Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 6 requires, perhaps by way of introduction, a few words on the structure of the subsidy and how it actually works. Bear in mind that prior to all this, as I said earlier, a sustainable aviation fuel mandate was put in place by statutory instrument some 15 months ago which guarantees the demand for the product. There is a guaranteed demand: in simplistic terms, it is like saying that everybody in the country has to eat half a pound of chocolate every day.

If that were to be the Government’s policy and they put that in place, you would expect chocolate factories to spring up. Existing chocolate factories might expand; new chocolate factories would come into existence. So, what is the problem? Why is it that putting the demand in place is not sufficient? Why do you need to go further? Why are factories and investors not producing this stuff for which you have put in place a mandatory and growing demand over the years ahead? I do not know the answer to that.

The Government have decided that putting the demand in place is not enough. To satisfy our somewhat rapacious foreign investor friends, they also need to be given a guaranteed price for the product. Not only is half a pound of chocolate going to be eaten every day, but you will have to guarantee the price in order to get the chocolate factories to work.

That is what the Bill does. It is not about putting the demand in place—that exists—it is about guaranteeing the price, and the way to do that is to provide some form of subsidy. Of course, a direct subsidy out of the coffers of the Treasury is almost unaffordable in our current circumstances, but it is also unnecessary because the Government have, as we know, discovered in the field of wind farms and solar panels the device of the contract for the difference.

A contract for difference is a way of guaranteeing a price, and it is done by putting in place a counterparty—separate from the Government, but essentially a government glove puppet—which will enter into contracts with these foreign investors to guarantee them a price. They will negotiate the strike price, but on what basis they will negotiate it, what skills they will bring to negotiating it, how they will be certain they are not going to be given the runaround and end up with a very adverse price—none of these things is put in place or explained to us. They will end up with a contract, which will be in place for a number of years. The effect of the contract will be to increase the price of the fuel. The increase in the price of the fuel is very likely to find its way through to ticket prices. So this Bill has an indirect but none the less fairly ineluctable consequence: it will increase air fares.

When you ask the Government by how much air fares will go up—and we are going to do that later, in group 5—they say they have done an assessment and it will be, per year, which I think means cumulatively every year, £1.50 up or £1.50 down. They do not know. It is a fairly small amount and fairly neutral, but it is almost impossible to discern how they reach that conclusion, or to find it very credible, because airlines are complaining that the HEFA they have to buy already, because the mandate is in place—and they were buying it even before the mandate came in—is turning out to be very expensive indeed compared with standard aviation fuel.

It is wrong that Parliament and the Government should burden future generations for unnecessarily long periods with these additional costs of travel and subsidies. Therefore, I propose that any contract entered into strictly by the counterparty—not by the Government but under the direction of the Government—should have a term of no more than 10 years.

Clause 1(7) of the Bill—I drew attention to this in the last group—envisages a sunset clause after 10 years. It is extendable under Clause 1(8), as the Minister said, but it has a sunset clause in it. That, however, is not a limitation on the length of the contracts that might be entered into during that 10-year period. You could quite lawfully enter into a contract with a life of 100 years within that 10-year period. There should be some limit put on that, because these costs will fall not on oldies like us, whose flying days are passing, but on young people over the rest of their lives and their careers. There may well be no justification for it by then. Who knows, by then we may well be paying people to produce a fuel but life has moved on and the fuel is not necessary. Yet we will have to buy them out of that, and that will fall on air passengers. So, a10-year limit on the contract should be quite enough for any foreign investor to start up this process and get it going. They have a guaranteed price for 10 years and after that they should be on their own. That is what the substance is of this amendment, which I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very interesting amendment, because a revenue certainty contract, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, is wonderful for the suppliers. It presumably links in not just the price but the volumes—which may change from year to year —and the sources. The noble Lord opposite mentioned the issue of Drax and where that material comes from every year. Would there be a 10-year guarantee price for that? As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, any old agricultural product that was edible could be covered as well. And we have not yet discussed the worry that many people have about the number of trees and everything else being cut down in the Amazon basin, which could also be covered by this. So, a revenue certainty contract is pretty difficult and this amendment is a good start in at least limiting its scope and time.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, there has been a lot of consensus at each stage of this Bill. The Government have shown that they are willing to listen and make amendments as we have debated. They have consulted the sector on different aspects of this legislation. As we have heard, this is an emerging field in terms of technology and production in the UK. That is why we on these Benches feel it is important that we have full transparency, so that we can understand how the revenue certainty mechanism is working, the impact on the sector and how we are developing this new sector in the UK. This also helps the passenger in terms of information.

My Amendment 13 asks for a report covering a number of important areas such as the volume of SAF produced in, supplied to and used in the UK; the types of SAF; an estimate of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the production; and the uptake and use of SAF by air travel providers. This is about ensuring that the public and industry can see the impact of this policy and the revenue certainty mechanism. It would ensure clarity about progress towards sustainable aviation fuel targets. This requirement for reporting on progress is a simple measure that we believe would help with the understanding of the Bill.

I thank the civil servants who have met my noble friend Lord Russell and me over recent weeks and listened to our concerns. I hope that the Minister will see the amendment as adding value to the Bill, and I look forward to his response. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, which we discussed at some length in Committee. The amendments then, which other noble Lords supported, covered the relationship between the sustainable aviation fuel used for aeroplanes and the same fuel used for home heating. I declare an interest as having a boiler in Cornwall that survives very well on home heating.

Interestingly, sustainable aviation fuel produced through the HEFA process generates hydrotreated vegetable oil as a by-product. HVO accounts for approximately 30% of the output, a significant amount that should not be overlooked. HVO can play an essential role in helping to decarbonise the 1.7 million oil-heated households that are off the gas grid. Otherwise they use electricity, which is expensive.

Last month, we had a delegation from the village of Kehelland in Cornwall who have all been trying out HVO in their houses for about three years. They travelled, leaving at 2 am, to meet the Minister at DESNZ to present their response to the consultation that we discussed earlier—a 500-mile round trip shows they are pretty committed. But what is interesting is that, in describing their experience of using the fuel, they highlighted how renewable liquid fuels can cut emissions from home heating by up to 88% compared with kerosene—88% is a figure worth having. They work simply as a drop-in replacement. The Government’s consultation said that, of all those considered, this was the most cost-effective option for off-grid consumers.

However, the consultation still questions the feedstock availability for the fuel, which we discussed in earlier amendments today. It is puzzling that the DfT is confident that there is more than enough feedstock to boost SAF production by 22%. The research done by the industry, the EU Commission and the Irish Government indicates that there is enough feedstock—again, we have discussed that at length. I was pleased to welcome the Government’s confirmation in a Written Answer that the targets under the SAF and RTFO mandates

“are set considering global availability of feedstocks and competing demands between transport modes and across sectors of the economy”.

That seems to highlight that there is enough material for both aviation and home heating, so it would be a great shame if we pitted one sector against the other, rather than try to have a bit more of what you might call cohabitation in-between.

To incentivise HVO production, I believe a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation needs to be implemented—that is the solution—triggered under Section 159 of the Energy Act. That would create the necessary market mechanism, in a similar way to the SAF mandate and the RTFO, to give certainty to the industry to distribute HVO to households at an affordable price. I hope that I can persuade my noble friend when he responds to try to ensure that his department, the Department for Transport, and DESNZ are working hand in hand to ensure that we can scale up the production of sustainable aviation fuel to capture the benefits of HVO for home heating. I must not keep asking him for meetings every day, but, if he would accept, it would be very nice to have a meeting with him and our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Whitehead, the Minister for Energy Security, to discuss the benefits of this approach. The consultation closes today, so it seems to be the right time to meet.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I have to confess to having been a little perplexed when the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, moved Amendment 13, because I had just listened to the speech of her colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I thought my noble friend Lord Moylan’s proposal simply to publish and have some transparency about ticket prices was perfectly reasonable, but the noble Earl, Lord Russell, set out a whole raft of reasons why that was entirely unreasonable, incredibly difficult, completely unnecessary, bureaucratic and costly and why we should not bother ourselves with it, and he then proceeded not to support my noble friend’s amendment. Although I disagree with the noble Earl, he made some perfectly reasonable arguments, although not ones that I agree with. I am perplexed because his noble friend’s amendment is very comprehensive and would place some really quite significant reporting requirements on the Government in a way that seems to be completely at odds with the argument that the noble Earl just made.