plan to regulate that sector, considering that it is not mentioned in the Bill?

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments focuses rightly on the environment and climate impacts. My noble friend Lord Russell has set out clearly Amendments 106 and 107. They are modest, sensible asks and the Government should not find them difficult to accept, given that the aviation sector accounts for a significant and growing share of UK emissions and that it is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise. We strongly support my noble friend’s amendments and look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address this gap.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My noble friend is a mind-reader; I was going to refer to Network Rail in about 40 seconds. As I said, as far as NERL’s ownership is concerned, it is different, but that should not preclude it having to pay up for claims.

The review then produced another pretext, which, again, does not stand up to scrutiny. This is what it said:

“Such a liability would probably lead to a substantial increase in the annual costs of the ATC”—


air traffic control—

“service, which could in turn lead to increased costs to airlines and passengers”.

What happens at the moment? The compensation liability rests with the airlines and, as such, it has already caused increased costs to passengers. If the airlines did not have the liability their costs would go down, but if NATS then passed back all the increased costs we would be back where we started. Crucially, that assumes that the regulator, the CAA, would allow the costs to be passed on by NATS to customers, instead of taking it out of profits. If, as happens with the water companies, costs were not passed on to consumers but funded out of profits then costs to the airlines and passengers would actually go down, not up—the opposite of what the review suggested.

I come to my noble friend’s intervention. The Minister will understand and, I hope, sympathise with the case I am making because of his previous responsibility for Network Rail. If, as my noble friend said, a passenger is delayed, the train operator pays the compensation. If Network Rail was responsible for the delay, it then reimburses the train operator. That is as it should be, and it is exactly what should happen in air transport. A failure in traffic control is paid for by the traffic controller. My amendment is supported by IATA, which actually wants to go further. It would like the amendment to be extended to airports and other parties that provide air services that can cause disruption yet are not liable for passenger compensation. Airlines currently pay all passenger compensation regardless of who is at fault—for example, the power failure at Heathrow last year.

To sum up and use management jargon, we need shared accountability across the value chain. I hope the Minister can respond positively to the case I have made and put right this manifest injustice.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 9, which seeks to strengthen the consumer protection provisions at the heart of the Bill. This amendment would insert two paragraphs into Clause 1. We believe that both are desirable and necessary if this legislation is to deliver meaningful change for the travelling public. The first would add the requirement for

“standardised, comparable information at the point of sale”.

Anyone who has purchased an airline ticket recently will be familiar with the booking experience. I will not go through all the painful detail but suffice to say that, by the time you come to the payment page, the fee you are charged bears little resemblance to the one that first encouraged you to make the booking.

That is not an accident; it is intentional. It is a business model that has moved, frankly, from the sublime to the ridiculous. For example, at the moment, the CMA is investigating Ryanair’s mandatory charge of £8 each way for the privilege of sitting with your own children. It is a business model that harms consumers, distorts competition and corrodes trust in the aviation sector. Airlines that compete fairly on total price are undercut by those which strip out every possible cost, just to put them back in. We do not tolerate these practices in other markets—imagine for one moment that the same situation was in place when you were doing your online grocery shopping. It means that consumers cannot make rational or informed choices. Again, that is the intention. Families on modest budgets find themselves paying significantly more than they had intended to.

My amendment would address this directly by requiring airlines and all ticket sellers—I emphasise all ticket sellers, whether the airlines themselves, online travel agents or price comparison websites—to display the total price up front, including all fees, taxes and unavoidable charges. We believe this is not a radical proposition. It is not difficult for the airlines, if they are selling direct to consumers, or their agents to comply with. Most consumers reasonably believe that this is the case already, so this amendment aims to make it so.

The second element of the amendment concerns passenger rights. When a flight is delayed or cancelled, or a passenger is denied boarding, they are entitled to certain protections, and rightly so. But the evidence consistently shows that a significant portion of affected passengers do not know what those rights are and that airlines do not always volunteer that information. My amendment would require this information about passenger rights in disruption scenarios to be provided clearly at the point of sale, not buried deep in terms and conditions in the small print, and accessible only to those who know how to look for it.

Thirdly, the information element concerns environmental impact. Consumers are increasingly seeking to make informed choices consistent with their values. Aviation, as we know, is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. While the sector as a whole must decarbonise, individuals, too, wish to understand the environmental impact of their individual journeys. Standardised carbon footprint information at the point of sale would enable informed choices. It would also in time, we hope, drive competition on environmental performance, an outcome that we argue would drive consumer-led carbon-reduction measures.

The second part of the amendment includes mandatory minimum compensation standards and, critically, automated payment mechanisms for flight delays, cancellations and denied boarding. The right to compensation for significant disruption already exists in law. Yet, year after year, consumer bodies and passengers find that it is not happening. They are waiting long times and often having to go to court and take legal action. That is an unacceptable situation.

The solution that I have proposed is an automation system to make sure that, where delays happen, there is an automatic payment so that you do not have to go through a complicated process to do it. The airlines have all this information. They know who is on their planes, they know who is not, they know when they are delayed and they know when compensation needs to be paid. We do not believe that this requirement would be too onerous on the airlines. It would simply make it a more efficient, fair and effective system.

We welcome this Bill. We recognise the consumer protections, but we feel that they need to have real bite. That is what my amendments seek to do. Our worry is that, if we do not put stronger protections in the Bill, we will simply have gestures towards consumer rights without actually putting them in statute. With the inclusion of these amendments, we would take concrete steps to make sure that we are acting in the passengers’ best interests in making these systems fairer and more efficient.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 41. The question of responsibility for drop-off charges was mentioned in closing by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. This has become a new and evolving tax in the last few years and it is quite substantial. Edinburgh Airport is now charging £8.50 for somebody to be dropped off. Our major airports, Heathrow and Gatwick, are around the £7 to £8 mark, and other airports around the country have various levels. What effectively is happening is that the sharp increase in business rates applied to the airports has been passed on to a passenger being dropped off at the front door.

This has a huge impact on the potential for growth. It has an impact on the cost of doing business in this country and on the cost of travel. While it might be nice to say that we would like as many people as possible to go to airports by public transport, the realistic situation is that there are many airports around the country where the practicalities of doing that are very limited, particularly if you live outside an urban area. We have to take these charges into account. It seems to me that more and more airports are making more money out of drop-off charges and car parking than they are out of running the airports. While I do not want to see the model of airports made less competitive, the fact of the matter is that this is a tax on travel and a tax on business. There are many parts of this country where, if you are going to do business, there is little alternative to using aviation. I think that is a very important point and I would like the Minister to address that.

The other issue I want to raise relates to Amendment 40 and air quality on aircraft. Obviously, we all fly, some of us more than others, but thousands of people work in the airline industry and are in aircraft all their working days. There have been cases, because the air supply in most aircraft—although changes and improvements are being made—comes from the turbines, of seals failing from time to time in those turbines and oil being vapourised and fed into the cabin, where it is visible. What worries me is that there will be many times when it is not visible. What is the Minister’s response to that? Who is monitoring this and at what levels? Are the levels reviewed and are any checks being carried out on those who work in the airline industry as to whether their health is affected by long exposure?

Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling this Motion to Regret. We are broadly supportive of most of it, but we have one central reservation about the framing.

There are seven clean air zones—CAZs—in England using the central service, as set out by the Minister. All of them will be affected by this instrument, with fees doubling from £2 to £4 per transaction from 1 September 2026 and extending for an additional four more years to 2031.

We support clean air zones. As the Minister set out, they are working and are delivering measurable and meaningful public health benefits. In Birmingham, the number of non-compliant vehicles has fallen from over 15% at launch to below 4%, and Bristol now sees close to 90% compliance. Nitrogen dioxide levels in Birmingham are down by 29% compared to 2019. That means fewer hospital admissions, fewer children growing up with impaired lung development and fewer premature deaths. Clean air is not only an environmental issue; it is a public health issue and an issue of inequality.

Our support for the policy is, however, separate from any contentedness with the quality of the instrument. The instrument has fallen short. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee once again had to step in. I recognise that that is partly because of the work of the previous Government.

The Explanatory Memorandum, as originally laid, contained no information on cost recovery and transaction data and no assessment of the impact on individual local authorities. The committee had to ask for that information and publish it, so that this House could properly scrutinise the measure. That is not how this process should work.

The lack of an impact assessment is also troubling. The Government say that there will be no impact on business, charities or the voluntary sector. While that is technically correct, it is not a complete picture. The cost falls on local authorities, which are responsible for delivering local transport strategies, and the law requires that net revenues from CAZs be reinvested in those strategies. While I recognise that CAZs were not set up to raise revenue and local authorities have known that fees would be subject to review, the committee was right to highlight the real-world consequences: where authorities fund these schemes from CAZ revenues, doubling the central service fee directly reduces the resources available for local transport investment. These changes mean less funding for buses, cycling infrastructure and sustainable transport alternatives.

The scale of that impact is also uneven. Birmingham and Bristol, with the largest volumes of chargeable transactions, are likely to face additional costs in the hundreds of thousands of pounds. Mid-sized schemes, such as Bradford, Sheffield and Tyneside, will face smaller but still material increases. For Bath and Portsmouth, the impact will be more modest. I understand that four local authorities are expected to absorb the increased fee from within their own revenues. Can the Minister say which four those are and what assessment has been made of the impact on their transport investment plans? For the authorities that will instead be supported by central government, what is the expected cost?

I will address the issue of timing. The fee has remained at £2 since 2020 and is now set to double. The department describes this as a timely change. The committee observed that charges should be reviewed more regularly, and we agree with it. If updated for inflation, the fee would be closer to £2.70. Instead, we are seeing it double in a single step, not a routine adjustment.

Since the policy aim is to achieve full cost recovery over the lifetime of the service, are fees being set higher than they might have been had they been previously reviewed? Can the Minister also confirm what the review cycle will be going forward? The period during which these fees are charged is now extended to 2031, but transaction volumes are beginning to fall as these policies are working and we have greater compliance. That raises an obvious question: has the department adequately modelled cost recovery on the shrinking transaction base? If the number of operating zones declines over time, what does that mean for the long-term viability and cost structure of the central service?

I turn to my reservation about the amendment itself. The amendment expresses concern about costs being passed on to motorists. As far as we can tell, there is no evidence for that happening at all in practice. Instead, the evidence suggests that these costs will not be passed on through any higher charges for motorists. The more credible risk is that they will be absorbed within local authority budgets, reducing investment in sustainable transport.

We support the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I press the Government for greater transparency, better analysis and a clearer account of who ultimately pays. To that end, will the department commit to publishing annual data on cost recovery for the central service, so that Parliament is not in the same position again?

Finally, I thank the Minister for his letter to the committee, his engagement with me ahead of this debate, and the words and reassurances that he has already given to the House.

Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]

Earl Russell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, for introducing the Bill and for the briefings that he and his team have kindly provided to Members of the House. We approach this Bill with an open mind and with a clear desire for greater clarity and certainty. Its relatively short length masks the complexity of the systems it seeks to update and reform, as well as the significance of the mechanisms chosen to implement those changes.

On the face of it, the Bill seeks to strengthen consumer protections, support economic growth and infrastructure, and modernise and enhance aviation safety. Of course, those are all laudable aims. However, the policy space that the Bill occupies is both crowded and contested, and the interaction between its different elements requires great scrutiny. Airspace modernisation is long overdue, but it may also facilitate increased capacity and, potentially, airport expansion. Likewise, the stronger consumer protections are clearly needed, but we must be confident that the measures proposed will work as intended in practice.

The Bill provides a framework rather than a finished product. It establishes significant delegated powers and relies heavily on secondary legislation, placing key decisions one step removed from parliamentary scrutiny. For these reasons, we will seek further clarity and assurances across three principal areas: first, the relationship between airspace modernisation, airport expansion and our environmental commitments; secondly, the delivery of improved and effective consumer protections; and, thirdly, the scope and use of delegated powers within the Bill.

I turn first to airspace modernisation and slot allocation. The aviation sector remains a vital and growing part of the UK economy. It supports jobs, enables trade and logistics, connects us to global markets and underpins both inbound tourism and outbound travel. According to the latest Civil Aviation Authority data, more than 61 million passengers travelled through UK airports in the first quarter of this year alone— a record high driven by short-haul European flights. Many of those journeys could and should be taken by rail, which is far better in terms of our carbon outputs. Yet this growth also presents a clear challenge.

The Climate Change Committee’s 2025 progress report to Parliament makes it clear that, while overall UK emissions are declining, aviation now contributes a greater share of total emissions than the electricity supply sector. It also warns that continued growth in aviation emissions could place our future climate targets at risk. While we are clear in our opposition to further airport expansion in the south-east, the Government have publicly indicated support for expansion, including a third runway at Heathrow. That policy context inevitably shapes how this Bill is read and understood.

Aviation remains one of the most difficult sectors in which to reduce emissions. While emerging technologies, including sustainable aviation fuels, are welcome and necessary, they have inherent limitations and they are emerging technologies. The Climate Change Committee has been equally clear that, should technology progress fall short, the Government may need to consider demand management measures to remain on track to net zero. Against this backdrop, I welcome the Minister’s clear statement that this Bill is not intended to enable airport expansion, either directly or indirectly, and we are grateful for that.

On these Benches, we recognise the need to modernise our airspace. The UK has some of the most congested skies in the world, and our airspace management systems have not been fundamentally updated since the 1950s. They remain structured largely around ground-based navigation systems that are increasingly outdated. Modernisation, if done well, offers real benefits, improved efficiency, enhanced passenger safety, reduced noise for affected communities and lower emissions through more direct and optimised flight paths. We therefore support this complex but necessary work, including the proposal to establish a UK airspace design service to oversee its delivery.

However, while we understand the Government’s desire for powers to direct this work, including in relation to slot allocation and scheduling, it would be remiss of us not to seek clear assurances about how these powers will be used in practice. In particular, we are concerned to ensure that the powers cannot be used deliberately or inadvertently as a back door to increased airport capacity or expansion, without appropriate scrutiny. In that context, I ask the Minister to reaffirm that decisions taken under these powers will continue to be informed by the independent advice of the Climate Change Committee, and I would also welcome greater clarity on the relationship between airspace modernisation, slot allocation and any future increase in overall capacity or passenger numbers.

At what point does operational reform become, in effect, expansion, and how will Parliament be able to distinguish clearly between the two? Furthermore, what safeguards exist to ensure that, even if the present Government do not intend to use these powers to facilitate expansion, a future Government could not do so without proper oversight? We will seek to work constructively with Ministers to establish appropriate guardrails, including stronger requirements for monitoring, reporting and transparency in relation to the airports national policy statement, the environmental impacts and the effect on our local communities of noise.

I turn briefly to consumer rights. We agree that the current system is not functioning as it should. We also recognise that many of these powers are coming to an end and need to be reformed. From delays and cancellations to lost luggage and overbookings, passengers too often experience poor outcomes and inconsistent enforcement. It is essential that passengers can rely on robust protections and that the regulators have the tools needed to ensure swift and ready compliance.

The fact that the Civil Aviation Authority has, in some cases, had to resort to the courts to enforce basic consumer protections points to systemic weaknesses. We therefore broadly welcome the strengthening of the CAA’s powers, bringing them in line with other consumer rights. However, the Bill also provides for potential divergence from retained EU law in this area. At a time when the European Union is updating passenger protections and the Government have indicated a desire for broader alignment in certain areas, we will be seeking clarity that the intention here is one of convergence rather than divergence.

We also strongly support measures to improve the experience of passengers—particularly those with mobility impairments, who continue to face significant and unacceptable barriers when travelling, particularly in relation to their mobility aids. More broadly, however, we consider that the Bill is overly cautious in its approach to consumer rights. It presents a real opportunity to place passengers more firmly at its centre. There are many issues here that need broad reform, from not separating families or travellers from the people they are with to the size of hand luggage and extra charges added to people’s bills. We would like to see a statutory passenger charter in the Bill to ensure that high standards are not only articulated but embedded in practice.

Finally, on delegated powers, we will consider carefully the forthcoming report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Given the breadth and significance of the powers proposed, it is essential that appropriate safeguards, limits and mechanisms for parliamentary oversight are in place. I welcome the Minister’s opening comments on that, but more needs to be done and amendments will be needed in this space.

While we broadly support the aims of this Bill, we will work constructively to ensure that it aligns with our environmental obligations, delivers tangible benefits for our communities and provides meaningful, effective and enduring consumer protections.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

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

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, back in his place. On behalf of these Benches, I also thank the Minister and the Government for bringing forward these amendments. These important issues were raised in Committee. The Government have listened to the concerns that were raised and we welcome the amendments that have been brought forward. We are grateful that the Government have listened and we are delighted to accept them.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the register as non-exec chair of RVL Aviation, which is in the aviation sector but not involved in the production of sustainable aviation fuel.

I strongly support this move to make sure that we do not include food crops. I have one caveat, which I raised in Committee, and I wonder whether the Minister can update the House. My noble friend Lord Grayling drew attention to the different position that the United States has taken about including food crops. My starting point, as his, is that we should not include food crops. The only caveat that I raised in Committee was that if, in doing so, that enabled us to ensure that the United States continued to support the development of sustainable aviation fuel, given the importance of the United States in the international aviation sector, there might be a case for that. I would be interested to know whether the Minister can update your Lordships on any discussions that have taken place with the United States. If it is not necessary to do that, I strongly support the amendments that are there to make sure that we rule out food crops because, as my noble friend Lord Grayling said, using land to grow crops for food is what we should be doing, and we have seen, in the renewable energy sector, what can happen when you have policy that then drives behaviours that you had not intended, which have outcomes that are environmentally not welcome.

The second point that I raise is that I support the amendments to rule out the use of the revenue certainty mechanism for subsidising HEFA. As my noble friend Lord Grayling said, it is important that we move away from that and develop the new technologies, as my noble friend Lord Moylan said from the Front Bench. The danger of allowing subsidy of things that we are trying to get rid of is that you never get rid of them; any subsidy that there is should be used for the development of new technologies and processes. That is the rationale for having a subsidy regime in the first place. Setting that framework is very welcome.

My final point is on power-to-liquid technology. My noble friend Lord Moylan set out his view that that technology is probably not yet at a point where this Bill would be of any use. My starting position and his is that you have to justify carefully the need for subsidy, so it would not be a bad thing, if that technology is some way away from development, to force the Government to come back to Parliament to rejustify subsidy for power-to-liquid. That would be very welcome. If the Minister can update the House that providing subsidy to develop the technology and get it into production would have a much nearer-term outcome than my noble friend suggested, I might think again. However, in the scenario that my noble friend Lord Moylan set out, his amendments would be very sensible and helpful in testing the Government and forcing them to put on record the state of that technology.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this second group concerns different aspects of the operation and scope of the revenue certainty contracts. We appreciate the good intentions to influence the mix of technologies and feedstocks supported by this scheme, but we cannot support these amendments, each of which in a different way would introduce arbitrary restrictions that, while well intended, would risk upsetting the balanced, technology-neutral framework that is central to the Bill’s success. They would remove flexibility and could have serious unexpected consequences. The technological framework itself will attract the broad range of investments that will enable the rapid scaling of UK aviation fuel production. It is the creation of the revenue certainty mechanism that will attract investments, which are the literal fuel to bring the technologies we need.

I will address each amendment in turn. Amendment 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would introduce a new subsection prohibiting revenue certainty contracts from providing payment for a PtL sustainable aviation fuel. I understand the concern that PtL technologies are still maturing and often come with higher upfront costs, but a statutory exclusion is too blunt a guillotine instrument. It would deny Ministers any flexibility to support promising PtL projects as costs fall and technologies advance, sending an unhelpful signal to developers and investors that this entire pathway is off limits for UK support. Such rigidity would involve diverting PtL investment to other jurisdictions. The Bill as drafted already provides the Government with tools to shape pathways through allocations criteria and contract design without foreclosing future opportunities.

Amendment 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, would take exactly the opposite approach, requiring the Secretary of State to direct the counterparty to offer minimum volumes of PtL contracts from 2028 onward, increasing annually to 2040. While the objective of accelerating PtL development is commendable, setting the number of strict time-fixed statutory quotas in the Bill would be equally problematic. It would commit the Government to contracting many time-fixed volumes whether or not sufficient viable PtL projects were ready, creating a risk of uneconomic awards or unfulfilled obligations on many occasions. As others involved in financing such large-scale projects know, they are often delivered slightly behind time as supply chains can be overrun. Building so many rigid volumetric obligations into the statute would create legal and commercial uncertainty and could crowd out credible SAF pathways. The Government’s more flexible approach, using competitive tenders and market readiness to guide allocation, remains a more practical and adaptable route.

Amendment 14 in the name of noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to define “relevant crops” as starch-rich crops, sugars, oil crops and main crops, adopting the same definitions as used in the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007. Amendment 16, in a similar vein, would exclude from support any sustainable aviation fuel derived from such crops.

I fully recognise the environmental concern to avoid diverting crops into fuel production, but legislating directly for this exclusion via statutory definition risks unintended consequences; for example, capturing advanced biofuels that use a mix of waste and feedstocks or deterring innovation where crop residues are responsibly utilised. The same aims can, we feel, be better achieved through policy guidance, sustainability criteria and a certification process already envisaged under the Bill, rather than through rigid statutory exclusion. As drafted, these amendments are overly prescriptive and would constrain technological evolution and government flexibility and discourage investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Moylan set out the challenge—the thing you have to justify—to put the revenue certainty mechanism in place. It was certainly one of the things that I grappled with, and challenged the industry on, when I was the Secretary of State for Transport and we were developing the beginnings of this policy. As my noble friend said, the SAF mandate sets out some guaranteed demand for the industry producing sustainable aviation fuel. The challenge I always put to those thinking about investing in producing the technology was exactly the challenge that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, set out: if you have guaranteed demand, what is the barrier to producing that product?

We discussed this in Committee. The logic is that, for some of these products, it is new technology that requires significant upfront capital investment, and the judgment is that, if you compare it to other similar sorts of investments that these investors are making, the risk is higher than with those other investments. Therefore, if you do not do something to close that gap, you will not see the investment in the technology, particularly here in the United Kingdom, where we want to see the production take place, at least in part, if for no other reason than resilience.

What you are really dealing with is closing the gap between the risks involved in producing SAF and the alternative products that those investors could invest in. I do not think, therefore, that you need an open-ended contract. You need to put some limits around it. I am sure that the Minister will have some responses on what those limits should be, but a very obvious one would be to have a time limit, so that investors have some certainty: they have guaranteed demand and a period when they will get a guaranteed price. That should enable the risk premium to be reduced and enable the investment and production to take place.

If we start from the assumption that it certainly does not need to be an infinite period and should therefore be fixed, the debate is therefore just about what the length of that period should be. Now, the Minister may want to come back and say that the 10 years proposed by my noble friend is the wrong number or limitation period, in which case I would be happy to listen to the arguments that he makes about an alternative period, but I do not think that the right answer is that it can be any length at all, with no cap on it. I would be much more comfortable if we put a cap on it.

Again, if, at some point in the future, there was a clear justification for changing it, there would be nothing to stop this or a future Government coming back to Parliament to change the position. But I do not want to see open-ended contracts in place, particularly since we have legislated for there to be guaranteed demand. So I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, unless I hear a very good counter case from the Minister.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I support my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendment. It is very important, particularly when we come on to later groups and are talking about the ultimate impact of this—which is that it will, in effect, fall on to the end consumer, as all taxes do—that we make sure that this is as simple and straightforward a process as possible, so that we can explain to people what we are doing, why we are doing it and what the cost is. That is always to be welcomed in policy-making.

Further, this should be workable and straightforward for aviation fuel producers. They are the ones that we have chosen to put the mandate on, in giving them the legal responsibility to produce sustainable aviation fuel and blend it with their regular fuel. The current structure transfers the level of financial risk to them. I agree with my noble friend Lord Moylan, in that I suspect that behind this—the Minister can tell us that we are wrong if we are—is the Treasury wanting to make sure, not entirely unreasonably, that there is no risk to the taxpayer. However, in doing so, all that has happened is that the risk has been moved on to the fuel supplier.

As my noble friend Lord Moylan says—I have thought about this as well, and I have listened to the industry—it seems that, for the producers to deal with the risk, they will have to increase what they charge the airlines. So rather than the cost and the risk falling on the Treasury and the taxpayer, it will, in effect, still fall on the taxpayer but just in their guise of an airline passenger who will face a higher ticket price. That is not very economically sensible.

The industry is very clear that the Treasury should not be picking up the costs for this. The only sensible thing would be to have a per unit price. There would be some risk for the Treasury in the short term, but that could be smoothed out over time, and the Government are perfectly able to do that. That would be a much better solution, and I hope that the Minister can at least indicate that that is where the Government’s thinking is. If he cannot do that, I suggest that my noble friend Lord Moylan is correct that we should have done the detail before the legislation, rather than the other way around.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to this group of amendments that deal with the design and timings of the revenue certainty mechanisms and the levy. While I recognise that concerns around fiscal discipline, transparency and fairness lie behind them, I do not believe that these amendments are the right way to address those concerns.

We have spent considerable time talking with industry and officials, and I am thankful to the Minister’s officials for taking the time to talk with us. We note that the consultation closed on 8 January. We have reflected to officials the concerns that industry has raised with us, and we are pleased that we had the opportunity to do that. We have confidence that Ministers, officials and industry are all working together, in what is a complex space, to find practical and workable solutions that balance a number of competing agendas. Added to this, I remind the House that these mechanisms will be subject to statutory instruments under the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, would specify that the levy under Clause 6 can fund contracts only in respect of sustainable aviation fuel manufactured in the United Kingdom. We recognise the intention here and have some sympathy for it, but we believe that the concessions already granted by the Minister in group 1 fundamentally deal with this issue and give greater assurances to the House that the levy will be used only for those purposes.

Amendment 9, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, would narrow the other costs that can be met from the levy to those associated with directly related administration. Guarding against drift of levy funds into unrelated processes is absolutely right, but, in our opinion, the formulation risks overtightening. It could exclude legitimate and necessary scheme-related expenditures, such as certain forms of oversight, enforcement, market-enabling activity and the reporting that we will come on to in the final group. These would be unintended consequences. The Bill already confines the levy to the purposes of the mechanism, and regulations can and should be scrutinised by Parliament, but we believe that these restrictions would be too tight.

--- Later in debate ---

For both those reasons, I support my noble friend’s amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response. Frankly, I cannot see any good reason why having some transparency is not a good idea. Perhaps more in optimism than experience, I look forward to him saying that the amendment is fantastic and accepting it—or, if he cannot do that, accepting that it is perhaps not drafted as well as it might be and committing to coming back at Third Reading with a better-drafted one that does basically the same thing. I look forward to him saying just that.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

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

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

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, my name is attached in support of Amendment 18, but I did not ask for it to be. I asked for it to be attached to a different amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but I think this is a great amendment anyway and I am fully in support.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s support. I am sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, cannot be here, and I wish him and his family well. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for speaking to his amendment.

My Amendment 18 in this group is on UK SAF production. I thank my noble friend Lady Pidgeon, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, even if it was the wrong amendment, for adding their support to it. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government’s support for sustainable aviation fuel translates into genuine homegrown industrial capacity, as we have heard. We support the Bill and its aims, and we want to see it move forward. Other countries are moving forward, such as the United States through its Inflation Reduction Act, and across Europe progress is being made. We need to act decisively to make sure that we do not become a passive importer, and we welcome that the Bill seeks to prevent that.

We believe that this reporting mechanism would help to strengthen the Bill to make sure that these issues are defined and reported on. There is an important distinction between manufacturing and simple operations such as blending, trading or storage. Too often, limited progress is repackaged as domestic production when it is not, so in this amendment we have sought to define what UK production means: that the main chemical or biological conversion processes take place here. We believe that clarity is essential, and having it is in the Government’s interests as well as ours. The amendment does not seek to tie the Secretary of State’s hands. It provides a clear framework for defining what counts as UK production. It also allows flexibility to set out more detailed rules by regulation on the extent of processing ownership and the evidence required for compliance, while maintaining robust accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 11. He set out the point of it in great detail so I will not repeat what he said but will just emphasise two of the points.

The first is about transparency. It is very important that we are transparent about what we are doing here. Having sustainable aviation fuel and making aviation more sustainable is an important policy goal. It is one that we supported in government and the present Government support, and the principle of it was also supported by the Liberal Democrats. We should just be open about the cost involved in doing it. There are two reasons to be transparent. First, that is how you generate confidence among the public as they can see that aviation is becoming more sustainable. There is a cost involved but that cost is sensible and one they are prepared to pay. Secondly, transparency enables there to be competition or downward pressure on the costs, which is easily missing if the costs are obscured. Having the costs transparent is very helpful and will also mean that different suppliers are not able to hide these costs in their invoicing.

The second point is that I am still unclear about how a mechanism based on market share would work. As well as the lack of clarity and the risk of that leading to overcharging, there is a risk of being backward-looking and looking at historic market share. I am also not clear whether the intention is that different suppliers would, in effect, have different costs being added to what they have to charge, which would seem to have an adverse competitive effect. We want people to bear the cost of the levy, but do not want different suppliers to be picking up a different proportion of that based on their historic market share and then having to charge a different price per litre to competitors. That seems to me to lock in a previous competitive structure and outcome. Part of what we are trying to do here is to encourage new producers and new people to come into the marketplace with new fuels and to enable that competitive process to take place. It is that competitive process that will make sure that we get SAF produced at the lowest possible cost, which is important for consumers. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister and would urge for that clear price per litre of fuel that can be placed on people’s invoices and for transparency.

I also want to speak briefly to Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling. It would place a sunrise clause or a commencement period on Section 6 so that it does not come into force until the first SAF producer is six months away from producing that sustainable aviation fuel in the UK. I think what my noble friend is driving at in this amendment is to make sure that the costs of producing SAF do not start being paid until a domestic plant is almost ready to go and payments to that producer ready to go—that, in effect, we are not starting to charge people in advance and saving up the money on the basis that at some point many years down the road a producer is going to start producing. There is merit in this amendment. Six months may not be the right period but it would be helpful to understand whether the Minister is broadly supportive of the principle and for him to set out the Government’s view on that. That may be an issue that the Government can return to on Report, as the Minister has indicated he will on the earlier group of amendments, or he may have a different way of dealing with the issue raised by my noble friend.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 10 and my consequential Amendment 12 are in this group. This amendment to Clause 6 would replace subsection (3) with a requirement for a standardised levy on aviation fuel, uniform across suppliers, publicly displayed on invoices and expressed in pence per litre.

At the outset I want to make two quick points. First, on these Benches we support this Bill and the principle of the revenue certainty mechanism. Our concern is in relation not to the levy but the method of its deployment and use. As drafted, our worry and the worry of industry is that it is not clear and, in some cases, it creates burdens and frictions in this process for industry, which it would be useful to find a way to avoid. Secondly, my amendment comes from conversations I have had with Valero Energy, one of the UK’s major aviation fuel suppliers. I have no connection with the company. It came to me after the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was tabled. It believes that the proposed text that I have tabled here offers the most effective remedy to the Bill’s flaws.

Having said that, I support the noble Lord’s amendment, and my amendment is very similar. I do not want to repeat the arguments that have already been made here, but I will just reinforce a couple of them. Industry is concerned about this. It feels that it creates fiction, is an inefficient way of doing these things and could slow down investment in the market. It will discourage new entrants, and suppliers will have difficulty planning as they will not have certainty and will need to settle bills at later dates. The department says that this is administratively simple. It might be for government, but industry feels that the opposite is the case and that disincentive is enough that some companies are thinking about the levels of investment they want to make. That, I know, is an outcome that we do not want and the Government do not want either.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and his officials for having a quick meeting with us. I am fully aware that consultations on this matter are ongoing and was greatly reassured by the conversations we had with Ministers. I know that officials are working extremely hard to find a way forward. I am hopeful that between now and Report, with this amendment, a government amendment or some fresh thinking, these issues can be looked at again. This is genuinely to help make sure that the Bill works not just for the Government but for industry and does so in a way that does not create unnecessary friction.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. We are generally supportive of Amendments 7 to 9 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and would be interested in the Minister’s response to them.

However, we have concerns with Amendments 24 and 26, which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Harper. As he said, they would include a sunrise clause in the Bill. These are very large investments that we seek these companies to make in large and substantial plant in this country. I do not think that I would make that level of investment with such conditions attached. I would worry that delaying the payments will create uncertainty and fear for those who want to invest in the jobs and growth we need in this country. It could create a downward, damaging spiral for the investment we need.

However, there may be a need for the Government to have a bit of a further think about how the early days of the levy will operate, and how to talk about reporting back on those processes of early investment—we have already discussed reporting—to show that investment is happening and is on track. That could show that that investment is being monitored and going towards the end process that we all want, with the plants being set up and running, and producing the fuel.

Before I sit down, I point out that we support the Government’s own amendments that have been tabled. If the Minister could just give an update in relation to Scotland, we would welcome that.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for the brief debate on this group of amendments.

Amendments 7, 8, 9, 24 and 26 seek to address how funds from the levy are used. I first reassure noble Lords that moneys raised through the levy will be used only to support eligible SAF plants in the United Kingdom. The purpose of Clause 6 is to provide a power to place a levy on aviation fuel suppliers to meet the costs of payments made by the counterparty to SAF producers and to cover the counterparty’s administrative costs.

Clause 6 restricts the costs incurred by the counterparty in carrying out its functions under the Bill and, under this clause, the levy funds will be used only to meet the costs of the RCM scheme. The majority of the costs will be incurred only once SAF is being produced and sold by producers who have entered into RCM contracts. It is important that the counterparty be able to recover its costs, which include the costs of administering the contracts, the levy and the payment of surpluses. I hope noble Lords will agree that the counterparty should be self-sustainable.

Amendment 9 intends to ensure that there is a specific mandatory point at which the supplier becomes liable to pay the levy. However, the Government’s view is that it is unnecessary, because the Bill already provides that a person becomes liable to pay the levy at the same point when they become liable to an obligation under the SAF mandate. This aligns the levy to the point at which aviation fuel is eligible for certification under the SAF mandate. The Government think that this simplifies the process for fuel suppliers. I remind noble Lords that the regulations made under Clause 6(1) to set out how the levy will work will be subject to scrutiny under the affirmative procedure, which will give Parliament the opportunity to continue to consider the approach.

On Amendments 10, 11 and 12, as has been noted this evening, we are currently consulting on the detailed design of the levy, including the length of time—it certainly will not be years—which will help inform the drafting of levy regulations. The current levy design consultation will conclude on 8 January 2026, which is of course before any levy regulations are laid in Parliament. Final decisions on the levy design will be informed by this consultation and, to be clear, the Bill as drafted does not specify a particular mechanism and allows the Secretary of State to consider a range of options for calculating the levy paid by individual companies.

To reassure the Committee, the Government are alive to the potential impacts of different levy designs. We are working closely with stakeholders to develop a levy design and engage with them regularly to understand their concerns. We recognise industry’s desire for certainty and transparency. We are looking to design the levy in a way that ensures this, while also ensuring fairness and affordability for the consumer. We recognise that the levy must be dynamic and responsive to the changing market, while also ensuring that the counterparty has funds to make payments under the scheme.

The Government are clear that the levy will not be used to generate unnecessary funds and will raise only sufficient moneys to cover the counterparty’s costs under the revenue certainty scheme. While final decisions will be informed by the open consultation, we are exploring options that deliver this. Many of the proposals and options set out in that consultation could help provide greater certainty and transparency. As I have said, the secondary legislation will be laid by affirmative procedure, allowing both Houses to scrutinise its contents.

In addition, as a consequence of the short debate we have just had, I commit to noble Lords that I will brief them before then on what the levy is and how we currently believe it will work. That is in advance of the consultation closing and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right: it will have closed by Report. I think we will then be clearer on how it will work. I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance on these points for noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Earl Russell]

15: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on UK sustainable aviation fuel production(1) The Secretary of State must, in respect of each reporting period, prepare and publish a report on sustainable aviation fuel (“SAF”) produced in the United Kingdom.(2) The report must include—(a) the total volume of SAF produced in the United Kingdom during the reporting period;(b) the types of SAF produced, including the feedstocks and production pathways used;(c) the volume produced for each type identified under paragraph (b);(d) an assessment of the conversion of UK production sites for SAF manufacture;(e) an estimate of the greenhouse gas savings resulting from SAF produced during the reporting period;(f) information reported by air travel providers in relation to their use of SAF;(g) any other information the Secretary of State considers relevant to understanding the United Kingdom’s SAF production capacity and trends.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament within six months of the end of each reporting period.(4) In this section “reporting period” means a period of three years beginning with 1 January 2026 and each subsequent three-year period.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on the production of SAF in the UK and for related purposes.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is on reporting and impact. My Amendment 15 might seem like a straightforward reporting amendment with a duty on the Secretary of State, but I believe it goes to the heart of what we are trying to do here. It will help to support the Government’s own commitment to help us to decarbonise our aviation sector, and to build a credible and sustainable fuel sector here in the United Kingdom.

Knowledge is power, and it is important that we know the impact of the legislation that we pass. It is important, with the revenue certainty mechanism, that we know how it is working in practice, that we have these reports, and that they are available to Parliament and to the public. This will also help to ensure that sufficient volumes of SAF are being produced to meet the mandate and to ensure the transparency of the monitoring mechanisms. The Government’s “jet zero” strategy recognises that SAF could deliver 32% of the emissions reductions needed by 2050, yet we have no consistent public data on how much SAF is already being produced, the types that will be developed, and where the bottlenecks might lie in the future system.

This amendment does what it says on the tin. It seeks to help answer some of those questions and to help the monitoring process. It would give Parliament and the public the evidence that they need to hold this policy to account. It would also help the sector to have confidence that the transition is coming, and that in turn would provide greater confidence for those who wish to invest in this sector. Reporting is a common requirement—we see it in the renewable energy sector, in the transport sector, and in the electric vehicle update—yet it is missing in this Bill. I believe it is important to put it in, and I do not believe that it would impose undue bureaucracy on the Government or their officials. Indeed, it would help to deliver clarity to everybody. That is all I want to say on the amendment: it speaks for itself.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. I support my noble friend Lady Pidgeon’s Amendments 16 and 17; I will let her speak to them. Amendment 19A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, calls for a report no later than three years after the day on which the Act is passed. That report will assess the impact of the revenue support mechanism for sustainable aviation fuel on deforestation outside the United Kingdom, and land use change outside the United Kingdom arising from the cultivation, harvesting or production of feedstocks for sustainable aviation fuel.

I am pleased to support Amendment 19A. It is sensible and essential to the Bill. Without proper monitoring, there is a risk that the UK’s incentives for SAF could inadvertently drive deforestation or damaging land use changes overseas, undermining our climate and biodiversity goals. By requiring the Government to report on international land use impacts, this provision would introduce transparency and accountability into the policy framework. It would help to ensure that the public subsidies truly create sustainable fuels and would help to drive us away from using feedstocks. This is a useful amendment. We cannot have our own decarbonisation at the expense of others. Therefore, it is important that these matters are monitored. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, as we have been debating, this is an emerging field in terms of technology and production in the UK. That is why the Bill is here: to introduce the revenue certainty mechanism for the sector to help support its development and growth. Alongside this, it is important that we have transparency throughout the implementation of the Bill and about the reality in the sector. We have heard much the same from my noble friend Lord Russell and other noble Lords in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and important debate. It is informative that the whole of this side of the House believes—as I think the Minister does as well— in the importance of transparency, reporting and data. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response, and I recognise the work the Government are doing in various places to publish the relevant information.

Having said that, I have two issues. First, this information is not necessarily collected together in one place as a coherent whole, where it would be possible to review the impact the Bill is having and how it and the revenue certainty mechanism are operating in practice. Secondly, there are the broader issues relating to the impact of different types of fuel and their possible impact on other countries.

I welcome the offer that has been made; it is one for all of us to think a bit more about between now and Report. I would not want to duplicate information that was already gathered; on the other hand, I would not want information to exist in lots of disparate places and not be a coherent and usable whole, or for there to be any gaps in that information. This is one for all of us to go away and think about further, but I am grateful for the Minister’s response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

It is a very important subject, because we have already complained that the Government are being given great latitude on the design of the levy, without very much, or indeed any, parliamentary scrutiny beyond the affirmative procedure that will arise later. Here, we are giving them, perhaps unwittingly, a huge range from which they might choose what to subsidise. This could be, and should be, narrowed. In the meantime, let us hear what the Minister has to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and myself about these two amendments.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their amendments; this is one of the really interesting groups. In response to what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said about knocking out fuels, I can probably sum up my speech by saying that I am not certain that knocking out fuels is the best thing to do in the transition; we might need to limit the time the revenue certainty mechanism applies to certain fuels. That might be where I am coming from.

Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to

“include nuclear-derived power-to-liquid fuels in the scope of sustainable aviation fuels for which Revenue Certainty Contracts can be offered, and remove food crops, using the same definition of ‘relevant crops’ as the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order for surface transport”.

While we recognise and support the ambition behind this amendment—promoting nuclear-derived and more sustainably-derived stuff, thus reducing carbon emissions —we would welcome the Government’s response to the idea of including nuclear-derived power-to-liquid fuels. Our questions relate more to the complete removal of biomass from the revenue certainty mechanism.

I suspect the Minister might say that this technology in relation to the nuclear side is not ready, and we would not disagree. But my question back to the Minister would be: how do the Government plan—if they do indeed plan—to bring these into the revenue certainty mechanism? How will that be done, what is the timescale for doing that, and is it something that can be done by secondary legislation?

We recognise that biomass has some use as a SAF, particularly in the early stages of SAF use. At the same time, we recognise the limitations of biomass as a sustainable fuel and its impact on any use at scale. This amendment raises some fundamental questions about the plans for the revenue certainty mechanism, its role in relation to different technologies for SAF production and how it is best used to advance the aim of zero-carbon flight.

I will be honest: we have some difficult challenges and questions to answer, and this group has certainly raised those. It can certainly be argued, as the noble Lord has done, that crop-based biofuels should not be given long-term support under the revenue certainty mechanism, as production pathways for these fuels are already commercialised at scale, as has been said. It can also be argued that crop-based biofuels offer relatively small CO₂ carbon savings compared with fossil fuels, that they compete with food and can create biodiversity loss in other countries. However, crop-based fuels offer some CO₂ savings when there are very few other options available today at scale.

However, with very few alternatives to reduce carbon emissions from aviation today, the revenue certainty mechanism could also be an important intermediate step in this continuous journey of decarbonisation. So, while we support nuclear derived power-to-liquid, and we share a desire to limit the use of the RCM to support bio crops, this amendment opens some complex policy decisions which need a lot of careful thought. What we are doing here is planning a journey. On that road, we will have different fuels that will jump in and out as we move along it. A lot of the questions that are being asked in this group are around how the Government plan to have those fuels come in and drop out, how that that be done and scrutinised and how the mechanisms will change. The same is true in relation to Amendment 22, on HEFA. The arguments I would make around that are the same.

This is a really important group of amendments, and there is a lot to think about in this space.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked some questions in relation to Amendment 19 in his closing remarks. I will write to him and provide a copy to all noble Lords about standing by the cost-benefit analysis on ticket prices and how we can control the cost to passengers by controlling costs through the allocation process. For good measure, I will also clarify the phrase “per year”.

On Amendment 21, I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, to exclude crops from the revenue certainty mechanism. Several other noble Lords also spoke about their concerns on growing crops for purposes other than food at Second Reading. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, just now, was realistic about some of the practicalities of doing so. The sustainability criteria in the revenue certainty mechanism will align with the criteria in the SAF mandate.

As I mentioned before, there will be a call for evidence shortly, focusing on the potential benefits, risks and trade-offs of using crops in SAF production. The scope of the call for evidence will include different types of crops, including feed crops, dedicated energy crops and cover crops. While this call for evidence will neither propose any changes to the SAF mandate nor signal the future direction of the mandate, we would not want to expressly exclude SAF derived from relevant crops from the scope of the RCM if they might be included in the SAF mandate in the future.

We will, of course, continue to engage with industry on these issues. I echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this is developing and things will change over time. We need to understand it, and that call for evidence is part of that process.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to nuclear eligibility. We will match that in the SAF mandate. We are already supporting nuclear through the advanced fuels fund, which we believe to be right.

Turning to Amendment 22, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that HEFA SAF—I hate these acronyms—has already overcome many of the barriers to investment. For that reason, in our response to the first consultation on RCM, we announced that HEFA SAF projects will be excluded from the first round of contract allocation. I hope what I have said is sufficient to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we too look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, and we welcome him to the House. We are generally supportive of the measures in the Bill but have some concerns about areas of government policy that lie beyond its scope, and a few questions about the details.

To put the 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 we face. Aviation is, of course, one of the hardest sectors to abate and it is expected to show continued and rapid upward growth. Aviation 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 £14 billion in GVA to UK GDP. The industry also supports 1 million associated jobs and £4.2 billion in associated passenger duty. Aviation accounts for 7% of 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 the Bill, we will not meet our targets. Net zero 2050 is not optional; it is imperative.

We on these Benches do not wish to challenge any UK family’s right to a holiday. When we debate the Bill, we need to be clear that 15% of people in this country take 70% of the flights, and we need to change that. The Climate Change Committee was clear in 2023 when it said that SAF alone is a risky strategy. My party would reform air passenger duty to target the most frequent flyers. We would ensure that we have an escalating passenger duty so that those who fly the most frequently, pay more. We also oppose overexpansion of the airports, particularly in the south-east. This Government have chosen to take a different path, and it is for them to balance this path of increased airport expansion against their climate change commitments and targets. Therefore, we welcome the Bill but note our caveats.

SAF is widely considered as the main available pathway to decarbonise aviation. It can cut lifecycle emissions by up to 70% compared with conventional jet fuel. As we have heard, it is a drop-in 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, the obligation will remain at 22% unless there is greater certainty of supply. The SAF mandate could, it is claimed, deliver up to 6.3 megatons of carbon savings each year by 2040.

We on these Benches welcome the revenue certainty mechanism. It will serve to strengthen investor confidence and unlock significant capital investment in the production facilities that need to be based here in the UK. It will allow for long-term stability and contracts through the guaranteed strike price. As the Minister said, this mechanism has been widely used in the renewables sector, and we know that it works. It will provide certainty to these suppliers. The approach is logical. The industry stands to benefit from cheaper staff, and the cost will be spread widely throughout the industry.

We recognise the UK’s approach, the long-term mandate, the proposed revenue support and the degree of certainty 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 homegrown low-carbon fuel sector will bring significant jobs and benefits to the UK industry and wider society. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of ongoing negotiations with industry, running parallel with the Bill? Further, when will the Government be able to provide details on how the strike price will be set and what mechanisms will exist for adjustments? When do the Government anticipate that the first contracts will be signed?

While we welcome the Bill, we stress that SAF is only a first step. This is about not merely blending fuels but seeking alternative, more sustainable climate-friendly options for the longer term. That needs continuous investment and innovation in the next generations of technologies, including the battery/electric and hydrogen-fuelled. The Bill sets the policy framework, but crucial details are left to subsequent negotiations.

We have 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. This means that 78% of fuels will still be polluting just a decade before our net-zero deadline, so how will the Government achieve this target? In addition, the European Union has a higher target of 70% by 2050. What action will the Government take to bring further alignment not just with our EU partners but internationally?

We also have concerns about SAF feedstocks and the amount of cooking oil that is imported. It is important that we have a reliable domestic supply. We also note concerns about bioethanol and the closure of plants, particularly the Vivergo plant in Hull, and the impact of the US trade deal and subsidies on US ethanol. We are concerned about the potential for future bioethanol plant closures.

What consideration have the Government given to the inclusion of intermediate cover crops, such as catch and cover, as a scalable feedstock outside the HEFA cap to expand the resource base without competing with food markets? We believe that the transition to a sustainable aviation industry must be strategically linked to our existing industrial base. What actions are the Government taking to see that existing industrial plants are brought back into use, make sure that the planning system is fit for purpose and ensure that these plants can be brought online quickly?

While the Government are committed to undertaking a comprehensive assessment of these industrial sites to see that they are brought back online, transparency is paramount given the importance of public trust and accountability. The funding levy should also not place undue financial burden on air travellers, so how will the Government review the impacts to ensure that the levy does not include further burdens on those travellers? For the sake of public accountability, are the Government amenable to ensuring that the airlines report publicly on their use of SAF and the amount of it that they supply? We broadly welcome this Bill, but the Bill alone is not a sustainable long-term solution, and we call for greater monetary transparency and openness.

International Maritime Organization: Net-Zero Framework

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I recognise that the noble Lord has extensive experience. However, I think he must agree that the subject under discussion—last week’s decision to defer—is far from the only thing that the International Maritime Organization does. Some of the things he has listed are, of course, very important. I have no doubt that we will press the IMO not only to move forward with the decarbonisation agenda but to deal with the things on his list.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, these really important negotiations were effectively torpedoed by the Trump Administration using quite unpleasant tactics at the last moment. What reassessment are the UK Government making of how we can further our international climate objectives, with those who support us, in the wake of a more hostile American Administration?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

If we are to play the role in the IMO that we should, we have to respect the policy positions of other IMO member states. That means working with people who support our position and trying to persuade those who do not that they are wrong and that they should change. Following last week’s decision, this is precisely what we will continue to do with new vigour.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Earl Russell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the principle of what the noble Lord is suggesting, but with a “but”, which I hope the Minister will give some careful thought to across the summer before we come back to debates in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is absolutely right that CCUS is extremely important to this country, needs to be progressed expeditiously and provides an important part of how we deal with carbon emissions in the atmosphere, so he is right to bring forward this proposal. My “but” is more broadly related to the range of types of project covered by NSIP. I declare my interests as an adviser to Hutchison Ports and to AtkinsRéalis.

My concern is more about the implications of more and more categories of project being covered by these processes. The issue I want the Minister to address across the summer, before we come to it in Part 3, is that this legislation, when it comes to major projects of this kind, allows developers to simply move ahead, provide compensation to the fund that the Government are setting up and, in effect, clear a site. I strongly believe that the balance of presumption should be that a developer has a duty to examine what is on a site and to take precautionary measures around the biodiversity on that site before they come to take action away from that site. The more we grant permission to those seeking to pursue major projects simply to move away from any environmental responsibilities, the more damage will be done to biodiversity and our environment.

It is not that we do not need change. I was involved very clearly as Secretary of State in the process of taking the expansion of Heathrow Airport through Parliament six years ago, and there were some issues we faced that were nonsensical around the way the habitats directive was applied and which I think defied all realistic common sense. Change is clearly needed, and I accept the principle of what the Government are doing, but I want to see the precautionary principle left in or put back into the legislation, requiring a developer, whether for CCUS or another kind of major project, to look carefully at what is on a site and at how they ameliorate the impacts before they can simply pay money into a fund and wash their hands of what is on the site. My request to the Minister, as he thinks this through across the summer, is to look at what could be done with the legislation to stop the slash-and-burn approach and to leave us with proper safeguards for nature but also to allow us to move ahead with precisely the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is rightly saying we need to do.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to both amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. On these Benches, we broadly support Amendment 51 and we support Amendment 91. Amendment 51 seeks to amend the Planning Act 2008 to clarify that carbon dioxide spur pipelines and carbon capture equipment are eligible for nationally significant infrastructure project designation. Amendment 91 seeks to directly amend the Pipe-Lines Act 1962 to remove the requirement for special parliamentary procedure in cases where a compulsory purchase order is made for a CO₂ pipeline used for carbon capture and storage. Both amendments, in their different ways, seek to make practical changes to help speed up the building and development of carbon capture and storage projects.

The Climate Change Committee was clear that there is no route to net zero without carbon capture and storage. Going forward, we need this technology, particularly for the hard-to-abate industries such as cement and glass, where we have to capture CO₂.

On these Benches, we support carbon capture and storage. It is a key part of our strategy on climate change and to achieve net zero, and we are committed to accelerating the development of such technologies to help further reduce and control our emissions. Indeed, the UK is in a good place for doing this: we have an estimated 78 billion tonnes of CO₂ storage capacity under the seabed in the North Sea from our old oil wells and as part of that declining basin.

I spent a bit of time last night trying to understand the NSIP system around carbon capture and storage. I must admit that I ended up scratching my head a little, because it is not the clearest thing I have ever read, so the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has definitely picked up on an important issue. Trying to understand which bits of carbon capture and storage are NSIP and which are not is easier said than done, so we recognise the need for clarity around these points.

My only real worry with the amendment is that the landscape, as it exists now for planning, is complicated. I took particular note of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that it was a spur of pipelines of less than 10 miles in length, but “less than 10 miles in length” is not in the wording of his amendment. I worry a little bit about whether the definitions the noble Lord has put forward will fit with the existing regulations and that complicated landscape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we fully recognise the need for nuclear power and nuclear generation to be part of our baseload capacity, which is needed to combine with renewables as we transition to clean power. I have the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, his work and everything that he has done for energy transition. However, I am surprised that he calls these regulations “ludicrous”, “arcane” and “wasteful”. It may be that the broader landscape needs reform and he is able to raise his points with an amendment, but clearly an amendment is not a way to look at the reform of this stuff.

I worry that, were we to rip up regulation in haste, we would repent at leisure. These measures are completely different from the planning process. They are designed for new types of nuclear generation technology, to check whether new designs are safe and fit for purpose. I do not see them as duplicative; they are separate to the operation of the planning system and fulfil different functions. My worry is that, were these two to go ahead in this way, they would serve to undermine confidence in the safety and security of the nuclear processes that we have in this country. Indeed, this is an international standard that is recognised by the ICRP and in the EU and is used around the world.

It takes up to 18 months to undergo these processes, but they start before planning. I do not see exactly how, even if this amendment was successful, it would do much to speed up the new nuclear generation that is needed. The noble Lord’s central argument is that these are duplicative—I do not agree; I think that they are separate—and that passing this amendment would speed up the process of getting new nuclear power. Since the process at issue happens first, I do not think that is the case either.

We will not support the noble Lord’s amendment. Obviously, all regulations need to be kept under review and, if the Government want to do that, we are open to it. However, I do not think that an amendment here is the way—other than to pressure the Government—to look at these things with a broader scope, so we will not support the noble Lord on his amendment.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 53B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, proposes a sensible and pragmatic change to the current requirement that, before a nuclear power station is built, an assessment must be made as to whether the social, economic and other benefits outweigh the health detriment caused by ionising radiation. The amendment seeks to disapply this requirement in cases where planning consent has already been granted.

This change is both timely and necessary. We must look carefully at how to prevent nuclear power projects from being blocked or delayed, especially in the context of a wider energy landscape. Notably, the Government are currently presiding over the highest prices for offshore wind in a decade, which highlights the urgent need for diverse, affordable, reliable and resilient energy sources. Nuclear power stations provide that critical alternative—one that is essential to the UK’s growing demand for electricity in a cost-effective and secure manner.

Noble Lords across the House can agree on the vital importance of nuclear energy to our energy strategy. Nuclear energy remains a cornerstone for delivering a cheap, stable and low-carbon supply of electricity. It is crucial not only to meet our ambitious climate commitments but to safeguard energy security in an increasingly unpredictable world. The reliability of nuclear power provides a steady backbone to the electricity grid. As such, it is an indispensable part of our efforts to build a resilient energy system.

We acknowledge that we need rigorous planning and regulatory processes, but these are already in place for nuclear projects. These processes thoroughly assess health and safety concerns, including the risk posed by ionising radiation. While I might not go as far as some other noble Lords today about “wasteful”, “useless” and “byzantine” regulation, I certainly believe that it is duplicative. We therefore do not need to do it again, if planning consent has already been granted and has already assessed those risks. It would create unnecessary complexity and delays, without delivering any meaningful public benefit.

Where planning consent has already been obtained, following comprehensive scrutiny, it is entirely reasonable to disapply this further requirement. Doing so would streamline the development process, reduce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and support the timely delivery of vital infrastructure projects, which are so central to the UK’s energy future. For these reasons, we hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the concerns raised in relation to this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed a number of amendments in this group, so while noble Lords will know that I do not normally speak on transport, I am speaking on my noble friend’s behalf this afternoon.

I begin with the very interesting comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas: the efficient use of a charger would mean it being used by more than one person. I would go rather further than that and say that what we want is an efficient use of cars: them being used by more than one person. The practical reality, of course, is that most cars spend the vast amount of their time stationary, occupying public space when they are parked on the road. Coming to an arrangement is where Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, comes in, requiring

“local planning authorities in England to publish and regularly update a three-year electric vehicle charging infrastructure plan”.

That charging infrastructure plan would ideally very much look at that car club kind of model, which could potentially free up large amounts of space in our cities to be put to much better use than simply being occupied by a stationary vehicle 96% of the time—that is the last figure I saw of the amount of time that cars are stationary.

It should be noted that my noble friend did not sign any of the cross-pavement charging solutions. I know that Caroline Russell, the Green London Assembly member, would not forgive me if I did not make the point that, whatever we say about charging across the pavement, the first priority has to be pedestrians, particularly vulnerable pedestrians. We must make sure that anything that is installed or allowed does not create even greater difficulties, on what is already a very difficult streetscape on many occasions, for pedestrians, particularly vulnerable pedestrians, with wheelchairs, buggies et cetera. I note, perhaps declaring an interest, that when I was in Camden I would regularly try not to trip over the electric cable that my boss at the time trailed out of his house and across the pavement out to his car on the street. Because he was my boss, I was not quite allowed to do anything about it.

I want to focus mostly on Amendments 64 and 67, which are about heavy goods vehicles. This is a crucial issue for the environment and for public health. At the moment, fewer than 1% of new HGVs sold are electric, and there are 500,000 HGVs in the British fleet. At the moment, they are emitting the equivalent of 20 megatonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year—the same as 2 million homes. They are also particularly bad in terms of emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, which have very significant impacts on public health. That tends to particularly strike in poorer, more disadvantaged areas—think about the homes along busy main roads, which tend to be where people who already have poorer health live. There is also the point that EVs are much quieter, which has significant public health impacts, and they are also better to drive. One of the things we have in terms of HGVs is an ageing driving population, and something that is easier to drive is a significant issue there.

I also note that the Government currently have a plug-in truck grant, with a discount for those who purchase them of up to £25,000. There is a push there, and the Government are spending money on it, but what is lacking at the moment is the general charging infrastructure, and these two amendments seek to have a programme and to make sure that when new depots and other infrastructure is being built, they are covered. I note that at the moment there is still an issue about the speed of charging, but megawatt charging is on the way. When we come to later amendments that my noble friend also signed, we also have to think about the infrastructure of distribution of electricity, to make sure that it is able to cater to that very heavy demand. I think there are very strong arguments here for a concerted, planned and organised approach. What we have now is extremely ad hoc, and in far too many cases we are seeing people literally trailing a cord across the pavement, which is a really bad idea for all kinds of reasons.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the fact that there are so many amendments on the issue of electric vehicles and electric HGVs shows, to my mind, that the Government have slightly missed a trick in not using the Bill as an opportunity to do more to roll out EVs and EV lorries and small vans, and on door-to-door delivery mechanisms, particularly as the targets and the timelines are coming up so quickly.

I hope the amendment will cause the Government to reflect on that and that more progress can be made in this Bill, because it is a real opportunity. It would be remiss of the Government not to seize it, because it lies at the heart of what they are trying to do in the stated purposes of the Bill. I very much welcome the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady Pidgeon. I will speak particularly to Amendments 57 and 58, but I generally support all the amendments in this group.

Private cars are responsible for some 13% of the UK’s total CO₂ emissions—some 60.2 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent in 2023. They are the largest single source within the transport sector, which as a whole is responsible for around 30% of our emissions. Road vehicles, including cars, make up the vast majority of them. Emissions from cars have been declining since 2005, but we still have a long way to go if we are to hit our climate targets, and the time we have to make these changes is fast running out.

The take-up of electric cars is, thankfully, growing. As of mid-2025, around 4% of the approximately 34 million registered cars on UK roads are EVs, totalling about 1.3 million. This goes up to about 7% if we include hybrid vehicles. The Climate Change Committee has been clear that we have further to go and need to do more. Rolling out EVs and making them affordable and practical is a key part of our pathway to net zero. We need to work together as politicians to make sure that we can overcome all the practical obstacles we have heard about, including the cost of affording the car in the first place. We need to make sure that, when people own these electric cars, they can afford to charge them and get the benefits that come only from being able to do so via their home charging points—at night and on a proper tariff that saves them money. If we do not do those things, people will just not make that transition away from petrol and diesel cars in time. We need to make those pull factors work for people. It is really important.

We have seen price reductions in the vehicles, increased government support and the continuing rollout of national charging infrastructure. Taken together, all these measures are helping to change consumers’ choices. We welcome the other efforts that the Government are making: the UK now has 73,000 public charging points—that is welcome—and the charging network rollout is helping to overcome some of the real fears with these things. The projection is that we could have 25 million EVs on UK roads by 2040. The biggest barriers to the take-up of EVs commonly cited are a lack of charging infrastructure, range anxiety—although that technology is improving—and the higher costs of running the cars. This is what we have talked about—making sure that people can plug them in at home.

We really welcome these amendments. It is not good enough that people are facing £3,000 of costs to get this planning stuff done and are waiting 12 to 15 months simply to run a cable across the pavement. As my noble friend said, 40% of people do not have a driveway at home, so cannot do this. This really needs to happen.

I also welcome all the amendments on HGV charging. This is particularly important for last-mile delivery and smaller-scale vans so that we can continue to tackle the scourge of air pollution, which is so damaging to our young people in particular and is such a radical cause of asthma. Luckily, we are beginning to see changes in that space.

We welcome these amendments and we think this really needs to happen. We encourage the Government to go away and think about how they can do more to bring about a joined-up policy on these issues through this Bill. There is more that can be done through the proposed legislation to help bring about the changes that we all want.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I echo many of the comments that have been made, and I strongly welcome the intention from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in bringing this matter to the Committee towards the end of the day and considering the issue in depth through a range of amendments. She was admirably supported by my noble friend Lord Lansley. I think the Government will have taken on board the widespread enthusiasm for doing everything possible to move forward against some of the serious practical difficulties that exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the evident enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and I thank him for moving this amendment.

With an amendment with the headline of planting trees next to new roads, I have to begin by pointing out that, if you are talking about highways and so on, we should not be building new roads. All too often, we are destroying wonderful pieces of nature. I am thinking of standing beside a wonderful oak tree, which would have been a sapling when Elizabeth I was on the Throne, that was threatened by the Norwich link road, Western Link. Luckily, it appears to have been saved by barbastelle bats. Sometimes the bats do win.

Nonetheless, I very much support this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, has made the case for it strongly. I declare an interest, as we are talking about old times, as one of those campaigning to save Sheffield’s trees, which helped to highlight to the nation the benefits of street trees and how important they are to human health and well-being. That is what we are talking about here, as well as biodiversity and nature.

Given the time, I will say just one other thing. I think the noble Lord alluded to this, but it is worth stressing that when we think about trees and other plantings, we think that it is good for the trees, but it is absolutely crucial for other wildlife. We should be ensuring that roads are, as much as they can possibly be, wildlife corridors. Birds are the obvious thing to think about here, but many noble Lords will be aware of the phrase “insectageddon”. The populations at the base of our food web have been collapsing, and plantings beside roads and in urban areas should provide some sort of refuge and restoration here.

I referred previously to the fact that we are not meeting the legal target to reverse the decline in nature by 2030, which of course is in the Environment Act. I will just say one final thing. Noble Lords might be thinking that I am getting fairly small with insects, but I also want to focus on the importance of a rich microbial and fungal world. Just yesterday, the Society for the Protection of Underground Networks produced some really important work pointing out that very few fungal biodiversity hotspots are in protected areas, and we need to have a healthy environment. We need to think about all elements of life in the web in which all our bodies actually live. This is just a small step, but I think it is a very sensible and practical one.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I really appreciate this amendment being tabled and the manner and the style in which it was presented. I welcome the noble Lord’s comments and speeches in this space.

Amendment 60 requires guidance around the planting of trees on highways to be issued within six months of the Act coming into force. As the noble Lord said, this does not require great expense. We feel that it is a helpful, useful measure. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that this is not about development versus nature. Actually, we need both, and both need to be conjoined and considered together, because we, as people who live in the new developments, who need to thrive and not just survive, need these things to work. They are better for all of us. They reduce health inequalities, they make us happier and healthier, and they make our lives more pleasant.

One example came to my mind on this: the work that was done on the upgrade to the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon, which opened in 2020. As part of the upgrade programme, 850,000 saplings were planted by the Highways Agency. Unfortunately, it was done in extreme heat and in poor soils, as a result of which three-quarters of the trees—roughly half a million—that the Highways Agency planted died. They are being replanted, at a cost of £2.9 million, which raises an issue about how we replant nature. Again, I do not want to go into Part 3, but there are obviously issues with trying to replicate nature or move nature from one place to another, and this is a very stark example of that.

Going beyond that, local communities really got involved in this area and I want to thank them, because people went out and planted trees themselves, cared for and nurtured them, and did a great job in trying to put right some of the mess. Some of the trees that were planted were the wrong types of trees; they did not have enough soil around them, so they dried out; the soil they were planted in was bad; the saplings were too young—generally it was not very well done and the trees that were planted were not cared for and nurtured. What tends to happen is that there is a concentration on numbers—it is a numbers game. Every party had a tree-planting commitment in its manifesto—“My tree-planting commitment is bigger than yours”—and that is not what we need. We need trees to be cared for and nurtured.

I suggest politely to the Government that they should focus not on numbers planted but the numbers in five years’ time. How many trees, five years after the planting, actually survive and are counted? If there are not enough, more planting should be done. Trees are really important. This is a valuable opportunity for the Government to look at the strategies and for us to have a broader look at how we do this. So I really welcome this amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support my noble friend’s amendment and the speeches that have been made. Getting good guidance published makes a lot of difference. There are always reasons why a local developer or authority will not do what is best. One can hope that a big authority would have good practices; our big local authority has decided to mow all its wildflower verges in the middle of June—sigh.

Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Will the Minister take a look at regulations? If he can see, as I can, a space there, will he consider saying that if a company comes forward with a safe design for a cheap, low-range, low-speed and weatherproof electric passenger vehicle—for one driver and two passengers, or that sort of size—the Government will support changes of regulations which will make marketing that possible to see if someone will take advantage of that opportunity? Certainly, I would be a customer.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I will first turn to the regulations and then to the fatal amendment.

The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome these regulations, which represent a sensible step forward in facilitating our transition to zero-emission vehicles. Zero-emission vehicles, or ZEVs, such as those that are fully electric or hydrogen powered, are often heavier than our petrol or diesel equivalents. This additional weight is primarily due to the weight of the batteries. Since weight has been mentioned in this debate, I will just say that although electric vehicles are heavier than cars of the equivalent size, they are not heavier than the vans, buses, lorries or lots of other things that use our roads.

Previously, this extra weight could push these vehicles into higher driving licence categories, such as category C or C1, requiring drivers to undergo additional training, testing and, potentially, medical examinations and professional competency certificates. Regulations introduced in 2018 attempted to address this by allowing category B licence holders to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tonnes but only under specific conditions: five hours of additional training, driving only to transport goods and no towing ability. These conditions, however, have proven to be an unnecessary barrier to the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, with the cost, time and training required being prohibitive for businesses.

These new regulations remove these previous conditions, allowing standard category B licence holders to drive ZEVs up to 4.25 tonnes without the additional five hours training or restriction on goods transport only. This will significantly reduce the regulatory and financial burden on businesses and individuals looking to switch to cleaner vehicles. This should be something that the Conservative Party welcomes—I understand that it is a party all about removing unnecessary regulations for business.

These regulations also allow the towing of a trailer, provided the combined weight does not exceed 7 tonnes, bringing ZEVs in line with petrol and diesel counterparts in this regard. Furthermore, important provisions are included to support drivers and passengers with disabilities, allowing ZEVs with specialist equipment to weigh up to 5 tonnes on a category B licence. This is very welcome and ensures equitable access to the benefits of these regulations. There is more to do in this space to ensure equal access in terms of the design placement of batteries, which inherently restrict disabled use and access to future autonomous vehicles by disabled people.

These Benches support the decisions to narrow the scope of this flexibility from alternatively fuelled vehicles to specifically zero-emission vehicles. While alternatively fuelled vehicles produce less CO₂ than petrol or diesel, they still produce emissions. Focusing these licence flexibilities solely on ZEVs aligns with the cross-party consensus and the Government’s commitment for all new cars and vans to be zero-emission by 2035 and our legally binding net-zero obligations. It rightly supports the cleanest vehicles.

However, as we have heard, concerns have been raised about the removal of the five-hour training requirement, which was previously considered necessary, requiring questions about potential impacts on road safety. While the Department for Transport assessed the risk of removing the conditions as very low, based on current, albeit limited data—the Minister mentioned very few cases—concerns have been raised that heavier vehicles could lead to more severe damaging collisions, particularly involving lighter vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Indeed, this was an issue that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised.

Against this, we note that these modern vehicles inherently have more safety features, including systems such as collision avoidance. I ask the Minister how the department will

“closely monitor incident data as it becomes available”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/25; col. 375.]

I ask what specific matrix will be tracked and what thresholds could trigger “swift action” to protect the public if a concerning trend does emerge? What is the timeline for publishing the detailed safety guidance? What steps will be taken to actively disseminate it to drivers and businesses, particularly those who run electric fleet vehicles? I call on the Minister to commit to publishing a full and transparent review of all the safety data within two years and for that review to be made public.

Finally, the target for new EVs by 2035 is UK-wide. The Minister has mentioned this, but we have concerns about the fact that this does not extend to Northern Ireland. The Minister has been clear that this is something for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I wish to ensure that we have uniformity of regulations across the whole of the United Kingdom, so I encourage the Minister to continue those conversations with colleagues to make sure that we have the same regulations across our isles.

I turn to the fatal amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is not fatal.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I apologise—the amendment. This seeks to broaden the scope of these regulations to include alternatively fuelled vehicles that are not zero-emission.

I question the perceived need for such a change, to be honest, and what benefits would flow were it to be passed. The Government’s policy, which we support, is rightly focused on promoting zero-emission vehicles in line with our climate targets. Diluting this focus to extend the weight uplift flexibility to vehicles that still produce CO₂ emissions would undermine the clear objectives of supporting the transition to the cleanest vehicles.

Furthermore, alternative fuel vehicles are not subject to the inherent weight disadvantages as they have no need for heavier battery packs, so are not caught out by the previous regulations. They do not have the same excess weight. Gas-powered vehicles such as vans are the main type of alternative fuel vehicles which were in scope of the old regulations but not in scope of the new ones. But, as the Minister has said, the Government’s impact assessment found that as of December last year there were only 28 of these vehicles on our roads in the whole of the UK. Presumably, those drivers have already undergone all their training needs.

The Government’s impact assessment also highlighted that manufacturers do not have provisions to manufacture great numbers more of these vehicles. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats will support the government regulations, but we call for a full safety review to be completed in the next two years. If the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, calls a Division, we will not support it—we will abstain.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. Having listened closely to the concerns expressed, I will respond to the points raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, started with the state of the roads and potholes. I admire his brave actions in driving around the roads of Oxfordshire at the weekend. He says the Government are doing nothing about it. That is far from true. The Government announced a £1.6 billion investment in the state of the roads and remedying potholes only in April. Incidentally, the damage to the roads is an exponential function of vehicle weight. A heavy lorry does far more damage to a road surface than an electric car, or indeed one of these vehicles at 4.25 tonnes rather than 3.5 tonnes. The noble Lord noted that he accepts the principle of these regulations on safety grounds.

The message to synthetic and alternative fuel manufacturers is not that they do not matter—what they are doing is valuable. The noble Lord knows, and he quoted paragraph 5.6, that it reduces carbon emissions, but in the end does not eliminate them.

The noble Lord is—or his party and the previous Government were—committed to decarbonising transport. Earlier this afternoon my noble friend Lord Katz answered the noble Lord’s question with the quotation:

“I believe that the struggle for decarbonised transport, clean development and clean air is as important as the struggle for clean water was in the 19th century”.


They are the words of Grant Shapps, the former Conservative Transport Secretary, and were as apposite a response to the earlier question as they are now to this debate. Decarbonisation is really important and prioritising vehicles that have zero emissions is really important for this Government.

The noble Lord also referred to driving tests, and he is right that the position that this Government inherited was dreadful—there were many, many people waiting for them. I have already answered questions in this House about reducing waiting times and recruiting more instructors, but it will take time to do that because remedying this position is not immediate. The Government’s aim is to reduce waiting times to seven weeks by summer 2026, and we will achieve that.

The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred to the effects of kinetic energy. He is right that mass matters in road accidents, but the Government have looked into this quite seriously and the available data suggests that 3.5 tonne to 4.25 tonne electric vehicles are no more likely than their 3.5 tonne petrol and diesel equivalents to be involved in collisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am very grateful. That is something the Minister should respond to. I shall not comment further on it other than to say that it is a useful thing to know. But the BMW i3 is not £1,500; it costs a great deal more, and that is beyond the scope of the majority of people.

My noble friend Lord Goschen and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a point about road safety. The Government have given assurances on this. Although I am happy to accept those assurances for today, they will be held to them. We will expect those changes to be monitored for their road safety effects. The Minister has said that and we will hold him to it—it is a very important consideration.

Concerning the state of the roads, much has been made by the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the fact that a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. I know that. Everybody knows a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car. It has the word “heavy” in its name. The key difference is that there are 33 million cars in this country. There are 500,000 heavy goods vehicles. The damage being done to our roads is not, as I said in my opening remarks, because of the occasional passage of a heavy goods vehicle down a lane in Oxfordshire. It is done by the relentless passage of heavier and heavier cars across those roads, which is not only leading to potholes but breaking up the base and creating a huge maintenance and restoration bill for our roads that will not, in my view, be properly addressed by £1.6 billion.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Government were given the opportunity to reject the notion that they were going to manipulate driving licences and the conditions on driving licences to achieve objectives related not to road safety or vehicles but to net-zero policy. That would open a door to further manipulation in the future, which could well be used to disadvantage—as the price of a BMW i3 already disadvantages—people on lower incomes. The Government took no opportunity to reject that. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, endorsed it and thought it was a very good idea. That is a cloud perhaps no larger than a man’s hand, but it will come back—

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I think there is confusion here. This regulation is fundamentally about removing restrictions, not placing them. I think the noble Lord is confused on this point.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Do I have to read out paragraph 5.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum again? I thought not. I think it is engraved in the minds of most noble Lords that the purpose of the differential lifting of these restrictions is to achieve our net-zero policies. I should not have to read out the whole of the paragraph, because the noble Earl, Lord Russell, read it out verbatim, as if it were part of his speech. In fact, this paragraph was cut and pasted into his speech, so why should I have to remind him? I think he is the one who is likely to be more confused. This is a very dangerous door the Government have opened, and it will cost them votes when people realise what they are doing.

In the meantime, with that remark, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the Government’s Motion.