Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Snuck out on a Government website, we learn that narrower roads are coming to make driving more miserable. Is it not the case that such a move will cause even more friction between motorists and cyclists, and slow our roads down so much that it costs the economy billions?

[Heidi Alexander]

Claims that Government guidance mandates a certain road width are false and misrepresent guidance from Active Travel England. There have never been legally binding standards for road widths, and that remains the case. It is obviously right that each road should be designed to meet the needs of local use, and that includes road width. Those decisions are for local traffic engineers. If the hon. Member is saying that we should not design roads to help avoid fatalities, I suggest that he is out of step with most people across the country.

[Greg Smith]

Mr Speaker, it is on their own website. But I will turn to another Government blunder: taxpayer-funded schemes to bribe the public into buying something that they do not want, which, we now learn, will financially hammer people for doing what the Government told them to do in the first place. Is it not time to let people choose what they want to drive, before electric becomes the new diesel?

[Heidi Alexander]

If the electric car grant scheme is so unpopular, why have 30,000 people availed themselves of it since its launch in the summer? I am clear that the transition to electric vehicles is a key plank of this Government’s agenda, because of the good jobs it can create and the need to clean up the way we travel.

Draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. As the Minister acknowledges, the regulations are contingent on the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which have been laid before Parliament under the negative procedure. I can offer His Majesty’s Opposition’s broad support for the instrument before us today.

If we are to implement changes to regulations on unmanned aircraft use, we must ensure that there are appropriate penalties for their misuse. The fact that the penalties outlined here are largely comparable to those already established under the Air Navigation Order 2016 highlights the fact that they are in line with the modern, proportionate enforcement regime that already governs this sector. More broadly, we must acknowledge that the principle of altering our regulation to ensure that hobbyists can go about their business while maintaining the safety of others is important. As the CAA recognised in its consultation, finding the balance between cutting red tape and implementing key safety measures is essential.

Recent European discussions on the risks that unmanned aircraft pose to the aviation sector remind us that those dangers are significant. It is in the direct interests of public protection and national security to ensure that they are properly mitigated. In my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, innovation in this sector is not theoretical; it is happening now. Companies such as Flare Bright and Skyports at Westcott Venture Park are at the forefront of cutting-edge unmanned systems, developing technologies that support our industrial strategy, national security posture and wider aerospace capabilities. That is why clarity, stability and practicality in the regulatory regime, such as the instrument before us today, matter. Real jobs, real investment and real technological leadership depend on it.

Regarding some of the specific changes that underpin the draft regulations, it appears sensible to improve the protection of restricted airspace using new technologies available to us. My understanding is that the proposals put the UK ahead of the European Union in areas such as geofencing—an example of where safety is being prioritised while enabling innovation. The Government’s analysis, including their de minimis assessments of geo-protections and remote ID, makes it clear that these steps can be taken in a proportionate manner that minimises unnecessary burdens.

I recognise the strong feelings about the shift from defining aircraft on the basis of weight to the new approach around toys, for example, about limits on legacy UASs and about the shortened transition period for remote ID. I appreciate that the Government have extended the transition period to mitigate the costs that could otherwise have fallen on low-risk users, in particular model aircraft flyers. The British Model Flying Association acknowledged recently that none of the new requirements will take effect for model aircraft until 2028 and that it is optimistic about a minimal impact on its members. That is an important reassurance, but does the Minister think the problem will persist after the transition period? Does he feel comfortable that the period provided is sufficient to address these concerns, and that we will not simply return to the same issue once the period expires?

I would like to raise the ongoing question of divergence from and conformity with European Union regulations. I understand that the new UK class marks will use different prefixes to ensure clear differentiation as standards evolve while maintaining broad alignment with the existing European class marking structure. Has the Minister engaged with the CAA on ensuring that lessons from other jurisdictions, particularly the United States of America, which has taken a markedly different regulatory path in several areas, are being fully considered? Alignment for its own sake cannot be the goal. Rather, we must ensure that our regulatory framework is the most effective for the United Kingdom’s safety, security and technological leadership.

I appreciate that this instrument is, by its nature, focused on offences and enforcement, and that the underpinning policy is found in the parallel amendment regulations. However, we must consider the whole framework together. Ultimately, enforcement must be effective and proportionate, but the regulations that sit beneath it must also be practical and allow the full spectrum of legitimate users, from companies pioneering advanced autonomous systems to long-standing model aircraft clubs, to continue benefiting from the extraordinary advances that we have seen in unmanned aircraft technology.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulation 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

Maritime regulations are critical to maintaining high standards at sea and ensuring our compatibility with the many international maritime treaties to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. The safety, integrity and reputation of our maritime sector depend on a clear, consistent and modernised regulatory framework. It is therefore essential that our regulatory regime is updated periodically, in line with international standards, not only to ensure compliance but to make certain that it remains workable and effective for those across the industry who rely on it. The shipping and maritime equipment sectors are vital to the UK’s trade and economy, and they deserve a regime that helps them to prosper, innovate and compete on a global scale.

Broadly, as I understand it, the Government’s proposals are technical in nature and introduce only limited changes to the existing regulations. One of the more consequential proposals appears to be the approval regime for ballast water management systems. It may not be a great surprise to the Committee that my expertise does not extend to the finer points of ballast water management, so I defer to the judgment of the industry which, when consulted, indicated its support for the proposed changes, with only minimal comment. Given the lack of concern from those most directly affected, it seems reasonable to conclude that the changes are sensible and proportionate.

I wish to press the Minister on the equivalents provision in the regulations. The provisions allow for the installation of non-UK-approved equipment in certain circumstances. Will the Minister outline whether discussions have taken place with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency regarding the expected frequency and scale of such requests? Will he also provide assurances that the mechanism will not be used as a back-door route to circumvent post-Brexit approval requirements, but will instead apply only to genuine case-specific situations, thereby maintaining both the integrity and the safety of our regulatory regime?

I note from the consultation that the MCA has said that the UK’s membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is expected to provide an additional supply of UK-approved maritime equipment, while offering British manufacturers greater opportunities to export to CPTPP member states. That in itself is a positive development. However, although steps have been taken to maintain co-operation with EU-notified bodies, will the Minister confirm whether there are plans to engage proactively with partners across the Pacific region to ensure that any streamlining or mutual recognition of standards is carried out on a genuinely global basis? Doing so could help to reduce regulatory burdens while strengthening the United Kingdom’s position as a world leader in maritime excellence.

I hope the Minister can provide clarity on those few points so that we can continue to ensure that the UK’s maritime regulations are clear, effective and internationally aligned, and that our maritime industry remains as competitive and innovative as possible in the years ahead.

Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for securing this debate.

We have all heard from constituents who say that they now avoid driving at night altogether because of dazzling headlights. The BBC recently reported on this issue, highlighting the frustration of drivers who say that modern lights, while being brighter and more energy-efficient, are simply too intense for oncoming road-users. Drivers have spoken of being momentarily blinded by glare or of feeling unable to judge distances, and consequently of losing confidence behind the wheel. For many, that means avoiding night-time journeys altogether.

However, this issue is not just about comfort; it is also about access and safety. When people tell us that they no longer drive at night because the glare from other vehicles hurts their eyes or makes them anxious, that represents lost freedom and independence, particularly for older drivers or drivers in rural areas, such as my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire.

The data supports those stories. According to the RAC’s headlight glare study, which was published in February, a quarter of drivers who have been dazzled by the headlights of oncoming vehicles now stay off the roads more at night; 61% of drivers said the problem is worse than it was a year ago; and three quarters of those who are driving less say that it is because others cars’ headlights make the experience uncomfortable or more difficult.

The issue matters because glare does not just cause discomfort; as I have already said, it interferes with people’s ability to process visual information quickly. Older drivers are particularly affected. The evidence shows that a 70-year-old’s eyes can take nine seconds to recover from glare, compared with about one second for a teenager. Nine seconds is a very long time to be effectively blinded while driving at any speed, let alone at national speed limits on a country lane.

However, we should also be guided by the data on collisions. The Department for Transport’s records show that the number of road traffic accidents in which dazzling headlights were recorded as a contributory factor has not risen sharply in recent years; the figures fluctuate from year to year, but they do not indicate a dramatic upward trend. However, although the statistical picture does not suggest that glare is causing more crashes, it does confirm what drivers have been telling all of us: that glare is making people feel less safe, which in itself is a serious issue.

We know that several factors contribute to glare. Misalignment of headlights is one of the most common. Of the 32.4 million MOT tests carried out in 2022 on cars and light vehicles, 1.6 million vehicles—1.6 million!—failed because their headlights were misaligned. Even a small upward tilt can make a big difference to the intensity of glare experienced by other road users.

Newer lighting technologies also play a role. LED headlamps, which are now fitted to most modern vehicles, produce a whiter and more focused beam than traditional halogen bulbs. The human eye reacts differently to such light and although LEDs improve visibility for the driver using them, they can cause real discomfort for oncoming traffic.

I also want to raise a related concern about the glare from powerful bicycle and personal lights. Many drivers and pedestrians now report being dazzled by high-intensity LED lights that are poorly aligned or excessively bright. Some of these lights are designed for off-road use, yet they are now being used on busy streets and in shared spaces, creating unnecessary discomfort and danger for everyone else on the road. Some cyclists and runners even wear head-mounted lamps, which can shine directly into the eyes of other road-users.

The issue is not about stopping people being seen; clearly, visibility is vital. However, it is about balance and consideration. It might be time for the Government and the British Standards Institute to consider introducing clear standards for all lights used on the public highway, whether on a car, a bike or a person, to ensure that they are properly focused, safe and considerate to others.

Of course, we also have the problem of illegal retrofitting—drivers replacing their halogen bulbs with cheap LED kits that are not compatible with their vehicle’s design. These conversions are not road-legal; they fail the MOT test and make glare far worse. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has increased surveillance to tackle this, but more needs to be done to stop the sale of unsafe aftermarket products online. The Government have said that research into that is under way, but it was first announced by the previous Conservative Administration in May 2024.

The research, commissioned by the Department for Transport and undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, was meant to include real-world testing to examine how different lighting technologies, vehicle designs and driver characteristics affect glare. However, here we are more than a year later and the findings have still not been published. I ask the Minister directly: when will the research be released and will the full findings be made public? Until that happens, drivers will rightly question whether the issue is being taken seriously enough.

It is also worth recognising the international progress made under the previous Government. They raised the issue of dazzling headlights with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which oversees global vehicle standards. In April 2023, that body agreed to tighten rules on headlamps, aiming to make automatic headlight levelling mandatory for new vehicles. That technology ensures that when a car is heavily loaded with passengers or luggage, the headlights automatically adjust downwards to avoid dazzling oncoming drivers.

Those rules with tighter tolerances come into force in September 2027, which is welcome progress. But it only applies to new vehicles; millions of older cars will remain on our roads for years and decades to come. We should be asking what more can be done to mitigate glare in the existing fleet of vehicles—whether that is tougher and better MOT checks, awareness campaigns, proper headlight alignment or encouraging wider adoption of adaptive headlight systems that dip automatically when other vehicles approach.

A lot of evidence has been put out and it has been a good debate. The issue is about balance: making sure that headlights are bright enough to see, but not so bright that they blind. It is also about fairness—ensuring that drivers of all ages in all types of vehicles can travel confidently and safely, whether it is noon or night.

Draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the importance of ensuring that genuine parking violations are fairly and consistently enforced. Effective enforcement maintains order and encourages compliance, but it should never become a source of excessive revenue or allow over-zealous practices to flourish. Unfortunately, motorists’ experience with some private parking operators has too often been poor. We have heard of cases involving unclear signage, punitive charges and threatening correspondence from debt collectors. That background means the Government must take care before extending their powers any further.

The draft order extends existing keeper liability provisions under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to railway property—land that has until now been subject to railway byelaws rather than civil enforcement. On paper it may look like a technical change, but in practice it could give private parking firms greater ability to pursue motorists for payment on railway land. Before agreeing to such an extension, we should be confident that the wider regulatory framework is robust, transparent and fair.

That is why the timing of this proposal is somewhat problematic. The Government’s consultation on the private parking code of practice closed only on 26 September. Those responses from motorists, consumer groups and the parking industry itself have not yet been published or analysed. It is therefore premature to legislate before that evidence has been properly considered. The responsible approach would be to review the consultation findings first, finalise the new code to ensure that it genuinely curbs poor practice, and only then revisit any question of expanding enforcement powers.

Our concern is not about legitimate enforcement. Where parking rules are clear and proportionate, they help to keep stations accessible and traffic flowing, but enforcement must always be fair, transparent and accountable to the travelling public. At present, key safeguards are clearly missing. The Government have not released a Treasury estimate of the potential enforcement revenue, so the financial impact on motorists is equally unknown. Nor have we seen confirmation that the forthcoming code will provide effective oversight and meaningful appeal rights. Without that assurance, it would be wrong to widen private operators’ powers on railway land.

Although we will not divide the Committee this afternoon, I would like the Minister to reflect on those points, pause, and hear our call for proper process and proportionate changes. Motorists deserve confidence that parking rules are enforced in the public interest, not driven by other motives. The Government should publish the consultation outcomes, set clear limits on private enforcement practices, and demonstrate that passenger and driver interests come first. Once that framework is in place, any further legislative changes can be judged on their merits and with full transparency.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Olly Glover]

This has been an informative debate on all the new clauses. From a procedural point of view, we are happy not to push new clause 1 to a Division.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

To begin, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to the synthetic road fuel provided to me for a constituency surgery tour last year. That is not strictly relevant to sustainable aviation fuel, but I want to be entirely transparent about it, as I have been throughout this Bill’s passage.

May I also welcome the new Minister to his place? He has a big pair of shoes to fill, and I equally want to commend the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—we did not always see entirely eye to eye—for the effort and attention he put in to getting this Bill through the House and to his other duties in the House.

I begin with new clause 6, which requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the Act once it is in force. This amendment goes to the nub of what is important. Does the Bill enable growth or stifle it? Does it support our world-class aviation industry or go against it? More importantly, does it enable our constituents to do what they have always done and fly, be that on holiday, on business or to visit family and friends overseas, or does it hinder them in doing that; and does it hinder our businesses in bringing goods in and out of the country by air?

New clause 6 forces the Secretary of State to confront the realities of the Bill on multiple fronts. It covers the impact on the UK’s aviation fuel industry and the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel supply, and the impact on small, medium and large producers and potential importers of sustainable aviation fuel.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Could the hon. Member clarify over what period the Government would do the cost impact assessment, if they were to do one? Does he agree that the transition to any new technology requires significant initial upfront investment? All the trillion-dollar companies in the world were losing millions before they became profitable.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come on to some of the technological points he made earlier, which it may surprise him to hear that I was incredibly sympathetic towards. On the timescale he asks for, I think it reasonable that, when a new Act comes into force, the Government should review it on a yearly basis at least, if not more frequently, to check that it is working. The point he makes is valid, and I thank him for it.

Last on the list of impacts covered by new clause 6 is the impact on international and domestic tourism in the UK and passenger air fares. We in this House can pass all manner of laws and schemes, and we can mandate new things, but their impact, including on the wider economy, matters. Reviews like the one proposed by new clause 6 would ensure that Governments of all political persuasions monitored real-life outcomes and, if necessary, tweaked provisions—or completely changed course. I cannot for the life of me understand why any Government would run scared of such a clause; it would help them govern better in the long run.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Member will know that countries right across the world are moving towards SAF. Has he reviewed them to understand what is unique about the UK that means that we are vulnerable, while other countries are able to drive ahead? Are these countries undertaking the same bureaucratic reviews of their own legislation, and which country is he modelling his approach on?

[Greg Smith]

I think it is necessary for any Government to review the legislation they are passing to check that it actually works, does what it says on the tin, and does not negatively impact real people and businesses going about their day-to-day lives. If he has paid attention to the debates in previous stages of this Bill, he will know that I support a move to sustainable aviation fuel; I will come on to that shortly, when I speak about other amendments. I think, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) does, that some technologies are superior to others when it comes to power-to-liquid, but the move to those fuels is very important. We have to get it right. If we do not, and we do not make it affordable, it will not happen.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I commend my hon. Friend on his speech. Does he agree that the Conservative way is to ensure practicality over mere ideology, and consumer rights over Government imposition of controls and regulations that can do serious damage to the economy and people’s livelihoods?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House; I could not have put it better myself. It is essential that whatever measures, on any matter, are brought forward by any Government—be it the current Government or any future Government—real people’s lives and the cost base be reviewed regularly, so that we are not making people poorer, or stopping people from being able to do what they want, be it go on holiday, travel for business or move goods around.

With that, I come to amendment 8 and the cost impact on passengers. The amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on passenger air fares. One of the most contentious areas surrounding the Bill, and indeed the Government’s whole approach to net zero, is: what does it actually cost real people? The amendment seeks to clarify that, and it gives the Government the opportunity—in theory, they should cheerfully embrace this—to lock in a claim that they profess to believe, namely that the Bill will have an impact of plus or minus £1.50 on air fares. The previous Minister repeated that statistic time and again on Second Reading and in Committee. The new Minister has the challenge today of either sticking with his predecessor’s assertion, backing the amendment and locking in protections for consumers, or admitting that this may well be more costly to air travellers.

It is worth noting that during the evidence stage of Bill Committee, none of the witnesses was willing to affirm the Government’s figure. In fact, some noted that the estimated price appeared low. For example, Jonathon Counsell from International Airlines Group stated:

“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.”––[Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 15 July 2025; c. 17, Q12.]

Consumers need peace of mind that the Bill will not cost them dear, and will not act as a financial barrier to the family holiday or any other trip, so failure to back the amendment can only mean uncertainty.

I turn to amendment 11, which is focused on transparency. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate, payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers. Valero, for example—one of the world’s largest renewable fuels producers—has contacted the Opposition arguing for the amendment, saying that it would offer a workable solution; it would support the development of new SAF production without significantly impacting the industry as a whole. The amendment would apply the levy equally to all jet fuel suppliers, providing a fair and transparent mechanism for supporting the broader SAF industry.

Just this week, I have been contacted by Virgin Atlantic, which is arguing that transparency safeguards must be in place to keep costs low for consumers. As organisations including the International Air Transport Association have highlighted, since the mandate came into effect in January 2025, fuel suppliers have been adding compliance risk premiums to the cost of mandated SAF, contributing to the price of SAF and doubling it for some carriers. That is to cover the eventuality that they do not meet the 2% mandate target and must pay the buy-out price for any missed volume. Virgin Atlantic has argued that to prevent SAF prices increasing further, the revenue certainty mechanism must have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure transparency over cost pass-through. There must also be a transparent process for refunds in the event of over-collections, and all revenues generated under the RCM should be ringfenced, rather than going into the general taxation pot.

Amendment 9 looks at British technology and intellectual property. It would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts. As I said from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, there is a historical reality that we need to confront, and the amendment would stop history repeating itself. The historical error that I refer to is this: a great many projects supported by grants from the advanced fuels fund use foreign-owned technology. It cannot be right that the British state, while arguing for domestic fuel security, funds overseas technology when we have incredible innovators and manufacturers right here.

Domestic fuel security must mean domestic fuel IP, manufacture and supply. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF, eSAF and local production, as is provided for by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of those products. That not only retains revenue in the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. The amendment tackles that head-on, and a failure to back it would be a failure to back United Kingdom innovators.

Lastly, amendment 10 is on technological choices. It states:

“The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.”

I feel incredibly strongly about this amendment. It is on a matter that I have championed in this House for many years—in the last Parliament, during my time on the Transport Committee and, since July, from this Dispatch Box. The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and it is relevant to new clause 7 and amendment 12 in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley, both of which I have a great deal of sympathy for.

Governments of all political persuasions have professed to be technologically neutral. They seldom are. There is a natural tendency to pick winners and losers. We need to look through that lens, and ask ourselves what the Bill is promoting and using the levers of primary legislation to enable. The disappointing answer to that is the potential to bring alive SAF plants using technologies that have already been superseded—plants that would therefore be temporary at best. Stepping up something with no longevity, and with an estimated build cost of between £600 million and £2 billion, would be no small mistake.

Power-to-liquid solutions, otherwise known as eSAF or synthetic fuel—liquid hydrocarbons literally made out of air and water—are surely the better and sustainable future for aviation fuel. We had debates on Second Reading and in Committee about other solutions. I cannot imagine that anyone is ready to defend growing food to burn it, but equally, waste-derived fuels simply are not sustainable in the long term. Solid waste is not readily available; the primary source is local authorities, the majority of which are on contracts with energy-from-waste facilities and incinerators that have decades to run. Likewise, I am not sure there is enough chip oil in the country to meet our aviation fuel needs.

That leaves power-to-liquid solutions and eSAF. Many say that it is not ready; some say it is too expensive; but those of us on the Public Bill Committee heard loud and clear from Zero Petroleum that it is ready to scale right now. It just needs the green light from the regulators, and with scale will come affordability. Amendment 10 is in many ways a light-touch amendment to bring this debate to the fore. It does not close down other technological routes, but forces the Government to acknowledge the risk, both to the environment and in terms of cost, when choosing contracts under the RCM.

As other speakers have said, the Bill can still be improved. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments, which would improve the Bill, and to ensure a strong and affordable future for sustainable aviation fuel in our great United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

Before I turn to the amendments before us, I would like to thank the many hon. Members who have made considered and helpful contributions. This legislation has been long in the making, and few have been more central in bringing it to fruition than my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who I would like to thank personally for his efforts throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages.

Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As this is my first exchange as shadow Minister with the new Minister, I warmly welcome him to his place. It seems only five minutes ago that he arrived after his by-election; it is a credit to him that he is a Minister. Thankfully, I dare say that this morning’s exchange will be a softer landing than some of the exchanges in the weeks and months ahead, at least politically speaking.

Aviation safety is a story of constant evolution. Over the past 50 years, we have seen great strides in the safety of our aircraft, which has contributed to the growth in flying from which so many people across the country benefit. According to figures from the Aviation Safety Network, in the 1970s there were about six fatal airliner accidents for every 1 million commercial flights, which meant, sadly, that one in every 165,000 flights ended in a fatal accident. By contrast, data from 2024 shows that the figures have dropped to approximately half a fatal accident per 1 million flights. Although there will always be some variation, and there are devastating news stories that highlight the tragic consequences when accidents do occur, the long-term trend has clearly been positive.

The Conservatives will always welcome measures that provide greater clarity to our safety regime and improve on the existing system. The regulations set out by the Government today suggest relatively small changes. On a positive note, I particularly welcome it that the explanatory memorandum highlights sensible deregulation, for example allowing the installation of particular components without the need for a form 1, provided that they are declared safe by the design organisation. Furthermore, enabling the CAA to delegate aviation safety tasks appears to be a sensible step. For clarity, however, can the Minister outline which tasks he understands that the CAA may delegate? Is he confident in the CAA’s capacity to manage this delegation effectively, given that it has not had these powers for a period of time?

I also ask the Minister the same question that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee posed to the Department. Although I have no significant issues with the regulations, that Committee noted the limited ability to use the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, as a result of which the Department states that it

“will need to find a longer-term solution to make further amendments”.

Can the Minister outline how he intends to make changes on that basis and whether he has begun developing a long-term plan?

Ultimately, these limited regulations appear to make proportionate changes and are in line with existing aviation policies. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how future regulations might be amended or updated. The aviation industry knows that its continued success depends on the highest safety standards. If we are to encourage growth in the sector, we must ensure that Parliament is doing its part to enable the industry to maintain it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Simon Lightwood]

We are absolutely committed to driving down the delays in these bookings. I would be delighted to chat further with the hon. Member to discuss the specific problems within her area.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

When driving tests came up at Transport questions in May, it was revealed that the wait time for a driving test on average was up, from 17 weeks in July 2024 to 22 weeks now. It has since been revealed that many test centres around the country have reached the maximum legal limit of a 24-week wait. Will the Minister acknowledge that for thousands of people up and down the country waiting for a driving test—waiting for that step on the ladder to get their first job or to college through the freedom of driving—it is simply not good enough for the Secretary of State to have pushed back the Government’s new target to fix this to 2026? Real people need real answers now, so will he redouble the efforts to get the wait time at least back down to the point it was at when the last Government left office?

[Simon Lightwood]

We inherited a broken system in which many learner drivers found themselves stuck in a frustrating limbo, unable to ditch their L-plates. We instructed the DVSA to take further measures this year, and we are beginning to see early signs of improvement. We promised more tests and we have delivered more tests. The DVSA carried out over 20,000 more tests between June and August this year, and the pass rate remains at the highest it has been since May 2021. There is still more to be done and we will do just that.

[Greg Smith]

The Minister is right that there is still more to be done—there is a lot more to be done. He inherited a broken system from his own predecessor in the Department for Transport, under whom the problem got significantly worse over the last year.

I do not think the Minister is listening to the country. I cannot be alone in having an inbox full of emails from constituents complaining about the wait time to get themselves or, indeed, their children a driving test. My constituent Sarah wrote:

“Young people’s work opportunities are significantly reduced by not being able to drive,”

particularly in rural England, in this case Steeple Claydon in my constituency. Sarah sets her alarm for 5.45 every day to try to secure a test, and the best she has managed is next February. Will the Minister apologise to everybody up and down the land who sets their alarm early because the Government are making the situation a lot worse?

[Simon Lightwood]

I hope the hon. Gentleman explained to his constituent the broken system that his party left for this country. We are absolutely determined to drive down waiting times. Thanks to the proactive measures taken by the Secretary of State we have, as I said, increased tests by 10,000 a month.

Pavement Parking

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on pavement parking, an issue that may seem mundane at first glance, but that, in reality, touches on safety, accessibility and dignity in every one of our communities.

Pavement parking is not just unsightly; it is downright dangerous. When cars mount pavements, they force pedestrians off the footway and into the road, directly into the flow of traffic. For many, that is inconvenient; for many others, it can be life-changing. For someone in a wheelchair, a single car blocking the pavement can mean a 10-minute diversion, or the frightening prospect of rolling into a busy road. For someone with a visual impairment, it can mean walking straight into the bonnet of a car—an obstruction they cannot anticipate. Carers supporting people with hidden disabilities—perhaps guiding an autistic child who finds traffic overwhelming, or pushing a specialist buggy—find themselves in exactly the same position: what ought to be a simple walk to the shops or to school can suddenly become an obstacle course.

Guide Dogs research tells us that 85% of people know that this issue is a danger for those with sight loss, and nearly three quarters say that it is common in their area. Local councillors, including my own in Buckinghamshire, hear directly from residents and overwhelmingly report that pavement parking creates a safety risk, with many saying that it is one of the issues raised with them most often.

Of course, as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), has already said, London has had a ban on pavement parking for many years, but the rules are far less clear outside our capital. Local councils can bring in restrictions through traffic regulation orders, and they have had permission to use standard signage without asking Whitehall for approval since 2011, but that system is patchwork, complex and slow.

That is why, in 2020, the last Conservative Government consulted on how to go further. More than 15,000 people responded. The consultation looked at a nationwide ban with sensible exemptions—recognising, for example, the realities of narrow rural lanes or terraced streets, where pavement parking has been part of the layout for decades. Yet here we are, nearly five years later, and there is still no formal response from the Department for Transport. Public opinion, though, could not be clearer: eight in 10 drivers want action. Two thirds see pavement parking in their neighbourhoods on a regular basis, and a third see it every single day.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am slightly baffled; I have been campaigning on this issue throughout my 10 years in this place, and the hon. Member’s Government were in power for almost the entirety of that time. Can he explain why the Tory Government did not make any improvements to pavement parking? Why is he pointing the finger at a Labour Government who clearly want to make a difference for all pedestrians?

[Greg Smith]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady. The Government have had a year to take action, and they have not. I have not been in the House as long as she has, but I was here in the last Parliament and I was a member of the Transport Committee for the entirety of it. I, too, sat around the horseshoe with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth, and indeed the Minister for some of that time. I certainly recognised the challenges of pavement parking and pushed for solutions in the last Parliament as well. I fully acknowledge that we are five years on, and that some of those years were under a Conservative Government, but action is required now. If we are to have a serious debate, the onus is on the present Government to come forward with the necessary actions.

One of the issues that I notice in my constituency is the challenge of pavement parking in a lot of our new build areas and estates, where the planning system has quite deliberately tried to restrict parking. Guess what? That has created chaos on the streets in its own right, because people still require the same number of cars to get about, particularly in rural communities. Someone cannot do the family shop for a family of five on the back of a bike.

We all recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. A blanket national ban is not going to be practical everywhere, but we cannot accept inertia. We cannot ask people with disabilities, carers or families to keep waiting while this problem goes unaddressed. I call on the Minister to come forward with practical steps and a realistic timeline, and then to commit to that and solve the problem.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill (Fourth sitting)

Greg Smith Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 17th July 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 8 calls on the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months on the merits of converting disused oil refineries and other existing industrial sites into sustainable aviation fuel production facilities—and there is an opportunity to have such a report early on. Many Members present, including, notably, the hon. Member for Falkirk, have spoken about the strength and possibilities of SAF to reinvigorate and reuse industrial sites.

The UK has several disused oil refineries and industrial sites, which already possess critical infrastructure—storage tanks, pipelines, grid connections—and are often located near skilled workforces familiar with complex industrial processes. That presents a real opportunity to repurpose existing assets, accelerating the deployment of SAF production, supporting local economies, and reducing the cost compared with greenfield sites, but we must proceed with a clear understanding of the technical feasibility, operational requirements and environmental considerations for such conversions.

Environmental remediation, site preparation and ensuring community support are complex challenges that require careful evaluation. The new clause would mandate a thorough, evidence-based report that would address such technical, economic and environmental factors, and include consultation of a wide range of stakeholders, including SAF producers, the oil and gas workforce, unions, environmental organisations, local authorities and academic experts. The findings will help the Government to shape policies and incentives that maximise the benefits of such conversions where appropriate. I do not think we can simply leave it to market mechanisms; the Government need to intervene here.

This is not about preserving the fossil fuel past, but transitioning our industrial heritage and workforce, and some of our dying economies, to a new sustainable future. The UK’s industrial regions deserve a just transition that leverages their existing strengths to help to power the green economy. The new clause would be a step towards securing the resilience and growth of a domestic SAF industry that can create good jobs, strengthen supply chains and reduce reliance on imports. I urge the Minister to welcome this practical proposal, accept the new clause and commit to a clear timeline for delivering the report. The future of UK aviation depends on not only ambitious targets but pragmatic steps to make those targets achievable and bring the country with us. The new clause would help us to take one such step.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

New clause 8 has considerable merit. It is always preferable where new industrial facilities are to be built—in this case for the production of sustainable aviation fuel—for those identified sites to have had former brownfield status and former industrial use. I have no argument with that element of the new clause.

The one note of caution I have on the new clause is that many of the existing sites—certainly oil refinery sites—are not necessarily located in the right places currently for certain SAF technologies. That includes the e-fuels and power-to-liquid solutions, which require, as part of the process, electrolysis and the creation of green hydrogen. Of course, if the hydrogen element that goes into making the SAF is not green hydrogen, the whole problem becomes rather academic—we could still make the fuel, but the reality is that it would not be as green as we want it to be. Those SAF production facilities, by definition, would need to be located in places with potential large-scale offshore wind, electricity production or, possibly, nuclear generation.

If we look across the world at such fuel plants that have been created, Porsche, for example, chose the hills of Chile to produce its particular fuel, because it can leverage off the wind power that it can get up there. In our country, Orkney seems to have been a popular site for harnessing the offshore wind technology available up there. While I fully support the principle that underpins the new clause—for many SAF production sites to be on former industrial or oil refinery sites—I simply wish to add the note of caution that they might not be suitable for every application and technology out there.

[Mike Kane]

On new clause 8, the hon. Member for Wimbledon is right to talk about deindustrialisation. Growing up in the 1970s, I saw the impacts of that, particularly on the east side of Manchester, with the chemical and mining industries being wiped out. In this day and age, we are still getting over that in my great city. I reassure him that we are supporting the SAF industry, in part, to grasp this opportunity for deindustrialised areas. Emerging SAF projects are often located on former industrial sites, and I remind the Committee that, if we do this right, our low-carbon fuels industry can support up to 15,000 jobs and £5 billion to the economy by 2050.

I also reassure the hon. Member that work is ongoing across Government on the future of our refineries. We are acting urgently in response to the deeply concerning news of insolvency at Prax Lindsey oil refinery, and have put £200 million into the National Wealth Fund to back investment at Grangemouth. I want that work to continue at pace, and am conscious that specific sites will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Commissioning an additional separate report would not be beneficial, and would risk delaying potential investment decisions. Given that, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

Thank you, Mr Western, for chairing the Committee. I also thank the Clerks, Hansard Reporters and Doorkeepers for overseeing proceedings. The Committee also benefited from the expertise of our witnesses and those who provided written evidence. As this is a hugely technical Bill and the world is watching us, I pay a massive tribute to the civil servants in my Department who worked on it.

I thank all hon. Members who made this issue a manifesto commitment at the general election. I thank the Opposition for supporting the Bill and for their valuable contributions and insights. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, and all other Committee members. I thank them for their expertise and insight, and for the broadly positive, collaborative nature that they brought to the Committee. We all want the SAF industry in this country to grow and succeed so that we secure our world-class aviation sector’s future. I look forward to further engagement with hon. Members on the Bill.

[Greg Smith]

I associate myself with the Minister’s thanks to everyone who has worked so hard on the Bill, particularly the civil servants; I welcomed the ability to discuss the Bill with them in a private briefing before Second Reading. I also thank the Doorkeepers, Hansard and the Clerks for ensuring that the Committee has run smoothly.

It is quite a pleasant experience to engage with a Bill in opposition when there is fundamental agreement on the direction of travel. The other Bill Committee of this Parliament on which I was shadow Minister was for the Employment Rights Bill, where we did not enjoy quite the same level of consensus, but to meet the challenges of decarbonising our aviation industry it is important that this Bill progresses rapidly.

However, I urge the Minister, who has been kind and engaged throughout the process, to continue to reflect on the points that I have raised in Committee and that the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), raised on Second Reading, as well as the many worthy points that the Liberal Democrats have raised. If we can keep going in the spirit of cross-party working and reflect on some of the points about UK intellectual property—making this a UK success story, making the UK a world leader and ensuring that the technologies that emerge genuinely do what they say they will—then I think all of Parliament, not just the Government, can be proud to push the Bill through.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.