Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

I rise very briefly to speak in favour of new clause 2, which I have tabled. Generally, the intent was to provide a check-in and reporting mechanism for the success of the Bill. We are all in favour of its objectives; I think that it is the care, and the attention to understanding how it is progressing, that is needed. I therefore ask the Minister what measures will be taken by the Government to achieve the aims of the new clause. Will that be through the jet zero taskforce, or will there be another mechanism for us to understand and monitor the progress and success of these measures? I would be interested to hear his response on how that might be done.

[Mike Kane]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Let me start by addressing the point made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, about the overview and ambition of this legislation. We are the first legislature in the world to attempt to create this revenue certainty mechanism. The SAF mandate was a key commitment in our election manifesto last July, and the eyes of the world, as some of our witnesses said the other day, are on us doing this work, because people are following our lead. I therefore want to bake in the competitive advantage of being ahead of the game in this area, and being a world leader in this area too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

The clause will enable the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to the counterparty to ensure that it can always meet its liabilities under the revenue certainty contracts. The intention is that the counterparty will be funded through the levy payments from suppliers of aviation fuel in the UK. The power is a back-up to assure SAF producers and investors that the counterparty will always be able to meet its obligations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Black bin waste

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament, guidance on the opportunities available for local authorities in England to support the production of Sustainable Aviation Fuel through the use of black bin waste.

(2) Within six months of the publication of guidance under subsection (1) the Secretary of State may, by regulation, require local authorities in England to prioritise the creation of sustainable fuel in the disposal of their black bin waste unless the local authority deems it to be significantly financially disadvantageous to do so.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must define the meaning of ‘significantly financially disadvantageous’ for the purposes of this section.

(4) Regulations made under subsection (2) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”—(Luke Taylor.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Luke Taylor]

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

I move the new clause simply to discuss some of the interesting issues that it raises. In the evidence session on Tuesday, we heard about the opportunities for the diversion of residual municipal waste into the production of second-generation SAF. We have heard from many in Committee this morning about the challenges to do with the incineration of waste and the impact of that on our communities, but a lot of us maintain, or agree, that that is the least worst option. The opportunity here is that there is a slightly less worse option for the disposal of that remaining municipal waste.

New clause 1 aims to give the Minister a bit of a nudge towards examining the opportunities and how the waste hierarchy could reflect how that waste is potentially reused. There are also broader questions not only about the residual waste but about plastics recycling, such as whether there is an opportunity to incorporate changes in the way that plastics recycling is prioritised, and whether it is a suitable feedstuff for SAF. New clause 1 is an opportunity to raise some of those questions, and for the Minister to give some assurances and responses on them.

[Mike Kane]

I think the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has a point, in that the public will be interested in how this is made. Advanced-waste SAF, including SAF made from non-recyclable municipal solid waste, is a key part of the SAF industry. We have backed and invested in this kind of SAF in our grant funding programme, the advanced fuels fund, as I mentioned earlier, and we are backing it again in this Bill, providing the revenue certainty that advanced waste-based SAF producers need to attract investment and scale up fast.

The hon. Member’s new clause, however, is not what the SAF producers need, and would place more burdens on our local authorities. There is nothing preventing local authorities from using their municipal solid waste for SAF production if they believe that it provides the best value for money and environmental outcomes. We heard in evidence the other day, when waste actually has a value to it, is it waste any more?

However, municipal waste often needs to be pre-treated and processed before it is used in SAF production. This often means that SAF producers look to buy their waste from processors, rather than from local authorities. We do not believe that access to municipal solid waste is currently a significant barrier for UK SAF production, and it is likely that discussions on the availability of municipal solid waste would happen once a project is close to taking a financial investment decision. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

Review of the supply of bioethanol for use in sustainable aviation fuel production

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before Parliament a report reviewing measures to encourage the supply of materials for Sustainable Aviation Fuel.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an assessment of the impact of the closure of bioethanol plants on the ability to encourage overall increases in sustainable aviation fuel production;

(b) options for mitigating any adverse impacts on the availability of supply of sustainable aviation fuel by the closure of bioethanol plants;

(c) recommendations for any necessary Government action to promote a stable supply of bioethanol for Sustainable Aviation Fuel.”—(Mr Kohler.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report outlining measures to encourage the supply of materials for SAFs, including considering the impact of bioethanol plant closures on encouragement to increase supply.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[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.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

A latter day Hilaire Belloc, in my humble opinion. However, on this occasion, the hon. Member for Wimbledon will no doubt know that I disagree with him.

Committee members will be aware that SAF is considered to be essential in achieving net zero for aviation medium and long-haul flights, which account for about 80% of CO₂ emissions from aviation. The Government update Parliament and the public regularly on the progress towards net zero targets across the economy, including by laying in Parliament an annual statement of emissions and annual publications of official greenhouse gas emissions statistics. They include granular detail on emissions from all economic sectors, including domestic and international aviation. Furthermore, the Climate Change Committee reports to Parliament each year on progress in reducing emissions, including for transport, and there is a statutory duty on the Government to respond to the points that it raises.

To address the points raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, we continue to publish statistics on the volume of SAF supplied each year in the UK and under the SAF mandate. Together, these measures provide a clear picture of progress towards decarbonising aviation, so I would ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon to withdraw his new clause.

[Luke Taylor]

The Minister has spoken about the tonnage from SAF, but the real question is whether statistics and information will be available on the sources of each of those SAF types, so that we can examine how each of the various streams of SAF production are contributing and also understand the net carbon benefit. He has talked about the carbon production from the burning, but we need to see the detail of the SAF streams to understand the benefits and the progress towards decarbonisation in more detail. Is that something the Government might consider?

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

That was a creative way of asking about railways in a question about roads. This Government are committed to improving all forms of transport, so that people have a real choice about the best mode to use for their journey. We are keen for people to have the choice of sustainable transport modes, including rail, walking and cycling, as well as driving and travelling on buses. As the hon. Member will see, the Government are investing huge amounts to support our rail industry, just as we are doing to support the state of our roads.

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

10. How much funding she plans to provide to increase the frequency of trains from stations in Sutton and Cheam constituency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

Rail services in Sutton and Cheam are supported by requirements on train operators to plan services and timetables to meet current and future passenger demand, ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. Govia Thameslink Railway and South Western Railway are required to work collaboratively with the Department for Transport to develop future plans, and our Department holds them accountable for delivering for passengers.

[Luke Taylor]

Earlier this week I was contacted by a long-suffering commuter using Worcester Park station. She wrote:

“As a teacher my days are already demanding, often filled with pressure, high energy, and very little downtime. Sadly, commuting to and from work now feels just as stressful. Trains during peak hours are frequently so overcrowded that they feel unsafe and extremely uncomfortable. What should be a straightforward journey has become an exhausting and frustrating part of my day.”

Now that South Western Railway is under Government control, will the Minister tell my constituents when we can expect to see the service and timetable finally improve for Worcester Park station?

[Simon Lightwood]

Services returning to public ownership is a watershed moment for our railways and the beginning of our efforts to build Great British Railways, a new publicly owned organisation that runs our trains. We want passengers to see improvements to their services now and, starting with SWR, each operator will have to meet rigorous bespoke performance standards on things such as punctuality, cancellations and passenger experience, so that we can begin to build a world-class public service.

HS2 Reset

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend has painted a graphic picture. I understand that when large infrastructure works are taking place those who live closest to them will often experience disruption in their daily lives, and I want to put on record my thanks to the residents of Kingsbury, Coleshill and Water Orton for their patience. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that we need, once and for all, to put an end to this cycle of overspends, delays and waste, and get on and build a railway that is fit for the 21st century.

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

The disastrous decision by the last Conservative Government to stop the works at Euston station dented investor and commuter confidence in our railways and in major infrastructure delivery. Their failure to keep costs under control and to manage the basics of the project—simple things such as turning up to meetings—has created the quagmire in which HS2 finds itself today, and I do not envy the Secretary of State the task that confronts her. I am glad to hear that the Government see the huge potential of a comprehensive redevelopment of Euston station, but can the Secretary of State reassure me that we will not end up with a cut-price station that does not realise the potential of the project?

[Heidi Alexander]

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity not only to re-provide the existing Euston station—which, I am sure, will frustrate many Members and their constituents at times—but to provide the new HS2 station there and to unlock land around it. That will enable new homes to be delivered, but is also a massive commercial opportunity for regeneration in the heart of London. It is a very exciting opportunity—one that we will be saying more about in the coming weeks.

Hydrogen-powered Aviation

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) for securing this debate and for continuing the conversation that we have been having over the last couple of weeks about the future of aviation—something it is always a pleasure to talk about.

Nothing is inevitable about the pollution in our skies. Aviation does not have to be the easy poster child for conspicuous consumption of resources and casual carbon emissions. It does not have to be part of the problems we face with a warming planet, melting ice caps and increasingly extreme weather. With the right choices, it can be part of the solution. Britain is already feeling the mounting toll of climate change: flash floods, record heatwaves and freak storms. That is not abstract; it is already costing lives and livelihoods across the country. Aviation contributes to that problem and we cannot pretend that it does not.

In 2022 alone, UK domestic and international flights produced nearly 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 7% of the nation’s entire greenhouse gas emissions. If nothing changes, the Climate Change Committee projects that aviation will account for 16% of UK emissions by 2035. We cannot meet our net zero goals without tackling this issue. This debate is particularly well timed following the introduction of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill last week, which addresses the climate emissions of existing technology fuels.

There is good news beyond that, however, and aviation can be part of the solution to our fight against climate change. Thanks to scientific progress and industry innovation, we now have the technology to fly without fossil fuels. Green hydrogen, produced using renewable energy, is a clean fuel that emits no carbon when used. It is one of the most promising solutions for decarbonising aviation, whether by powering aircraft directly or by creating sustainable aviation fuels. That is not a pipe dream; it is already happening.

Hydrogen aircraft are being trialled, green fuel production is scaling up and aircraft around the world are beginning to prepare for a hydrogen-powered future. However, the UK risks being left behind unless we match ambition with investment. The ATI estimates that aerospace’s economic contribution to the UK economy could increase from £8.4 billion today to over £37 billion by 2050, driven by new low and zero emission technologies such as hydrogen-powered aircraft.

Britain’s aerospace sector is ready, but it lacks confidence that essential infrastructure exists, such as the hydrogen production that those aircraft will require. ADS, the UK trade association for aerospace, defence, security and space, estimates that global aviation could require more than 100 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2050—3 million tonnes of which would be used in the UK. It is essential that we scale up the production of green hydrogen to meet that challenge, and enable the shift in the industry to take place. Investment is required in production, as is massive investment in refuelling systems and supply chains, as well as the planning approvals that are required to approve projects necessary for that development.

The ATI strategic programme has supported several key projects in the shift to develop hydrogen-electric propulsion systems, including ZeroAvia’s HyFlyer and advanced fuel cells for aviation decarbonisation projects, GKN’s H2GEAR and H2FlyGHT—lots of confusing acronyms and project names—and Project Fresson, led by Cranfield Aerospace Solutions. Some of those projects, including those by ZeroAvia, have resulted in or will soon result in certification applications with the Civil Aviation Authority that will complete in the coming years—the earliest of them by 2026.

ZeroAvia, which is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), is backed by many huge investors, including Airbus, British Airways, and the Amazon Climate Pledge Fund. It is already attracting orders from airlines such as Alaska Airlines and United Airlines. Critically, it has also had investment from the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Scottish National Investment Bank, which shows the immediate viability and attractiveness of investing in this technology.

Having raised over $250 million and grown a team of more than 200 employees across Gloucestershire and London, ZeroAvia is already making a significant contribution to the aviation industry. It is currently targeting certifying with the CAA a hydrogen-electric powertrain for planes with up to 20 seats, with the target of it entering service next year. The step after that will be developing an engine for larger 40 to 80-seat aircraft by 2028. The certification will require investment in the CAA to provide the skills and expertise to evaluate and then certify the aircraft as safe.

The advantage of ZeroAvia’s approach is the ability for airlines to retrofit the engines into existing fleets. This is not a tale about a technology of the future. ZeroAvia has already performed several world-first breakthrough flight demonstrations of its powertrain technology from its base at Cotswold airport. ZeroAvia is an incredibly exciting new entry to the sector, but existing aviation giant Airbus has also seized the opportunity of hydrogen. Its plans are bigger and depend on more infrastructure; as a result, Airbus recently announced its ZEROe hydrogen-powered aircraft programme would be delayed by a decade because of concerns about the availability of infrastructure to support hydrogen flight.

The ZEROe aircraft features an electric-propellor propulsion system powered by hydrogen fuel cells that uses the hydrogen to generate electricity on board through a chemical reaction, similar to the approach taken by ZeroAvia. The only by-product of this reaction is water, and when combined with green hydrogen production, the process is carbon-neutral. The ZEROe approach with propeller propulsion is the likely first-generation hydrogen powerplant type, replacing domestic and regional aircraft, like those ZeroAvia is already developing, for shorter flights.

That approach contrasts with the one Rolls Royce is taking with its project to modify existing technology engines to run on gaseous hydrogen, instead of requiring a conversion to electrical energy to power an onboard electric motor. Rolls showed the huge potential of that work back in 2022 when it successfully ran a modified AE 2100-A engine, which is a variant of the turboprop powerplant that equips the Saab 2000 regional airliner, which is a long-established and widely used regional turboprop.

The next stage of that work is to modify a Pearl 15 business jet engine, which is a twin shaft turbofan that currently powers the Bombardier Global Express, showing that this approach is potentially applicable to turbofans as well as turboprops. The direct combustion of hydrogen in a modified existing-technology engine shows an alternative route to harnessing hydrogen to decarbonise the aviation industry. These projects show the huge potential of this fuel to take aviation into the modern era of low and zero-emission operations.

There are three approaches: eSAF, fuel cell to electrical production on the aircraft and direct hydrogen propulsion. They are all viable technologies and approaches that the market, industry and research will understand and develop for the appropriate sectors. For now, those projects are all being held back by infrastructure availability, and I call on the Minister to fix that. I welcome his Government’s July announcement of the commitment of over £100 million for the development of hydrogen and electric aircraft through the Aerospace Technology Institute, and nearly £1 billion over five years to support innovation in the aerospace sector. There is no denying that those are serious, positive moves, but they must be only the start. If we get sustainable aviation fuel right, the benefits for cities such as London will be enormous. Clean flights mean cleaner air, fewer respiratory illnesses, fewer days lost to sickness, and longer, healthier lives. Getting it right would also mean economic leadership, new green engineering jobs, revitalised manufacturing, and a chance for Britain to lead the global hydrogen economy.

Of all transport sectors, on a first-principle basis, aviation is the one to which hydrogen is most applicable. In fact hydrogen will be essential if aviation is to make its net zero targets. Aviation is the most energy-intensive mode of transport and the most sensitive to mass, as the Breguet range equations that I explained to all hon. Members last week show. That is why aviation will be the most suitable use of hydrogen fuel in the future. Aviation has the least competition from other zero-emission pathways, due to their various shortcomings. The sector’s energy demand is plannable and high, creating significant offtake that can bring H₂ down the cost curve. Additionally, the professionalised and regulated environment of aviation is very well suited to handling the new fuel, and establishing standards and safety. Hydrogen’s success in aviation will be a major proof point against many existing investor concerns for other sectors.

I urge the Minister first to provide longer-term clarity to industry on the availability of hydrogen. The Government must signal their intentions on renewable energy and hydrogen production targets beyond 2040, and, to bring forward the business models for hydrogen transport, storage and power, they should also extend Aerospace Technology Institute funding to a 10-year horizon.

Unlike what we have heard from other hon. Members in this debate, this is absolutely not a call for flights to be grounded and Britain isolated. This is a call to fly smarter and cleaner, to back British science and leadership to build a better and more sustainable future. Aviation connects us to people, places and possibilities. It can drive innovation. It boosts economies and it brings the world closer together. With the right action, it can keep doing all of that without costing us our planet.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Luke Taylor Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, travel and aerospace, I very much welcome this step to push the aviation industry into a sustainable future. I encourage Members to join the APPG and come along to our meetings if they want to find out more about sustainability and the future of aviation. I worked in the aviation industry for 16 years before being elected to this place, and I studied aeronautical engineering for four years before that, so it would have been remiss of me not to come to the Chamber today to share with hon. Members my expertise on the subject, but I will try not bore them.

I welcome the support for future technology and the investment previously announced by the Government. We have massive and historical expertise in aviation here in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and we really must grasp the opportunity to develop those skills and that technology further. It is an incredible opportunity for UK plc and we need to grasp it. I want to pick up on a comment by the Secretary of State in her opening speech about airspace modernisation, because it is relevant to the discussion. We must grasp the opportunities of airspace modernisation, which have the potential, as she mentioned, to deliver shorter, more direct and more efficient flight routes. But as MPs, we must engage with the process. We must understand and learn about how that is happening around us. It is inevitable, but we must get the best for our communities. We must understand and engage with that process as it goes along. It is an incredible opportunity.

Over the past few months, the APPG has been hearing about the technologies that we have today. Of particular interest is ZeroAvia, which is already flying a hydrogen-electric, zero-emission aircraft in the UK—it has a hydrogen fuel cell with electrical propulsion, which offers completely zero-emission flight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) mentioned, this is only a stepping stone to the truly zero-emission flight that we really need to capture.

If hon. Members will forgive me for boring them slightly, the Breguet range equations that I learnt about for my degree are the reason why an Airbus A380 will take off from London at 580 tonnes and land in Sydney at around 340 tonnes. The burning of fuel throughout the journey means that it is able to maintain the range and maintain the flight levels that the burning of the fuel and the reduction in the weight require. That is one reason why liquid fuel will almost always be required for very long-haul flights, no matter how far we progress with hydrogen and electrical power plants for short and medium-haul flights.

That amplifies the need not just for the current second-generation SAF production, but for looking at alternative fuel sources such as algae-derived SAF. Others have correctly made the point about the reduction in residual waste, which is the current fuel source for a lot of biodiesel for the development of SAF. As those sources decrease and the cost potentially increases, we need to look at truly zero-carbon sources of SAF.

I will not bore hon. Members more. In closing, I will just echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon and of my party and encourage the Minister to go further and faster to achieve truly zero-carbon and lower-noise aviation technology so that we can continue to enjoy the incredible freedoms and opportunities in both economic activity—jobs, skills and trade—and the broadened horizons that aviation has offered us for more than a century. Long may it continue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Contracts for Difference (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2025. The Ayes were 350 and the Noes were 176, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

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

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) said, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) should never be ashamed of being a geek of any kind. I definitely do not have his knowledge of formulas or anything like that, but I certainly am a self-professed aviation geek who has spent probably far too long sitting at the end of runways watching planes land for hours on end. When I was in high school, I used to cycle with one of my friends who lived close to the end of Edinburgh airport runway to just sit and watch aircraft come in—to the point that one time, the police came along and asked why these two 14-year-olds were sitting at the end of the runway watching aircraft land. I can assure everyone that nothing untoward or illegal was happening—we were just being that sad and geeky. I think that was the problem the police had; they did not believe that that was what two 14-year-olds were intending to do.

[Luke Taylor]

I would challenge the hon. Member’s commitment to aviation spotting if, during university, he did not take a date to the final approach at Heathrow airport and have her observing the flights coming in for a good two hours. He may be a geek, but he is not quite there yet.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It would rather depend on whether the date ended up marrying him, wouldn’t it?

Disruption at Heathrow

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I think that the Kelly review will be looking at that. My hon. Friend makes a fair point about preparedness as well as resilience, which I will be discussing with those at Heathrow in the future.

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

The level of disruption caused by the fire and the subsequent closure of Heathrow airport have highlighted the importance of reliable aviation connectivity to our daily lives, as well as the fragility of much of our UK infrastructure. The National Infrastructure Commission published reports in 2020, 2023 and 2024 calling for the Government to implement standards and frameworks for resilience in key sectors such as telecoms, water, transport and energy. Does the Secretary of State agree that this incident shows how important such standards would be, and will those in the appropriate Department pick up the reports which, I am sure, found their way on to their desks over the weekend and start to implement their recommendations?

[Heidi Alexander]

I think they are already doing that, because the review of resilience that was announced by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster last July is looking at the subject in the context of our critical national infrastructure.

Airport Expansion

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member is such a doughty campaigner that I think he had an urgent question in the House a few weeks ago when his plane was cancelled! “Well done,” is all I can say. That day we had a really good question and answer session on connectivity in Northern Ireland. We have two great airports in Belfast, and Derry/Londonderry’s airport serves the north-west. His first question is about planes flying in a straight line—an obscure piece of policy, which is in our manifesto, called airspace modernisation. We can cut up to 10%, 20% and, I am told in the case of some easyJet flights, even 30% of carbon emissions by just getting planes to go in a reasonably straight line and not circle around. It introduces resilience at airports and makes the passenger experience much better. I hope those on the Opposition Benches will support the policy when it comes to this place.

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

I thank the Minister for his very full answers to questions, which mean I am now on the seventh or eighth version of my question. [Laughter.] There are two points I would like to explore. First, on emissions, SAF will only ever be a transitionary fuel. What effort are the Government making to engage with industry to develop truly zero-carbon power plants, and harness our incredible industry and our companies that can take advantage of the opportunity to lead the real zero-carbon hydrogen electric power plants? Secondly, on noise, the Minister mentions airspace modernisation, which will mean some residents facing greater noise frequency and impacts. Does he agree that the answer to the first question, on next generation power plants, is actually the answer to the second question on noise? Please, will he give us a proper answer on what the Government are doing to take advantage?

[Mike Kane]

That is the problem when a new Member is called last, but he is agile—mentally on his feet—to get that in. We are investing in hydrogen zero-emission technology, with £1 billion for the ATI. I hope the hon. Gentleman is sat on the Opposition Benches in the months ahead when we implement the revenue certainty mechanisms, so we can kickstart a new age of SAF production in the UK that will bring jobs and growth right across our great country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I commend my hon. Friend for his bravery in recently speaking out about his personal involvement in that tragic crash, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and my officials for attending the commemoration last weekend. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) in paying tribute to the families of the victims and to all those heroes who responded on the day.

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

Residents in my constituency have been in contact about services at Worcester Park, which have been cut dramatically over the past few years, as has already been alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). One resident complains that prices have gone up by 20% in the past five years, and that the last train has been brought back from almost 1 am to before midnight. This is not only throttling London’s night-time economy, but causing issues for local residents who choose more sustainable transport. Will the Minister explain when we can expect to see improvements in services following renationalisation, which may begin as early as next year?

[Louise Haigh]

The hon. Member has outlined exactly the kind of issues that we seek to address through the public ownership reforms and the creation of Great British Railways. The Department is already working with operators that are in public ownership and those that are not yet, such as Southern, to ensure that the decisions that they make are properly joined up with Network Rail and that we can start driving improvements immediately.

Cost of Rail Fares

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for bringing us this debate and giving us an opportunity to raise constituents’ concerns and wider Liberal Democrat priorities. I thank the Minister for attending and giving responses to our points.

I begin by raising the case, as I did this morning, of the poor rail services to Worcester Park station, which are affecting my constituents’ quality of life. They are unable to collect their children from school, and they are missing family meals. They are unable to rely on the train service and fear for their safety if they have to wait for a taxi late at night when the train does not come.

I want to broaden the discussion to investment in our rail infrastructure. In early 2023, the previous Government announced much-vaunted funding for upgrades to the Belmont rail line. Some £14.1 million was awarded from the levelling-up fund to dual-track part of the line to allow train frequency to be increased to four an hour in each direction by the addition of a passing loop at Belmont station. Such an increase in accessibility would massively benefit my constituents, but it is also key to getting the best out of the cancer hub site that Sutton council has been so ambitious in investing in. That incredibly advanced, world-leading cancer research centre in south-west London will benefit not just Sutton and Cheam but the whole of London. Does the Minister agree that investing in these infrastructure upgrades, as well as concentrating on getting value for money from existing services, is critical to allowing residents to make sustainable transport choices? Does he also agree that it is critical to unleashing the economic benefits of investment, such as in the Institute of Cancer Research in Sutton and Cheam, to allowing us to achieve our net zero climate goals and to boosting the economy, which the Government seem keen to support?