5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the words of Richard Hughes of the OBR, who said in a report last week: “The UK cannot afford the array of promises that it has made to the public”? He also said that debt is on a trajectory that the UK “can’t sustain”.
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. One area the Opposition would be looking at is a coherent reform of the welfare system so that, by changing the pathway to entitlement to benefits, we get that whole budget under control, which would make a meaningful difference to the fiscal position that the Government are in.
A few months ago, I met a former civil servant. He told me that when he was working in government in the run-up to the ’97 election, Ed Balls would come into the Department and say, “Look, this is what our manifesto says, but here is the three-page memo on what we are actually going to do in government.” In fairness to that Government, they achieved quite a lot. In their first two years, of course, they stuck rigidly to the Conservative spending plans, and Tony Blair’s economic adviser, Derek Scott, said that they had a golden economic legacy. I have listened very carefully this afternoon to the speeches made by Government Members. Of course, I can acknowledge where we were, in terms of the economy, and the fact that the country wanted change; I recognise that. Government Members, however, have failed completely to acknowledge the scale of the once-in-100-years covid experience, what that did to our public finances, and the challenges it gave us in the Treasury—the tough decisions we had to make, and the inevitable scarring to the economy.
I shall just finish my point and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. The typical refrain is then to say, “What about Liz Truss?” I was not a member of Liz Truss’s Government, but I am sure that my colleagues who were did the very best that they could. She was in office for seven weeks. I acknowledge that, politically, it was catastrophic for my party, and there are lots of lessons on which we will have time to reflect, but the failure to acknowledge properly the dominant reason for losing that last election, which was related to the scarring of what happened with covid and the fundamental challenges, does not do credit to this House. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he still wants to intervene, presumably on Liz Truss.
I will come on to address the fundamental dynamics of spending and that area in particular, but first I want to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention back to the subject.
No, I will a bit of progress now. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, even though he did not give way to me earlier. The Chancellor came to the Treasury Committee in November. She said, “We have now set the envelope for spending for this Parliament, and we will not be coming back for more tax increases or, indeed, more borrowing. We now need to live within the means that we have set ourselves in the Budget and in the allocations of those spending totals.” What has happened in a year? Of course, I recognise that events occur, and I have referred to those under the previous Government. They do present challenges, but the Labour party’s fundamental problem is understanding the effect of high burdens of tax on wealth creators and their motivation to employ people and to invest in the productive capacity of the economy—more jobs and more tax revenues from lower rates. This Government are saying that we can do a little bit more on national insurance; that we can just put a few more burdens of regulation; that the long-term capital investment of £190 billion will transform our economy. However, what I hear from businesses in Salisbury—small or large—is that the motivation to grow a business, to employ more people, and to say that they are determined to do so because there are some rewards from that is rapidly diminishing. What we hear is speculation about which additional taxes will be imposed after the next three months. Today, Government Members have suggested equalisation of capital gains tax, a flat rate of pension relief, a wealth tax, or higher bands of council tax—although they may have been ruled out. The overall effect on top of what we have already had is for businesses to say, “I’m not going to do this anymore.” We have now had two consecutive months of negative growth. That may well continue, which is bad for everyone. It is bad for the capacity that we have as a country to invest in the transformation that we all seek to deliver on—some things we will agree on—and it is not sustainable if the Government do not recognise that businesses will not grow and expand if that tax level rises beyond a certain amount.
Absolutely. [Interruption.] I am told that I ought not to take any more interventions, but I will say that Liz Truss’s insight about the imperative for growth was right; we do need to look for growth. What she did not do was examine the conditions to do that in a way that the market could understand, and it had catastrophic effects. We now have a Labour Government, and we now have working people being massively affected by tax changes. We have Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England, saying that as a reaction to the national insurance changes, businesses have made changes to employment—that means firing people—and we have Paul Johnson downgrading growth prospects, alongside virtually every other independent analyst. The winter fuel payments were an absolute disgrace. The changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief were put on my desk at every fiscal event, but one just has to say no, because they are the wrong thing to do. The political capital that has been lost by the Government and the damage to their reputation for their stewardship of the economy is catastrophic. I say to those on the Labour Benches that we are facing some really tough challenges as we approach the next Budget. The choices that this Government need to make on taxes will define their future. What happened last week was the worst possible situation. Several times today we have been asked, “What would you do?” What we would have done and what we would do now is take a root-and-branch look at the welfare system to see what the Government should do. We would focus on the most vulnerable and look after them well. We would recognise that one of the legacies of covid is that the pathway into benefits has gone fundamentally wrong and the country cannot afford it. Unless we grip that major driver of costs for this country, we shall see taxes rise and rise to meet those iron-clad fiscal rules, and we will be in a spiral of decline.
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.
Q By the look of it, you have had an easier life than I have had. I have a fairly brief question. This morning, we heard representations that the SAF mandate is enough in that it creates the demand and requirements that the market will adjust to and fulfil, and that the Bill is therefore not needed. I invite your thoughts and comments on that bold statement. Professor Maslin: I think that is deflection. The Bill is absolutely required. You need to support this fledgling industry; as with any of our green industries, we need to support it so that we can be world leading. SAFs are going to be the future. There are 14,000 planes in the air at any moment, and in 30 years’ time they will hopefully all be flying on SAFs. If we can get our industrial might to actually produce the technology, patent it and push it forward, we will be ahead of the curve, because everybody else is starting to throw money at it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall and uniting us behind support for beer—although his colleague the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) slightly broke that consensus with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) on a couple of points. Beer and pub businesses support 1 million jobs across the UK and contribute £34.4 billion to the economy. In my own North West Norfolk constituency, there are more than 70 pubs and four breweries, which support 2,300 jobs and generate £53 million for the local economy. Those brewers are Brancaster, Fox, Lynn and Duration in West Acre—I strongly recommend Duration’s Turtles All the Way Down IPA. This has been a good debate with a long list of excellent-sounding pubs and breweries. The previous Conservative Government introduced a new duty system in 2023, which has been referred to. That was the biggest reform of duties for more than 140 years and was based on the common-sense principle of applying duty based on the strength of alcohol to modernise existing duties, support businesses and meet public health objectives. New reliefs were also introduced: draught relief, which we have heard about, to cut the burden on draught products; and small producer relief. The British Beer and Pub Association, as quoted by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), said that those reforms were very welcome for the beer industry, and I am sure everyone would agree with that. Conservative support for the sector went further; at autumn statement 2023, we froze alcohol duty, and the freeze was extended at the spring Budget a year ago. By contrast, at the tax-raising autumn Budget, the Chancellor increased the headline rate of alcohol duty by inflation, although she did continue our policy with a reduction in the rates for qualifying draught products and under small producer relief. While I recognise and welcome those steps, the changes to draught relief will mean that beer duty on an average 4.5% strength pint of beer reduces from 54p to 53p—a paltry one penny saving. With the average pint now breaking the £5 barrier to mitigate new costs, many are left wondering if the Government really get the challenges facing the pub and brewing sector. One in every £3 spent in the pub goes straight to the Treasury, and beer duty rates are now up to 12 times higher than in other European nations. The Government’s fiscal approach risks squeezing the life out of those vital sectors. A lot has been said about the role of pubs, and I also want to reflect on the role of breweries. The brewing subsector sustains 85,000 jobs and contributes £5 billion to tax revenues. Breweries are clearly fundamental to the success of pubs and the hospitality sector. More than 80% of beer sold in the UK is produced domestically in 1,800 breweries, which have strong domestic supply chains and a strong economic multiplier effect. The economic value that they generate largely stays in the UK, and the Government should support that in the policy approach that they take. Beyond the increase in alcohol duty, which is the primary focus of this debate, we have also heard a lot about EPR and the extra costs that producers are facing. The BBPA has calculated that EPR fees and Budget costs will add more than £800 million of extra burden on to the sector. The Government’s impact assessment failed to make any distinction between sectors, so will the Minister commit to properly assessing the impact of fees on pub closures and the brewing sector? In the current climate, how can he think that those sectors can afford these huge additional costs? All Members know from talking to pubs and breweries in their constituencies just how worried they are about increased costs. On Friday, I was at the Rose and Crown in Harpley in my constituency, which was one of my favourite pubs under its previous management and has just reopened. From talking to the new team, who have pubs across Norfolk, it is clear that the national insurance increase—in particular, almost halving the threshold at which it is paid—has been challenging and is leading to job losses across the sector. Pubs make an important contribution to our economy and our communities. When in government, we introduced measures to protect the nation’s beer producers and hospitality venues. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, who was a doughty campaigner throughout the last Parliament to achieve that. Time and again, however, I hear that choices made by this Government are placing unsustainable pressures on businesses. UKHospitality has just published figures showing that since the autumn Budget, 69,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector, compared with the previous period where 18,000 jobs were added. It is little wonder that UKHospitality said that the decisions made by this Chancellor and this Government deliver a hammer blow to the sector. Businesses are extremely concerned about what will come in the autumn Budget, given the black hole that has emerged in the Chancellor’s spending plans. Treasury Ministers keep saying that business confidence is at a record high, and they sometimes manage that without a smile on their face. But if the Minister makes his way to the Dog and Duck, he will get a reality check, and he will hear loud and clear how tough things are for pubs and brewers; how the Government’s increases in national insurance, wage costs and business rates mean a third of venues are running at a loss; and the need for the Government to change course. Otherwise, spiralling costs risk undermining the Great British institution of the pub, which is at the heart of our constituencies and communities. Rather than loading on more costs, the Government should be supporting pubs and brewers. If the Minister does that, we will all buy him a pint.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for receipt earlier this morning of a hard copy of the Rimmer review. I also thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces for briefing me yesterday and other parliamentary colleagues today. Furthermore, given the nature of the super-injunction and the fact that the timing and nature of the statement relate entirely to the court’s lifting of that super-injunction, I recognise that it was entirely right for the Secretary of State to update the House at the earliest opportunity, and I welcome the opportunity that colleagues now have to scrutinise these matters. Let me begin by declaring an interest. I was a Defence Minister in August 2023, when the Department first became aware of the breach, my main role being to chair one meeting on the matter in August 2023 because I was the duty Minister. Thereafter, however, as Minister for Defence Procurement and with this sitting outside my portfolio, I had relatively minimal direct involvement. That said, the Secretary of State has issued an apology on behalf of the Government and I join him in that, and in recognising that this data leak should never have happened and was an unacceptable breach of all relevant data protocols. I also agree that it is right for an apology to be issued specifically to those whose data was compromised. It is nevertheless a fact that cannot be ignored that when this breach came to light, the immediate priority of the then Government was to avoid a very specific and terrible scenario: namely, an error on the part of an official of the British state leading to the torture, or even murder, of persons in the dataset at the hands of what remains a brutal Taliban regime. As the Rimmer review confirms, that scenario, thankfully, appears to have been avoided. Of course, we understand that the review was set up in January and reported to the Secretary of State in June. I want to be clear that it is entirely appropriate that the Secretary of State has sought to update the Department’s understanding of the threat on the ground in Afghanistan that exists today, particularly for those persons in the dataset who had previously been considered to be at the greatest risk of reprisals. However, the House will appreciate that when Ministers became aware of the data breach in August 2023, we did not have the luxury of six months in which to assess the situation. As Rimmer says in paragraph 53: “The review notes that the passage of time is particularly relevant.” I know that my former ministerial colleague—the former Minister for the Armed Forces, James Heappey, who led the response to the leak—will have been focused entirely on what he saw as his duty of care to those at risk of reprisals, based on the threat assessment that pertained at the time. However, any threat picture is constantly evolving, and as I say, I support the Secretary of State’s decision to review the MOD’s understanding of the threat. Given the latest situation, as reported by Rimmer, we support his conclusion that the Afghanistan response route can now be closed. Turning to the super-injunction, I entirely understand why this would be a subject of considerable interest, particularly to the newspapers and media outlets concerned. We have an independent judiciary, and it is not for me to comment either on the decision to grant the injunction in the first place or to lift it today, but it is surely telling that paragraph 56 of the Rimmer review states that planning at the time that the Government became aware of the breach in the summer of 2023 was based on a “risk judgement that were the Taleban to secure access to the dataset, the consequences for affected individuals may be serious.” Had that not been the case, no doubt the Court would have been less likely to grant the injunction, and certainly not a super-injunction. On the leak, can the Secretary of State confirm that it was by a civil servant, and that Ministers at the time took steps to change the casework procedure by not using spreadsheets sent by email, but moving to a more secure system fully within the entirely secure network? Can he confirm that, although the dataset was of about 18,000, only a relatively small portion were identified as at high risk of reprisals, and only a small number had been settled here, which is why, as he stated, the cost is about £400 million, not the £7 billion reported elsewhere? Now that these matters are rightly in the public domain and given the reassessment of the threat in the Rimmer review, I agree that it would be wholly appropriate for the Defence Committee and others to look further into these matters. Can the Secretary of State comment on one specific item being reported, which is that someone—I refer not to the person who made the leak, but another apparent third party who obtained some of the data—was engaged in blackmail? Did the original Metropolitan police investigation look at that, and if not, will he consider reopening it so that the police can look at that specific point, which has serious implications? Although we must recognise the huge role played by Afghan nationals in support of our armed forces, any policy in this area must always be balanced against our own national interest. We support the Government in closing the ARR scheme, as we did with their decision to close the full ARAP programme.
I beg to move, That this House believes the two-child benefit cap should remain in place and that households with a third or subsequent child born from 6 April 2017 claiming Universal Credit or Child Tax Credit should not receive additional funding, because those who receive benefits should make the same decisions about having children as those who do not; further believes that lifting the cap would exacerbate a benefits culture which is unfair on the taxpayers who pay for it and unfair on those who become trapped on benefits, because those who can work, should work; and generally supports further changes to reduce welfare spending and ensure that benefits are there only for those who need them. All of us have to make difficult choices in life about what we can afford. Many of us here are fortunate, but one of those choices will have been the number of children we have. We may wish that such an important decision were not tainted by something as unromantic as money, but that is the hard fact of the matter. Children are wonderful—I say that as the mum of three teenagers—but bringing them up is an expensive business. As Conservatives we believe in the importance of family, in personal responsibility, in fairness, and as families and as a society, in living within our means. That is why today we are calling on all Members to affirm our commitment to a policy that reflects those principles. Let me take a step back for a moment and reflect on the situation we are in as a country. We have 28 million people in Britain who are now working to pay the wages, benefits and pensions of 28 million others. More than half of all households received more in benefits and benefits in kind than they have paid in taxes. To spell that out, more people are net recipients than net contributors. That is happening right now, and with every day that passes, spending on benefits is going up and up. Health and disability benefits alone are set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade. That is more than we spend on defence, on education and on policing. While it might seem kind to spend more on welfare, it is not. It is not kind to those trapped in the welfare system and written off to a lifetime on benefits. As we embark on a doom loop of uncontrolled spending, higher taxes, struggling businesses, entrepreneurial exodus, rising unemployment and then more people out of work and on benefits, it is not kind to those who lose their jobs and their incomes in that cycle of misery. If the moment comes when we cannot afford to provide welfare even to those in desperate need, it most definitely will not be kind to them, the very people our welfare safety net is meant to be there for.
I do not agree with the hon. Member. I am going to talk about poverty in a moment, so if he will just hold on, he will hear my view on that point. This is a ticking time bomb. If we do not solve this problem, our economy will collapse, yet opposite me sit members of this Labour Government who have just shown us, with the welfare chaos over the past couple of weeks, that they will not, and indeed cannot, fix this. In fact, they are just making it worse. If hon. Members cast their minds back to early 2020, they will remember that Labour was in the midst of a leadership election. The now Prime Minister made a clear and unequivocal commitment to “scrap…punitive sanctions, two-child limit and benefits cap.” Then, once he had secured the leadership of the Labour party and the election neared, he changed that tune. He said Labour was not going to abolish the two-child limit. He acknowledged the need to take tough decisions and not to make unfunded spending promises, and on this we can agree. But saying that he would take tough decisions is not the same as actually taking them. Take for example the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, now just called the Universal Credit Bill, which Labour voted through last week. It was meant to save £5 billion. The first U-turn brought that down to £2 billion, and the next U-turn then brought it down to—well, the Minister on the Front Bench at the time could not tell us, but the consensus is that it will now cost the taxpayer around £100 million.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the problem of a welfare trap, where people would better be better off on benefits than working full time on the minimum wage.
I will first make a little progress, but then I will be happy to give way to the hon. Lady. Last week’s welfare fiasco saw a Bill that was meant to save money become a Bill that will cost money. We have also seen the fiasco of the winter fuel payments cut, with the Government having to row back on their tough talk because taking money from low-income pensioners is not, in fact, the way to make savings. And now we are debating the future of the two-child limit, which Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have indicated is the next tough choice that they are not going to make.
My hon. Friend makes an important and thoughtful point. Many families, whether they are living off benefits or in work, would like to have more children but have to make these difficult choices about what they can afford. This is a point about fairness. I know that many Labour Members passionately believe that the limit should go, and they will make arguments today about child poverty as if they were the only ones who care about it—[Interruption.] For the avoidance of doubt, that is not true. Our difference of opinion is about what to do about it. I think all of us are at a loss to know what the Prime Minister believes in. By contrast, we know what we believe in and we know why we are here. That is why we have brought forward this debate on the two-child limit, because somebody has to make the case for fiscal responsibility, for living within our means, for fairness, for ensuring that work pays and for keeping the two-child cap. I want to be clear that all of us—including those of us on the Opposition Benches—want children to have the best possible start in life. Let us also be clear about what the two-child limit actually is, because I note that some Members from other parties are confused. The two-child limit restricts the amount of additional universal credit that families receive for having children to the first two children only, with some sensible exceptions, such as for twins or non-consensual conception. The cap does not apply to child benefit, which is available to all families with incomes of up to £80,000 for every child, regardless of the number of children in a family.
I could not put it better than my right hon. Friend. We know that bringing up children is expensive and important. When working couples have to make tough decisions about whether they can afford to start a family in the first place, they should not be made to pay more in taxes to fund their neighbour to have a third, fourth or fifth child. Someone in a job does not get paid more just because they have another child. If we are worried about people getting caught in a benefits trap where it pays more to be on welfare than in work, how much worse would it be with neither the two-child benefit nor the benefits cap? It would mean benefits increased by thousands. When I say thousands, the House of Commons Library has told me that a family with five children would get more than £10,000 extra a year and a family with eight children would get more than £20,000 extra a year. That is more than the after-tax income of someone working full time on the minimum wage.
If I could take the hon. Lady back a bit, she might remember when we came into office in 2010, and we had to bring down the deficit year after year to get the country’s finances under control. Giving children the best start in life is not as simple as handing out more money. It is about giving parents the community support they need as they encounter the challenges of bringing up a child, which is why we launched the family hubs. It is about education, but school teachers around the country are being let go. It is about growing up in a household with someone in work, but across the country people are being made redundant because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax. I know that I will not win over everyone here with my argument. For instance, I do not expect to convince the four remaining Reform MPs, because their leader has said that he would remove the two-child limit—the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) believes that is the right thing to do and said that he is not finished yet on benefit giveaways. But asking the taxpayer for ever more in taxes to pay for their neighbour’s benefits is not the right thing to do. The country, taxpayers and future generations cannot afford this. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Cabinet Ministers have been unable to rule out more tax rises this autumn. Businesses, working people, pensioners, savers, homeowners—whose pocket will be picked next? Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that the UK’s finances are in a very “vulnerable position”. Now more than ever we need the Government to take the tough decisions—but will they? I know Labour Back Benchers are itching to vote to scrap the limit, but where are the Government on this? Will they take the position of the Prime Minister in 2020, in 2024 or now, or will they have to abstain because the Government just do not know? Soon we will see. Only the Conservatives understand the importance of personal responsibility, fairness and living within our means. Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Reform all voted last week for more welfare spending. Will they do the same today, or will they vote with us to back the people getting up every morning, going out to work, doing the hard yards, making the hard choices and working hard to build our country?
On pretending, it seems to me that Labour likes to pretend that the covid pandemic never happened and that the £400 billion that the previous Government spent to protect the country and protect jobs, which Labour supported and asked us to go further on, never happened. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on that and at least acknowledge what happened in the recent past?
In his speech, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that working people are people who go out to work. Do farmers go out to work?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing the debate. I rise today not just as a constituency MP, but as vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities and as someone alarmed by what I see every day: a system stretched to the point of failure, with vulnerable children paying the price. In my first year as an MP I have taken up 98 SEND cases, but I accept that that is just the tip of the iceberg in my constituency. Those cases include a family whose son’s autism assessment is so delayed that he will finish school before he gets the help he needs. Another family is spending over £10,000 on tribunal proceedings. This is not a system; it is a fight, and families are losing. Across both Surrey and Hampshire, 3% of pupils in state-funded schools have an EHCP and a further 13% receive SEND support, but behind the numbers are children waiting years for basic support, parents forced into legal battles just to access what their children are entitled to and councils collapsing under the sheer volume of demand, without the necessary support that this requires from national Government. The crisis is compounded by serious concerns about legality and quality. I have heard credible reports of educational psychologist assessments being drafted by trainees and rubber-stamped without proper oversight—a process designed to evade scrutiny, not deliver support. Meanwhile, the cost of failure is spiralling. In Surrey alone, more than £13 million a year is spent on taxis to bring more than 500 children to school. Nationally, the average cost of special school placements is now over £61,000 per child per year, and councils are staring down a projected £5 billion SEND deficit by 2026. All of that is worsened by the Government’s ideological attack on independent schools. Schools like More House and Undershaw school offer bespoke, life-changing provision, often in partnership with local authorities, for children who cannot cope in mainstream education. However, tax changes and policy hostility are forcing closures, reducing places and driving up costs. The result is fewer options for children and more pressure on already overwhelmed state schools. I pay tribute to Councillor Jonathan Hulley, who has just taken over as the new cabinet member in Surrey and is trying his best to grapple with this problem. As we have heard across the Chamber, this is not a Surrey or Hampshire problem; it is country-wide, and the Government need to step up. Will the Minister ringfence capital funding to expand specialist places in high-need areas? Will she publish guidance and support to reduce the cost and overuse of solo SEND transport, which is neither sustainable nor in the child’s best interest? Will she protect alternative and independent providers that deliver high-quality specialty education?
I respect the hon. Lady deeply, but I must say that I entirely disagree. Pitting the state sector against the independent sector, and vice versa, is entirely the wrong way to go about it—it would damage education. I am very happy to take her around More House or Undershaw in my constituency to show her the amazing work that those two schools do; she may change her tune once she has seen that. The key thing is this: will the Government step up and make the national changes and reforms to make this system fair, equitable and sustainable across the country? SEND families are asking not for special treatment but for lawful, timely and compassionate support. No child should feel hopeless in the very system meant to help them, and no family should be forced to break themselves to secure basic rights. Let us fix this, and mean what we say when we talk about inclusion.
This Labour Government have begun a full-scale assault on the British economy. In just one year they have presided over a shambles that has punished workers, hammered businesses and betrayed every promise they made on tax to my constituents in Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages. Let us look at the facts. National insurance is up, with a 1.2% rise that the IFS confirms will fall largely on working people. Agricultural property relief has been slashed, which the National Farmers Union warns threatens family farms and food security. In my constituency, farming is not just a way of life; it underpins our local economy and communities. When I visited Bob Milton of Kilnside farm, he told me that his business now faces laying off staff and selling land just to meet Labour’s new tax burden. That is not policy; it is economic sabotage. On the changes to business property relief, a small business owner now faces a tax penalty simply for owning their own premises and hoping to pass their business on. These changes punish success and threaten continuity for family firms across the country. And what is the result of all this? Inflation is stuck at 3.4%, well above the Bank of England’s target of 2%; unemployment is up to 4.6%, the highest in four years; borrowing was at £17.7 billion in May; and public debt is forecast to hit 96.1% of GDP, with annual debt interests soaring to £130 billion, by 2029-30. The tax burden is heading to an historic high—the highest on record, in fact—yet Labour still refuses to rule out new taxes on homes, pensions or savings. Their Chancellor will not even say whether small business owners are working people, and the Prime Minister dodged the question altogether. In Farnham, shop vacancies have risen from 9% to 10.5% in just one quarter—that is, 16 more shuttered high street shops. In Haslemere and Bordon, employers tell me they are freezing and cutting hours. The Shooting Star children’s hospice that serves my constituency will have to spend £90,000 in new NIC costs—enough to hire three nurses. That is now going straight to the Treasury.
I will not give way. That is not just wrong; it is unconscionable. Meanwhile, Labour’s VAT raid on education has pushed more than 13,000 pupils out of the independent sector—10,000 more than the Government predicted. That means more pressure on already overstretched state schools, more crowded classrooms, more exhausted teachers and more children falling behind. Labour promised competence. Instead, they have delivered confusion, contradictions and chaos. They have broken their promises on national insurance, council tax, farms and education, and now they are breaking Britain’s economic future. This is not stewardship; it is self-harm. This is not change; it is collapse. This is not what the British people voted for, and they deserve better.
I made this declaration on Second Reading as well; I do not think it is strictly relevant, but I wish to be very transparent: I got a donation of sustainable fuel, to use in a road car, from a company that does not produce sustainable aviation fuel. It is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Q Good morning, witnesses. From the Second Reading debate and most of the written evidence that we have seen, we know that there is a fair amount of consensus on the price mechanism in the Bill, but the only point of having Committees like this is to seek to make a Bill better, so my straightforward question to all of you is: “How could the Bill be made better?” Rob Griggs: Our starting position as UK airlines is that we recognise that the Bill is principally an enabling Bill. Of the issues that we really care about, the revenue certainty mechanism is really important. We fully support the RCM: it is a critical way to drive the investment that we think we will need in the UK sustainable aviation fuel sector to support the advanced SAF industry in particular and that part of the mandate, which starts to become considerable by 2030. We need to get the RCM right. The design matters to make sure that we get the most from it and deliver the most cost-competitive, efficient decarbonisation of the sector while supporting and protecting UK consumers as well as fliers. We think that we can do that with a well-designed RCM. We know that many of the design elements will come through in secondary legislation and further consultation after this point, so we do not see anything in the Bill that is particularly problematic. At this point, we would not proactively suggest that any amendments are necessary. We recognise some of the important elements. We know that the levy will be on fuel suppliers, but we think it is really important that there is accountability in what happens to the money. In all likelihood, the costs of the levy will be passed through to airlines and ultimately to consumers and to the UK public, so there needs to be accountability about the levy and the funding mechanism. The Bill does not prevent that, but it will be important to get it right in future.
Q That is very helpful. Before we move on to the next witness, may I probe two elements of what you said? On your last point about costs ultimately being passed to the consumer, the Government stated clearly—the Minister said it from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading—that the Department for Transport believes that any addition to, or indeed subtraction from, airfares as a result of the Bill will be no more than £1.50. Do you agree with that point? Secondly, you have talked about advanced SAF. Does the Bill do enough to safeguard any state involvement in encouraging the right long-term technology, rather than standing up earlier technologies that we can all see might well need to be stood down in 10 or 20 years when something better has come along? Rob Griggs: We recognise the £1.50, and we absolutely welcome the commitment through the mandate that if there were price spikes as a result of SAF policy, steps would be taken to address that. For us, it is probably a little too early to say definitively what the price impact of the RCM will be. A lot of it depends on its ultimate scope and design, as well as the costs in the 2G market and the strike price. We have to bear in mind that ultimately it is the market price of SAF that will drive the biggest impact on ticket prices and the costs borne by the sector. With the RCM, the costs relate essentially either to paying the difference between the cost of SAF and production or to the fact that money can come back the other way. Relatively speaking, although the RCM costs are very important and we need to do everything we can to make sure that they are kept as low and as efficient as possible, they are part of a bigger picture. There are a number of factors that will determine the cost of SAF for the UK. We need to get everything right; the RCM is just one part. You asked whether the Bill will support the advanced 2G SAFs. The UK has taken a fairly unique route with SAF and the mandate. We have the sub-mandate for advanced SAF, which is about 300,000 tonnes by 2030. We think that it could be a pretty smart move for the UK to do that, because at some point 1G SAF will become feedstock-constrained. That could happen sooner rather than later. We could put ourselves in a really good position by having a domestic advanced SAF industry producing the scalable SAFs that will play an increasingly big role. The Bill, as written, is technology-neutral. There a number of ways in which you can do advanced SAF. When we come to the design and how projects are chosen, allocated and prioritised, we think it will be really important that this RCM supports projects that are quickly deliverable, scalable and commercially viable to help us to meet the volumes that we will need come 2030. There is nothing in the Bill that says that that cannot happen, but the design stage and how we get into the detail will matter. Gaynor Hartnell: I agree that no amendments are necessary for the Bill. It has a fairly discrete job, which is basically to get the counterparty established and engaged and to get the levy in place. All the detail on how the revenue certainty mechanism works will come through in secondary legislation. We are very engaged with the thinking and the development on that, as we have been in the lead-up to the RCM becoming a policy of both the former Government and this Government. It is important to get the design right. Broadly, we are happy with this. The fuel producers are agnostic as to who pays the levy. It is good to hear you note that the cost is going to be small; indeed, it could go either way. There is quite a bit of confusion between the costs of the mandate and the costs of the revenue certainty mechanism. We are keen to make sure that the differences are understood. Paul Greenwood: I fear I may be a slightly dissenting voice, after you have just heard some comments about how everybody is very supportive. I will start with our perspective at FIUK; I will talk very much as ExxonMobil, but please feel free to challenge me on how there may be some differences in view across the members of FIUK. Let me start by saying that ExxonMobil owns and runs a very large refinery and petrochemical complex, the Fawley refinery in Southampton, which is actually the largest producer of jet fuel in the UK. We supply about 13% of the UK’s jet market and have recently invested $300 million in a new larger pipeline from Southampton to London. I say that just to highlight the fact that we take the aviation business and the supply of jet fuel very seriously. One thing is absolutely clear: this is very well-intentioned. We all wish to decarbonise, but I think we have to call out some fundamental flaws in the Bill. I do so with the aim of saying, “Let’s make sure that we can be really clear about what this is doing and what some of the potential unintended consequences are.” First, I think it is important to say—this might sound slightly controversial, but I do not wish it to be—that this is not a step that will decarbonise. It is a step that will increase the production of sustainable aviation fuel. The way you decarbonise is effectively by incentivising consumption of sustainable aviation fuel, which we already do through the SAF mandate. The SAF mandate is a reasonably well-developed tool that sets a volume threshold and a buy-out price. That is a major lever that you pull as a Government to incentivise consumption. Let us be clear that this is around incentivising production. My question is not necessarily whether the Bill is right or wrong; I just do not think it is necessary. What you want is a market that functions and sends a signal, and then production will meet that demand signal and the sustainable aviation fuel will be supplied. My question is whether the Bill is necessary. Let us look at some of the unintended consequences. The first is that there will potentially be an incremental cost, which will be put on the fuel supplier and then, in theory, passed over to the consumer. It is important to say that although that has been put under the principle of the polluter pays, the fuel supplier in this scenario is not the polluter; it is clearly the passenger on the aeroplane or the person who is booking freight on a cargo plane. They are the ones who are causing the flight to happen and creating the consumption. Our principle should therefore be that the cost of the levy goes directly to those entities, but the way we look at it now, it is structured in such a way that it is based on the market share of the fuel supplier. That gives us two issues. First, it is not really on the polluter; it is on the fuel supplier. Secondly, we are very concerned about whether we will have the absolute transparency necessary to be able to pass 100% of the cost through to the ultimate consumer: either the passenger on the plane or the person who books the freight. We strongly urge you to look at that mechanism and perhaps look at something like the contracts for difference supplier obligation levy that exists in the electricity sector. That is one way of asking, “What are the actual costs? What are we going to impose as a levy?” It is published, it is transparent, the supplier knows what we are going to charge, and what we charge the supplier is 100% passed through. There are a lot of mechanics I think we really need to be clear on. It is also worth saying clearly that if we have a mechanism that we do not believe is necessary, but which is going to incur incremental costs, we will be passing incremental costs to British consumers and to an area in the UK that is clearly a global market. Having a potentially higher jet fuel cost because of the levy will have some unintended consequences. First, it makes the UK less competitive. Secondly, planes can tanker in fuel, as we all know, so if fuel is more expensive in the UK than elsewhere, people will fill up with more fuel in France, for example, before they fly into the UK, thereby decreasing demand in the UK, decreasing revenues and ironically increasing consumption because more jet fuel is being hauled around the world. I think that those are important unintended consequences that we need to take into account.
Q Good morning to our witnesses. It is impossible to consider the Bill without also considering the mandate, side by side. What impact do you feel the Bill will have not just on your businesses but on the fares that you charge passengers on your aircraft, and, for those of you who have cargo operations, the impact on the cost of shipping goods by air? Jonathon Counsell: We are huge supporters of the Bill. As Luke has said, SAF is critical to decarbonising aviation. There is no silver bullet, but this gets pretty close. We think that by 2050, 70% of our fuel will be SAF. There are three types of SAF: first, second and third generation. Quite clearly, the first generation is all that you can buy today, and 95% of it is from hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—used cooking oil. However, that will hit feedstock constraints in the early 2030s, so we are going to start to cap out on the amount of 1G SAF we can produce. That is why 2G and 3G are critical if we are to meet long-term decarbonisation targets. We expect that by 2050, 90% of SAF will be 2G and 3G, so it is critical that we have a policy mechanism that incentivises 2G SAF. That is why I disagree with some of the comments from the oil company representative in the previous witness panel, who said that we do not need this policy intervention. We absolutely do, because without it we will not get 2G SAF on the mandate alone. That was shown in the work done by Philip New, the chief executive officer of BP renewables. He knows a lot about this market, and he wrote an extensive paper for the Government, which said that we will not get these SAFs without the revenue certainty mechanism. For that reason, we support it. I will come on to the impacts shortly. We have no amendments to suggest at this stage, but we think that there are two points that could make it better in the next phase. One is that it has to be targeted. Not all 2G projects will need the revenue certainty mechanism; some of them will get funding without it, so it has to be targeted at the early-stage, first-of-a-kind projects that need it. That is how we can contain the total cost of the scheme. Then, as mentioned during the previous panel, there is the funding question. We in the industry support polluter pays; we are part of the emissions trading scheme, and we have a global carbon offset scheme. Of course, the airlines will be paying for SAF from the 2030s onwards, and that is by far the biggest element of the cost. We talk about a figure of £1.50; to us, that seems a conservative number, but anyway, that is only for the RCM mechanism. By far the biggest cost is actually paying for the SAF. Let me give some top line numbers: 10% by 2030 is 1.2 million tonnes; a conservative premium for the SAF is about £2,000 per tonne, so you are looking at over £2 billion of SAF premium that the airlines will be paying. We are paying for the SAF and also for our carbon emissions. The issue is that we know the levy on the fuel suppliers will come straight back to the airlines. I used to work for the oil industry—for Exxon, in fact—and I know how this works. That will come back quicker than you can imagine. Our view is that will result in double payment by the airlines. We are paying for the SAF and for emissions trading. We should not be paying for RCM as well. Our view is that if that money is passed back through to the airlines we should be compensated through the money that aviation puts in the UK emissions trading scheme, to avoid double payment.
Q If I can probe that a little more, you say £1.50 is a conservative estimate. Does IAG have its own estimate? Jonathon Counsell: No. We have not at this stage managed to fully analyse that number. We think there are potentially some elements that have not been included in that calculation, but £1.50 per passenger feels quite low when you think the costs of the SAF itself will be nearer to £10. We can take a close look at that, but I think the key principle is we should not be paying for that plus the SAF, hence we need to net that off against the UK emissions trading scheme costs. Luke Ervine: I fully support Jonathon’s comments. We are fully supportive of the RCM, as we have been for the mandate. The mandate drives demand and the RCM drives the supply, and we do see a massive shortage in the 2G that we need. It is interesting from an oil producer’s perspective to state that the polluter must pay. Well, the oil companies are also part of that problem and must pay. We believe that our consumers will pay the price of SAF but we do not believe we should pay to underwrite the logistics and the production facilities. That is why there should be differentiation between paying for SAF and paying for the RCM. We as a company have fully supported some of the potential producers in the UK and they are the ones saying to us, “We need an RCM; we need a level playing field to attract investment into producing 2G SAF in the UK.” When we say, “Let the market do what it wants to do,” we are hearing from the market and from producers, some of which do not want an RCM but some of which definitely do. In creating this Bill, you are allowing that opportunity for those that do need it. I do not think we need 100% of SAF covered by RCM for 2G production. We do need imports and to make sure that SAF in the UK remains competitive. That means balancing that need for investing in first of a kind 2G plants that require the investment certainty with the ability to create a competitive market and allow imports into the UK as well. Lahiru Ranasinghe: From a strategic perspective, there are three things we are trying to do as an airline. We want to grow, to do so sustainably while decarbonising at the same time, and to keep fares affordable for consumers. For us to be able to do that, we need a functioning SAF market to develop over time, so that supply and demand are balanced and the market is working under its own steam. Right now, the 2G and 3G SAF technology has been developed but there is a key transition period it needs to go through, to get from technology demonstrations to commercial scale. That is where the market failure is which is being addressed by the RCM. Like my colleagues, we are supportive of the RCM. It is clear to us that the eyes of the world are on the UK to see how we make this work. To answer directly the question about the cost impact on consumers, let me split that into two things. First, there is the cost of SAF, full stop, and secondly, the potential cost of the levy. Fuel costs are about a third of our cost base. The cost of jet fuel today is about $750 a tonne. You are looking at upwards of $2,500 dollars a tonne for first generation SAF. When you go all the way to 3G or power to liquid SAF, estimates right now range from $7,000 to $8,000 in Europe. That is a massive increase in cost, which goes into the cost base. To keep flying affordable in the long run, we have to manage that carefully, because it risks the industry adding significantly to what goes through. The cost of the levy is additional to what we would be paying for SAF, which is something that we do by fulfilling the mandate. A scenario that we are absolutely trying to avoid at any cost is one in which we cannot meet the mandate and therefore are paying buy-out prices with no SAF. In that case, those costs will be going through without any environmental benefit. A step down from that, there is a not quite as bad, but still bad, scenario in which the market is short on supply, so there is little incentive for suppliers to charge significantly below the buy-out price. You would end up in a situation where the cost that being passed through to airlines, and therefore to consumers, is disproportionate to the decarbonisation that happens. Finally, putting our ability to absorb those costs into context, easyJet’s profit margin is £6 per passenger—roughly 1.5 coffees in the vicinity of this building—and that is once we have paid several billion for new, more efficient aircraft, invested in the operation and paid for 18,500 employees. We have very little margin to work with without having to pass the cost on to the consumer. If an excessive cost gets passed on, the risk is that that disadvantages the consumer, but economically it would also mean that aviation cannot play the role that we intend to play in the UK’s growth.
Q Good morning to both of you. You are both bringing different technologies to SAF production. Ms Haywood, your SAF is more bioethanol based, and Mr Al Adhami, yours is more waste derived. At what point do you think that the incentives—shall we call them that?—in the Bill, if it becomes law, such as the price mechanism, will mean that you can get your respective products to a cost that is similar to regular, fossil fuel-derived jet fuel in today’s prices? How long will it take you to get prices down? Noaman Al Adhami: Maybe I can answer this question. This comes with scale. The technologies that we are implementing currently have been implemented in other sectors, so they are not necessarily new, but with the scale, in terms of logistics and feedstock availability, it will take time. We think that when we potentially scale up production, we can recycle engineering and we can utilise other services to push the price down further. However, in our case, because we are using the FT-SPK route, biogenic CO2 is produced in the process. If I capture that CO2 and connect to Net Zero Teesside, I will be able to generate more carbon certificates—actually, it is triple. For example, if I produced 100 carbon certificates without carbon capture, with carbon capture I can produce 300. By this process, we can reduce the cost of SAF to the offtaker or to the consumer, because then I will divide the capex with the overall cost; instead of dividing it by 100, I will divide it by 300. In our case and for our route, it is key to be connected to the carbon cluster in Teesside, because then I will be able to provide a lower cost for these carbon certificates, if we get the RCM potential. Sophia Haywood: Just to build on that, scalability is absolutely key. We are looking at a global suite of different projects all across the world. With that, each time we are learning and improving, and becoming more efficient. For example, we built a demonstrator project in the US of our ethanol-to-jet process. From that, we have been able to learn and to become more efficient in spaces, so that when we then develop in Teesside with Project Speedbird, we are able to improve consistently on that basis. The other thing I would add is that scalability takes you to one level, but I do not think that scalability alone will become completely identical with a market that has had years and years of operation and cheap access to crude oil, for example, to convert into jet. As for the idea that we will immediately be able to become competitive, that is where there can be another role for policy. The RCM is one of those tools. Another example that we have seen in Europe is that they have been looking at things such as ETS allowances. These allowances basically help airlines to minimise that uplift in terms of the price of SAF. At the moment, that is time limited until 2030, but for biofuels you are able to take 75% of the cost difference between fossil jet and biofuel. For e-fuels, you are able to take 95% of the price difference. This could potentially be explored in the UK long term, again to help airlines to minimise the impact of SAF price increases. I think there is a role for scalability and time, but equally, in the short to medium term, there is still a role for policy in being able to support that.
Q This question is probably more for you, Ms Haywood, given the ethanol element of your product. Clearly, there has been some concern in the UK that the lower tariffs deal with the United States has quite a significant bioethanol element to it, which has made UK producers nervous, if I can put it that way. Given that what sits underneath a lot of the Bill is domestic fuel security and production here in the UK, how big a concern is it for you, producing SAF that is ethanol derived, that we might not have that UK security, because we will be dependent on imports—in this case, imports of the bioethanol feedstock? Sophia Haywood: At the moment, we are not allowed to use the bioethanol produced in the UK, because the majority of it is technically first generation, whereby it is produced from crops. The bioethanol here is particularly produced from crops such as wheat. I am not sure about the exact proportion that is grown here and then converted into bioethanol here. I think that SAF is a great opportunity for the challenge that the bioethanol sector is currently facing. If we were allowed to use in SAF the bioethanol that is currently allowed to be used in the road transportation sector, we would be able to take that and convert that into jet fuel at our facility Speedbird. I did some quick statistics—quick maths—looking at the total capacity that we have for bioethanol production in the UK today. If we took that additional capacity—not counting our current project, which is 2G or second generation—we would be able to build three and a half more Project Speedbirds in the UK, just taking that potential capacity, if that was all theoretically to come to us. We see SAF as a great opportunity to fix the current issue that the bioethanol sector is facing. Certainly, we see it as complementary also to the scale-up of 2G, because for us it means that we can reduce the overall cost of project development and we could still transition to 2G over time, or indeed have blends of first generation and 2G together to increase roll-out. For our technology, as long as it is sustainable ethanol that is coming in, we are producing sustainable jet on the other side.
Q29 For transparency, I should declare that I have visited Zero Petroleum on a couple of occasions and met with people there. Mr McKiernan, your product is a power-to-liquid product; it is not derived from feedstocks or waste. Do you think that a power-to-liquid solution is the long-term solution for sustainable and synthetic fuels for aviation use? Do you worry that any part of the Bill incentivises short-term solutions over long-term solutions? Doug McKiernan: On the first part of the question, given my knowledge of the sector as an engineer, I do not believe that there is a long-term solution other than power to liquid. At the moment, in the ASTM fuel standards, there are a lot of bio-based, sugar-based and food-waste solutions. In my view, those are not truly scalable, and their cost will only ever go up, because of the shortage of land and so on. The power-to-liquid side is truly scalable. The feedstock is air, water and renewable energy. It is extremely clean, and it gives the industry the opportunity—in, say, 10 or 15 years’ time—to move to fuels that are even more performant than current fossil-based fuels. We are very supportive of the Bill, and we think it will be useful for us if it goes through. It will give confidence to the sector and bring investment, which then helps to bring capability to the UK. It is a great way to kickstart the e-fuels industry, which is the medium to long-term solution, not a short-term solution. We have been working in this sector for only five years. Because of our education system, we probably have some of the best talent in this sector globally, and we are able to recruit that. We have already made significant inroads into the quality of the fuel, which is over and above anything else that is now available—and when I say that, I mean globally available. This little company that we have—and it is little—has been able to outperform some of the bigger competitors in the field. Towards the end of this year, we will submit our product to the ASTM governing body to get it certified. The intellectual property that we are generating is key to the UK. We need to make sure that the IP is generated here in the UK and kept here because I believe that in five years from now all the big decisions around e-fuels—all the important ones—and the freedom to operate will have been worked out, and we do not want that to be worked out anywhere other than in the UK. It will enable us to kickstart the energy generation within the UK so that we have a sovereign capability for energy generation. I hope that answers your question.
Q It does. I have one brief additional question, mindful that we have only 20 minutes with you. Off the back of that protection of UK IP, do you think the Bill could be strengthened to bring in greater protection of technologies such as those that have been developed by Zero and other companies in the UK, so that when the strike price is set it does not end up with foreign-owned technology being incentivised in the United Kingdom? Do you believe that you, along with others that have similar technologies, can scale fast enough to meet the other side of the coin of this Bill, the SAF mandate? Doug McKiernan: That is a very good question. I think we are in a race. At the moment we need the Bill to give confidence to investors. That will help us to scale. That is the main benefit in the short term. With regard to the IP, there needs to be a mandate somewhere in Government to support core e-fuels development. A lot of small companies at the moment are not getting that, so we are at risk of going abroad with the technology. The Aerospace Technology Institute heavily sponsors hydrogen and electric, but does not really support the core technology of e-fuels. Although we have this mandate, which we think is great, there is a bit of a gap there that could do with addressing.
Q Good afternoon. You have talked about the sourcing of aviation fuel and blending SAF as well as fossil fuel for aviation. Shell is clearly a global company, but the Bill’s underpinning is the United Kingdom’s domestic fuel security. Where does Shell sit in terms of viewing domestic fuel security for aviation use within the United Kingdom? Do you think the Bill will deliver on not just that primary goal but increasing UK-based SAF production? Ruben van Grinsven: That is a really good question. We are looking globally at various opportunities to build SAF production plants. The second and third generations especially are more challenging than the first generation. To make the investment case robust, we need to solve a whole number of challenges—some are around ensuring that we can make the technology work, and some are around financing. But a lot of it has to do with the value of the product that we make, and the certainty around the value of the product. The revenue certainty mechanism being discussed in the Bill is very compelling. There is always a combination of different factors. It is partially fundamentals about whether we can get the right feedstocks, but part of it is also about the certainty we have about the price we are going to get for our products. The revenue certainty mechanism is absolutely very helpful.
Q That is helpful, but on this particular point about UK-based production, a global company like Shell—there is nothing wrong with this position; it is what you do—will source SAF from wherever it is cheapest around the world. Does the Bill go far enough to pump-prime UK-based production so that a global giant like Shell—nothing wrong with being a global giant—will choose UK-based plants, or will the mechanism in the Bill not produce SAF at a cost that you think is competitive for your usage, blends and potential future use when compared to that from suppliers overseas? Ruben van Grinsven: There are two elements. One is whether we can invest in a UK plant. That is hard to tell at this point in time for two reasons. We do not fully understand all the details associated with the Bill. I think the principles are very promising, but there are many things that need to be detailed out, which, at the end of the day, will decide how appealing the investment is going to be. There is a lot of that. Can UK-produced SAF be competitive in a global market? I think that depends a little bit on the type of technology, but it is also very timebound. At this point in time, this is not the cheapest place to make e-SAF, just because power is more expensive than other places in the world. But if we continue to build out the renewables, as I have seen in plans before, I think there are going to be more affordable electrons around that can then be converted into e-SAF. In the longer term, e-SAF can be competitive. For other technologies, I think things are less location dependent. Ethanol to jet, for instance, is very feedstock dependent, and I think that the UK can be as competitive as other places. Again, the fundamental competitiveness is one element. The other element is whether the whole investment case makes sense, and part of that is financing —and part of the financing is driven by revenue certainty. It is not just the fundamentals but the whole package that determines the attractiveness of the investment.
Q That is very helpful. On one last point of clarity, when you talk about the long term for e-fuels, we can all put a different definition on “long term”. What do you mean by that—10, 20, 50 years? Ruben van Grinsven: I do not know. I do not know exactly what the price projections are for renewable power in the UK. It is hard to guesstimate that, so I do not know.
Q If the Bill becomes an Act, Shell will find itself in a peculiar place given that it will be both a levy payer, as a fossil fuel producer, and a developer of SAF potentially looking to benefit from the strike price. The Government put an analysis in the public domain on Second Reading: they suggested that the ultimate cost to the end user, such as somebody getting a flight—there will be a different calculation for those using air freight—will be plus or minus £1.50. Witnesses earlier suggested that that might be a “conservative” estimate—in their own words. Where would Shell see the ultimate cost pass on to the end user? Ruben van Grinsven: The principle makes sense: at the end of the day, additional cost will find its way to the end user. We do not have enough information at this point in time to calculate what the cost is going to be because a lot of the details of the Bill are unknown. We would like to better understand how this is going to work, what the volumes are, what the timing is going to be, and how we will organise the contracts between the supplier and the off-taker. There are a lot of things that we do not know at this point, and therefore it is difficult to model what the final cost of the levy is going to be for the end consumer. I do not know; it is difficult to answer. On top of that, I think it is going to change over time. Over time, if the market is short and the prices are high, money might flow towards the levy, so it would be like a negative levy but then it might turn into a positive levy. It is very difficult to assess that and put a number on it.
Q Good afternoon, Mr Gorman. I will lead with the question that I asked the previous witness about end-user cost. Clearly, Heathrow’s business model relies on you having many people coming through and getting on aircraft, or arriving in the UK on an aircraft. If the cost of flying were to increase significantly, that might impact Heathrow’s very business model, with fewer people being able to take those flights. Some of the evidence we have heard today seems to challenge the Government’s presumption, presented on Second Reading, that any cost increase to the end user, as a result of the Bill and the SAF mandate, would be plus or minus £1.50. Do you share the Government’s view on that, or do you share some of the other witnesses’ views that that might be optimistic? Matt Gorman: Let me start by saying that we take this issue very seriously, for the reasons you have outlined. It is central to our business. SAF is key to delivering the industry’s net zero transition plan: it is about 40% of the solution. I do not think that anyone can forecast the future costs and prices with exact certainty, but I will say that we test all our demand forecasts for Heathrow against a range of different carbon price scenarios, from low to high—“high” being the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s high scenarios. We do that because it is important for us to understand and our investors to understand, and because climate disclosure legislation now requires us to share that information in our annual report. We have concluded that demand for flying from Heathrow remains robust even in high carbon price scenarios in future. We are confident about that. The Government have shared their analysis on the revenue certainty mechanism and the reasons behind it. That is one of the carbon costs that consumers will bear—there are clearly others—but I come back to the point that all our forecasts have shown that demand is robust.
Q In respect of procurement of SAF to be available at the airport, will the Bill safeguard domestic fuel security? I ask that question largely through the lens of the challenge to Heathrow if fuel were suddenly to be unavailable in the United Kingdom for you to supply to the airlines on site. Is there any way that the Bill could be improved to shore up the domestic security position? Matt Gorman: It is a good question. We welcome the Bill. As SAF is so important, the sector and Heathrow have advocated over a number of years both the mandate, which was passed as legislation at the beginning of the year, and the revenue certainty mechanism. It has benefits for energy security, green jobs, growth and decarbonisation. That has been one of the drivers for the sector to support it. The decarbonisation benefits are clear. On jobs and growth, earlier witnesses talked about the industry studies showing up to £10 billion of GVA and 60,000 jobs by 2050. Energy security is one of those reasons. As SAF is a key part of the industry transition plan around the world, there will be global trading of SAF. Kerosene is a global commodity today; SAF will be in future. We think we will import some. However, the sector is supportive of domestic production, which is why we are so supportive of the Bill. I should say that Heathrow is not directly in the fuel value chain—we do not buy, make or sell fuel—but we are very involved in the debate, because it is so significant. All the fuel producers and investors we talk to say that the revenue certainty mechanism will help to unlock investment decisions in the UK. I am not sure whether the Bill could be improved to do that even more. I do not have a view on that.
Q Green finance is something of a minefield across various technologies. A straightforward first question is whether the Bill is the most effective way to get finance into UK SAF production via the price mechanism. If the answer is no, what would be a better way of ensuring UK SAF production and the protection of UK intellectual property in that production? Where do you sit in the debate about what the ultimate cost to the end user will be? Josh Garton: I think that the revenue certainty mechanism that is being proposed is a really good start to getting finance into the sector. Undoubtedly it will not be the only thing that is required: there are other risks that need to be addressed. The revenue certainty mechanism addresses price risk, as it is designed to, but other challenges remain for the second and third-generation fuels, and they may need to be addressed as well. I think that it is the best solution for addressing price risk. As other witnesses have described, when we speak to our colleagues in Europe and elsewhere, they see the package of regulation that the UK is proposing as some of the most promising in the world. The UK will become a very promising place to invest in SAF. On your question about the price for the end consumer, it is very hard to forecast what that will be. There are a lot of forecasts out there. It obviously depends on the cost of production, the blending of the fuel and many other factors, but the most important thing is that the mechanism for transferring the cost to the consumer be done in a very equitable way, so that you remove any competitive advantages or disadvantages resulting from airlines and other players in the industry potentially gaming the system. I would say that that is a more critical element to consider.