Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Paul Kohler and Chris Vince

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Q Partly because you are based in Oxfordshire, my mind goes to universities. I wondered—based on what was said by a previous contributor—where we are with this technology compared with other countries. I do not know whether you are working with universities, but I am sure you are working with young people to develop skills. Is there is a risk, if the Bill is not passed and we did not get the RCM, that some of the skills that you are developing will be lost to other countries?

Doug McKiernan: There is no question about it. The people who we have recruited have been researching, and have done not only doctorates but post-docs in this area. They have been working in it for nine or 10 years, hoping that there was a company out there that would recruit them and turn their R&D into a reality. These people are very passionate about their career and what they want to do. They are not going to work for the money; they come to make a difference. We have recruited a lot of those people. They will go wherever the company is that will make what they want to do happen.

[Mr Kohler]

Q Have you overcome the technical problems? Once you have the CO₂, is the technical process now scalable, or are there still many issues involved in it?

Doug McKiernan: Our technology at the moment has to be scalable. When I go to the Jet A-1 ASTM committee at the end of the year, it has to be scalable. That is part of getting of getting the certification. We have to have a scalable process as well as a quality of fuel—so yes, we are there.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Paul Kohler and Chris Vince

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Chris Vince]

Q Yes—I recognise that there are a lot of benefits of SAF, but I am wondering how the Bill can help that along.

Gaynor Hartnell: I think it is worth mentioning some of the environmental benefits specifically of producing SAF in the UK. They are focused on the second generation—that is, SAF that comes from waste. We have problematic waste to deal with in the UK, and it is better in terms of the proximity principle if we deal with our own waste domestically. There are various different feedstocks that the SAF mandate is seeking to encourage that have not traditionally been used, so it is aiming to expand the feedstocks to things such as end-of-life tyres. We currently export a lot of that waste to India, and we have heard in the news about the devastating environmental and health impacts that that has. If we deal with our own waste domestically, that is an environmental benefit; we will import somewhat less, but the aviation fuel we use at the moment is largely imported.

The main benefits of producing the SAF in this country are economic. The Government have realised that and they support it as part of their growth agenda, which it plays to.

Paul Greenwood: To round that out, if you listen to Rob’s comments, which I thought were very insightful, about the complexity of this and the need to ensure you get the right projects, with the right feedstock, at the right size and with the right basis, that to my mind is classic market distortion. Fundamentally, you are intervening in a market and saying, “I’m going to decide what is going to happen in this marketplace and I’m going to incentivise it to happen with a tariff.” The best way to do that is effectively to set a very clear demand signal, which happens through the SAF mandate, and let the market go and work that.

I do not buy into this idea that the market is incapable of supplying second-generation SAF; I had breakfast this morning—not because I was coming here today—with an Asian supplier who I deal with, who let me know that they had taken a final investment decision on a second-generation SAF plant in Asia that will be starting up in 2028. These things are happening; the market is responding. You are deliberately intervening in the marketplace with very good intentions, but it will distort that market signal. There is no doubt about it.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Q Mr Greenwood has made a compelling critique of the basics—“We have a mandate; why do we need the RCM? There might be unintended consequences.” I know you disagree with him, but I would like to hear why you disagree with him.

Gaynor Hartnell: These projects are first of a kind, pretty much. This waste-based stuff is not being produced at scale anywhere in the world yet. It is very challenging to build one of these projects. There are numerous risks. You have Philip New coming later to give evidence; he has written a report on that, so you could ask him what those risks are. This addresses the showstopper risk if you like, which is the revenue certainty that a SAF producer can rely on when going to a bank and asking to borrow the millions or billions of pounds that it costs to build one of these projects.

In the UK, we now have many precedents of other large-scale projects that are driven by environmental requirements, from renewable electricity generation to carbon capture and storage. Those various different projects are all supported by some sort of equivalent to the contracts that will be let under this revenue certainty mechanism, whether it is a contract for difference for electricity or whatever. It is par for the course. We are not asking for this just because everyone else gets it so we should get it too. There is a competition for capital, among other things. If there are supported projects in terms of revenue stability, it will be easier for the capital to flow to those projects. This is a new mechanism. We are seeking new types of SAF production pathways. It is incredibly complex, and it is necessary.

Underlying all of this, the SAF mandate creates a market for greenhouse gas certificates, and the price of those certificates will be variable. It is very much built on a preceding policy—the renewable transport fuel obligation for road transport. That was just a demand mechanism without any accompanying equivalent to this revenue certainty mechanism. We import 85% of our road fuels, and we are not doing a very good job, I must say, given the opportunity, at preserving those early movers of projects that were built in the early days. Getting project funding is challenging, and it is not made easier by the fact that we have some early movers that are not managing to keep their renewable fuel projects going. I am talking about the bioethanol producers.

Rob Griggs: I agree with what Gaynor says. Ultimately, UK SAF projects are competing for investment against other renewable projects across the UK economy that have similar types of support—CFDs for energy and hydrogen and other types of things. In some way it is levelling the playing field a little for SAF compared with other forms.

I am here representing airlines; I am not representing producers. We want and we need SAF, and we want it as cost effectively as possible. We have seen all the evidence, given the nature of our mandate, its design, the global market and the work of Phil New that Gaynor referenced, which specifically asked that question: you have a mandate; why do you need an RCM? Everything suggests that given all those dynamics, without some form of revenue certainty you will not get that investment in the first-of-a-kind plants that we need to prove out the technology and get that initial set of volumes on a really aggressive timeline for 2030.

As airlines, on balance, we want the system to be competitive. We expect there to be imports as well as domestic production, but we think that without that UK 2G supply kick-started by the RCM, we will struggle and then we risk the buy-out. That is why we support it. On top of that, if it goes right, you get a UK industry better for your security, and jobs domiciled in the UK. It is a win-win, notwithstanding that as airlines, that is not necessarily our primary goal, but it is a huge benefit, so why not support it?

Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Debate between Paul Kohler and Chris Vince

Committee stage
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers—it feels a bit like a reunion of the Backbench Business Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing the Bill back to the House. As has been mentioned, the issue was raised in the previous Parliament, and I am hopeful that we can continue to have cross-party agreement on it.

I declare an interest, as a supporter not of a premier league team or even a championship team, but of a non-league football team, my beloved Harlow Town, both at home and away. Not all football clubs are full of cash to make multimillion-pound signings, and people jumping barriers can have a huge impact on a club’s finances—notice that I use the word “people”, and not “fans”.

Although support for the Bill ultimately comes down to a question of safety, as my hon. Friend has correctly outlined, I want to talk briefly about the issue of fairness. There should absolutely be consequences for those who try to enter a football ground without a valid ticket. Many people in Harlow and beyond pay good money for football tickets. They work hard all week and going to watch a football game is something that they, like me, enjoy. They should be able to do so in a fair way, and it is not fair that others do so without paying for a ticket.

Even non-league football clubs impose a maximum capacity, and they do so for safety reasons. It is important that clubs know how many people are at a game and can stop people entering, particularly those who have previously displayed poor or unacceptable behaviour.

I will keep my remarks short, but once again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing the Bill forward. I hope it will give confidence—to those who give up their time, voluntarily in non-league cases, to man the turnstiles and do all the other things at football grounds that bring the community together—that people will not be able to get away with tailgating, and that only those with a correct ticket will be able to enter the ground.

[Mr Kohler]

I raise the point, quietly, that the definition in the Bill does not include electronic tickets.