HS2 Mitigation Projects: Inflation

Greg Smith Excerpts

Friday 14th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue in the House. I want to focus on the impact that inflation has had on the ability of different institutions to deliver the community projects and mitigations that High Speed 2 previously agreed to in Mid Buckinghamshire. The cases are many in number, but I will illustrate the scale of the problem with particular attention to two pressing concerns: noise mitigation measures for St Mary’s church in Wendover and the provision of a new ground and facilities for Wendover cricket club.

HS2 has been deeply controversial across my Mid Buckinghamshire constituency and the wider county. I make no bones about my absolute and total opposition to HS2, which is well documented. Many of my constituents have suffered greatly as a result of the disruption that it has caused, from environmental damage to the impact on homes, businesses and local amenities, as well as the damage to our local infrastructure. That is not to mention the hideous cost to the taxpayer.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions the cost relating to infrastructure. One of the huge impacts that goes unrecognised is the impact on roads and road surfaces. Not only are many areas of Buckinghamshire on a flood plain, but our roads get a huge amount of use, which is compounded by the HS2 traffic. Does he agree that that is not compensated for by the HS2 fund in any way?

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend and fellow Buckinghamshire Member of Parliament is absolutely right. Day in, day out, we see the impact of thousands of heavy goods vehicle movements having churned up our local road infrastructure. These roads originated as cart tracks and do not have deep substructures, so they get churned up very easily. The impact of such big infrastructure projects on our roads is considerable. I have talked about that many times in the House, and had a great deal of correspondence with Ministers on it. No matter what the infrastructure project, we have to get better as a country at understanding the construction impacts before a green light is given, so that they are properly mitigated. It is incumbent on HS2 to fix what it breaks. East West Rail, to be fair to it, has done that. It has resurfaced a number of roads around the Claydons where it has had compounds, and where there have been HGV movements. It is incumbent on HS2 to do the same.

From the outset, affected community organisations have been forced to negotiate their survival with HS2 Ltd, often at great cost to them and ultimately to the taxpayer, but when a town, village, neighbourhood or community is so brutally impacted by big infrastructure, I argue that there is a moral duty on the promoter—in this case, the state—to mitigate, compensate, and treat the places and people affected fairly. The rising cost of inflation since phase 1 was approved in 2017 has meant that commitments made by the state and HS2 Ltd—indeed, by Parliament, through the hybrid Bill process—are at risk of being delayed, watered down or even abandoned altogether. That is simply unacceptable.

One of the most egregious examples of such broken commitments is the case of St Mary’s church in Wendover. This historical and much loved place of worship has served the community for centuries, not only providing spiritual support but acting as a hub for local activities and events, particularly music concerts. HS2 Ltd had recognised that the noise impact from construction and, in the future, from passing high-speed trains would significantly affect the church, particularly during services and the concerts I have mentioned. As such, it had agreed to provide noise mitigation measures—above all, very sophisticated sound insulation.

Yet due to rising costs and the pressures of inflation since that particular mitigation was agreed in 2016, we are now being told that these measures may not be delivered in full, if at all. After conversations between the church and the project began more than eight years ago, the undertaking and assurance originally given by the Department for Transport have not been honoured, through no fault of the church, despite the project being contractually obliged to do so.

As such, with inflation, the original £250,000 cost referred to in the U&A will now result in less than 50% of the work being affordable, compared with what it would have covered at the time of the U&A. This was confirmed after I intervened to restart discussions, which had effectively stalled because of the fundamental unwillingness on HS2 Ltd’s part to engage meaningfully on what is a key community concern—an attitude that, as I have raised many times in this place, is evident across affected Mid Buckinghamshire communities.

This is completely unacceptable. A commitment was made, and the Government must ensure that HS2 Ltd honours it. The congregation of St Mary’s church should not have to suffer excessive noise pollution because of a failure to manage costs effectively or the basic fact of construction inflation over so many years. This is a matter of fairness and upholding trust, and ensuring that historic institutions such as St Mary’s are protected for future generations.

My second example of a broken promise relates to Wendover cricket club. As I said earlier, I could go much further afield in my constituency, but Wendover town has been particularly affected. This historic local club has been an integral part of the Wendover community for more than a century, offering young people and adults the opportunity to engage in sport, stay active and participate in community life. It is one of the few clubs across Buckinghamshire that offers the wide range of age groups for teams that compete across the whole country. It is part not just of Wendover’s identity, but of Buckinghamshire’s identity. By evicting the club from its grounds, HS2 is driving a wedge through everyone and everything there.

Due to HS2’s construction, the club’s existing facilities were rendered completely unusable—indeed, completely severed in two. HS2 Ltd originally pledged to provide new grounds and upgraded facilities to compensate for the disruption, to the tune of £200,000, through another of these undertaking and assurance agreements, signed in 2017. However, the club has now been informed that due to escalating costs, the new facilities may not be delivered to the standard originally agreed upon—or, worse, that they may not be delivered at all because of HS2’s reluctance to pay the cost as it is in 2025, or potentially 2026, if it takes that long.

Acting in good faith, the cricket club has already entered into a groundworks contract that includes approximately £90,000-worth of self-funded items. It is also considering a pavilion contract that currently includes approximately £180,000 of items, again self-funded, on the basis of receiving the U&A resource and its own reserves. The U&A states:

“The Secretary of State for Transport will, subject to Royal Assent, require the nominated undertaker to contribute the sum of up to £200,000 toward the reasonable costs of Wendover Cricket club relocating both its Ellesborough Road and Witchell grounds”.

These delays were wholly the result of HS2, so I ask the Minister for an assurance that, at a minimum, the nominated undertaker—in this case HS2 Ltd—honour the spirit of the U&A to Wendover cricket club with an inflation-adjusted figure.

The impact of this situation on local cricket and community engagement cannot be overstated. Wendover cricket club is a volunteer organisation that is trying to provide a service for the local community and encourage youth and adult sport and fitness. Its coaches teach young people discipline and teamwork and contribute to the health and wellbeing of the entire community. The loss of its promised facilities would be a devastating blow to the area and to my constituency.

I understand the significant economic pressures that our country faces. The war in Ukraine, supply chain disruptions and other global economic factors have all contributed to rising costs. However, those factors must not be used as an excuse to renege on commitments that were made to communities directly impacted by HS2. HS2 Ltd and the Government must ensure that funds are allocated properly to deliver on the promises that were made to the people of Wendover and beyond in my Mid Buckinghamshire constituency. If savings in HS2 Ltd need to be found—and let us face it, they do—they should not come at the expense of community projects that were explicitly agreed to as mitigation measures. Instead, we should look at where efficiencies can be made in the wider HS2 project, to ensure that local communities are not short-changed.

I urge the Minister to take the following immediate actions. First, will he confirm HS2 Ltd’s commitment to delivering the promised noise mitigation measures for St Mary’s church, Wendover, and ensure that no backtracking takes place? Secondly, will he guarantee that Wendover cricket club will receive the new ground and facilities that were pledged, with no reduction in quality of delivery due to cost-cutting measures? Thirdly, will he ensure full transparency from HS2 Ltd regarding how inflationary pressures are impacting community mitigation projects and explore alternative funding mechanisms to safeguard those commitments? Fourthly, will he hold HS2 Ltd accountable for ensuring that agreed mitigation measures are ringfenced and are not subject to arbitrary cost-saving exercises that disproportionately impact communities?

My constituents did not ask for HS2, but they have had to endure years of disruption, environmental damage and upheaval in our communities. The very least that they deserve is for HS2 Ltd to honour the commitments that it has made to mitigate the very worst excesses of that impact. It is a matter of integrity, fairness and doing the right thing by the people of Wendover and Mid Buckinghamshire. I look forward to the Minister’s response and, hopefully, to working together to ensure that these promises are kept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Well, it was the former Prime Minister who came to Manchester during the party conference to scrap HS2 from going from Manchester. I have never known quite such a political insult. It was supposed to balance up our country, yet we will have reduced capacity and there is an impact on Northern Powerhouse Rail. The handling of the project over a number of years has had effects both on the constituencies it is going through, as the hon. Member has so passionately extolled, and on those that are not getting it.

Let me get back to the point that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire is here to talk about. Following discussions with St Mary’s in 2016, during the passage of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017, the church was given an assurance and commitment that the project would support it in improving its noise insulation. The assurance provided very clearly for a contribution up to a maximum of £250,000, with no provision for inflation. There are many other HS2 assurances on the public register, including commitments to fund particular works or activities. Some of those explicitly provide for index-linking; others do not. The one given to St Mary’s does not. It is worth noting that the House of Lords Committee set up to hear from petitioners against the Bill considered the case of St Mary’s, and took the unusual step in 2016 of reporting that the £250,000 offer was generous. Furthermore, I am pleased to report that, since the assurances were given, HS2 has made other improvements to its plans for noise mitigation in the locality of the church. That will reduce the amount of noise reaching the church in the first place.

Taking all that into account, it is not considered appropriate to increase the amount of public funding offered to the church or to increase any other financial mitigations that were fixed, not indexed, at the time they were agreed. There is no evidence that the sums are no longer sufficient. We have inherited a difficult situation on HS2, as the hon. Member said, and our priority now is to get a grip of the cost to the Government.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but does he accept, as a point of principle, that that was not an arbitrary amount of money offered to the church as a top-up for church funds, but was very specifically for noise mitigation purposes? If in 2025 the money promised in 2016 simply cannot deliver that, it is not fair on the church or the many other projects in a similar position. I know that it is not a problem of his making, but it is a problem that the Department for Transport, as the sponsoring body, now finds itself with.

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Member is right. HS2 has clearly already put in some noise mitigation, but I hope he will hear me out for a second.

I understand that agreement has not yet been reached on the mitigation works to be undertaken at the church. As a result, according to the terms of the assurance, the funds cannot yet be released. I encourage the hon. Member, and particularly the parties of HS2 and the church, to focus their efforts on agreeing the works that can be carried out and a timeline for them to begin, so that the available funding can be released and stretch as far as humanly possible. I encourage the parties to get together and begin that negotiation.

I am a social member of Wythenshawe cricket club—although my playing days are long behind me—so I know the value that cricket clubs, and other sports and social clubs, provide not just in sporting terms but in the social glue of cohesion and solidarity. The hon. Member spoke eloquently about Wendover in his constituency. The deal that was asked for had an uplift to cover inflation. I understand that the request is currently with HS2, which is looking into the circumstances of the club and will respond in due course. I hope that he will get an answer very shortly; if he does not, he should please contact me. I will then let the Rail Minister know and we will follow it up. HS2 will have heard his impassioned plea that this historic and successful club does not miss out.

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) raised road conditions. I am aware that HS2 Ltd has been working closely with Buckinghamshire council over the past few years to improve the way that such road repairs are managed. It has already allocated considerable resources to dealing with that problem. Road repairs are measured against the baseline road condition levels agreed at the start of the project. Either payments are made to councils at current prices or the repairs are undertaken by HS2 Ltd contractors, so they are not affected by inflation. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has been far more successful with East West Rail on the road repairs in his constituency.

I again congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Let me reiterate that transport is an essential part of the Government’s mission to rebuild Britain. We will continue to work with hon. Members and local leaders on ensuring that we get the delivery of infrastructure projects right. As I said, I welcome this debate, as it is vital that we continue to discuss our transport projects openly and transparently.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Last year, just one in 10 consumers buying a new car chose battery electric, and in 2024, the private market for battery electric was 20% lower than Government intervention had tried to manipulate it to be. Without fleet sales—which we know are warped by huge tax incentives, promoting them over practical vehicle choices—electric car demand just is not there. When will the Minister understand that people are crying out for a different way to defossilise and decarbonise their private vehicles? Battery electric just is not popular, so when will the Government stop trying to tell people what they should want? This is just a “Government knows best” attitude at its very worst, is it not?

[Lilian Greenwood]

What an absolutely astonishing intervention by the shadow Minister. It was his Government who introduced the zero emission vehicle mandate, and we are not proposing to change the trajectory that they introduced. I would gently remind him that many fleet vehicles are in fact private vehicles, as people choose to lease their vehicles or access them through a salary sacrifice scheme. Last year, the UK was the largest market in Europe—in fact, in the world—for EV vehicles. He is talking nonsense.

[Greg Smith]

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders’ January report simply does not back up what the Minister has just said. I repeat that only one in 10 consumers—the people we all represent in this House—actively chose a battery electric vehicle. As the Minister knows from her time on the Transport Select Committee when we looked at the future of fuel, there are other technologies out there. The Government like to say that they are technology-neutral, but the ZEV mandate’s myopic focus on the tailpipe rather than whole system analysis effectively denies our innovators the room to defossilise and decarbonise in a manner that consumers want. Surely the Minister sees that, so instead of trying to force people to buy battery electric, will the Government just get the bureaucracy out of the way and let our innovators innovate?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I wonder whether the shadow Minister has actually met any vehicle manufacturers. If he had, he would know that they are investing incredibly heavily in the switch to battery electric vehicles. I and my ministerial colleagues have met manufacturers representing 95% of the UK car market to understand their concerns, and we will be working with them to ensure we support all UK vehicle manufacturers, who have—as they would put it—bet the house on the transition to electric vehicles.

Road Safety: Schools

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this important debate and the powerful speech she gave. I add my condolences to the family of her constituent who so tragically died outside their school.

Road safety is something that we have to take incredibly seriously. This is the second debate in Westminster Hall this week on the subject of road safety, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken powerfully in it. One death on the roads is one death too many, and it is particularly painful when the life lost is that of a child, who had so much in front of them and a whole life to live. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury said, in each and every one of them was so much potential.

The risk profile in such accidents involving a child is self-evidently higher, and the impact on the lives of those around them is unimaginable. I do not think any of us—unless any Member has been in that place—can imagine the pain, horror and emotional rollercoaster that people go through in that nightmare scenario.

It is of no solace whatsoever to those families who have lost a loved one, but it is important to reflect that there has been some significant progress in the right direction in recent years and decades. It is welcome that the rate of child pedestrians killed or seriously injured has fallen by nearly 41% since 2010. That is not to say that there is anything good about people losing their lives; every life lost is an absolute tragedy. However, that decrease does show that there is a positive trajectory and direction of travel. We need to get it to zero, but my central point is that we are not in a place where the statistics are going up or the problem is becoming worse. That is not to say that there is not a lot still to do. For child cyclists, the rate of those killed or seriously injured has also decreased by 43% since 2010.

More broadly, the improvements across all road categories mean that, although there is more to do, the UK remains a world leader in road safety. According to the Department for Transport’s own figures, released in September last year, Great Britain ranked third out of 33 countries in 2023 for the lowest number of road fatalities per million of the population. That progress is reflected in child pedestrian fatalities, which have thankfully fallen; having regularly exceeded 100 a year, they are now consistently in the 20s. That is 20 too many, but it is a significant decrease.

However, challenges clearly remain. DFT data equally demonstrates that, up to the age of 11, pedestrian boys are twice as likely to be killed or seriously injured as pedestrian girls of the same age, and among those aged 12 to 15, boys are still 33% more likely to be killed or seriously injured. What discussions has the Minister had with local authorities, schools and the Department for Education, not just about how we solve the overall problem of improving road safety around schools, but about effective approaches to reduce this particular disparity?

Our focus has to be on making every possible move to improve road safety around schools. That is very much on my mind in my constituency, which is entirely rural, through a lens that is slightly different but makes the point well. A proposed anaerobic digester in one village would bring hundreds of additional HGV movements past schools, including those in Long Crendon and Oakley. It focuses the mind to think just how close so many of our schools—particularly those in rural villages—are to the fast-moving lanes and major routes that people use on a daily basis. The prospect of those dangerous, incredibly heavy HGVs being added to those roads focuses the mind even more.

I am very sympathetic to the ideas that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury and others have mentioned about specific speed limits in the vicinity of schools. That is always, and has to be, a decision taken locally by local authorities. I do not think there is a definite, one-size-fits-all solution for every single circumstance that central Government should dictate, but it is for central Government to ensure that the framework is there to make it easy for local authorities to put in place such speed limits where they wish to, and to put in place effective enforcement mechanisms.

It is all too often the case in my constituency—and, I dare say, in everybody else’s—that when a community comes forward and says it wants a particular change to road safety measures, such as a change in the speed limit to 20 mph, the hoops it has to jump through are so considerable, so difficult and involve so many different agencies that frustration sets in. In too many cases, nothing ever happens, or something a bit half-hearted happens. I encourage the Minister to look at what can be done to ensure that local authorities, when taking decisions on behalf of communities that want those changes, are able to do so easily and without the heavy-handed bureaucracy that too often goes with all these schemes. I encourage her in particular to ensure that schools themselves can go to their local authorities and get those changes made quickly.

I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury once more on securing this debate. I hope it prompts real and significant action from the Government.

Road Safety: Young Drivers

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall this morning. I thank all those who have contributed with powerful speeches. My heart goes out to any family who have lost a child or relative in a road accident. Every single death is a tragedy that should spur us on to do more to prevent future deaths and injuries, and make our roads safer. I cannot imagine the pain of any family getting the knock on the door from a police officer, or however the news is broken to them, to tell them that a child has died on our roads, as in this case, or under any other circumstances.

We must always look at practical measures to improve road safety through the lens of “To drive is freedom”. To drive brings opportunity. For many—I include myself in this—to drive brings pleasure. Our challenge is: what will protect those freedoms, opportunities and pleasures in a safer way?

[Mrs Russell]

Mandy Ogden said to me:

“Often, the main argument against this change to driver licensing is that it restricts freedom, but our daughter’s freedom has been taken away forever.”

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that, too, is an important point?

[Greg Smith]

In a few moments, I will come on to the measures that I think would protect the freedom to drive far better, as well as the safety of those who do so. There will perhaps not be agreement with every single point that hon. Members have made in the debate, but I repeat the point. Central to how I would like to look at this issue is not how we can restrict people more, but how we can make people safer in the first place by ensuring that they have the skills required to drive safely, be it in our cities and towns, on our rural roads and motorways, or indeed abroad, where often the rules can be very different. We all know the example of the German autobahns, many of which have no speed limit. It is vital to equip any British citizen going to Germany with the ability to handle a car at very great speed and be safe on those roads.

The challenge before us is how to make everybody—young people, for sure, but also old people, for whom the statistics are just as stark, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned—safer and able to handle a vehicle in all conditions on our roads.

[Dr Arthur]

Back in 2020, an older driver caused a fatality in Edinburgh, killing a three-year-old boy. The fatal accident inquiry found that drivers over 80 should perhaps be subject to cognitive tests if they want to continue driving. That inquiry is currently with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Will the shadow Minister support action in that area?

[Greg Smith]

It is important that we look at all evidence suggesting a problem and explore the basis for solving it, but I am no fan of knee-jerk legislation. This House is at its worst when we jump to knee-jerk solutions to any problem presented. It is important to look at all the evidence, practical outcomes and potential unintended consequences. The case that the hon. Gentleman raises and the point that he makes are important and should be looked at—as he referenced, it is being looked at by the DVLA at the moment. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point.

I double-underline that we should bear in mind that every death on our roads is a tragedy, but there has been significant improvement in road safety over recent years.

[Anna Sabine]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Greg Smith]

I will just expand this point and then give way to the hon. Lady. Since road user casualties peaked in 1965, with nearly 8,000 deaths, there has been a concerted efforts to reduce the numbers. Thankfully, that effort has largely been successful, across successive Governments of all political persuasions.

According to Department for Transport figures, released in September last year, Great Britain ranked third out of 33 countries reported on in 2023 for the lowest number of road fatalities per million of the population. Of course, that number is still too high, but the direction of travel is positive, and we need to take further action—

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Greg Smith]

I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), and will just finish this point. Mindful of time, I may then take one or two more interventions.

Although the claim of a 13% fall in casualties accurately reflects the raw data between 2010 and 2023, it fails to account for the context of vehicle miles, which have significantly increased. During that time, the number of vehicle miles increased from 306 billion to 334 billion. When adjusted to that context, the Department’s data indicates a decrease in the casualty rate from 681 casualties per billion vehicle miles in 2010 to 398 in 2023, which is a 41% reduction. I repeat that we must still take action to get the number down to zero, but the direction of travel has been good.

[Anna Sabine]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the personal tragedies of road accidents and refers to Members of all political persuasions. Does he agree that it is brilliant to see cross-party support for these campaigns, but that it might be more helpful for campaigners if His Majesty’s Opposition were better represented in today’s debate?

[Greg Smith]

I hesitate to go there, on what is a political point. When we are having a serious debate, comments like that are not necessarily helpful to the spirit of trying to engender cross-party working.

I have a history of looking at this subject, including with the Minister for the future of roads. In the previous Parliament, we both served on the Transport Committee, which conducted a deep inquiry into novice and young drivers and the implications for safety. We looked carefully at graduated driving licences and other things, such as the Under 17 Car Club, which was referred to earlier, and which I am a huge fan of. I am a huge fan of trying to get young people—potentially very young people—in an off-road, safe, private-land setting and starting to understand how to drive and control a vehicle safely.

[Cameron Thomas]

I did not manage to make this point in my speech, but whereas one in five young people will be involved in a reportable road traffic collision in the year following their test, that figure is reduced to one in 33 for those who complete that course. I invite the hon. Member to agree.

[Greg Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I entirely agree. The younger we can get people into any sort of powered vehicle, so that they can learn how to control it safely in different conditions in a safe, off-road, heavily supervised setting, the better. That work is all to the good and powerful, and I was certainly impressed by the evidence I heard in that Select Committee inquiry.

That raises a wider point that I invite the Minister to reflect on. I think it was encapsulated well by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) when he said that young people are focused on passing a test rather than learning to drive. Our testing and learning system is too focused on a very limited set of circumstances that any individual seeking their first driving licence has to go through. Testing is done very often in an urban environment, but rarely on the rural roads that we have heard so much about, and learner drivers never go on the motorway and learn to control a car at significant speeds. My challenge to the Minister is this: how can we ensure that when a young person—or any person, for that matter—is granted their pass certificate and gets their full driving licence, they are properly equipped? To me, the solution is not putting in a graduated system afterwards; it is having the confidence that, when someone is issued with their licence, they are able and safe to control any motor vehicle to the best of their ability.

Graduated driving licences would take away too much from young people. We heard from young people in the Select Committee inquiry that I spoke about. What if a young person wants to go into the world of work? What if they want to do night shifts but are told they cannot drive at night? What if they wish to go into one of the emergency services and have to attend night-time emergencies, be that as a police officer—

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

With the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

I have limited time, but I am happy to take up the debate afterwards.

What if the path that a young person wants to go down requires them to be able to drive a car at night? There have to be answers to these questions. I gently say to all hon. Members here this morning, including the Minister, that a driving licence must be equal for everybody, and that we must look most of all at how we can improve our confidence that everybody who is issued with one can control a vehicle in all circumstances, in all conditions and on all road types. That will involve a significant change, which will improve road safety for everybody.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

May I, too, wish the Minister a very happy birthday?

Estimates suggest that the SAF mandate provisions and the revenue certainty mechanism will still leave a shortfall, with a family of four facing over £300 extra to fly on holiday by 2040. That is a clear concern for consumers, as well as the airline industry. Net zero should not come at an additional cost to consumers or undermine freedoms—in this case, the freedom to fly. The test must surely be how to defossilise, decarbonise and allow people to do the same at the same cost. What steps is the Minister taking in conjunction with the Treasury to close the financial gap between incentives in the mandate and the actual increased cost of switching to SAF for the end consumer?

[Mike Kane]

I think the good will ended with “happy birthday.”

I remind the shadow Minister that a little over 12 months ago, in one of his better videos, the then Prime Minister came out into Downing Street, looked at the sky and lauded the policy he wanted when we saw Virgin Atlantic’s 100% SAF trip across the Atlantic. This was the previous Government’s policy but, because of the sclerotic nature of that Government, we are only now getting on with implementing both the SAF mandate and the revenue support mechanism. As the shadow Minister knows, a regular review point is baked into the legislation so that we can revisit targets, if required.

[Greg Smith]

Of course, there is always another way. Much of the debate so far on SAF has been about fuels made from feedstocks and waste products. Unlike fuels that require feedstock, whose input costs will only ever go up, the industrial process that creates power-to-liquid synthetic aviation fuel will actually see its production costs reduce, with some predicting cost parity between the production of these synthetic fuels and the extraction and production of fossil fuels within a decade. Does the Minister agree that synthetics offer a much better long-term solution, and will he reprioritise the Government’s approach to SAF away from transitional solutions and towards synthetics?

[Mike Kane]

The hon. Gentleman runs his car on synthetic fuel, so I know his passion. There are many ways to get to SAF. The SAF mandate is supported by industry, and there is a real opportunity to establish a plethora of production. We can create thousands of new well-paid jobs while protecting the pound in the holidaymaker’s pocket.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that important point. I have met the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to talk about its important enforcement work in this area. Measures of that kind will absolutely be considered in the development of our road safety strategy, and we will work closely with stakeholders, exactly as the Minister with responsibility for roads mentioned.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I associate myself with the tributes paid to Lord Prescott. Talking of pothole repairs and road resurfacing, the director of the RAC, Steve Gooding, said:

“The long-term solution is a long-term funding settlement for councils so they can finally get on top of what has been a perennial problem.”

But councils—[Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but our councils, which have to do the work of repairing our roads, do not know how much money they will get from the much-trumpeted £500 million. When will our councils actually get their allocations?

[Louise Haigh]

As I have said, the £500 million is available for ’25-26, and those allocations will be announced shortly. The brass neck on Opposition Members never ceases to amaze.

[Greg Smith]

I am just trying to get answers for our councils. Of course, it was the previous Government who committed £8.3 billion to road repairs, using money from the rightly cancelled sections of High Speed 2. Back in May, when it was in opposition, Labour tried to claim a backlog of more than £16 billion in road repairs, but now it just trumpets funding of £500 million. That is not enough, is it?

[Louise Haigh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising the appalling state of our local roads, and the appalling backlog that we inherited. The significant uplift allocated for next year will start to turn the page on 14 years of decline, but of course that cannot be achieved overnight.

Rail Performance

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

The truth is that the previous Government deliberately provoked and prolonged that strike, the longest in the history of our railways. They budgeted for a pay settlement not far off where we landed, and that pay settlement has already paid for itself through increased revenue and improved services for passengers.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Chiltern Railways was absent from the Secretary of State’s statement, but when it comes to rail performance, for my constituents —both those on the Chiltern main line and those on the Aylesbury branch—daily overcrowding is a reality, with passengers often being left on the platform. Given that the previous Government stepped up, with a commitment to ensuring that Chiltern got more rolling stock to tackle the overcrowding challenges, will the Secretary of State make it a double priority to get Chiltern those extra trains and end this overcrowding?

[Louise Haigh]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Chiltern was the worst-performing operator last year, in terms of the reduction in punctuality, which further makes the case for public ownership. The previous Government made lots of commitments, few of which were funded, but I will take that question away and determine where the rolling stock order is.

Roadworks: Journey Times

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) on securing this important debate.

The consensual nature of the debate shows that if there is one thing on which we on the Opposition Benches and those in His Majesty’s Government can agree, it is that nobody likes road closures and traffic jams and the misery that comes with them. In urban and suburban areas, they often mean unwanted congestion and pollution. As the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said, they often mean delays not just for private motorists but for buses and hauliers. I gently suggest to him that after this afternoon’s Budget and the Chancellor increasing bus fares from the £2 cap that we brought in, people will be paying more to sit on the bus in a traffic jam under a Labour Government.

In rural areas such as my Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, and that of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), a 100-yard road closure can often mean a 5 to 10-mile diversion. That is before I even start talking about Government-sponsored programmes such as High Speed 2, for which the road closures seem to go on indefinitely and forever. Fixing that is in the Government’s gift. Likewise, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) about the intolerable problems on the A77 and A75, which the Scottish Government simply must fix.

Of course, in some cases road closures are not necessarily a bad thing—they are the result of getting things done—but how we manage them is important. Utility companies must be held to account. Whether action is taken by local government or by national Government through National Highways or another agency, it must be taken responsibly. The relevant authorities must remember that they are causing significant inconvenience to real people, their businesses, their school runs and their trips to the doctor, hospital or other medical appointments. If we can manage the situation, everybody will be much happier.

Let us not forget that it is only through economic growth that car ownership, and indeed other forms of transport, became affordable and grew for many. As part of our plan for drivers, the previous Government took action—we can discuss how to go further—on the critical problem of road closures that stick around for longer than necessary. We introduced a performance-based street works regime to ensure that utility companies resurfaced roads to the best possible standard, and a lane rental scheme, through which utility companies can be charged up to £2,500 a day for street works. That programme enabled the delivery of more than 2 million street works between 2022 and 2023.

In January, the previous Government launched a street works consultation, the results of which were clear. We therefore doubled fines in some instances from £500 to £1,000 for utility companies found to have breached the conditions of their jobs. We introduced charges of £10,000 a day for companies if their works overrun into weekends and bank holidays, which are the busiest days on the road network. We gave a direction for at least 50% of the money generated by lane rental schemes to be used for the improvement of roads and the repair of potholes. That money is already filtering down to local authorities.

In my own constituency, Buckinghamshire council’s “pothole pro” is making light work of what has historically been an incredibly time-consuming and labour-intensive task. The pothole pro effectively recycles and reuses damaged tarmac for resurfacing works, and roads are therefore being fixed more quickly and efficiently. That ultimately saves taxpayer money and reduces the time that people spend stuck in traffic or diverting around road closures. Technology is our friend. It can get repairs done so much quicker.

Conservatives are firmly on the side of drivers. What will the Minister and the Government do to improve the experience of Britain’s motorists, those who travel on our buses and that those who require the use of the road network to make deliveries and to get their goods around the country? What will the Minister do to meet the challenges set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne? What reforms will the Government introduce to build on what is already in place to hold those who dig up our roads to account?

It would be a good start for the Government to support the ten-minute rule Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), which the Opposition already support. That would bring about real action to improve the lot of all motorists. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s stance on that Bill, which we also saw in the previous Parliament? Britain’s motorists deserve to know.

The state of our roads is important, as right hon. and hon. Members have said. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will maintain the £4.7 billion of funding, much of which was to be used to fill potholes across the north and the midlands over the next seven years, that the previous Government put in place in February through the local transport fund? Will it be put to good use in the way that the previous Government intended? Will the Government retain the £8.3 billion of funding for highways maintenance, which was announced in October 2023 in “Network North” and should last until 2033?

Will the new Labour Government continue that exact amount of spending? I fear that the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget today of £500 million for potholes will simply not touch the sides of the problem we face as a country. Looking at my own constituency, where Buckinghamshire council has a £105 million road repair fund for one county alone, I do not think that that £500 million sum of money will go far enough to challenge and fix the problems facing Britain’s motorists. It seems that both sides of the House agree on the problem. Labour is now in government; will the Minister confirm precisely what it will do?

Draft Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The draft order, as the Minister rightly says, is very technical in nature and will make few changes to the 2023 order. For the most part, it will simply bring the whole of our country under one set of rules by correcting the understandable omission of Northern Ireland from the original order. In the silo in which they are presented, the changes being made are broadly uncontroversial. The official Opposition will therefore not seek to divide the Committee today.

What is slightly more controversial, however, is the limit of the order and the wider questions that it poses about the Government’s approach to the ZEV mandate, our domestic automotive sector and the transition to de-fossilised and decarbonised forms of private transport. The Labour party had previously been clear that it wished to reverse the Conservative Government’s practical, pragmatic and sensible delay from 2030 to 2035 of the banning of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, yet the draft order will do no such thing: it leaves the 2035 date intact. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are leaving the 2035 date in place, which would be sensible, or whether we are set to see more orders coming forward? If so, will they come with a wider debate in the main Chamber?

What of hybrids? There is much talk in the media, but little actual legislation or rule making is coming forward. I gently ask the Minister to give the Committee and the wider House clarity in that regard.

Certainty is important for consumers and manufacturers alike, but the draft order will give neither any confidence about the detail of the Government’s intended direction of travel. That uncertainty is playing out in the real world: in real sales numbers, in real demand, particularly for battery electric vehicles, and in uncertainty for our great innovators at home and overseas, where they are pioneering technologies around other forms of fuel, hydrogen and synthetics.

It is a reality that consumers are turning their backs on battery electric vehicles. Taking fleet sales out of the picture, EVs are just not selling. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says that year-to-date private battery electric vehicle demand remains down 6.3%. Robert Forrester, chief executive of Vertu Motors, has observed that manufacturers are delaying deliveries of cars until next year, fearing that immediate deliveries would cause them to exceed the Government’s set quotas. In July, Stellantis announced that it would review its manufacturing footprint in the United Kingdom.

Can the Minister explain why the draft order does so little? It is just tinkering at the edges, with no practical steps to solve the real-world problems that we face. Can he confirm what the Government’s actual plans are to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel internal combustion engine cars? Is there even a plan? What confidence can he give to motorists and car manufacturers alike that the Government value—in a de-fossilised, decarbonised way—the freedom to drive?

Draft Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

Although the draft regulations may be touted as innovative legislation, I am sure the Minister will be the first to accept that they were in fact the product of successive Conservative Governments, who, following our exit from the European Union, took the decision to simplify regulations for our hard-working hauliers by asking the industry what it needed to thrive, while of course ensuring the high standards of vehicle and driver safety that have always been upheld and enhanced. The draft regulations are a culmination of that process. Indeed, the previous Minister, Guy Opperman, is listed in the explanatory memorandum as having signed the declaration on the draft regulations. Therefore, as the previous Government would have laid this instrument anyway, the official Opposition will clearly not divide the Committee today.

The regulations deliver is the long sought-after flexibility that the industry needs to ensure that safety standards remain among the best in the world—all thanks to the work of the previous Government over the last few years. Hauliers will welcome options made available by the split between UK and international training programmes, and the means through which training is delivered—above all, the option to complete a course over a series of half days rather than full days.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us why one critical element—the incentive for hauliers to push the international training programme as a viable option for drivers—has been omitted from the regulations, risking the available pool of drivers for overseas work by essentially making that training an opt-in part of the job. Combined with the rumoured end to the previous Government’s fuel duty freeze, which has been critical to hauliers since its introduction by the Conservatives in 2011—if the rise goes ahead, hauliers estimate it could cost their businesses over £185 million a year—we must ask: who is really standing up for our hauliers and championing the vital role that they play in our economy?

I will simply end by saying that it is only because of our exit from the European Union that any of this is possible in the first place. While the Labour party in opposition sat on their hands without making any real contribution to the haulage sector, blaming Brexit for every challenge the sector has faced in recent years, it was Conservatives in government who took steps—including drafting the very regulations before us today—to support hauliers on terms that were right for the United Kingdom, not for the European Union. Although we welcome the regulations, I gently ask the Minister: what are the Government offering the haulage sector that is new?