Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Paul Kohler and Amanda Hack

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Kohler]

Q First, given the obvious international aspect of aviation, does it make sense for the UK mandate and the EU mandate to diverge, or would it make more sense if they were the same? Secondly, we heard from one witness that the levy would encourage tankering, with air operators filling up in other locations. Does that happen now, and is it an issue that you can see being made worse by the levy?

Matt Gorman: On the first question, I touched earlier on the fact that the EU and the UK have taken different trajectories, certainly into the longer term. I will be a little bit careful in what I say, because we are just finalising our thinking on what we submit to the Government, but increasing ambition with SAF will be important in the UK as we build confidence in production and scale-up of the technology. We can see a case in future to be more ambitious with the UK mandate. I think the Government said that they want to keep that actively under review, which we support.

On the question of tankering, it happens to a limited extent today. We do not fly the aircraft, but our understanding, from when we last looked at it several years ago, is that on short-haul aircraft in particular, where there is a very rapid turnaround and you do not necessarily want to take time to fill up the aircraft at the other end of the route, the CO₂ penalty was not huge in terms of the industry overall. I am not close enough to comment on whether the levy poses a particular challenge there, but when the Government get to the stage of consultation on the detailed design of the mechanism and are working with the industry, it will be important to design it in a way that avoids that wherever possible.

[Amanda Hack]

Q We talk an awful lot about the customers and what they might see on the price of their ticket, whether that is for freight or for going on holiday to Spain or wherever, but are your customers demanding that you be more environmentally friendly? As an airport, how far do you need your customers to support the transition to SAF?

Matt Gorman: It is a great question. All the evidence from our polling of customers, as well as what we read in regular polls and consumer surveys, shows that people are broadly concerned about climate change and environmental issues generally. In terms of aviation, they see that there is a role for customers, but they are clear that the industry needs to set out a plan and take action. They understand that airports do not necessarily fly planes, but that we clearly have a responsibility. They expect us to set out the plan, communicate it and take action at the airport where we can. In that sense, all the evidence shows that consumers support us taking action.

As the answer to an earlier question alluded to, the net zero transition will have some costs to consumers. The challenge is how we keep those costs as low as possible while reaching the goal of net zero. I think the balance of the mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism is well designed to achieve that. We think that domestic production in the long term so we are not reliant on imports—we have discussed the energy security angle—is a good way of helping to manage price certainty in future. Consumers are supportive, engaged and willing to pay a bit more to support the transition to net zero, but the industry and Government need to take action to manage it cost-effectively.

[Mr Kohler]

Q May I go back to my first question? I hear what you say about being more ambitious, as the EU is towards the end of the mandate or as it progresses, but do you see any problems with the mandates being out of kilter? Or is that not an issue?

Matt Gorman: If we start with the mandates out to 2030, we at Heathrow do not see a particular challenge in the UK’s adoption of a more ambitious mandate. We very actively supported the 10% mandate for the UK. As I say, it is really important that we start to get SAF flowing and to produce it in the UK, with the support of the Bill.

In the longer term, through the work we are doing and our submissions to Government, I expect us to say a bit more about the long-term ambition for the mandate in the UK, but we have not quite finalised that. I will be happy to update the Committee in writing later in the summer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Hack]

Q In terms of SAF’s growth potential, I would be interested to hear more about how smaller organisations can get involved and how we can ensure that lots of businesses benefit from this huge step forward for our economy. A lot of SAF production will be in coastal areas, but my constituency, which has an airport, is inland. How can that growth potential reach all parts of the UK?

Mike Kane: Indeed, and Amanda, you are a great champion of East Midlands airport in your constituency—I have Manchester airport in mine, and I see from day to day the benefits that growth brings in terms of jobs, skills and inward investment. You make exactly the right point. Good strategy is turning what you have into what you need to get what you want.

We have industrial heartlands dotted right across our nation, including in our coastal communities. They are almost oven-ready to host the technology, inward development and jobs. Our analysis, which was a minimum compared with those of everybody else in the room, is that this would create 15,000 jobs in the next few years and £5 billion in GVA. Those jobs are in many of our run-down coastal communities and industrial heartlands, so this is a win-win on many levels—in terms of decarbonisation, carbon capture, production and the regeneration of parts of our nation that have been left behind for far too long.

[Mr Kohler]

Q I have been looking at some of the written evidence we have received in addition to the testimonies from the witnesses. I understand why clause 6 is widely drawn, but do you recognise that the levy being calculated in too complex a way would produce uncertainty, a lack of transparency, and externalities or transaction costs that we do not need?

Mike Kane: I think clause 6 gives us flexibility. That is what is key in letting the contract. We have made some principle statements here. This is industry-funded; we do not think the taxpayer should pay for the decarbonisation of aviation. We know that at the moment it is a small amount of what transport emits nationally, but because it is one of the harder-to-decarbonise areas, we know that the graph will go up over time. That is why we are funding the fuel suppliers, at the top of the chain here, so that the costs are spread as this goes lower down the chain and eventually to the passenger.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Paul Kohler and Amanda Hack

Committee stage
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Before I came to this place, I sat on the highways and transport scrutiny committee at Leicestershire county council, so I have spent a lot of my professional life talking about buses. As is not out of the ordinary for someone living in a rural or semi-rural constituency, however, I have also spent a lot of my personal life talking about them, as cuts and broader threats to our services are often the subject of conversation around the dinner table.

We all have residents such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke about in our previous sitting. For example, my constituent, Jacky, fought hard to reinstate the bus service in Whitwick in my constituency, and won, ensuring that people can get to the local doctor and pharmacy. That is a socially critical service. A few years ago, the service between Coalville in my constituency and Hinckley in the neighbouring constituency was withdrawn at short notice in the middle of an academic term. North west Leicestershire and Hinckley both have further education colleges, and that essential link between the two was withdrawn in the middle of people’s courses. If the local authority had responded to campaigners then, it would have realised that the bus route between those two urban parts of Leicestershire was a socially necessary service.

In big cities, cutting one service leaves a dent, but in rural areas such as mine, it leaves a crater—and craters have been appearing all over my constituency. Bus services were cut by 62% under the previous Government. What bus providers and councils see as cutting costs, we see as cutting lifelines to education, jobs and healthcare—cutting connections with our communities. Members can imagine my constituents’ frustration when they heard a few weeks ago that notice had been served on a route between Ashby and Loughborough. The local authority has found an alternative to protect the service, but the timings are such that students now have to catch their bus even earlier to get to college.

Bus services are not just about transport; they are about opportunity, inclusion and dignity. When a young person in Measham cannot reach their college in Loughborough, or an elderly resident of Ibstock cannot get to their medical appointment, that is not an inconvenience but an erosion of their independence. We cannot afford to keep asking our communities to do more with less. That is why I welcome the Bill’s ambition. Finally, we have committed the resources that are needed to protect socially necessary services in my community and many others.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Clause 14 is so important, because it is about socially necessary routes—those that are critical to the community. It explicitly includes employment and, as the Minister conceded last week, also catches things such as hospital appointments, GP appointments and education.

Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister has hidden behind localism. Now, I am a Liberal, so subsidiarity is part of my DNA; I believe in devolving power, but national Government must not wash their hands of their responsibilities. It is reminiscent of the old Conservative trick from the Thatcher era, of Government distancing themselves from their responsibilities. Funding is crucial, but as we heard in the debate last week on amendment 54, the Minister says it is not for Government to decide what to do with it. They have given a bit of money, and now it will be up to local authorities.

The Minister even quoted other Tory lines about how there is no “magic money tree”, and I agree—there is not. So we need growth. We do not get growth by wishing on a star, taxing jobs by increasing employer’s national insurance contributions, or tying ourselves in knots with red lines over Europe rather than meaningfully re-engaging with the EU customs union. That is the way to grow the economy; that is the way we pay for these things. The Government cannot talk about growth, do nothing about it, and say to local authorities, “We have given you almost a billion pounds, and you can now go and sort out buses,” because local authorities do not have the finances.

I am straying from the Bill. I have thus far referenced the omissions from the Bill, such as money. By inserting subsections (5) and (6), the House of Lords sought to focus attention on the Government’s commissions—namely, the end of the £2 fare cap, and the disastrous effect of hiking employer’s NI costs on the provision of special educational needs and disabilities bus transport. The Government’s decision to table an amendment removing those subsections is plainly a mistake, one that threatens to undo the constructive and necessary work undertaken in the Lords. The provisions were added to ensure that Ministers are held accountable for the consequences of their decisions—specifically, the rise in national insurance contributions and the short-sighted decision to increase the cap on bus fares.

As the National Audit Office made clear in its report published last Friday, bus services are lifelines, not luxuries. They are essential for the young, for older people, for households without a car, and for those on the lowest incomes. The Government’s decision to scrap the £2 fare cap is not just wrong, but an outrage. It is a direct hit to the most vulnerable. The NAO report revealed that the lowest-income households—those in the bottom 20%—take more bus journeys on average than any other income group, at 42 journeys per household per year. Those are essential journeys to work, school, the shops or the doctor. Removing the fare cap would mean those people—the poorest in our society—paying more to do the basics of daily life. Subsection (5) rightly sought to introduce a review to assess the impact of increasing the fare cap on people’s ability to access socially necessary routes. Scrapping the review removes transparency, accountability and the Government’s responsibility to understand how their decisions impact real lives.

The same principle applies to subsection (6), which calls for an assessment of the impact of changes to national insurance on SEND transport. Transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities is not a side issue; it is central to an inclusive, accessible education system. Without that form of transport, many children cannot get to school. Increasing employer’s NI contributions risks undermining the viability of the services, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made clear last week. The operators who run them are under increasing financial pressure. Without proper assessment and oversight, we risk sleepwalking into a situation where routes are cut, service levels fall, and SEND pupils are left without reliable transport. That would be an unforgivable failure of not just policy, but basic fairness.

Including a requirement to review the impact does not bind the Government’s hands; it simply asks them to look at the evidence, consider the consequences of their actions, and take responsible steps to mitigate harm where needed. We must protect these services for their users and uphold the principle that no one should be left behind due to financial pressures beyond their control. I urge the Government to reconsider and not shy away from scrutiny. They should own their decisions and be prepared to measure their impact. That is what responsible government demands.