Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Chris Vince and Luke Taylor

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Taylor]

Q Thank you for joining us. I think we are in a slightly unusual position, in that we are all competing to try to make slight improvements to legislation that we all agree is necessary and positive. My question is about the source of the funding for the RCM. The Government made it clear that their preference is that it comes from a levy on users. An alternative, which we see in other jurisdictions, is that it comes from ETS sources, which would slightly more directly couple the emissions component to the consumption. The intention to not predicate the source of funding on the money being provided is clear. Do any of the panellists have an opinion on those two options and the path that the Government have taken for the funding source?

Gaynor Hartnell: There are really only two options for the levy: airlines or aviation fuel suppliers. A large part of why aviation fuel suppliers were chosen may have been because, administratively, they are the obligated party when it comes to the mandate. They are expected to pass the cost of the mandate through to airlines—their fuel customers. They would be expected to pass the cost of the levy to airlines, or indeed, if the levy actually brings in money—these are very small balances of money in comparison with the balances to do with the mandate—they would be expected to pass those costs back to the customers. The aim is to deal fairly with a fairly small amount of money. It is not the additional cost of the sustainable aviation fuel; it is just the cost of levelising and stabilising it, which is a sliver in comparison.

Rob Griggs: For us as airlines, the funding is a critical issue about fairness and accountability. As Gaynor said, the understanding is that the levy will be on the supplier. The issue for us is that we understand that the costs are likely to be passed through to airlines. We just want to make sure that that is transparent. We have seen through the early stages of the mandate that there is some concern that excessive compliance fees are perhaps being put on to the SAF. Voluntary SAF seems to be a lot cheaper than mandated SAF and there is not necessarily a clear reason for that. We want transparency in terms of how the levy is passed through.

As Gaynor said, in theory, if the market price for SAF is high—if there is relatively little of it—it is likely that the suppliers will actually pay into the counterparty. We want to make sure that if money is essentially being paid back to the counterparty from the producers, that money does not just go to the suppliers and sit there. There should be a transparent mechanism, however it works, through which that money then comes back to airlines and airline customers. It has to work both ways, essentially.

How do you do that? We have looked at ETS for a long time. You are right that in the European Union, the emissions trading scheme funds are used: for example, to help to close the price gap on SAF. We are not doing that, which has competitiveness implications for UK SAF, separate to the RCM. Of course there are ways to make sure that it is a two-way street.

Paul Greenwood: We have to recognise that if the desire is to pass the cost on to the passengers, the airlines and the people who are shipping freight around the world by plane, then we should put the charge on them. That is the most direct way of doing it. There are charges now that are put on airlines and on freight directly. There is no reason why you cannot do this as well. I do not buy the argument that it is a relatively small amount of money, therefore we should just put it on to the fuel suppliers and they should deal with it. I do not think that is right. I certainly do not agree with the idea that this is because “the polluter pays”—that is erroneous and a false statement.

We do not know how much this will be, because we do not know how many projects there will be, what the costs will be, or how the CFD mechanism will go. We do not know what the cost of this will be. I support what Rob is saying: if this is something imposed upon us, I do not wish to profit from it but I do want to pass 100% of it on to the consumer of my fuel. The only way I can do that is if I know what it is ahead of time, so that I can bill them the exact amount of money so they pay the exact amount. At the moment, this legislation talks about market share, but market share moves and changes. Therefore it is a very imprecise way of doing that.

Ours is a very fine margin business. If you get this wrong, you will make the UK a less attractive market. We have to understand that fundamentally people will do different things around their molecules. One data point worth remembering is that about 70% of the jet fuel consumed in the UK at the moment is imported. Effectively, we rely on people bringing jet to market to sell it profitably. If they are uncertain around the cost of that jet fuel, they will potentially look to sell it into different markets, which can lead to energy security and market dynamic issues. There are unintended consequences here that need to be thought through very carefully.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q I thank the panel for coming to give evidence. Rob, in your opening statement you spoke about this being an enabling Bill. Could you touch on what you think the next steps would be were the Bill passed? I also have a basic but important question: what do you all see as the impact of this Bill, whether positive or negative, in terms of environmental and economic benefits? Is there a risk in not getting on with it?

Rob Griggs: To take the second point first: on the environmental side, UK aviation is committed to net zero 2050. We have not wavered from that commitment, and SAF is a hugely important part of that. It is doing the physical and metaphorical heavy lifting for our road map to get there. We need to do a lot of things—there is no silver bullet—but the last industry road map we all agreed had SAF at around 40% of the decarbonisation to 2050. That number will obviously change, but it is hugely important. The UK has a world-leading aviation industry, which does a huge amount for the UK economy. We believe we can grow and decarbonise, but we cannot do that without SAF. It is hugely important for both its economic and social benefits.

In terms of next steps, we fully support the Bill, and we hope the process can go as quickly as possible to get that certainty for investors and help to get those first plants built. For us, it is then down to the importance of scheme design and ensuring that we look to get that balance right for the most cost-effective decarbonisation to meet all those objectives: what size of scheme, how many and what type of projects are supported, what proportion or volume of SAF it would be looking to support and, through that, how you ensure there is competitive tension between those projects that are bidding for support and those projects that do not think they need support. It is about getting that right to ensure that we are getting best value from the projects that will deliver best bang for their buck and can produce the volumes that we need quite quickly. There are a lot of different technical elements.

Then there is funding and the transparency around that—how do we ensure it works and is accountable? If we have a scheme in place that is delivering SAF as cost-effectively as possible, it is starting to produce some, we have the quantities we need by 2030 and we are avoiding buy-out—if all those things happen together, enabled by the RCM, that is the outcome we are looking for.

Gaynor Hartnell: In terms of what is next, yes, there is a lot of detail involved in thinking about how the contracts are structured. We expect to engage with officials in great depth on that.

You asked about the environmental benefits; do you mean the environmental benefits of SAF generally, or the specific environmental benefits of producing SAF in the UK, which is what the Bill is about?

Knife Crime: Children and Young People

Debate between Chris Vince and Luke Taylor

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

The epidemic of knife crime is an issue that I have addressed many times in this place, although never in a debate specifically targeting its impact on children and young people. I commend the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) on securing this debate on such a significant matter.

In Britain, we face a hard truth: young people are increasingly involved in violent crime, and the cycle is becoming ever more entrenched. Figures from the Ben Kinsella Trust show that across the country, some 614 young people under the age of 24 have been killed by knife crime in the last 10 years, 17 of them being 16 years old or younger. Children are being exposed to the tragic normalisation of stabbings. We have sleepwalked into a scenario in which many young people feel it is safer and easier to carry a knife to defend themselves. In this context, threats of punishment are unsurprisingly failing to deter violent behaviour. Knife crime should be treated as the societal disease it is, and we cannot afford to just treat the symptoms any more. If this Government are to truly tackle knife crime, they must address its roots—the deep-seated factors that drive young people to such violence in the first place.

To tackle knife crime, we must stop it before it starts. We must use a public health approach that addresses the root causes: fear, trauma, lack of opportunities, and social exclusion. This approach has many tenets—some of which I will outline today—and begins with education. When young people carry knives, it is often out of fear, not necessarily a desire to harm others. A study by the Ben Kinsella Trust revealed that over one in three young people do not feel safe in their own communities. Some 36% do not feel safe walking the streets, and two thirds report anxiety over knife crime in their area. The teenage brain is wired differently from that of adults; we know that a tendency towards impulsive and risky behaviour is much more common during adolescence. Studies show that in many cases, knife crime occurs in the heat of the moment, when an altercation could have been resolved without serious injury if a weapon had not been present. That is exactly why we must address knife crime before it happens—before a knife is pulled from a pocket and the situation escalates beyond control.

Education can play a principal part in challenging the misconception that carrying a knife somehow makes a person safer. We can teach young people the real consequences of carrying such a weapon—how it destroys lives, impacts families, and perpetuates fear among their peers and in communities.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech that I think all of us across the House would agree with. I have spoken a number of times with Harlow police about knives and knife crime, not just in Harlow but across Essex. They do a lot of work with schools. Does he agree that it is important that schools fully engage with the police on these issues, and do not feel that there is stigma in doing so? All schools need to engage with that process.

[Luke Taylor]

I completely agree. I will come on to that later in my speech. I have spoken to the organisers and leaders of the Chris Donovan Trust in my constituency. They spoke about the challenge of getting into some schools to talk about knife crime, because of the perception that talking about it was a problem in itself. That was so frustrating to hear.

We need to have honest, open conversations with young people in schools. Teachers must be equipped with materials to educate the next generation, so that we break the cycle of violence. Even if a child is not at risk of committing a knife-related offence, educational programmes serve a critical role. They can teach children about the consequences of knife crime long before they consider carrying a weapon. That is vital. We need to reach young people and win the war for their hearts and minds before the prevailing climate of fear and the harbingers of toxic mindsets start their offensive. I urge the Government to consider introducing mandatory personal, social, health and economic lessons on the consequences of weapons possession, and to put the principles of restorative practice on the curriculum, in recognition of the great work of groups such as the Chris Donovan Trust in my constituency. We teach children from an early age about the dangers of diseases caused by smoking or alcohol; why, then, are we not having open discussions with them about the health risks associated with carrying a knife? Creating safe spaces for discussion, and building relationships with young people, can ensure intervention before thoughts of crimes arise, and deaths can be prevented.

To fully realise the nourishing, community-focused element of a public health approach, though, we must invest in youth services and community programmes that engage young people. Winning the war for hearts and minds means providing young people with opportunities to build skills, pursue education, and find alternatives to gang culture and criminal activity. However, as was mentioned in many speeches, we have seen a dramatic decline in youth services funding over recent years, with cuts totalling £1.1 billion since 2010. This has left too many young people without the support they need.

Investing in youth services is not just about providing safe spaces; it is about providing young people with alternatives to violence, so that we break the cycle of crime, shift the culture of violence, and empower communities to work together to prevent crime before it escalates. The targeted early help and integrated support team at Sutton borough council in my constituency does exactly this kind of work, offering opportunities to young people who are not often afforded the luxury of such attention elsewhere in their lives. However, these programmes rely heavily on grants from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, the Ministry of Justice, and violence reduction services. Those grants are subject to constant uncertainty, often approved at the last minute and often only allocated for 18-month to two-year periods, preventing proper forward planning. We must do better than that. We need to consistently get serious funding to these initiatives in a timely manner. I echo the calls from the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about funding for these community schemes.

Lib Dem Members will continue to push the Government to make youth diversion a statutory duty, so that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25. That will ensure better outcomes for young people and less strain on police resources, but let us be honest with ourselves: police resources are already strained beyond breaking point in too many places, and education and early intervention alone are not enough to properly implement a public health approach. Visible community policing starts with actual police numbers in our London boroughs. To tackle knife crime, it is important for young people to see bobbies on the beat in London. Their active and engaged presence creates a sense of safety and security. We have to get back to meaningful community policing, returning the police to their proper duty as a positive, engaging arm of the state in people’s lives.

Building trust between young people and the police is also crucial. This trust communicates that there is no need to carry knives for protection, as young people know that the police are there to keep them safe. As I have said before, when 17-year-old Ilyas Habibi was stabbed to death outside Sutton station in my constituency in December 2023, he was just minutes away from a police station. If we cannot expect visible policing in town centres and the areas closest to police stations, how little have we come to expect of community policing? To be clear, that is not a criticism of the police, but a criticism of successive Governments and mayors, who have consistently failed to get the police the resources they need to do their job. In London, far too many police are abstracted away from the communities they are supposed to serve to help plug gaps.

I was deeply concerned to learn of Sadiq Khan’s budgeting decisions, which have led to dedicated police officers in schools in London being removed. Under the “A New Met for London” plan, officers will no longer be stationed in schools as part of the safer schools officers programme. While the plan claims that officers will still work closely with schools, the change reduces the consistent direct contact between officers and young people. That contact is crucial in building relationships with young people to foster trust. There should be plenty of positive interactions and experiences with the police throughout young people’s formative years. That can be achieved through school assemblies or classroom workshops. Young people need to understand that the police are there to keep them safe on the streets and are not the enemy, but when sparse police resources are focused on only the most extreme forms of deterrence, such as live facial recognition and stop and search, and when there is no community focus, it is unsurprising that they do not.

The hallmark of a meaningful public health approach that invests not just money, but serious political capital, is that it brings together all groups in our communities. It creates a coalition of care, breaks down the silos between projects, and builds a team across society committed to doing what it takes to rescue young people. On behalf of countless experts, professionals and parents, and on behalf of young people, I implore the Government to build that team, to create that coalition of care and to finally implement a meaningful public health approach to knife crime.