Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (First sitting)

Tom Collins Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[David Reed]

Q That is a very good answer; I am happy with that, and it is obviously coming from a company’s perspective. In terms of Government engagement, how many conversations have been had with the Cabinet Office and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero around energy security and your production capability?

Sophia Haywood: It is not something that we have had great levels of conversation about, particularly when it comes to energy security. It is a really important part of energy security. Coming back to the point about access to locally produced bioethanol, I see it as another great example of something that would be sustainable, affordable and secure, if we are able to take wheat that is produced locally by British farmers, and convert it in local facilities and then at a SAF facility. With all the additional benefits on things such as CO₂, that is a great opportunity on energy security, but speaking more broadly it has not been a huge part of the interest in SAF.

Noaman Al Adhami: I will focus more on scalability. When it comes to scalability, allowing all the routes to SAF and not focusing on one route will potentially enable SAF production to be scaled up. Green hydrogen will also potentially be there in large quantities with an affordable price, and that will contribute. For example, we could utilise green hydrogen to triple production if it were available, but currently it is not.

We are also designing our plant to utilise multiple types of feedstocks. It is mainly solid waste to SAF. I would start with a less challenging feedstock to prove the line-up and then explore much more difficult feedstocks, such as MSW. Even sewage sludge, chicken manure and grease, for example, could be used to co-fire the gasifier, so we think the supply chain will potentially build once it sees a home for their waste.

We will start with a safe option for the feedstock, but our objective is to explore all other potential feedstock and increase capacity. We have plans for at least phase 2. Our site in Teesside can accommodate phase 2 and we are already planning for that. Hopefully, once we reach FID, we will announce phase 2 of the project.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

Q You have talked a little about this already, but I am interested in the conditions you are operating in and the constraints you are facing. You mentioned regulations and planning, but I am also interested in the availability and maturity of standards and the particular different types of biofuel. I am also interested in how you store intermediates and if there are any issues around that, because I have heard from others that there is perhaps a lack of regulation on the safe storage of some of these intermediates. I do not know whether you are using hydrogen for upgrading at all, but I am interested in whether you have a vision for a future UK hydrogen system, and what that might look like.

Noaman Al Adhami: In terms of standards, as I mentioned before, our route is approved as per the ASTM route. The rest of the standards—mainly on feedstock—are already there in the SAF mandate with all the details, and we are complying with that. I think one of the big advantages of SAF, compared with other means of decarbonising aviation, is that it is a drop-in fuel. It is a liquid fuel, very similar to the jet fuel kerosene, so it is easy to store and transport; you can use existing pipelines.

Obligated parties, whom we may potentially supply with SAF, have the capability to blend it. Currently, it can be blended up to 50% drop-in, and they can do so using the infrastructure that is already available. If you compare hydrogen with SAF, SAF is much easier, because you can use the existing infrastructure in airports, storage and logistics. To be frank, we do not see any challenge there in Teesside, which is an industrial area with storage facilities. We do not see any issues. With hydrogen, as I explained, we can use hydrogen not necessarily to power the plane directly, but we can certainly use it to boost production of SAF. That is possible. I have the CO that I mentioned earlier, which I am currently capturing to reduce carbon intensity. I can convert this to CO, mix it with hydrogen, and produce more SAF.

The issue in the UK is the cost of producing green hydrogen. We, as a global developer of renewables, know the cost of producing green hydrogen in the UK is very high. If you have this valuable green electron, is it better from an efficiency perspective to use it to electrify cars and heat homes, where you can get up to 80% efficiency, or to produce fuel at 30% or 40% efficiency? But things are happening; once hydrogen storage and production costs advance—we think perhaps between 2035 to 2040—hydrogen will potentially be available in quantities. We will need large quantities, of course: for our project alone, we will need 1 gigawatt of hydrogen to fully utilise the biogenic carbon we produce.

[The Chair]

I am afraid you have just two minutes left.

Sophia Haywood: Just quickly on planning, it is more about boots on the ground than a lack of skills or particular challenges within planning. That is something I have heard from many other SAF producers all over the UK, so that would be my point there.

Similarly, in terms of standards, we also have ethanol-to-jet, ASTM approved, at 50%. That is fine for the current mandates, but as we move towards potentially greater blends of SAF in the mix, more work will be needed to increase the blend limit from an ASTM perspective. I am not aware of any issues on the diesel side—we produce 90% SAF and 10% diesel—but of course I can go away and check, and report back. The same applies to the storage of intermediates; ethanol is a well-transported product in many ways, shapes and forms. Again, I am not aware of any particular challenges there, but I can double-check and—[Interruption.]

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Second sitting)

Tom Collins Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Taylor]

Q Mr Downie stole my question, so I will develop it a bit further. The RCM sets the levy on to the fuel producers who will likely pass it on to passengers. You operate internationally and see mechanisms being implemented elsewhere in the world. We mentioned the alternative of using the ETS to fund the RCM. How do you see the advantages of one system or the other, and where have you seen alternatives implemented elsewhere that have worked well?

Ruben van Grinsven: That is a good question. First and foremost, the UK is ahead of pretty much everybody else when it comes to developing those mechanisms. I know the EU is basically inspired by the RCM and trying to come up with a similar framework, which it will be announcing in September in the sustainable transport investment plan. I think the initial thoughts are indeed to fund that through ETS.

I do not have a strong preference between ETS-funded or levy-funded. The most important thing is that it is clear, transparent, consistent and predictable. Once we know the details and find out how the whole mechanism will work, we can perfectly live with the levy mechanism—as long as it works practically. So we do not have a strong preference between ETS or levy funding.

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

Q You have just mentioned that you are looking broadly at SAF production and how that is going to play out into the future. Compared with other northern European countries, the UK has excellent access to renewable energy, and we had a very early responding hydrogen industry. What do you see as the UK’s unique opportunities in SAF production?

Ruben van Grinsven: There are two elements. One is the fundamentals: affordable renewable energy, other feedstocks, then the cost of building plants, labour, and everything else. At the moment, in terms of the fundamentals of renewable electricity, the UK does not have a clear advantage because power prices are slightly more expensive, and most of the renewable power in the UK is intermittent. That is an important thing that needs to be overcome.

You have a slight disadvantage compared with, for instance, the Nordics, such as Sweden and Finland; they have a lot of hydro and stable baseload renewable power. On the fundamental side, especially for power, I think there are other places that are currently a bit more competitive. However, many of the other elements, such as feedstock supply, labour and knowledge, are quite similar.

The biggest differentiator is probably the legislative and regulatory landscape. You are creating a market through mandates, which I think is extremely powerful. If you also increase investment certainty through an RCM, that element is unique and, at this point in time, very helpful.

[Chris Vince]

Q Obviously, the Bill is trying to make it easier for us to produce SAF in this country, which is really important. I gather—if this is correct—that part of your role is to source SAF around the world. Do you feel there will be a greater need, and therefore a strong argument that we should be pushing ahead with SAF and producing it here in Britain? Although you said you cannot commit to where you will buy your SAF because of cost, would you say you will be in a place where you need more and more—and so it is very likely that you will have to source SAF from Britain, because you will need as many sources as possible?

Ruben van Grinsven: Especially for the second and third generation, SAF needs to develop. I think the consensus is that HEFA-based SAF is, at this moment, the most mature and affordable, so it is a great option. However, we also all believe that we are going to run out of feedstock at a certain time.

If you want to continue decarbonising aviation, you need additional forms of SAF—and that is where the second and third generations come in. We need to start developing those now, to learn how it is done and establish the technology and the fundamentals behind it. Starting that now is essential, and doing it in the UK could potentially give you a head start. If you do this before everybody else, you would have a technological and commercial head start, which could be an advantage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor]

Q The SAF mandate is 10% by 2030. The EU target is much lower: 6%, I think. Our target goes up to 22% by 2040, but elsewhere the target increases more dramatically. As Heathrow is such a large user—17% is a massive component—will the mandate be achievable alongside the goals and targets set out in the Bill? You have said that other things need to be done and that this is part of a suite, but I guess the question is whether this is enough. Do you need to see more aggression and more ambition, with investment in firms through skills and through the measures we have drawn out from previous witnesses around the protection of IP? Do you see this as enough?

Matt Gorman: I think this is a very strong start from the UK. I was smiling when the Shell representative said that the EU had been inspired by the measures that the UK is taking. Joking aside, I have talked to fuel suppliers and investors to get a sense of how they are seeing the market. They say that this package, with the mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism, is a really strong policy package from the UK.

To answer your question, Heathrow has been invited by the Government to submit updated proposals for our expansion plans by the end of this month. Within them, we will be setting out our views on our future trajectory to net zero. We think that the mandate and the revenue certainty mechanism are vital. The Government have already said that they want to keep the mandate levels under review; you are right that although we are more ambitious to begin with and the EU is less ambitious, the EU takes over. Our view is that heading more in the direction of the EU’s ambition over time will be important for Heathrow and for aviation generally, but we will keep that under review.

It is really important to get started and make a strong start in this decade, to show that as well as producing SAF globally for use in the UK, as we are already doing, we can produce it in the UK.

[Tom Collins]

Q You have mentioned that the UK is taking a strong leadership position on this stepping-stone technology with SAF. If the UK were to prepare itself now, early on, to be in a leadership position in sustainable aviation using hydrogen, what do you think that would look like?

Matt Gorman: I think it would look broadly like what the UK is doing. We think about it in three buckets: the plane, the airport infrastructure and the regulatory environment. It is worth remembering that UK aerospace is one of the jewels in the crown of our manufacturing sector. We have a very long history in aerospace, and the Aerospace Technology Institute funds some of that technology development alongside the private sector. That is important.

With airport infrastructure, we have always said, certainly for Heathrow, that we do not want to be a blocker. We do not want a hydrogen plane to be designed but not able to fill up at our airport. We keep an active watching brief on technology developments. We have taken a stand at Heathrow to trial hydrogen technology so that we can understand and build understanding. That is partly to influence the regulatory environment so that we are supporting the roll-out of hydrogen.

The latest views from manufacturers are that we will probably start small with hydrogen—small plane sizes and small ranges—and build confidence there before getting bigger. However, that could play a real role in domestic connectivity. I think we are doing the right things, but it is a both/and with SAF and hydrogen, not an either/or. I would also say that SAF is the solution that we know exists today and that we can deploy today, so we need to get it moving.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Q Where does your organisation see the price of SAF going in the medium and long term? In theory, if the Bill works, SAF production in the United Kingdom will increase exponentially. Therefore, the unit cost—the per litre or per tonne cost—will come down. How long does your analysis suggest it will take us—as a country, as opposed to a global market—to be able to supply SAF to the airlines at a cost that is closer to the fossil-fuel equivalent today?

Geoff Maynard: On the face of it, you would expect the cost to fall, but the problem is that there is only a limited amount of raw materials for the generation 1 and 2 fuels to proceed. You will have to move forward to meet the requirements; you will have to move to power-to-liquid fuels, and they are going to be more expensive to produce. Therefore, at some point, as they kick in, to meet the overall figures, the cost base will rise. That is why we believe that, in the longer term, it will be slightly more expensive because there are not the cheaper feedstocks that are currently available.

[Tom Collins]

Q As you mentioned, this is an enabling Bill and what will really count is how the RCM rounds are designed. You have talked about the need for us to realise economies of scale and advances in technology as we move through larger and larger availability of feedstocks. Do you see that kind of mechanism as being a useful vehicle for us to make those economies of scale and bring that innovation to bear?

Geoff Maynard: The short answer is yes, I do. I think it will be very effective. As many previous witnesses have said, it provides a guarantee to investors that they will get a return on their money. A point that perhaps has not been made is that it gives quite a lot of authority to the Secretary of State. If he sees that the process of moving to SAF is slowing, he can instruct the counterparty to let additional contracts and thus speed up the process and the amount that we have. There is a considerable degree of confidence that, properly used, it will produce the desired results.

[David Reed]

Q Mr Maynard, thank you for being with us. In your role within the aviation policy group, have there been any conversations with colleagues from the Ministry of Defence about the Royal Air Force potentially using SAF and the international logistical challenges of getting SAF into the UK? You raised some concerns earlier on.

Geoff Maynard: We have had some discussions around the edges with the RAF, if I can put it like that. They recognise the need that, at some point, they perhaps ought to be using SAF. It is certainly possible for them to do so, albeit not necessarily to the same percentage that you can use it in commercial jets, as I understand it, because the engines have not been designed for it. There are some issues to resolve before they can use it in the way that the commercial sector does. Does that answer your question?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

Q That is very helpful. You may have heard me ask previous witnesses about the cost to the end user. The Government’s analysis is that it would end up being plus or minus £1.50 on the airfare, but a succession of witnesses have not been willing to put their name to that, or even to go as far as saying that they think that that is a conservative estimate. Where does your analysis sit on that?

Professor Maslin: Our analysis is slightly different because it is looking at the industry as a whole. On the airline side, there is a worry that these costs will literally be shoved on to the airlines. Many of us do not realise that the difference between this industry and others is that it is a very narrow margin industry. If there is any change in geopolitics, companies can go bust—for example, Finnair. Airlines are worried about this levy system, not necessarily because of the extra cost, but because they are not reassured that when there is a surplus, which goes back to the actual producers, it will be then be passed back to the airline. Again, they are happy with the up and down mechanism, but there seems to be no way of shunting that back to airlines to say, “Okay, you have done well, so you can get some money back.” That is more the concern.

Adding £1 or £2 to the price of a flight does not concern the airlines from the passenger point of view—it will not put passengers off. What will put them off is when the airlines suddenly realise that if you multiply that by 550, which is the number of people in an A380, you suddenly start to bankroll quite a lot of extra money that has to be found. I am hedging my bets, so I will not tell you that it will be higher or lower than £1.50. That is a very small amount per individual, but for the companies that are trying to make aviation work and are positive about trying to move to net zero, this is the perfect time to push, as they have suddenly woken up to the fact that they are laggards.

[Tom Collins]

Q As someone who works in research and innovation, you will be familiar with the UK pain point, where we are often excellent at planning the technologies at low technology readiness levels, and then we lose them to that mid-level valley of death. The UK is strong in sustainable fuels at the research level; this mechanism is intended to help us to navigate through the valley of death, and to reach scale and economic viability. Do you think it is a good mechanism for that and that it will help us to break that trend in the UK?

Professor Maslin: Other levy systems that have been used in the energy sector have been very successful, so I am personally very positive about this because it gives a guarantee. We have seen what I call the solar rollercoaster: suddenly everyone has solar panels, and then suddenly all the companies go bust. What you are doing, very sensibly, is trying to level those bumps in the road. That worked for offshore wind and it should work for this, but there also needs to be support through other mechanisms, such as R&D and mechanisms designed to support small and medium-sized enterprises, so they can get the research they need, to go from “Wow! That’s a brilliant idea!” to being world leading. This is a great mechanism, but the Government need to use the other mechanisms to fund those companies to develop as well.

[Tom Collins]

Q Obviously, Innovate UK is our key player in that space. Do you see it as active in this space? Is there anything you would like to see us doing slightly differently to support SMEs and innovators better?

Professor Maslin: I have been very lucky, because in the past I have been able to get funding from Innovate UK and even from the TSB before that—that is how old I am. Innovate UK needs direction, with top-down prioritisation of this sector for the UK. Sometimes Innovate UK has stuff coming in, then selects what it thinks is good, but I think you need to mandate, in concert with the Bill, that it focuses on SAFs and makes that one of its priorities.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I have realised that Professor Maslin was an undergraduate tutor of mine quite a few years ago.

Professor Maslin: Oh, this is becoming a real embarrassment; it just makes me feel really old. But it is great to see you in a position of power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

Q The evidence session has been very positive—I think you would agree—with a lot of positive evidence about the Bill and sustainable aviation fuel in general. I have the same question that I have asked a number of those giving evidence today: will you elaborate on what you think would be the risks and potential disadvantages to the UK, if we were to stall on the Bill and not pass it on Third Reading?

Mike Kane: First, I thank you, Chris—you have been a great advocate for aviation since you came to Westminster in 2024, with Stansted airport near your constituency. The No. 1 risk is not doing this—that is the risk. I think Matt from Heathrow and Rob from Airlines UK said that in our approach to getting to net zero by 2050, we have a number of Government policies—airspace modernisation, leadership at CORSIA, the emissions trading scheme, the £2.3 billion investment in the Aerospace Technology Institute and hydrogen regulatory development—but that 40% of that pathway is the Bill. If we do not pass it, we are in serious trouble about decarbonising the industry. That is the key risk.

[Tom Collins]

Q We heard some of the evidence about how effective the RCM could be in light of the difference that CfDs have made. You have already explained how to manage the levers and the number of contracts allocated to get the economics right, but can you explain how that sits alongside the SAF mandate to help us to steer UK innovation and maximise the opportunities for the UK to lead in this sector?

Mike Kane: When we came into Government in July, we had two key aviation policies. The first was airspace modernisation, and we set up the UK Airspace Design Service and passed it into legislation just the other week. In addition to improving resilience in our skies, we hope that that measure will stop planes circling and allow those that currently do not fly in a straight line to fly in a straight line, which reduces the cost of fuel—to go back to the shadow Minister’s point. Lahiru from easyJet said in his evidence that the best energy is the energy we do not use, and airspace modernisation helps us with that piece.

The second part of our manifesto commitment was SAF. After we were elected, we laid the mandate for 2% of all aviation fuel in the UK to be SAF. That came into force on 1 January. Airlines are sourcing SAF and getting supplies of it, but too much of it comes from abroad. While we have a good industry in the UK, companies need the confidence to scale it up.

I will make no party political points, but four or five years ago we were promised that by 2025 five plants would be up and running. If I were going there, I would not be starting from here, but we are getting on with doing this now. I think everyone on this Committee can be extraordinarily proud that this will be the moment that we stepped up and began to decarbonise the aviation industry.

[Luke Taylor]

Q I have one straightforward question, and one that is a little more spiky. First, we have heard a lot about the need to work across Government to ensure that we get the most effective outcome from the Bill. From all the evidence we have heard, it seems to be the right thing and structured well, but how do we ensure that municipal waste streams match up with incentives for heat networks, waste hierarchies and that sort of stuff? We hear a lot about mission-based Government—is that what will give the advantage to being able to co-ordinate across Departments? Will you give us an account of what you are doing so far to pull those Departments and different groups together to make sure it works?

Mike Kane: To get any Bill this far, as any Member will know, it has to have consent right around Government. The Government know exactly what we are doing in a joined-up way. To answer your mission question, we have said that we want to be a clean energy superpower, and this Bill helps us to do exactly that. It gives us sovereign capability here on UK shores to do that; not only is that the right thing to do, but, in the increasingly uncertain geopolitical situation we face, it is becoming almost essential.

The other mission that we have is growth. Today, I heard some very big figures on what that could mean. Our Department figures show at least £5 billion GVA added if we do this, and about 15,000 jobs—[Interruption.]

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Tom Collins Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

Stemming from the Chancellor’s announcement in relation to the third runway, it is evident that support for that runway is driven by misguided financial incentives, with our environment being forced to take a back seat. The Government must not discard their environmental commitments, and the Liberal Democrats will continue to hold them to account on them. The first step towards protecting our air quality is for the Government to support new clause 2. If they do not plan to get behind it, will the Minister explain why?

[Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)]

I will speak to new clause 1. Context is important, as this Bill is a first step on a long pathway to decarbonising aviation. At the moment, SAF components are blended with existing fossil fuels to create usable aircraft fuel, as I will go on to discuss, but I think it is helpful for us to be aware of the context: the various generations of sustainable aviation fuel that will form a road map as we move into the future.

First-generation aviation fuels use oils, often of biological origin, as feedstocks, and they produce a kerosene-type fuel that can be blended with our existing jet fuel. Second-generation SAF is derived from solid waste that goes through a digestion process, producing alcohols that can then be formulated into aviation fuel-type products. Third-generation fuels—I remind hon. Members that there are four generations—use wet mass as feedstock. Again, that wet mass might be biological, but it is incapable of competing with food crops for production, and the process produces an output that is much like a bio-crude oil.

As we move through the generations of sustainable aviation fuel production, it is important to remember that the outputs are different and are able to slip into different parts of the existing fuel production supply chain. The fourth generation is derived from gases, maybe even atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide drawn from the atmosphere. It is often referred to as a power-to-liquids process, and is an entirely non-biological process that requires a lot of new technology. It is a future solution, but an advantageous and attractive one as it can provide us with a purely synthetic fuel.

The point that I am illustrating is that the Bill is the first step in a long-term vision for aviation, in which sustainable aviation fuel is able to play a progressively larger role. In future, we may even move to different fuels all together. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen, I would like to give a shout-out to its role in the potential long-term future of power for aviation.

These generations of fuels also interact with the technology in our aircraft. Although current blends of sustainable aviation fuel can go into aircraft now, the aircraft will need to be upgraded as we move to higher fractions of sustainable components in that fuel, because some of the aromatic components in fossil fuels are not available in synthetic fuels. They are currently required by some of the seals in the engines, and the aircraft will need to move into future generations to accept high proportions of aviation fuel.

All of this is about having a strategic road map. The Bill is one step—one vastly enabling piece of legislation—and it follows a model that is well proven to help establish new technologies as part of a green and sustainable future. We have seen the similar progress in offshore wind, for example, where it has been utterly transformational beyond anybody’s expectations. This vehicle should be able to do similar things for the beginning of our journey on decarbonising aviation, but it needs a long-term plan. That is why there is a really important piece of work to be done in the secondary legislation enabled by the Bill. It is very important that that legislation takes account of all the factors being discussed through the various amendments that have been tabled.

I oppose new clause 1, because we must not oversimplify the journey before us. In fact, we must allow the Government the freedom to create a sophisticated, technically-led strategy to deploy these different types of sustainable aviation fuel, taking into account all factors, including our existing infrastructure, the production of biomass and the advancement of aviation technology. If we get this right, and if this game is played well, we have the opportunity to start successfully—and even lead—a journey that will be absolutely transformative, and to envisage a thriving, positive and sustainable future for aviation.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

For many years, I commuted by aircraft from Scotland to Dublin—so many years, in fact, that I can still recall there are eight emergency exits on a Boeing 737-800. There are two at the front, two at the rear and four over-wing exits. What a great pity that this Bill does not have an amendment that is an escape slide.

While sustainable aviation fuel sounds wonderful, it is burdened with many inconvenient facts. The first is that there is no SAF production industry at the scale required. While new clause 1 is a bold attempt to jump-start production by repurposing old facilities, it is a jumbo jet of a task. The World Economic Forum estimates that by 2030, global demand for SAF is expected to reach 70 million tonnes per annum—around 4% to 5% of total jet fuel consumption.

Meeting likely demand in just five years requires an additional 5.8 million tonnes of capacity. What is the investment required to reach even that relatively modest goal? The WEF pitches it at somewhere between $19 billion and $45 billion globally. If that does not give our legislative autopilot the warning, “Terrain! Terrain! Pull up!”, then it should do. New clause 1 is unaffordable, whether backed by public or private finance, and I am afraid it is doomed to fail.

It is certain that the vast input costs will result in massively higher costs for passengers and air freight. I support the vital new clause 6, which would force an assessment of the economic impact of this Bill, which I fear will be nothing short of devastating. Some might piously accept fewer flights to the Costas or a little less airfreighted Kenyan mangetout on the dinner table, but making air travel ruinously expensive will have implications for thousands of jobs—millions globally—in not only aviation, but tourism. Many flights are not indulgences, but lifelines. We are an island nation, and many communities within the UK are entirely reliant on air links.

Will Britain—so long the pioneers of aviation, with a history stretching back to the first scheduled international passenger flight and the first jet airliner—be foremost in SAF? Probably not, for mandating SAF is easier than producing it, especially in a country with power prices as exorbitant as ours. Energy bills in Dumfries in my constituency are four times what they are in Dumfries in Virginia in the United States, and they are cheaper still in China.

We need a lot of power to make SAF. Many question its green credentials when so much carbon is generated in its production. Amendment 10 is a bid to explore the serious issues around SAF derived from either organic or synthetic sources. Much is made of an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases using SAF sourced from waste fat and oil feedstocks, but, as we have heard, those basic building blocks are in limited supply. That issue is also addressed in, though not solved by, new clause 2. Using crops as feedstock may not reduce greenhouse gases at all, and there are huge implications of turning prime agricultural land and billions of gallons of water over to producing crops for fuel, rather than food. Again, Britain is at a disadvantage. America’s vast corn belt might get involved, but the British bioethanol industry is a warning to us, for it was not able to survive on current targets for the content in road fuel.

Other amendments, including amendment 11, concern themselves with how a revenue certainty mechanism will operate. My concern is that we risk creating a self-licking ice cream—a self-perpetuating system with no purpose other than to sustain itself. This Bill could guarantee moneys that simply offset the costs of manufacturing SAF, which is itself made expensive by green levies. Would it not be better to put what money we have available into aviation excellence, driving up the efficiency of jet engines and airframes? Aviation is already playing its part in reducing its carbon footprint—according to some experts, engine efficiency is already up by as much as 83% from the early days of the de Havilland Comet jet liner. That progress can continue, although super-efficient jets need superalloys to handle the extremes of temperature in their engines, and those require the sorts of rare earths that China is hoovering up. Canada, by the way, has many of the same critical minerals; might we be better off investing in those than subsidising SAF?

If we want really big carbon savings, we ought to look to the sea. Much of what we trade—in and out—goes by sea, and cargo ships are heavily reliant on bunker oil, a tar-like substance with heavy emissions. If we want novel fuels, this island nation should look once more to Tennyson’s “boundless deep”, where the salt-caked smoke stacks belch still. Meanwhile, the wild blue yonder of the skies must not be made inaccessible simply by expensive green dogma.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She managed to make a detailed speech sound like a backhanded compliment. I do not disagree with her point that we have several reporting standards, and my only counter-argument would be that I do not believe there can be too much transparency. If that results in information being presented in a way that gives the public further clarity and puts greater pressure on any Government to speed up the transition, that can only be a good thing.

Those figures must be presented clearly in a format that is accessible and easy to find on websites and in public material. That matters, because whether it is demonstrating that solar and wind power lower bills, that carbon removal technology will provide jobs or that sustainable aviation fuel can cut emissions, we must be transparent to build public trust and belief in what we are doing. The powers in this Bill to fund the strike price mechanism to levy fines on fuel suppliers who fail to pay are all welcome, but they must be matched by equally strong accountability to this House and the general public. The amendments I have proposed would ensure that the Government are required to review progress every year, to explain how targets will be strengthened, and to make transparent the actual use of sustainable fuel across the aviation industry.

[Tom Collins]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Edward Morello]

The hon. Member is just in the nick of time, so I will.

[Tom Collins]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. I would like to speak to his comments and those of the Father of the House about the impact on consumers. In Committee, the Government made it clear that they are alive not only to the considerations of cost and the impact on consumers, but to the extreme complexity of how aircraft logistics and fuelling function across global markets, and how aircraft are operated on a day-to-day basis. That makes some of these reporting requirements extremely difficult for airlines to deliver. We do not want to create a burden of bureaucracy that drives airlines away from sustainable fuel and back towards unsustainable pure fossil sources. I support the Government’s position that we should stay where we are and build processes that provide accountability.

[Edward Morello]

I think I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am afraid that I do not agree that increasing reporting burdens on industry is a bad thing. Every industry will argue that reporting is onerous. The liturgy starts with water companies. Companies will hide behind not having to report. On the need to move forward with technology, I am reminded that Henry Ford once said, “If I asked people what they want, they would say a faster horse.” The reality is that technology will be the route to our achieving our net zero goals, and this is one step on that pathway.

I will finish. New clauses 4 and 5 would strengthen this Bill, strengthen public confidence and demonstrate the UK’s global leadership, and I very much hope the Government will support them.