Strategy for Elections
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Strategy for Elections
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I take it that she has notified the hon. Member mentioned.
- Hansard source
Strategy for Elections
Obviously, the hon. Member’s point of order is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put it on the record.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Where do we go from there? I call the shadow Leader of the House.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Before the Leader of the House responds, in case I misheard, let me say that the shadow Leader of the House knows we do not accuse colleagues of misleading the House. “Inadvertent” is the language.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Well, that was interesting. [Laughter.] To correct the record, Sussex Weald is the greatest constituency on Earth. I call Perran Moon.
- Hansard source
High Street Businesses
Small independent businesses like Kitchen Croxley in my constituency have suggested that, to counter this Government’s national insurance contribution increases, they will need to serve cold coffee and replace staff with touchscreens just to afford to stay open. What will the Minister do to ensure that small businesses are encouraged to grow, rather than being punished for being entrepreneurial, so that local bakeries like Kitchen Croxley can keep serving us cake and coffee?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The Secretary of State has tried to paint a glowing picture of what is happening, but I can tell him that in northern Lincolnshire there are growing concerns. There have been a number of business failures in the last few weeks in the Grimsby and Immingham areas, and he will be aware of the threat to hundreds of jobs at the Prax oil refinery. All that makes it even more important that the Scunthorpe steelworks has a long-term future. Can he update the House on the state of things at Scunthorpe?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee sends his apologies, and has asked me to report on his behalf. The Leader of the House has already drawn attention to next week’s debates, particularly the Sir David Amess debate, which I urge Members to participate in. Sir David used to rattle off about 20 issues in the space of 10 minutes, and that provided him with a press release for every other day of the recess. It is a tactic that I can recommend to Members. I thank the Leader of the House for giving Government time for the Victory over Japan Day debate; that debate was originally applied for through the Backbench Business Committee. She drew attention to the debates in the Chamber on 1 September. I also draw attention to the fact that in Westminster Hall that week, there will be debates on defibrillator access, the adoption and special guardian support fund, and the future of terrestrial television. Turning to my question, I am sure that the Leader of the House will be familiar with the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. If she is not, may I ask her to look at them? They affect a major business in my constituency. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) has already prayed against the regulations, and I have added my name to that prayer. May I ask the Leader of the House to approach the relevant Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ask for a delay to the implementation of the regulations to allow greater consultation with the industry?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
If I asked the Leader of the House, “1666—what happened in that year?”, I am not quite sure—[Interruption.] There we are: the great fire of London. In fact, it was also the last time anyone in Parliament was fined for lying to Parliament. Of course, there is the ministerial code, the Nolan principles and the contempt of Parliament procedures, but there has not been a fine since that year. For Members and non-Members alike, where is the deterrent? What is the incentive, even, for telling the truth to this place? Ministers, of course, can be brought back to the House to correct the record, but for people giving evidence to Select Committees, for instance, there really is a gap at the moment. Is it not time we put fines on a statutory basis for Members and non-Members alike so that we can be assured that people are incentivised to tell the truth and, should they be tempted not to tell the truth, there is a deterrent?
- Hansard source
Ukraine
Operation Orbital is the UK training programme for the Ukrainian military. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that personal and personnel data is safe at the Ministry of Defence? He mentioned there being 15,000 drone attacks over the last four months, and he referenced meeting with Germans to look at counter-drone munitions and capabilities, but of course, Ukrainians are being attacked right now—today. What thought has been given to the use of the RAF’s Tucano aircraft, which I think are now out of service? I wonder where they are. Could they be redeployed? Could a variant of the Grob turboprop trainer perhaps be provided? These slow-flying aircraft could interdict Shahed drones, for example, and they are low-cost and low-maintenance.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The Leader of the House mentioned the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence about the super-injunction. The Defence Committee will undoubtedly embark on an inquiry, but before we do, can the Leader of the House state very clearly the Government’s position? Is it ever right to use a super-injunction?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The SNP Government’s fire and rescue service is consulting on plans to downgrade Hawick fire station from 24/7 cover to weekday daytime hours only. Thousands of people locally have signed a petition, with residents concerned that these proposals could put lives at risk. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the hard-working local fire crews and in calling on the SNP Government to properly fund the Scottish fire and rescue service so that fire stations like Hawick are not put at risk?
- Hansard source
Ukraine
I fully support the work of the UK Government in providing military assistance to Ukraine. Like so many voluntary groups across the United Kingdom, the Rotary club of Duns has been actively involved in supporting Ukraine during the war. It has delivered several pick-up trucks loaded with medical equipment and other essential supplies to Ukraine. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the Rotary club and the other voluntary groups that have been involved? What more support can the Government provide to UK voluntary groups that want to provide assistance to Ukraine?
- Hansard source
Global Plastics Treaty
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, much of which I agree with. I am sure that he, like me, visits many schools. Does he agree that when he visits them and speaks to young people, they are very, very concerned about the environment, and in particular plastic pollution? In many ways, our great hope is that their laser focus on this issue will be reflected in the policy of future generations and that plastic production is reduced.
- Hansard source
Global Plastics Treaty
The hon. Member is making a very good speech. I agree with him about the need to take the public and business with us. In Scotland we had a real challenge with the deposit return scheme that the Scottish Government tried to impose, because business was up in arms about it, and it was going to impact on the internal market. Does he agree that that is an example of where it can go very badly wrong if we do not take the public and business with us?
- Hansard source
Global Plastics Treaty
The Minister is right to highlight the leading role that the UK has played in this matter, under both the current Government and, in particular, the previous Government. The last negotiations and progress towards the treaty came to a halt because Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia basically imposed a time limit, which meant that the treaty could not be agreed. What discussions are taking place behind the scenes to ensure that countries like those three will not do the same and stall our agreement on the treaty this time?
- Hansard source
Freedom of Religion or Belief: UK Foreign Policy
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for the role that he has taken on and the work ahead of him, which he has set out. The whole Chamber and the whole of Parliament will agree that the tone and manner with which he is approaching this complicated and difficult work will serve him and our country very well. As I suspect he would be happy to acknowledge, he is building on the legacy of his predecessor Fiona Bruce, the former Member for Congleton, who did so much to fill the role and build credibility for the United Kingdom across the globe. The envoy is at the centre of a web of relationships with great people in this country who do so much to champion the input and the enthusiasms of our constituents across the United Kingdom and motivate us as MPs to raise these matters in the House of Commons. One of them is Merv Thomas, the president and founder of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, who said to me recently that he is always being told that religion is the cause of so many problems in the world. He said, “Well, I look at it this way: freedom of religious belief is perhaps one of the solutions.” That gets to the heart of what the role is about. I am grateful to the envoy for setting out how his work will fit with the different elements of the Government’s foreign policy. That is critical. When we talk about matters such as national security and stability, trade and economic partnerships, the leadership role that we seek, the alliance building and the soft power that comes from being present in conversations about preventing humanitarian crises, we need to recognise that we gain a lot more credibility if we can be collaborative but principled and persistent in our willingness to engage on all those matters and able to have difficult conversations with countries with which we have relationships across those realms. It is not a binary question; it is not that we cannot talk about what is happening with the Uyghur Muslims in China while recognising that China is an important economic actor in the world that needs to be respected. We need to find ways of interacting well together and respecting, as far as we can, what common ground exists. It troubles me sometimes that when we have statements in the House, we revert to a binary: “It’s all good or it’s all the opposite.” The hon. Member for North Northumberland grasps the right way to approach this. Having said that, I want to put on the record some challenges that exist in a number of countries and some of the awful circumstances that people of minority religions in those countries endure. In North Korea, authorities are likely to round up the extended family of Christians and punish them, even if the family members themselves are not Christian. That is what Christians endure. Let us remind ourselves that according to Open Doors, another excellent organisation, there are 400,000 Christians in that country. It is very sensible that the envoy has set out a priority list of 10 countries, because we want to be able to measure progress, make an impact and influence those relationships. In Pakistan, blasphemy is punishable by death. If Christians are subject to accusations of blasphemy, it can result in torture or death at the hands of violent mobs. Christian and Hindu girls remain particularly vulnerable to forced religious conversion, abduction, trafficking, child, early and forced marriage, domestic servitude and sexual violence. It is important that the envoy is able to work with his colleagues and Ministers in the Foreign Office, even if it is awkward or inconvenient. Sometimes, perhaps, officials on a certain desk will say, “We don’t really need to be too explicit about the religious element.” We do. That religious element is fundamental to the oppression that is happening. Importantly, in his speech last week, the hon. Member said: “The fourth strand of our approach is…ensuring that FORB considerations are mainstreamed throughout the FCDO’s work and the need for a holistic human rights approach understood.” I totally recognise that there needs to be a holistic human rights approach, because of course not everyone has religious belief, but it is important not to lose clarity on the motivation behind some of the oppression that exists in some of these countries. Finally, as a country and in our national Parliament, we need to think through how we treat our Christian faith. We should be more open about how it motivates and influences us. The more transparent we are about it, the more reasoned and reasonable we can be in dealing with the implications for how we approach public policy. I lament the way it can be weaponised. It should not be. The hon. Member is very open about his Christian faith, as I am about mine. It was wonderful to see an envoy giving a speech, reading from a press release, but quoting from Proverbs 31. I wish him well in his role, I thank him for what he has set out today, and I urge him to be bold and courageous in all that he does.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T3. On Monday, Tina McKenzie, the policy chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “For the first time in the history of the Small Business Index more small businesses are predicting they will shrink than expand, meaning that as a country we are potentially facing a very dangerous situation.” I have listened carefully to what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has said about the concierge service, which I welcome, and have seen the Leeds reforms this week, much of which I welcome. However, will the Minister respond to that stark warning from a very credible source of information?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
We have heard this morning that the review of the UK Internal Market Act 2020 somehow tramples on Holyrood, but in fact, the Government say: “Devolved Governments will have greater flexibility to set rules”. Is there not a danger that this invites the SNP Government to introduce change for the sake of change, and divergence for the sake of divergence, thus damaging trade right across the country?
- Hansard source
Ukraine
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that it was not my phone. My ringtone is “633 Squadron”, which is very distinctive. It is tremendous that the planning for the coalition of the willing has been put together so quickly, but plans are paper tigers. We need flying tigers. If we are to secure a peace that is eventually secure, we will need air superiority over Ukraine. Can the Secretary of State give us a clue, perhaps not naming individual countries, of how many of the 30 members of the coalition of the willing are prepared to put combat aircraft into this plan?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I doubt if the Leader of the House has ever given a more popular statement to the House of Commons. More seriously, this is a welcome development as it will give guidance to colleagues and their families, and I am sure it will be widely welcomed across the House, so I thank her for that. I understand that Robert Gibbs, the acting director of catering services, will be leaving on Friday, after 25 years in this House. One shudders to think of the thousands of Members of the House of Commons and their staff whose lives will have been enriched by the joy of eating the food of the catering services under his command, and we thank him very much for his service. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in thanking him for his work. We are getting close to the end of term and I want to thank all the staff for their service, and, of course, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers, and the Clerks for the resilience, courage, determination and poker faces that they have kept through all the business questions that we have had since the beginning of the year. It may come as slightly more of a surprise to the House that I also want to thank the Leader of the House. No one who has not held that position understands the amount of work that is involved in scheduling and managing the business of this House, let alone the amount of work involved in scheduling and managing the Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues. The Leader of the House distinguished herself with her very graceful response to my remarks about my father some months ago, and I thank her again for that. I also thank her for her engagement and humour and, I must say, more than a few groan-inducing puns, of which we will undoubtedly see considerably more this morning and with which she has dealt with questions from colleagues across all parts of this House. I hope I may register that it is a slight sadness to me that the Leader of the House has not been willing to answer my own questions in the same spirit. I ask these questions not in a personal capacity, but as the spokesman for His Majesty’s official Opposition, whose function is, after all, to hold the Government to account. The refusal to answer genuine, sensible questions is actually a discourtesy not just to the House, but to our wider constitutional framework and ultimately the supreme source of sovereign authority in this country: the King in Parliament. I think any fair-minded person reviewing our exchanges would conclude that my questions are almost always directed at some public purpose, and it would undoubtedly improve business questions and the accountability and authority of the Leader of the House if she were able to engage with them. In the same spirit, I will raise some serious questions about what the Government’s position is with regard to Northern Ireland veterans. As the Leader of the House will know, hundreds and thousands of men and women went to Northern Ireland not of their own accord, but under orders and in a chain of command on the Queen’s business, to combat the most serious terrorist organisation in the world at the time and to protect human lives and human society. Many of those veterans, including many members of the special forces, cannot respond to the terrible injustice being done to them. Almost exactly a year ago, barely three weeks after the election, the Government decided to abandon the appeals to the Supreme Court to uphold the key sections of the legacy Act against a High Court judgment in Northern Ireland. In the veterans debate on Monday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that those sections were “unlawful” as a result of the judgment. Yesterday, in Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister himself said twice that the legacy Act had been “struck down”. Unfortunately, those statements are both untrue and misleading. There can be no doubt what the law is on this topic. A succession of the most senior judges in recent British history—Judges Steyn, Hope, Bingham, Hale and Reed among them—have made it absolutely clear that a declaration of incompatibility does not mean that the law is unlawful or has been struck down. As the then Senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, said in 2004, in such cases the validity of the law “remains unaffected”. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is no lawyer, but he should understand that basic point, given his job. The Prime Minister, however, has been a barrister for 38 years, and a human rights lawyer for most of that time. It is inconceivable that he did not understand the distinction. To that extent, he was, whether deliberately or inadvertently, misleading the House. The Secretary of State appeared to say that he had abandoned these appeals on political grounds. It is plain that the Government are split and have been unable to develop a satisfactory legal remedy in the 12 months since they abandoned the appeals, leaving thousands of veterans, many in their 70s and older, exposed to legal harassment, anxiety and trauma. I put two serious and substantive questions to the Leader of the House. As the Leader of the House, in upholding the practices, tradition and honour of this House, will she ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister to correct those false and misleading statements to the House? When will we see legislation to address the legal gap that the Government’s decision to abandon these legacy Act appeals has created?
- Hansard source
NHS Pensions: Frontline Patient Care
With the British Medical Association set to strike, and with the Health Secretary reduced to pleading with it not to, thousands of patients are set to have their appointments cancelled. Can the Minister assure the House that she will grip this issue so that senior doctors do not also reduce their hours? And will she rule out bonuses for NHS Business Services Authority executives?
- Hansard source
Ukraine
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. It was less than a month ago that the United States undertook a bombing raid on Iranian nuclear facilities—one of the most significant military actions undertaken anywhere in the world for years. With such developments understandably dominating the headlines, and almost three and a half years having elapsed since Russia first launched its unprovoked and illegal all-out invasion, it is right that the Government regularly update the House—as we did—on developments in Ukraine. The reality is that there has been no let-up in Russian aggression. As the Secretary of State confirmed, 9 July saw the largest drone attack of the war by Russia, and there were reports yesterday of Russia using 400 drones to target energy infrastructure and cities across Ukraine. That indiscriminate barbarism has inevitably led to further civilian casualties, but on the military side, can the Secretary of State confirm that Russia has suffered by far the greatest losses? He confirmed that last month, Russian battlefield casualties surpassed 1 million. Does that not show the extent to which Putin has nothing but callous disregard for the human impact of his actions on either side? I am proud of the decisive assistance that we provided to Ukraine when we were in office. We continue to stand with the Government in seeking to provide all possible support, but it is vital that all our allies play their part. On France, and what was previously called the coalition of the willing, I agree that we need to be ready for when that peace comes, so can the Secretary of State confirm how many other nations will provide fighter jets to the Multinational Force Ukraine? Can he confirm that there is no longer any planning for a land combat element to the MNFU? We welcome the additional provision of military hardware by the US, but the Secretary of State said that “we plan to play our full part.” Will the UK therefore be purchasing military equipment from the United States to pass on to Ukraine? The Secretary of State did not mention potential sanctions or tariffs. It has been widely reported that President Trump is considering tariffs of 100% on goods entering the US from any country that imports any product from Russia. Have the Government discussed this plan with the US, and will the UK follow suit? The Times reports today that Andriy Yermak, senior adviser to President Zelensky, has stated that the imposition of secondary sanctions on nations buying oil and gas from Russia could end the war “before the end of this year.” Does the Secretary of State agree with that analysis, and again, would the UK join in any secondary sanctions policy directed against countries importing Russian oil and gas? On Germany, we understand that the Prime Minister is meeting Chancellor Merz today. May I urge the Government to push their German counterparts on provision of Taurus missiles to Ukraine? Alternatively, given that the missiles are, we understand, compatible with Typhoon, will the Government backfill UK stocks to enable the provision of more Storm Shadow missiles? Turning to the impact of all this on the UK, we understand that Germany will today sign an agreement with the Prime Minister to come to each other’s aid in the event of an attack on the other. Will the Secretary of State outline how that is different from NATO article 5? I have had recent discussions with senior German parliamentarians on the impact on our nations of supporting Ukraine, and the Germans believe, as has been widely reported, that drone overflights of their military bases were linked to nefarious Russian activity. In the context of recent threats to RAF bases, and drone overflights at Suffolk RAF bases and elsewhere last November, can he update us at all—I appreciate the sensitivity of this—on whether there is yet any indication of Russian involvement? In particular, will he update us on progress on the review of security at UK bases, which he launched last month? When I was Minister for Defence Procurement, I stripped out a whole load of processes and red tape to bring forward the in-service date of our groundbreaking DragonFire anti-drone laser from 2032 to 2027. Given the extraordinary potential for directed energy weapons, will the Secretary of State accelerate adoption even further, and ensure rapid testing of anti-drone defences for our military bases? On drones more broadly, in a written answer in March, Ministers confirmed that they had ordered just three military drones for our armed forces since the election. I have tabled subsequent written questions on progress, and Ministers are now saying that they cannot answer the question. What is the latest figure? UK small and medium-sized enterprises have provided some of the best drones and counter-drone measures used on the live battlefield in Ukraine, so why are we not ordering the same kit in parallel for our own Army, at scale and at pace, so that it can train today—not years in the future—in how war is fought right now in Ukraine? After three and half years of war, we must keep reminding the British public of the most important point for our national interest—namely, that the best way to defend our homeland right now is to give all possible support to Ukraine, so that the democracy triumphs over the dictatorship, and to prevent Putin’s aggression from spreading westwards.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert— “(4A) The terms under subsection (1)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. As I have throughout the passage of the Bill, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I am taking a safety-first approach here—and the donation from Nemesis of synthetic road fuel for a constituency surgery tour last year. That is not relevant to sustainable aviation fuel, but I want to be entirely transparent about it, as I have been throughout the passage of the Bill. Before I speak to amendment 3, a broad comment about all the amendments I will speak to today is that, fundamentally the Opposition are not a million miles from the Government on the Bill. However, as I am sure you expect us to do, Mr Western, it is our job as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to kick the tyres and ensure that the Bill is as strong and workable as it can be. We share the ambition to decarbonise aviation and ensure that everybody still can fly for pleasure or business, and that businesses can move goods around the world using air freight. It is in that spirit that I tabled amendment 3, which aims to ensure that the producers that come forward for the various contracts consider the full breadth of the sustainable aviation fuel technologies available. On Tuesday, we heard oral evidence from manufacturers of wholly synthetic, waste-derived and feedstock-derived sustainable aviation fuels. It is important to look at the panoply of fuels in relation to the long-term environmental impact and the practicalities of producing them today. As I said on Second Reading, my big fear, which led to my tabling the amendment, is that industries might be stood up only to be turned off again in 10 or 20 years, as the technology becomes redundant. For example, in the oral evidence session on Tuesday we almost had a debate about the possible pitfall of there not being a waste supply to create waste-derived sustainable aviation fuel. Many local authorities up and down the land, my own in Buckinghamshire included, are tied up in 10, 20 or even 30-year financial obligations to, for example, the financing of energy for waste incinerators, which in some parts of the country are connected to heat networks. It may therefore not be possible for councils to say simply, “No, we want to move our waste to a equally productive but different form.” Those contracts exist. The point of the amendment is to ensure that we look through that very clear lens to see which of the technologies available for producing sustainable aviation fuel will have the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact in the long term. From the evidence we heard the other day, it is clear that some technologies are at a different point of development from others, but none is actually that far away. For example, the evidence we heard from Zero Petroleum was that it is ready to scale a wholly synthetic production facility right now. Of course, that does not happen overnight—it takes some considerable time to build any facility—but the scalability is able to happen right now. The Government should reflect on that point and should not look just at the technologies that are available right here, right now. I would argue that, too often in this country, we look for alignment with the technology that is available today, when that which is only hours, days, weeks or months away may well be better and worth waiting for. That is the point of the amendment: ensuring that we get this right for the long term, so that we have a supply of sustainable and, I hope, synthetic—entirely man-made from air and water—fuels available for this country, so that we have the liquid hydrocarbons there, available for purchase, using the price mechanism which sits at the heart of the Bill to get production going, so that our aviation sector can continue to flourish and be available for all that wish to use it.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I accept many of the arguments that the Minister has put forward. I note he acknowledged that, off the back of the evidence sessions on Tuesday, all the current technologies are ready. That is a really important point for the Committee and the whole House to reflect upon as the Bill progresses. There has been something of a narrative from the usual vested interests in the country suggesting that one technology or another is not in the right state to be able to move forward, or to produce sustainable aviation fuel at the scale we need as a country. It is very welcome that the Minister acknowledged in his remarks that the technologies are already to scale, whether the fuel is HEFA-derived, waste-derived or entirely synthetic following the Fischer-Tropsch process at large.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I will make one or two brief comments on the new clauses that have been tabled by the Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. The official Opposition have some sympathy with new clause 2. It is always sensible with any new legislation to ensure, within a reasonable timeframe, that it is doing what it was meant to do. We can all debate things when they are a new idea in Committee and in the House, and on paper they might seem as though they are going to be all fine and rosy, but of course we can never predict that with 100% certainty. The review that new clause 2 would bake into the Bill—we can all do the parliamentary arithmetic; it will become an Act at some point in the near future—seems fundamentally sensible. I understand where the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, is coming from with new clause 6, because of course by definition aviation is a global industry. By practicality, the vast majority of flights leaving these shores are going to other countries. I therefore understand why the hon. Gentleman would seek a degree of co-operation on the fuel that airlines leaving UK airports and landing in other countries will have to refuel with. Those airlines will have to use the fuel that is available in France, the United States of America, Australia, India or anywhere else. That level of co-operation is important. I would merely push back a little in arguing that we need to keep a careful eye on not just the European area; it needs to go much further than that. An enormous number of UK aircraft will be refuelling in countries all over the world. It is about trying to get that certainty of supply of a level of fuel that aligns with what we are setting down as our values—the blends that we, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have baked into the SAF mandate. The other side of the coin to the Bill is that we should seek to use our influence abroad to achieve things in other countries. We will probably be unable to do so in many of them, but it does not hurt to have that overview and ambition to be the world leaders on sustainable aviation fuel, and to see whether we can encourage others to follow our lead.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I do not have a great deal to say on the provisions, other than that it is always regrettable when Northern Ireland is forgotten and has to be inserted via an amendment. On the clause, I have no problem with financial penalties for failure to comply with the law, so I am not attacking the clause per se, but what will the appeal mechanism be? When it comes to law that involves financial penalties, a company will often have a legitimate case—force majeure, or whatever it might be—as to why it has been unable to comply with the letter of the law, and it is always important, as a matter of natural justice, for an appeal mechanism to be in place. Does the Minister intend to enable appeals where such financial penalties are given?
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 12, page 7, line 12, at end insert— “(3) A direction given under subsection (1) must include a requirement for the designated counterparty to report on— (a) the impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the proceeding 12 month period; (b) a projection of the expected impact of any revenue certainty contract on the fluctuation of the average price to consumers of an airfare over the following five year period. (4) A report under paragraph (a) must be made within one year of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter. (5) The Secretary of State must lay a report made under paragraph (a) before Parliament.” Amendment 4 focuses on UK IP, which I alluded to earlier. Given that we have been told throughout the passage of the Bill, and the Opposition agree, that we need to underpin domestic sovereign fuel security, there should be a provision in the Bill that gives preference to UK IP and UK producers—not just those that might happen to make the fuel here, but those that are using UK-derived innovation and technology to do so. Of course, we exist in a global marketplace and are often reliant on imports, but it would be regrettable if the Bill enabled the standing-up of industries that are based entirely on foreign-owned technology. That is what the amendment seeks to correct.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I apologise, Mr Western, for getting ahead of myself. I went slightly cross-eyed as I looked down at my notes, and have two amendments back to back. I stand by what I said, and maybe we can save some time later as I have already made my comments on amendment 5. We all make mistakes; we are all human. Turning to amendment 4, then, much has been made of the cost to the end user. We had a good debate on Second Reading in which all agreed, across the House and all political parties, that the challenge, as we decarbonise and move to net zero, is that everyone must still be able to do the things that they want to do—to fly and move goods around—but in a cleaner, decarbonised, and net zero way. We have been the first in the western world to legislate for that by 2050. When I heard the Minister say—in both the private briefings that he gave before the Bill was introduced to the House, for which I am grateful, and then on the Floor of the House on Second Reading—that the net impact would be only plus or minus £1.50 on an ultimate airfare, I was delighted. I took him at his word. I thought, “Fantastic. That is something that consumers will surely be happy with”—particularly if it is on the minus £1.50 side of the equation. Yet, in the evidence sessions on Tuesday, I am not sure that a single witness was willing to put their own name to that plus or minus £1.50 fluctuation. Some witnesses went even further by saying they thought that was—I hesitate to use this word—a conservative estimate. The point of amendment 4 is to try to ensure that we get something baked into the Bill that acknowledges the ultimate potential cost to the end user: the consumer, the person, any of our constituents who wish to book a flight to go on holiday or on a business trip.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point; I do not think that we are misaligned on that argument. Yes, we need to move to sustainable aviation fuel, preferably at the better end of that technology. It is this very Bill that will ensure that we can, as a country, move faster towards that aim with—I have used the phrase before—the other side of the coin of the Bill, which is the SAF mandate. When the Conservatives were in government, we were heading towards that, but I fully acknowledge that it is the new Government who have introduced it to the House. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a cost to doing nothing, but it is incumbent on all of us on behalf of our constituents, and the businesses that operate within our constituencies and require the use of air freight, to ensure that we are not legislating for something that will put an undue additional financial burden on them. The point of the amendment is to embrace the Minister’s commitments at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, and in the briefings beforehand—which, I repeat, I was grateful to him for putting on—and to ensure that as the Committee potentially allows the Bill to go on to Report, and further through the parliamentary process, we are confident in those numbers, and about the impact that we, collectively, as a Committee and ultimately as Members of Parliament, are putting on the statute book. It is in that spirit that the amendment has been put forward. I ask the Minister to ensure that the projections he has reported from the Dispatch Box come to fruition, so we do not end up looking back in probably a few years’ time, as opposed to a few months’ time, and discovering that the plus or minus £1.50 was much worse than that, as some of the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday suggested.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I am grateful to you for rescuing me, Mr Western, by grouping both amendments in the same debate. I made a mistake, so I put my hands up to that. I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I will not press the matter to a vote but, as with the earlier amendment, when projections are made I think it is incumbent on the Government to find a way of giving comfort to all the travelling public and all those businesses that use air freight that the provisions of the Bill—I fully accept the comments of the hon. Member for Wimbledon on the wider effects of the mandate—will not produce a much higher cost to them when they go on their holidays or business trips or move goods around the world. Ahead of Report, will the Minister and his team in the Department look at ways to kick the tyres on those presumptions—in particular given the evidence we heard on Tuesday—and check that they are robust as possible and have the confidence of industry? I would be grateful for that, and we may well return to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
I absolutely understand and appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from with this new clause. This topic came up in the oral evidence sessions and on Second Reading. It is of great concern that the slightly lower tariffs deal done with the United States of America has clearly and materially threatened UK production of bioethanol, which of course has many uses. Many of us on the petrol station forecourt will have seen the curious E5 and E10 labels on the petrol pumps, which is about the ethanol blended with the regular fossil fuel. Our consumption of it as a country is particularly high. As we are debating the potential future of bioethanol in sustainable aviation fuel production, it is incumbent upon the Government to reflect, within the scope of the Bill, on how much domestic supply there can be. So much of the Bill is underpinned by sovereign capability and fuel security—a point on which the Opposition and I think the Liberal Democrats are equally aligned on; it is so important—and so surely this new clause must also be important to the Government. I ask the Minister to reflect on that when he responds.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
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.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Third sitting)
The central question is whether that review, when it comes, looks at the greenhouse gas savings while the aircraft is in use, or gives a whole-system analysis, from the production and use of the fuel to the benefits of using the by-products, post combustion, to make more fuel. That is an important clarification that we need.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Fourth sitting)
New clause 8 has considerable merit. It is always preferable where new industrial facilities are to be built—in this case for the production of sustainable aviation fuel—for those identified sites to have had former brownfield status and former industrial use. I have no argument with that element of the new clause. The one note of caution I have on the new clause is that many of the existing sites—certainly oil refinery sites—are not necessarily located in the right places currently for certain SAF technologies. That includes the e-fuels and power-to-liquid solutions, which require, as part of the process, electrolysis and the creation of green hydrogen. Of course, if the hydrogen element that goes into making the SAF is not green hydrogen, the whole problem becomes rather academic—we could still make the fuel, but the reality is that it would not be as green as we want it to be. Those SAF production facilities, by definition, would need to be located in places with potential large-scale offshore wind, electricity production or, possibly, nuclear generation. If we look across the world at such fuel plants that have been created, Porsche, for example, chose the hills of Chile to produce its particular fuel, because it can leverage off the wind power that it can get up there. In our country, Orkney seems to have been a popular site for harnessing the offshore wind technology available up there. While I fully support the principle that underpins the new clause—for many SAF production sites to be on former industrial or oil refinery sites—I simply wish to add the note of caution that they might not be suitable for every application and technology out there.
- Hansard source
Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Fourth sitting)
I associate myself with the Minister’s thanks to everyone who has worked so hard on the Bill, particularly the civil servants; I welcomed the ability to discuss the Bill with them in a private briefing before Second Reading. I also thank the Doorkeepers, Hansard and the Clerks for ensuring that the Committee has run smoothly. It is quite a pleasant experience to engage with a Bill in opposition when there is fundamental agreement on the direction of travel. The other Bill Committee of this Parliament on which I was shadow Minister was for the Employment Rights Bill, where we did not enjoy quite the same level of consensus, but to meet the challenges of decarbonising our aviation industry it is important that this Bill progresses rapidly. However, I urge the Minister, who has been kind and engaged throughout the process, to continue to reflect on the points that I have raised in Committee and that the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), raised on Second Reading, as well as the many worthy points that the Liberal Democrats have raised. If we can keep going in the spirit of cross-party working and reflect on some of the points about UK intellectual property—making this a UK success story, making the UK a world leader and ensuring that the technologies that emerge genuinely do what they say they will—then I think all of Parliament, not just the Government, can be proud to push the Bill through. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
- Hansard source
High Street Businesses
At the heart of every high street are wonderful hospitality SMEs—pubs, cafés, restaurants, bars and coffee shops—yet the 2024 Budget was a hammer blow to them. With £3.4 billion of extra costs, one in 10 restaurants faces closure this year. Indeed, Labour’s Budget has already cost hospitality 69,000 jobs. For context, in the same period the previous year, hospitality created 18,000 new jobs. Can the Minister assure the House that businesses that are hanging on by a thread will not face a hard landing this winter?