
Labour's net-zero ‘flight tax' set to raise cost of family holiday
Net zero rules introduced by Sir Keir Starmer mean planes must be filled with at least 2 per cent sustainable fuel, which will rise to 10 per cent followed by 22 per cent by 2040.
The Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) mandate means airlines that do not comply with the green policy face heavy fines likely to be passed on in part to passengers.
Costs associated with the new levy are expected to reach £4.5 billion by 2035, according to a new analysis by Public First.
This works out at £12.79 per passenger per flight leaving the UK, adding £51.16 to the average overseas holiday taken by a family of four.
The impact of the policy is expected to hit Britons as soon as 2027, with its cost hitting £200 million in that year.
'Ludicrous net stupid zero'
By 2030, this figure will have ballooned to £1.5 million, the equivalent to £4.64 per passenger per flight – making a holiday for a family of four £18.56 more expensive.
Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, told The Telegraph: 'This is yet another egregious tax on working citizens to pay for the ludicrous net stupid zero. A Reform government will scrap all this nonsense.'
Greg Smith, a Tory transport minister, said: 'Labour said the transition to green aviation would cost pennies but now families are being hit with soaring ticket prices to fund Ed Miliband's net zero experiment.
'It's not just weekend getaways being priced out. It's regional airports under threat, tourism on the ropes, and British families paying the price for Labour's ideological fantasy.
'The truth is net zero by 2050 is impossible without bankrupting our country and Labour's plan to chase it will ground British families before it ever lands.'
80pc cost could be passed to consumers
The Government's own impact assessment of the green mandate found that as much as 80 per cent of its cost could be passed on to consumers.
Labour claims the pledge to use more sustainable fuel will support thousands of jobs while cutting the UK's transport emissions on the way to becoming a 'clean energy superpower'.
The figures come as ministers were urged to relax red tape that means SAF cannot currently be made from non-food grade British-grown wheat.
Phil New led the Government's independent review into the future of SAF and urged it to consider British bioethanol as a credible and scalable option.
Mr New said: 'Ethanol made from British-grown milling wheat, which would otherwise be exported as animal feed, can be processed into SAF in a way that meets the emissions reductions required by the UK's standards.
'Home-grown, low-carbon aviation fuel industry'
'This is a real opportunity to create a home-grown, low-carbon aviation fuel industry that supports British agriculture, strengthens fuel security and helps us meet our climate ambitions.'
Ben Hackett, managing director at Vivergo Fuels, added: 'The UK has the capability today to produce sustainable aviation fuel from home-grown non-food grade wheat – supporting British farmers, reducing carbon emissions, and improving our energy security. But outdated regulations are blocking this from happening.
'It makes no sense that ethanol from British wheat can be blended into petrol for cars, but not used to make jet fuel, especially when other countries are already moving ahead with this technology.'
The analysis by Public First also found the UK could require the output of seven large-scale bioethanol plants by 2035 to meet growing domestic demand for SAF.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
24 minutes ago
- Spectator
Starmer has given control of Britain's borders to France
Britain's 'one in one out' migrant deal with France takes effect today, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer issued a stark warning to anyone considering making the journey across the Channel. 'We send a clear message – if you come here illegally on a small boat you will face being sent back to France.' In a manner of speaking. The terms of the treaty state that Britain will lodge a request with France for returning a migrant within 14 days of their arrival in Britain. The French will then study the request and, if they agree to accept the individual, they will organise their return. The process for each migrant is expected to take up to three months, and it's envisaged that an average of fifty migrants will be returned each week. France will send a similar number to Britain. So far this year, 25,436 migrants have crossed the Channel, so when the PM warns that migrants 'will face being sent back', what he actually means is 'may face being sent back in the event you are very unlucky'. The treaty excludes unaccompanied minors from the scheme, which may lead to a surge in adults claiming to be under 18. It was recently reported that one quarter of illegal immigrants arriving in Britain claimed falsely to be minors. To combat this, the government has promised to introduce AI face checks, but not until next year. People deemed to be 'medically vulnerable' are also exempt. The cost of transporting migrants back to France will be borne by the British taxpayer, another addition to a bill that since 2014 has cost the country around £750 million. In that time France has done little to stem the flow of migrants across the Channel and there is scepticism that this latest deal will have any significant effect. According to Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, the treaty is 'completely unworkable and will be ruthlessly exploited by human rights lawyers to prevent people being returned to France'. What, for example, constitutes being 'medically vulnerable'? Right to Remain, a human rights NGO, recently published a blog advising migrants about 'human rights applications that are based on medical cases'. It mentioned a 2016 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in which it was declared that deporting a sick immigrant would be a breach of article 3 of its convention on human rights. The cynic might wonder if migrants won't suddenly start developing a nasty dose of the lurgy. The power of the human rights industry to dictate Europe's migrant policy was demonstrated last week, to the [8] fury of Italy's PM Giorgia Meloni. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in favour of two Bangladeshi migrants, who were rescued in the Mediterranean by an Italian vessel and taken to Albania to be processed, in line with a deal agreed between the two countries. The pair's asylum claims were rejected based on Italy's classification of Bangladesh as a 'safe' country, but this ruling was overturned by the ECJ. 'This is a development that should concern everybody,' said Meloni's office, adding that the ruling 'weakens policies to combat mass illegal immigration and defend national borders'. Britain's treaty with France is described as a 'temporary scheme … to test effective and swift procedures' and it expires on 11 June 2026. One day later, the EU's Pact on Migration and Asylum comes into effect. Brussels defines the pact as 'a set of new rules managing migration and establishing a common asylum system'. The pact has plenty of critics among Europe's right. Fabrice Leggeri, once the head of Frontex, Europe's border agency, and now an MEP in Marine Le Pen's National Rally, is withering in his assessment of the pact. 'Rather than preventing illegal entries, it organises their redistribution among states, effectively legalising a process that began illegally,' he said in an interview last month. One of the Pact's rules is a fine of €20,000 (£17,400) for each migrant that a member state refuses to accept. Is it just a coincidence that Britain's treaty with France expires the day before the EU's migrant pact comes into play? Or is the deal agreed between Starmer and Macron a means of easing Britain into the pact? The Migration Observatory, a think tank based at Oxford University, recently addressed this possibility and stated: A broader agreement with the EU in the future could potentially offer access to the EU's biometric asylum database, Eurodac, which stores the fingerprints of asylum seekers and unauthorised entrants. Regaining access to the database had been described as a potential 'gamechanger' by Home Office officials. Keir Starmer is accused by many Brexiteers of wanting to rejoin the EU 'by the back door'. The 'one in, one out' treaty with France – which can be terminated by either side with a month's notice – hardly takes back control of Britain's borders. Quite the reverse. It is giving control to the French – and by extension to Brussels.


The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Dubai-style chocolate bars recalled over ‘risk to health'
Multiple bars of Dubai-style chocolate have been recalled as consumers are warned of undisclosed nuts in the products. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has issued a warning over three bars of Dubai-style chocolates due to peanuts, almonds, cashews, and walnuts in the product which are not mentioned on the labelling. Noesis, Fix it and Le Damas Dubai-style chocolate products are all included in the warning, which advises consumers and food businesses to take action to 'avoid risk to health'. People with an allergy to peanuts or other types of nuts have been told to not buy the products and to not eat them if they have already bought them. 'We are notifying consumers and food businesses who have purchased any of the Dubai-style chocolate products listed below as these products contain peanuts and other types of nuts (almonds, cashews and walnuts) which are not all mentioned on the labelling, making it a possible health risk to anyone with an allergy to peanuts or other types of nuts,' the FSA said. 'Food businesses selling the Dubai-style chocolate products listed below are advised to immediately stop sales and to undertake product withdrawals, and where there have been retail sales, to undertake product recalls. This is because the product presents a serious risk to anyone with an allergy to peanuts or other types of nuts.' It added that businesses have been supplied these products by a company called Black Sea Trading Ltd, who have so far been uncontactable. The chocolate bars are inspired by a viral food trend that arose in 2024 and has continued. It centres around chocolate bars with a creamy pistachio filling, first created by a chocolatier in Dubai. Receiving millions of views on social media platform TikTok, the popularity of the bar has grown so intense that the price of pistachio kernels globally has been pushed up. Experts say that, in the year to April, prices rose from $7.65 to $10.30 a pound.


The Independent
24 minutes ago
- The Independent
Nearly half of UK businesses want an end to working from home
Almost half of all businesses across the UK now want staff back in the office on a full-time basis, in a push to pre- pandemic arrangements. The shift away from working from home has ramped up this year in the financial and retail industries, with the likes of HSBC and Boots pushing some staff to return to office an additional day per week, or even on a full-time basis. Some have linked office attendance to bonus pay or insisting they work at least one Monday or Friday each week to avoid empty offices. A survey by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) of more than 500 businesses now shows many businesses across the nation are following the same pattern – despite one in ten businesses (9 per cent) reporting that staff have quit over a lack of flexible working. The analysis suggested the biggest demand for full-time office or on-site working was in manufacturing and customer-facing companies. 'We're seeing a clear shift towards more firms requiring full, on-site working, but it's by no means a uniform picture,' said BCC policy director Jane Gratton. 'The trend is being led by manufacturers and consumer-facing businesses, while around two-thirds of business-to-business service firms continue to operate hybrid models. 'Hybrid working has become a fixture of modern working life since the pandemic and is valued by employers and their workforce. But it does not suit everyone and, for some firms, a full on-site model may be the best solution for the business.' Changing work patterns is not a new phenomenon, but working from home or remotely became a necessity during the 2020 Covid pandemic. Since then, some workers have preferred not to return to the office full-time, even as senior leaders call for their return and some say productivity and innovation increases when all employees are together. Only 17 per cent of companies in the BCC survey believed remote or hybrid working increases productivity.