Debate contribution: Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
Debate contribution by Dr Caoimhe Archibald on .
- MLA
- Dr Caoimhe Archibald
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 11 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill: Legislative Consent Motion
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5349467
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Decarbonisation is one of my four key objectives. Reaching net zero requires action across every sector of our economy, including the aviation sector. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is designed to reduce the environmental impact of air travel. It is produced from renewable or waste-based sources and can be used in existing aircraft engines and infrastructure with little or no modification. Compared with conventional jet fuel, it can reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to 70%. Sustainable aviation fuel production has the potential to generate hundreds of skilled jobs in engineering, logistics and research as the industry grows. There are also potential benefits for our agri-food and waste sectors from providing feedstock sources for sustainable aviation fuel production. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 14 May 2025. The Bill establishes a revenue certainty mechanism, which provides producers with a guaranteed price for their fuel, thereby reducing investment risk and encouraging market growth. The Bill also establishes a framework for further regulations and mechanisms to follow in support of the sustainable aviation fuel industry. The Bill contains 19 clauses, 11 of which would apply here. The proposal is that they be extended to this jurisdiction via a legislative consent motion (LCM). I will turn briefly to the specific clauses in the Bill that require legislative consent. Clauses 1 to 5 establish the legal framework for revenue certainty contracts. They also allow the British Secretary of State for Transport to direct a designated government-owned counterparty to offer guaranteed price contracts to sustainable aviation fuel producers. The clauses also provide for the publication and registration of contracts, the designation of the government-owned counterparty and the ability to transfer responsibilities between entities. The clauses ensure transparency, flexibility and investment confidence in the sector. Clause 10 ensures that any surplus funds that are collected through the levy that are not needed to support revenue certainty contracts are returned to levy payers. The levy itself will be imposed on aviation fuel suppliers and will remain a reserved matter. Clause 11 allows for financial penalties to be imposed for failing to comply with regulations on the levy, which is considered to be reserved, and for failing to comply with regulations on surplus, which is considered to be devolved. Penalties are intended to ensure compliance and to maintain the integrity of the revenue certainty mechanism. Initially, the Bill omitted the North from the recovery provisions. That was addressed at Committee Stage in the House of Commons through an amendment to ensure that unpaid penalties are recoverable here, thus aligning with procedures in England and Wales. Clause 12 enables the British Secretary of State for Transport to direct the government-owned counterparty on the exercise of any of its functions. That intersects with the devolved responsibilities if the direction concerns the revenue certainty contracts. The same applies to clause 13 on information and advice. Clause 14 relates to funding the counterparty only to enable it to fulfil its liabilities under the contracts, which is considered to be a devolved issue. Clause 15 sets out how regulations under the Bill will be made. It intersects with devolved responsibilities if they relate to non-levy regulations. The Bill can help support the establishment of a world-leading sustainable aviation fuel industry, reducing reliance on imported fuels and boosting energy security. The Bill cuts across economic development, environmental matters and the application of financial penalties here.
My Department has consulted the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Justice. I acknowledge the positive responses received from the respective Ministers, who indicated their support for the LCM. They also acknowledged the potential environmental and economic benefits of applying the Bill's provisions here and that the financial penalty provisions in clause 11 are necessary, proportionate and unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the justice system here.
I thank my Executive colleagues, who have given their support to consent to the Bill. I also thank the Committee for its engagement on the matter and for the report that it produced. I commend the motion to the Assembly and thank Members for their support.
698 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.70).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.70 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.72 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.21 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.07 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:38 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.