Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Will everyone kindly ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent or, ideally, off? We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first; in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in that debate simply by bobbing.

At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw it or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment, including grouped new clauses and schedules, they need to let me know. Decisions are taken in the order in which amendments and new clauses fall in the amendment paper. I hope that that explanation is helpful.

Clause 1

Direction to offer revenue certainty contract

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) The terms under subsection (1)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

[Greg Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. As I have throughout the passage of the Bill, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am taking a safety-first approach here—and the donation from Nemesis of synthetic road fuel for a constituency surgery tour last year. That is not relevant to sustainable aviation fuel, but I want to be entirely transparent about it, as I have been throughout the passage of the Bill.

Before I speak to amendment 3, a broad comment about all the amendments I will speak to today is that, fundamentally the Opposition are not a million miles from the Government on the Bill. However, as I am sure you expect us to do, Mr Western, it is our job as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to kick the tyres and ensure that the Bill is as strong and workable as it can be. We share the ambition to decarbonise aviation and ensure that everybody still can fly for pleasure or business, and that businesses can move goods around the world using air freight.

It is in that spirit that I tabled amendment 3, which aims to ensure that the producers that come forward for the various contracts consider the full breadth of the sustainable aviation fuel technologies available. On Tuesday, we heard oral evidence from manufacturers of wholly synthetic, waste-derived and feedstock-derived sustainable aviation fuels. It is important to look at the panoply of fuels in relation to the long-term environmental impact and the practicalities of producing them today.

As I said on Second Reading, my big fear, which led to my tabling the amendment, is that industries might be stood up only to be turned off again in 10 or 20 years, as the technology becomes redundant. For example, in the oral evidence session on Tuesday we almost had a debate about the possible pitfall of there not being a waste supply to create waste-derived sustainable aviation fuel. Many local authorities up and down the land, my own in Buckinghamshire included, are tied up in 10, 20 or even 30-year financial obligations to, for example, the financing of energy for waste incinerators, which in some parts of the country are connected to heat networks. It may therefore not be possible for councils to say simply, “No, we want to move our waste to a equally productive but different form.” Those contracts exist.

The point of the amendment is to ensure that we look through that very clear lens to see which of the technologies available for producing sustainable aviation fuel will have the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact in the long term. From the evidence we heard the other day, it is clear that some technologies are at a different point of development from others, but none is actually that far away.

For example, the evidence we heard from Zero Petroleum was that it is ready to scale a wholly synthetic production facility right now. Of course, that does not happen overnight—it takes some considerable time to build any facility—but the scalability is able to happen right now. The Government should reflect on that point and should not look just at the technologies that are available right here, right now. I would argue that, too often in this country, we look for alignment with the technology that is available today, when that which is only hours, days, weeks or months away may well be better and worth waiting for.

That is the point of the amendment: ensuring that we get this right for the long term, so that we have a supply of sustainable and, I hope, synthetic—entirely man-made from air and water—fuels available for this country, so that we have the liquid hydrocarbons there, available for purchase, using the price mechanism which sits at the heart of the Bill to get production going, so that our aviation sector can continue to flourish and be available for all that wish to use it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. We often discuss our bicycles and their technology, but today we have to talk about the revenue certainty mechanism, which I am glad we are doing.

The RCM is part of the Government’s agenda to decarbonise aviation in the United Kingdom. I will address the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, but first I put on the record my thanks to him and other Opposition parties for their general support for what we are trying to do in the Bill.

This Government back synthetic power-to-liquid SAF, which is why we have introduced a separate power-to-liquid sub-obligation, the SAF mandate. We have a separate power-to-liquid pot in the advanced fuel fund, which we are funding up to £63 million. Any RCM contracts awarded will be on the basis of the design phase of the project, including technological pathway and feedstock designation. I hope that answers the hon. Member’s worries about redundancy, because the process will evolve.

Making changes to feedstock requirements or fuel type after contracts are awarded would be extremely challenging for producers. Instead, during our contract allocation process, it is for the Government to decide on the right mix of SAF that will be supported under the revenue certainty mechanism. Given that, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

The clause allows the Secretary of State to direct the counterparty to enter into a revenue certainty contract with a SAF producer. The Secretary of State will decide who gets revenue certainty contracts through an allocation process. Making the leap from lab to commercial scale is difficult for SAF producers—we heard that in the evidence sessions on Tuesday. Commercial plants typically cost £600 million to £2 billion, so they need to attract a lot of investment, yet first-of-a-kind plants often struggle to get investment because there is no clear, predictable market price for SAF. The revenue certainty mechanism will address that.

Under the revenue certainty mechanism a SAF producer will enter into a private law contract with a Government-backed counterparty that sets a strike price for SAF. If the producer sells SAF for less than the strike price, the counterparty will pay the difference. If the producer sells it for more than the strike price, it will pay the counterparty. This follows the example of similar schemes in the renewables sector, which showed that a private law contract with a Government-backed counterparty is a rock-solid commitment that will drive investment into projects.

As we heard in our evidence sessions on Tuesday, British SAF producers are ready. They have the tech and the innovation; they just need the final piece of support from the Government to take off. That is why SAF producers, airlines, environmental groups and investors back these measures.

A Government-backed counterparty will enter into the contracts rather than the Secretary of State, because investors value the day-to-day independence of a Government-owned private company and its insulation from political change. The counterparty will also have expertise in contract administration. This follows the model of contracts for difference schemes in other renewables sectors, where the Low Carbon Contracts Company, a Government-owned body, enters into the contracts, rather than the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.

When we consulted on how the revenue certainty mechanism should be administered, stakeholders strongly supported having a counterparty. The clause ensures that the Secretary of State can exercise control over how and on what terms the counterparty enters into the revenue certainty contracts. This is consistent with the approach for similar schemes. The Government will set eligibility and assessment criteria for the competition to allocate contracts, which will focus on ensuring value for money, maximising the benefits of UK SAF production, and supporting viable projects. Any restrictions on our ability to decide which projects to allocate contracts to would affect those objectives and jeopardise the whole scheme.

The allocation process and the terms of the contract will need to be consistent with the requirements of the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which makes sure there is oversight of the mechanism by the Competition and Markets Authority through the mandatory referral process. The oversight will ensure that the objectives of the revenue certainty mechanism address the subsidy control principles set out in that Act. This includes ensuring that the scheme addresses an identified market failure, that any funding provided is proportionate to achieve that objective, and that any distortions of competition, investment or trade are minimised effectively.

Clause 2 provides that producers must be notified of a direction made under clause 1 that affects them. This provides transparency and ensures that producers are aware of any directions towards them. It also gives the Secretary of State powers to revoke a direction and its effect, which protects the Government from entering into a contract where a producer has not met the criteria defined during the allocation process due to unexpected circumstances. We need to ensure that the taxpayer and the sector are protected, and this clause ensures that we can remove ourselves from the contract negotiation process if any issues arise.

Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the counterparty to maintain a register and publish the revenue certainty contracts, subject to any necessary redactions. This will ensure transparency by keeping a register of successful applicants and information on specific agreements, and make it clear which SAF producers have received contracts and on what terms. We will also continue to publish information on the volume of SAF supplied under the SAF mandate. These publication requirements will balance transparency and the commercial and confidential nature of contracts and negotiations. We believe that any stronger requirements to publish information may make producers reluctant to enter into negotiations or affect our ability to ensure value for money.

[Greg Smith]

I accept many of the arguments that the Minister has put forward. I note he acknowledged that, off the back of the evidence sessions on Tuesday, all the current technologies are ready. That is a really important point for the Committee and the whole House to reflect upon as the Bill progresses. There has been something of a narrative from the usual vested interests in the country suggesting that one technology or another is not in the right state to be able to move forward, or to produce sustainable aviation fuel at the scale we need as a country. It is very welcome that the Minister acknowledged in his remarks that the technologies are already to scale, whether the fuel is HEFA-derived, waste-derived or entirely synthetic following the Fischer-Tropsch process at large.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I will make one or two brief comments on the new clauses that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. The official Opposition have some sympathy with new clause 2. It is always sensible with any new legislation to ensure, within a reasonable timeframe, that it is doing what it was meant to do. We can all debate things when they are a new idea in Committee and in the House, and on paper they might seem as though they are going to be all fine and rosy, but of course we can never predict that with 100% certainty. The review that new clause 2 would bake into the Bill—we can all do the parliamentary arithmetic; it will become an Act at some point in the near future—seems fundamentally sensible.

I understand where the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, is coming from with new clause 6, because of course by definition aviation is a global industry. By practicality, the vast majority of flights leaving these shores are going to other countries. I therefore understand why the hon. Gentleman would seek a degree of co-operation on the fuel that airlines leaving UK airports and landing in other countries will have to refuel with. Those airlines will have to use the fuel that is available in France, the United States of America, Australia, India or anywhere else. That level of co-operation is important.

I would merely push back a little in arguing that we need to keep a careful eye on not just the European area; it needs to go much further than that. An enormous number of UK aircraft will be refuelling in countries all over the world. It is about trying to get that certainty of supply of a level of fuel that aligns with what we are setting down as our values—the blends that we, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have baked into the SAF mandate.

The other side of the coin to the Bill is that we should seek to use our influence abroad to achieve things in other countries. We will probably be unable to do so in many of them, but it does not hurt to have that overview and ambition to be the world leaders on sustainable aviation fuel, and to see whether we can encourage others to follow our lead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Clause 11 creates new civil penalties that are necessary to secure the payment of the levy and compliance with regulations. Any penalty will be limited to a maximum of the lesser of £100,000 or 10% of the turnover being penalised. This penalty can be imposed for failing to pay the levy and failing to pass on the benefits of surplus payments to customers in accordance with the regulations under clause 10(1)(b). This penalty is consistent with similar penalties under the SAF mandate. The clause also allows these penalties to be adjusted in line with inflation.

The schedule sets out the procedure for notices, appeals and recovery of penalties. It ensures that anyone who has to pay the penalty will be told why, how much they have to pay, their right to appeal and the deadline for making any payment.

I will also speak to Government amendment 2, which inserts “or Northern Ireland” after “Wales” in the schedule. The amendment will ensure that an unpaid penalty is recoverable in Northern Ireland as if it were payable under an order of the county court, as is the case in England and Wales. The amendment corrects a drafting error and does not reflect a change in policy intention.

[Greg Smith]

I do not have a great deal to say on the provisions, other than that it is always regrettable when Northern Ireland is forgotten and has to be inserted via an amendment.

On the clause, I have no problem with financial penalties for failure to comply with the law, so I am not attacking the clause per se, but what will the appeal mechanism be? When it comes to law that involves financial penalties, a company will often have a legitimate case—force majeure, or whatever it might be—as to why it has been unable to comply with the letter of the law, and it is always important, as a matter of natural justice, for an appeal mechanism to be in place. Does the Minister intend to enable appeals where such financial penalties are given?

[Mike Kane]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. Because this will be a matter between the counterparty and the companies invited to bid, it will be subject to normal contract law, but I am happy to write to him on the matter of appeals more specifically.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule

Financial penalties for failure to comply with levy regulations

Amendment made: 2, in the schedule, page 10, line 28, after “Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”.—(Mike Kane.)

This amendment ensures that an unpaid penalty is recoverable in Northern Ireland as if it were payable under an order of the county court, as is the case in England and Wales.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12

Power to direct designated counterparty

[Greg Smith]

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 12, page 7, line 12, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty to report on—

(a) the impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the proceeding 12 month period;

(b) a projection of the expected impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the following five year period.

(4) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph (a) before Parliament.”

Amendment 4 focuses on UK IP, which I alluded to earlier. Given that we have been told throughout the passage of the Bill, and the Opposition agree, that we need to underpin domestic sovereign fuel security, there should be a provision in the Bill that gives preference to UK IP and UK producers—not just those that might happen to make the fuel here, but those that are using UK-derived innovation and technology to do so. Of course, we exist in a global marketplace and are often reliant on imports, but it would be regrettable if the Bill enabled the standing-up of industries that are based entirely on foreign-owned technology. That is what the amendment seeks to correct.

[Mike Kane]

I concur with the hon. Member about domestic fuel production, particularly in the uncertain geopolitical world that we face today, but amendment 4—

[Greg Smith]

I spoke to amendment 5—I apologise.

[The Chair]

Order. Minister, given that the Opposition spokesperson spoke to another amendment, perhaps we could allow him the opportunity to say a few words on amendment 4.

[Greg Smith]

I apologise, Mr Western, for getting ahead of myself. I went slightly cross-eyed as I looked down at my notes, and have two amendments back to back. I stand by what I said, and maybe we can save some time later as I have already made my comments on amendment 5. We all make mistakes; we are all human.

Turning to amendment 4, then, much has been made of the cost to the end user. We had a good debate on Second Reading in which all agreed, across the House and all political parties, that the challenge, as we decarbonise and move to net zero, is that everyone must still be able to do the things that they want to do—to fly and move goods around—but in a cleaner, decarbonised, and net zero way. We have been the first in the western world to legislate for that by 2050.

When I heard the Minister say—in both the private briefings that he gave before the Bill was introduced to the House, for which I am grateful, and then on the Floor of the House on Second Reading—that the net impact would be only plus or minus £1.50 on an ultimate airfare, I was delighted. I took him at his word. I thought, “Fantastic. That is something that consumers will surely be happy with”—particularly if it is on the minus £1.50 side of the equation. Yet, in the evidence sessions on Tuesday, I am not sure that a single witness was willing to put their own name to that plus or minus £1.50 fluctuation. Some witnesses went even further by saying they thought that was—I hesitate to use this word—a conservative estimate.

The point of amendment 4 is to try to ensure that we get something baked into the Bill that acknowledges the ultimate potential cost to the end user: the consumer, the person, any of our constituents who wish to book a flight to go on holiday or on a business trip.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

The hon. Member reflects the concern that we all have to make sure that our constituents can continue to go on holiday, and that trade can continue to happen, but does he agree that, in addition to some of the information that we heard, there was also a concern about the cost of doing nothing? That could actually cause costs to go much higher than any estimate given by anyone in the evidence sessions, therefore we should proceed as quickly as we can.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point; I do not think that we are misaligned on that argument. Yes, we need to move to sustainable aviation fuel, preferably at the better end of that technology. It is this very Bill that will ensure that we can, as a country, move faster towards that aim with—I have used the phrase before—the other side of the coin of the Bill, which is the SAF mandate. When the Conservatives were in government, we were heading towards that, but I fully acknowledge that it is the new Government who have introduced it to the House. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a cost to doing nothing, but it is incumbent on all of us on behalf of our constituents, and the businesses that operate within our constituencies and require the use of air freight, to ensure that we are not legislating for something that will put an undue additional financial burden on them.

The point of the amendment is to embrace the Minister’s commitments at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, and in the briefings beforehand—which, I repeat, I was grateful to him for putting on—and to ensure that as the Committee potentially allows the Bill to go on to Report, and further through the parliamentary process, we are confident in those numbers, and about the impact that we, collectively, as a Committee and ultimately as Members of Parliament, are putting on the statute book. It is in that spirit that the amendment has been put forward. I ask the Minister to ensure that the projections he has reported from the Dispatch Box come to fruition, so we do not end up looking back in probably a few years’ time, as opposed to a few months’ time, and discovering that the plus or minus £1.50 was much worse than that, as some of the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday suggested.

[The Chair]

As the Opposition spokesperson has spoken to both amendments, I invite Members to speak to amendment 4, and to amendment 5, in clause 12, page 7, line 12, at end insert—

“(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty, where a venue certainty contract would result in a new production facility, to prioritise entering into any such contracts with producers that will use UK owned technologies in that facility.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Well done to the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire; he pulled it out of the fire there with the amendments. He is right that we are putting SAF on the statute book. We should have put it on the statute book years ago, which is why it was in our manifesto and we are doing the right thing now. I will address the questions about £1.50 in a moment.

Amendment 4 tabled by the hon. Member would put a requirement on the counterparty to report on the effect of the introduction of the revenue certainty mechanism on air travel prices. Once operating, the revenue certainty mechanism is expected to make minimal changes to fares with an average ticket price, as we have said, decreasing or increasing by up to £1.50 on average per year. I remind him that that is less than a bus fare on Andy Burnham’s Bee Network in Greater Manchester where I live. I would offer to pay it, but it is quite cumulative over time and I do not have that type of resource—I am happy to fund the hon. Member for one year at £1.50 if he so wishes. That figure comes from a DFT analysis.

The costs of the scheme and the impact on ticket prices will be kept under continual review. The Government will also set the approach to the allocation of contracts, the number of contracts awarded and the scale of support they provide. Those controls will help to minimise any potential impacts on airfares. The costs of the scheme will also be reported in the DFT annual report and accounts in the usual way. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked whether the figure refers to the mandate or the revenue certainty mechanism. I assure him that it is just the revenue certainty mechanism.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to you for rescuing me, Mr Western, by grouping both amendments in the same debate. I made a mistake, so I put my hands up to that.

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I will not press the matter to a vote but, as with the earlier amendment, when projections are made I think it is incumbent on the Government to find a way of giving comfort to all the travelling public and all those businesses that use air freight that the provisions of the Bill—I fully accept the comments of the hon. Member for Wimbledon on the wider effects of the mandate—will not produce a much higher cost to them when they go on their holidays or business trips or move goods around the world.

Ahead of Report, will the Minister and his team in the Department look at ways to kick the tyres on those presumptions—in particular given the evidence we heard on Tuesday—and check that they are robust as possible and have the confidence of industry? I would be grateful for that, and we may well return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 13 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within six months of the Act’s passing, reviewing how we can better secure the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production.

The success of the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel ambitions will rely not only on bold targets and optimistic projections, but on the reliable availability of the resources needed for manufacturing. Bioethanol will be a resource that can be part of the manufacturing process for SAF, and help support a low-carbon industry in the UK, yet while the Government continue to laud their commitment to green aviation, they have stood by while domestic bioethanol production is at risk from Donald Trump’s bully boy tactics.

Since the signing of the UK-US trade deal, the owners of two UK bioethanol plants based in Hull and Teesside have threatened to close the sites as the trade agreement fundamentally undermines their business position. This Government have given US ethanol producers a 1.4 billion litre tariff-free quota—equivalent to the UK’s entire annual demand for the product—and completely undercut the industry, making the UK vulnerable to the whims of, to put it at its mildest, the mercurial Trump Administration.

The new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of plant closures on SAF production potential, set out options to mitigate supply risks and, crucially, recommend the policy steps needed to promote a stable domestic supply of bioethanol. We cannot afford to leave this to chance, or to the good will of a US President who, as we all know, simply cannot be trusted. If the Government are serious about scaling up SAF production, they must ensure that the raw materials are available. That means a proper strategy to support and stabilise the UK’s bioethanol sector.

[Greg Smith]

I absolutely understand and appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from with this new clause. This topic came up in the oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading.

It is of great concern that the slightly lower tariffs deal done with the United States of America has clearly and materially threatened UK production of bioethanol, which of course has many uses. Many of us on the petrol station forecourt will have seen the curious E5 and E10 labels on the petrol pumps, which is about the ethanol blended with the regular fossil fuel. Our consumption of it as a country is particularly high.

As we are debating the potential future of bioethanol in sustainable aviation fuel production, it is incumbent upon the Government to reflect, within the scope of the Bill, on how much domestic supply there can be. So much of the Bill is underpinned by sovereign capability and fuel security—a point on which the Opposition and I think the Liberal Democrats are equally aligned on; it is so important—and so surely this new clause must also be important to the Government. I ask the Minister to reflect on that when he responds.

[Mike Kane]

I am extraordinarily proud that we have a Prime Minister and a Government who are rebuilding the UK’s reputation across the world once again, building trade deals with our closest partners across the planet, whether that be India, America or the recent agreement with the European Union. That is where Britain should be—leading and involved, not on the fringes as we have been for many years.

We are debating sustainable aviation fuel, but this is also about decarbonising the planes that will fly in our skies for generations to come. That US trade deal is zero tariff on aviation technology, which is a huge deal for this country, making it a world leader again in the future.

However, I am worried for the workers and families who have been affected by the trade deal. Ministers and officials, including the Business and Transport Secretaries, have met the companies consistently during this challenging time—those companies were struggling regardless of the time—to understand their concerns, discuss what action could be taken and to support them, because that is what good Governments do. The Department for Business and Trade is in discussions on requests for support from the UK bioethanol sector. As a responsible Government, there is a series of strict criteria and well-established due diligence processes that we must follow to consider such requests.

While I would like to see a thriving UK bioethanol sector, we would not expect a significant impact on the SAF mandate if there were to be a reduction in that sector’s production. That is because the UK bioethanol plants use crops that are not eligible for the SAF mandate. The SAF mandate, which is the framework for the supply of SAF in the UK, sets targets based on the availability of waste feedstocks rather than crop feedstocks. The SAF mandate is a global scheme and can use fuels from all around the world, providing an opportunity to draw upon a diverse pool of feedstocks.

However, we also want to encourage a UK industry. In January, the Chancellor announced £63 million of funding this year to help grow UK supply of SAF through the advanced fuels fund, which has been further extended in the recent Budget through to 2029-30. The SAF revenue certainty mechanism—the subject of the Bill—will also boost investment in UK SAF production.

Finally, under the SAF mandate, a formal review of the whole scheme has been built into the legislation, with the first review taking place in 2030. That will provide an opportunity to make an assessment on the availability of SAF supply. The above steps demonstrate how many of the recommendations set out in the hon. Member for Wimbledon’s new clause are already being undertaken by the Government. Given that, I ask him to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making with new clause 4, but I would argue that it is unnecessary; the whole point of the Bill is to decarbonise aviation. As the Minister said himself, and as I hope the Committee will accept, the Bill was conceived and finds its origins under the last Government, and it was then carried through by this Government, so it is something that we can rightly be proud of on both sides of the House. As we are leading the world on this issue, I am not sure that new clause 4 is necessary.

However, new clause 5 is more interesting, because it goes to the very crux of the debate we had earlier on the various technologies that can produce sustainable aviation fuel in the United Kingdom. It goes without saying that, while all forms of sustainable aviation fuel—as we know it at the moment—are greener than their fossil fuel equivalent, there is significant variation in the greenhouse gas and carbon emissions between using blends or 100% sustainable aviation fuel in an aircraft. The merits of new clause 5 go to the absolute centre of the debate on which of those technologies, or which of those great innovations, can deliver the closest to net zero over the coming years and decades, if not net zero itself.

If new clause 5 were baked into the Bill, and ultimately the Act, it would be interesting to see how it would enable us judge among those different technologies. I have talked in the House many times about the importance of whole-system analysis, which is an analysis not just of the effect while the jet engines are turning and the planes are in the sky, but of the whole impact on greenhouse gas and carbon emissions of manufacturing the fuel and what is done with the waste product afterwards, particularly carbon. New clause 5 would go to the heart of discovering that.

One of the things that we have seen in evidence, and that we have talked before about in the Chamber, is the effect when certain fuels are derived, in part, from atmospheric carbon capture—the carbon emitted post combustion, which comes out of the tailpipe of the aircraft, is the same amount of carbon that is recaptured from the atmosphere to make the next lot of fuel. New clause 5 has the merit of enabling us to command the Government to review that, which is why His Majesty’s Official Opposition have sympathy with it.

[Luke Taylor]

I rise briefly to press this question to the Minister: if the Government oppose the new clauses, how are they are going to incorporate their intent? I think they probably agree with the intent but are probably just resistant to their being outlined as they are. I ask the Minister to go into as much detail as he can on whether that will happen through the jet zero taskforce or something else.

[Mike Kane]

I always enjoy listening to the rasping oration of the hon. Member for Wimbledon.

[Greg Smith]

Rasping?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

I do not have the answer in front of me, but I commit to providing the hon. Gentleman with an answer in due course. I thought the point he was making was about whether we are being open and transparent across all sectors in the UK in showing how we are decarbonising the aviation sector. [Interruption.] I do now have the answer. Who knew? The miracle of mobile telephony—it will save writing my signature to him with the electronic pen. The SAF mandate and statistics include details of feedstocks and the origin of the SAF. I hope that answers his question, but if he wants more information—we are all keen on this—I would ask him to please keep in touch.

New clause 5, entitled “Increasing greenhouse gas saving potential of sustainable aviation fuel”, was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The SAF mandate is the UK’s key policy to decarbonise jet fuel. It does that by securing demand for SAF, by obligating the supply of an increasing amount of SAF in the overall UK aviation fuel mix. The SAF mandate rewards SAF in proportion to the greenhouse gas savings its achieves. That will encourage SAF developers to improve continuously on their greenhouse gas savings. To ensure that the SAF mandate reflects the latest technological and commercial developments, there will be continuous monitoring of trends and the impacts of the mandate. Formal reviews will be conducted and published at least every five years, with a formal review in 2030. The formal reviews will already include certain elements of the new clause, namely the minimum greenhouse gas savings threshold and the minimum targets for supply of SAF. Following the review, there will be an opportunity to update the legislation as needed.

[Greg Smith]

The central question is whether that review, when it comes, looks at the greenhouse gas savings while the aircraft is in use, or gives a whole-system analysis, from the production and use of the fuel to the benefits of using the by-products, post combustion, to make more fuel. That is an important clarification that we need.

[Mike Kane]

My kingdom for a chemistry degree! I will let the hon. Gentleman know the answer to his question in due course.

To go back to the point, new clause 5 would duplicate the process already embedded in the SAF mandate legislation. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause.