Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Debate between Lord Harper and Lord Moylan

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this short debate. It is almost certainly my fault, and I will probably need to be mildly humiliated as I am corrected on the topic, but we have discussed the length of contracts by reference to Clause 1(7) and it seems to me that it says nothing at all about the length of contracts. The Minister now has the opportunity to correct one or both sides of this question.

Clause 1(7) states:

“No direction may be given under subsection (1) after the end of the period of 10 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.


Following on from that immediately, subsection (8) gives the power to the Secretary of State by regulation to amend subsection (7) so as to extend the period for a further five years. This is saying when the counterparty can enter into contracts, not when the contracts start. It is not saying when the contracts end. As long as the contract is awarded in the first 10 or 15 years, it could be for 100 years. Nothing that has been tabled by noble Lords in relation to this clause would affect that.

However, in my Amendment 2, I have bitten firmly on the question and said that no contract, whenever it is awarded, may last for more than 10 years and that it must contain a break clause after five years. I am talking in my amendment about the length of the contract, but the other noble Lords who have talked about longer contracts are not talking about longer contracts at all. I may have got that completely wrong—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way for two reasons. First, despite having asked the clerk for advice, I omitted to declare an interest at the beginning of my speech, which I will now correct. I draw the attention of the Committee to my entry in the register as the non-executive chair of RVL Aviation, as I did at Second Reading. Secondly, on my noble friend’s specific question, I referred in my speech to his amendment. I had the misfortune of supporting his amendment before he had so ably spoken to it, but I agree that it is the contract length that is important and not just the period from when the Bill becomes law.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

We are all agreed that we should be talking about contract length, but my amendment is the only one that refers to it. That is the point that I am trying to make.

The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, in respect of competition, says that there must be at least an opening in the future for these revenue certainty mechanism contracts to be awarded competitively. He seeks to put this in the Bill now and appeared to say that, if this is not done now, through a device such as that which he is proposing, there would not be in future an opportunity for competitive procurement. If I have misrepresented him, I will give way and be corrected—I see that he is about to rise, so I might as well complete the point before he corrects me. My understanding is that there is nothing to prevent competitive procurement taking place from day one under these arrangements. Therefore, it is not necessary to put in place an arrangement to secure it. I am open to being corrected on all hands about this, because I am groping my way in the dark through this thicket.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling, who has taken the deepest and most knowledgeable interest in the Bill but has had to excuse himself from the Committee because of pressing family matters. However, it is not my intention to speak to his amendment; I wish simply to create an opportunity for other noble Lords who may wish to speak to it to do so. I will say in regard to it, speaking, if you like, from the Front Bench, only that it raises very interesting questions about the potential beneficiaries of the revenue certainty mechanism and whether they are tied to production within the UK itself. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the questions implicit in the amendment. For now, I beg to move.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grayling and the similar Amendment 18 in this group in the names of other noble Lords. They both have the same intention, which is to make sure, as set out in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, that the point of the revenue certainty mechanism is to support UK SAF production, not SAF production that takes place elsewhere. I think my noble friend Lord Grayling had two purposes in tabling the amendment: first, to make that point explicit; and, secondly, to test with the Minister what definition of UK production the Government are going to adopt in their contracts. What does that mean for the components of the fuel, and where do the different stages of production have to take place? What will be the lines about what qualifies as UK production?

Clearly, what we are intending to do, certainly with the plants that have received capital support from the Government, is to have the end-to-end process here in the UK, the plants here in the UK and effectively all the value created in the UK. But there may well be businesses that do only part of that in the UK. It is important for the Government to be clear about where the lines are going to be and what they are going to insist on in the contracts, so that the money coming from UK consumers is going to support UK jobs as part of that industrial policy. That is, after all, the point of this. There is no point in having a revenue certainty mechanism if all it is going to do is deliver SAF production elsewhere in the world. We could just let it get on with it, frankly, and not be too worried about it.

The point is to make sure that we produce that fuel here for two reasons, as I understand it. One is the industrial policy argument of making sure that we develop the technology here, but there is also the learning from what happened during the Covid pandemic when countries resorted to holding on to essential fuel supplies for their own industries. During that period, the international trade in some of these internationally traded commodities gummed up, and we found that some of those strategic supplies were not available. UK production is important for both those reasons, and I think it would be of benefit to the Committee to hear from the Minister exactly how the Government are going to deliver that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, since they are both still in the Chamber, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on their life peerages so that they will remain with us. I will not get into the ranking thing we got into earlier, but it is very good they will both still be with us.

On the substance of these amendments, transparency is broadly a good thing. As I said in response to an earlier amendment, being transparent about this is very helpful. Given that Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talks about reporting on progress, this might be a suitable opportunity to ask the Minister, when he winds up this group, to respond to the question I asked him at Second Reading and provide the Committee with an update on the plants we hope to see in the UK and where they have got to. The Minister very kindly responded to some of the questions Members raised at Second Reading in his recent letter of 2 December, including one or two that I raised. I am very grateful to him for being courteous and doing that as he said he would, but he did not touch on where we were at with those plants. Given the significant amount of money in the various rounds of support that we have given—both through the Aerospace Technology Institute and directly from government—it would be helpful for the Committee to have an update on some of the timeframes. We have been contacted directly by some of the providers with updates on when they think their plants will be ready, but it would be helpful to have that wider picture.

Although the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, knows that I do not agree with her overall view about aviation—we had that exchange at Second Reading—I will take the opportunity, as it does not happen very often, to support the thrust of her amendment. Transparency is very helpful. She will know from my comments at Second Reading that I generally do not support the use of food crops being grown specifically for this purpose, but she will also know I have one potential exception: if, by doing so, we can keep the present United States Government focused in this space, it would be a win.

I am grateful for two points the Minister made in his reply. First, he confirmed that the Government were working closely with the US Administration and wanted to keep them on board. That is helpful. Secondly, he confirmed—I hope this was welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that the Government set very high sustainability standards for SAF in the UK and were looking to make sure the revenue certainty mechanism was in line with that approach and did not trespass on it.

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there is no point in us doing great things in the United Kingdom if the result is that we just drive poor behaviours elsewhere, so having some transparency on that would be very helpful. The specific amendment may or may not be able to be improved, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the Government intend to add extra transparency to the Bill on Report, or whether we will need to return to that ourselves and use the collective set of amendments here to do some sensible reporting.

We have to make sure that it is balanced and that we do not put undue burdens on people, but transparency in this space would be helpful for the industry in explaining what is going on, as well as for consumers. Given that there is a cost to this, showing consumers what is happening, and the cost of that, would be helpful in demonstrating the trade-offs that we are having to make in this space. I am broadly supportive of this group of amendments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, generally speaking, monitoring is good, and reporting is better. If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, want to engage over the next few weeks on the drafting of amendments that could achieve that in a way that is not overly burdensome to those charged with doing that reporting, or overly expensive, I am sure we would be happy to discuss that with them.

On Amendment 19A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I will save my comments for the last group, in which the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and I have some interesting amendments on precisely these questions of what the source and feedstock of the sustainable aviation fuel are going to be, and what constitutes sustainable aviation fuel. I would be repeating myself if I were to address those questions now and again later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 19 and the other amendments in my name in this group. These amendments cover two topics, and I will try to deal with them fairly briefly, but they are very important. Even if the speech is short, the resonance and consequence of the amendments is long.

There will be a cost to the revenue certainty mechanism that will be distributed to airline passengers through their air fares. How much is it going to be? We are not in the dark on that subject, because the cost-benefit analysis produced by the department makes a stab at this. Paragraph 4.23 says:

“Overall, the Revenue Certainty Mechanism, when covering a limited but reasonable amount of non-HEFA SAF volumes, is likely to result in a small impact on ticket prices. Depending on non-HEFA SAF prices and whether the levy costs are offset by fuel cost savings, the likely impact on ticket prices is between -£1.5 and £1.5, on average, per year”.


The only things of absolute fixity in that sentence are the numbers and the phrase “per year”. Almost everything else consists of a caveat, although I accept that a forecast of this type will have to be caveated to some extent. I want to explore some of the caveats in the next group as well, not merely here. What are we talking about when we refer to non-HEFA SAF? I have an amendment in the last group to explore that.

However, at this stage, I want to know how far the Government are willing to go to commit themselves on the £1.50 cost—let us take the upside—per ticket. Bear in mind that this £1.50 per ticket is the cost not of SAF but of non-HEFA SAF produced using the revenue certainty mechanism in this Bill. SAF is already in use. It is being paid for by airlines and it is painfully expensive —much more than it was expected to be. It is already having a significant impact on airlines’ fuel bills. That is not included in the £1.50, which is purely for the mechanism that sits in the Bill.

How firm are the Government willing to be on this? This is of crucial significance to the public at large, who would like to see more sustainable aviation fuel. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is no longer in her place, regards that as a chimera. The public are happy to see it, but they want to know what it will cost them. If we are going to hold out a prospect, as the Government are, of a maximum cost of £1.50 per ticket for this—that is a significant sum for a family of four going on holiday—they would like to know that the Government stand behind it. Airlines that I have spoken to suggest that the cost will be much closer to £10 a ticket, so the Government need to give some justification for the £1.50. That is one of the two topics these amendments cover.

Moving on to the second, I have to apologise in a sense to noble Lords because it is of a more general character. In some ways, it would have been nice if it could have been contrived to come at the beginning of our debate this evening, but the rigidities of our system of numbering and marshalling amendments means that it appears at this late stage. I appreciate that not everybody is interested in it, but I assure noble Lords that, outside this Committee, there is a large audience that is very interested in this question—an audience of people who still believe, to some extent, in capitalism, the principles of Adam Smith and the notion of comparative advantage.

This is asking that the Government make some stab at assessing our comparative advantage in wishing to be a leader in this field. This is, after all, a measure designed to make us a domestic producer, rather than an importer, and a globally leading producer of non-HEFA SAF, compared to the rest of the world. It is, as I said at Second Reading, an industrial policy Bill rather than a net-zero Bill. The SAF mandate was a net-zero measure; this is an industrial policy measure. It is a decision by government that this stuff has to be produced here and not imported—a decision by government that we should be a leader in this field.

The question is: what on earth do we have by way of comparative advantage that means the Government should have alighted upon this particular economic activity as one in which we are to be—or in which we can be, or it is suitable that we should be—a leader in the field? Do we have access to particularly rich streams of feedstock, for example? If non-HEFA SAF—some of it at least—is to be produced from old cabbages collected from people’s kitchens, are our cabbages better than somebody else’s cabbages? Do our wood cuttings and so forth have a particular advantage or a greater richness of oil-bearing quality that puts us ahead of the field? I suspect that the answer to that is no.

Is our refining capacity cutting edge and world leading for turning these things into a usable fuel? I do not know a great deal about that—I see that there are noble Lords in the Committee who, I suspect, know a great deal more about it—but what I do see, as an ordinary reader of the newspapers, is that we are closing down our refining capacity as fast as we can. Far from being a leader, we are falling behind. Of course, this process will be very heavy on electricity usage; I think nobody denies that. Yet we have contrived, no doubt in the interest of saving the planet—I will not go into that further at the moment—to have the most expensive electricity in the civilised world. Do we have skills particularly, or an existing workforce? None of these things are apparent.

So what I am asking—I do not think it an unreasonable request—is that, before the Government launch us, and taxpayers’ and airline passengers’ money, into this reckless scheme of being a world leader in something in which we have no apparent comparative advantage, they set out the economic case for doing so. The contrivance here is that the amendment would be inserted as a commencement blocker, so that the Bill could not commence until this has been done, but I am not wedded to that; it is merely a way of inserting it into the debate. But the Government owe it to the public to have a better case and a better argument for why they should do this.

After all, this is not our first attempt to produce SAF. In the last few years, we have had schemes such as the advanced fuel funds, the Green Fuels, Green Skies fund, the Future Fuels for Flight and Freight competition, and others. But despite those, around 90% of the SAF used in this country is still imported. Why has this not taken off domestically already, with that level of support, if we have the sort of advantage that we should be able to bring to bear, and that will make a success of it this time? I, at least, would like to know. I beg to move.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the first of my noble friend Lord Moylan’s amendments—the one about transparency and the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on ticket prices for consumers. As I think he acknowledged, this is an area where consumers want to see sustainable aviation fuel used, but it is reasonable that they understand the cost of it. Many people who fly are very sensitive to the cost. The industry is very conscious, in all the conversations that I have had with it recently, but also previously, when I led the Department for Transport, about the importance of delivering sustainability at a low cost that does not impact significantly on consumers, and particularly does not price the least well-off, most price-sensitive consumers out of the market and stop them flying. So I think this level of transparency specifically about the cost from the revenue certainty mechanism is very welcome.

As my noble friend said, that is not the only cost from developing sustainable aviation fuel, because there is obviously the cost of SAF that is bought from outside those UK plants that benefit from the revenue certainty mechanism, so I strongly support the thrust of my noble friend’s amendment and I will listen carefully to what the Minister says about whether the Government will bring forward any measures on this; it would also support what they had in their impact assessment.

As a final point on this amendment, I agree with my noble friend that the impact assessment is clearly an assessment, an estimate. No one is going to beat the Government up if it is not quite right, but there is a big difference between a £1.50 charge per ticket per year and a £10 charge per ticket per year, or more, and it is important that we have a rough idea of where we are on that, so that is very welcome.

On the other amendments, I will add just one thing which I alluded to earlier. It is not just an industrial policy question, it is about security of supply, particularly if there are certain circumstances that impact it, as we saw during the pandemic or as we might see if there were another energy price shock. Actually, there is an industrial policy question about producing stuff in the UK; there is also a question about availability or making sure that we have access to those fuel supplies. Both questions are important, as is having the Government be clear and transparent about it.

Both the previous Government and this one have set out some of the thinking in terms of the decision we made to have the advanced fuels fund and the different rounds of that. We have set out some of the thinking in the money that has been going into this through the ATI funding as well. Bringing all that together and having a very clear exposition of the Government’s policy in this space is welcome and will actually do nothing but benefit the Government. So, although I am not sure that the mechanism for delivering it is the right one, I think the thrust of my noble friend’s amendment is right and I strongly support its intention, if not the specific mechanism.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Harper and Lord Moylan

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I want to say a few words on this issue as the introducer of the £2 bus fare cap and the person who wrote the relevant sections of our manifesto, which committed to keep it for the duration of the Parliament and fund it, importantly, from savings that we were going to make in rail services. We do not spend enough time in this country talking about buses. Two and a half times more journeys are made by bus than by the national rail network. You would not know that from the national press, which is very London-centric on this subject, but in most parts of the country buses are critical, so I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

I shall say a word or two about my noble friend Lord Moylan’s purpose clause and his remarks on that. He talked about the Government trying to help their friends in local authorities. What is interesting about this legislation is that, if you look at what has happened to bus services, the real challenge, and one of the problems, is that what happened during the pandemic is that a significant number of people stopped using buses for rather obvious reasons and never returned. That caused a huge financial problem for the bus network and has caused lots of routes that were previously profitable not to be profitable. The thing that is missing in the legislation is that you can offer local authorities the powers to franchise services all you like, but unless the Treasury is going to give local authorities the money to pay for those bus services, all you do is take loss-making services that are being reduced by private sector operators or by local authorities that cannot pay for them, and the local authority ends up having to take them away because it has no ability to pay for them.

When this legislation gets on to the statute book, I will be interested to see whether the Government fund the powers to the level that you would have to in order to deliver an improvement to bus services. I suspect, given the dog’s breakfast the Chancellor is making of the economy and the fact that there is less rather than more money available for public services, that that is not going to happen, but we will see how that develops in the future. I think my noble friend Lord Moylan does not have to worry in one sense, because I do not think this cunning plan that the Government have implemented to help local authorities is going to help them at all.

Specifically on the cap, the Minister talked about the review of the £2 bus fare and said that it was not good value for money. What he missed out was that the Government decided, without having concluded the review of the £2 bus fare cap, to have a £3 bus fare cap, which suggests that they like the principle, but introduced it and picked a number without having done the review on the £2 bus fare cap in the first place. That demonstrates not sensible, evidence-based policy-making but a Treasury-driven “Let’s just reduce the cost of the policy and not look at the impact it was having”.

When I talked to bus companies, I found there were two issues relating to the bus fare cap that were important in driving up bus ridership. One was the obvious one, which is that it reduced the cost. Particularly in rural areas—as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords—where you often have to take a number of parts of a journey with a number of fares, it drove down the cost of those journeys. That is really important for people going to work or accessing education, so that had a big impact.

The other thing was the clarity and the consistency that it provided in communicating the level of bus fare to people, which had, I have to confess, a rather surprising impact. When talking to bus companies, I asked the question, “If we were to take this away, what would you do to your pricing structure?” What was interesting was that they all said having a round-number bus fare had a surprisingly powerful effect on their ability to market services to consumers, rather than people not knowing what a bus fare was going to be and a whole range of complexity. I think it needed a bit more time to bed in, and that is why I support a proper review having been carried out.

To go back to the point I made about funding, what we suggested—to take savings from the reforms that we were going to put in place for rail services and use some of that to fund the bus services—would have rebalanced where people chose to take their journeys. More people depend on bus services for important local journeys. Whether to access education, to access the health service or to access employment, far more people across the whole of the country use bus services to do that than use the rail network.

The Government have done the reverse. The first thing they did was come in and give railway drivers—some of the best-paid public servants—a pay rise and ask for nothing in return; they got no productivity improvements for the rail user. That money could have been spent on improving the quality of bus services across the country. That would have been the right decision, and it is the decision that we were going to make. When we do not see increases to funding for bus services—when we simply give local authorities the powers to franchise but with no money to deliver that—then people on all sides of your Lordships’ House will think that making savings in the rail network and putting the money into buses would have been the right decision. I am sorry the Government chose not to do so.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harper for reminding us of the importance of funding and the fact that the Bill is almost meaningless unless large amounts of funding are attached to it for local authorities. That is not an original point; it is one that was made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, at an earlier stage of debate on the Bill, but we have still heard nothing about the large amounts of funding that the Government are going to have to put into buses in order to make the Bill a reality.

I turn to the Motion by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who happens today to be sitting behind me, and who is apparently my new best friend. I understand—I hope I am not traducing her here—that she is not intending to divide the House on her Motion, but if she did then we would stick loyally with her as we did before. The Conservative Party is and always has been the party of villages, and whoever speaks up for villages in your Lordships’ House will have our support. It is a tragedy that the Government are willing to defer for a whole five years—into a new Parliament, when there is no doubt that they will not be the Government—a commitment to look at the effect of their policies on villages.

None the less, I have made it clear that I do not intend to divide the House on Motion 1A, so at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Motion 1A.