HS2 Reset

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

I gently say to my hon. Friend that the Mayor of the West Midlands might have something to say about his great city being seen as the end of an extension to the London underground line. It is completely right that our two great cities—Birmingham and London—are connected with high-quality rail services. Although this is a difficult day in exposing the state of the project, I have no doubt that in time it will be a railway we can be proud of.

I also say to my hon. Friend that I am aware of forecast capacity constraints between Birmingham and Manchester and in other parts of the country. We are investing, through things such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade, in improving connectivity to other great cities in the north of England. We are determined to ensure that everyone, no matter where they live in the country, has an excellent public transport system that they can rely upon.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

My constituency has been devastated by roughly 26 miles of HS2, and I have consistently warned this House—during the previous Parliament and this—through the lens of the miserable experience on the ground in Buckinghamshire, about the reasons for the cost overruns, poor governance and everything else that the Secretary of State has highlighted in her statement today. If she must persist with this wrong project with a new delay, will she give a commitment to my constituents and the rest of the county of Buckinghamshire on how much longer they will have to live in misery as part of a building site? More importantly, will she look urgently at unlocking some of the mitigation funds that we are finding incredibly hard to access and get spent on the ground? That would be of some small, tiny comfort to my constituents who are living in misery.

[Heidi Alexander]

It is essential that we proceed as quickly as possible with the remaining civil engineering works that will have affected the hon. Member’s constituents to date. If he wishes to write to me with details of the problem he has experienced with accessing mitigation funds, I will raise that for him with the chief executive of HS2.

Hydrogen-powered Aviation

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) not only on securing the debate but on setting out the case for hydrogen aviation so clearly in his opening remarks. The Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill last week was but the precursor to this Westminster Hall debate—this debate was trailed in that one. I also congratulate all other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

It is a pleasure to speak for His Majesty’s Opposition in this important debate on the policies of the Government of the United Kingdom on hydrogen-powered aviation. Aviation is a sector that underpins global connectivity, international trade, and regional economic growth, but its long-term sustainability requires bold innovation, and a clear policy framework that supports low-carbon propulsion technologies while enabling British industry to lead.

Let me be clear: hydrogen is not a hypothetical solution. It is a practical, viable and strategically critical path forward for decarbonising flight. The UK has a golden opportunity to lead the world in this technology, not just by developing aircraft but by creating the entire hydrogen aviation value chain, from production and distribution to propulsion and maintenance. When combusted purely, hydrogen emits only water vapour, unlike kerosene, obviously, which produces carbon dioxide. Moreover, unlike battery electric aircraft, hydrogen aviation scales better over distance and payload, making it suitable for not just short-term hops but future regional and potentially transcontinental routes. That is not only good for the planet, but good for Britain.

According to the Aerospace Technology Institute, the UK could generate up to £34 billion in GVA and support 60,000 jobs by 2050 through hydrogen powered aviation. That is thousands of skilled engineering, manufacturing and research and development roles across the country. These areas stand to benefit significantly from hydrogen aircraft production, airport infrastructure retrofitting and fuel supply chain development. In Bristol and Gloucestershire, Airbus and GKN Aerospace are already laying the groundwork for hydrogen propulsion and systems integration. In the midlands, particularly in Derby and Coventry, Rolls-Royce is developing hydrogen combustion engines in work that has the potential to sustain and expand our world leading turbo machinery industry. In Teesside, the Conservative Government-designated hydrogen transport hub is pioneering fuel production and logistics, with Teesside international airport poised to become a hydrogen aviation testbed. In Scotland, Prestwick airport is leading hydrogen aircraft trials and Aberdeen is already a recognised centre for hydrogen fuel development. Belfast, home to Spirit AeroSystems, is well positioned to play a central role in manufacturing structural components for the hydrogen aircraft of the future.

A successful future-focused aviation sector means more than environmental progress; it means greater reliability and connectivity for passengers, and competitive ticket prices driven by fuel efficiency. For business, it means faster, lower emission logistics, better access to export markets and the growth of regional airports as hubs for commerce and investment. There is an important distinction to be made here, and one that we in this place must be honest about. While hydrogen fuel cells offer lower energy losses and may suit smaller aircraft or drones, it is pure hydrogen combustion that offers the best chance of achieving decarbonisation for medium to large aircraft, especially within the constraints of airframe weight and power density. Combustion also enables more rapid retrofit of existing aircraft designs and is more compatible with current maintenance ecosystems and airport infrastructure. Simply put, hydrogen combustion is the most practical, scalable route for commercial aviation and the UK should be focusing investment accordingly.

It was the Conservatives in government who recognised that early on. Under the jet zero strategy established in 2022, we committed funding to Project FlyZero, supported by trials by ZeroAvia and Rolls-Royce. We ringfenced funding for hydrogen infrastructure at UK airports. We laid the groundwork for the SAF price mechanism that this current Government is carrying through with the SAF Bill. We established the hydrogen transport hub in Teesside, where our fantastic mayor Ben Houchen, now Lord Houchen, oversaw a combined £23 million funding package to kick-start the local hydrogen-based economy. We also made Britain one of the first countries to support regulatory frameworks for hydrogen-powered flight trials.

Turning to the new Government, the mantle has clearly democratically passed to them, and the test on whether hydrogen aviation can succeed lies with them. The promised expansion of the aerospace growth partnership, sadly, has been watered down. The Aerospace Technology Institute’s hydrogen propulsion roadmap seems to have stalled, and companies at the cutting edge, from Cranfield to Kemble to Prestwick, report difficulty in accessing follow-on support, despite clear potential and private co-investment. The Government must stop conflating hydrogen policy with overreliance on electric-only solutions, which simply cannot be scaled to long-haul aviation. A narrow vision such as that would be misguided; it is actively stifling British leadership in this vital sector. If we want to lead the next aviation revolution to match our leadership in jet engines with leadership in zero carbon propulsion, then ambition must be matched by action. That means committing long-term funding for hydrogen combustion propulsion research and development, providing meaningful and long-term support for airport hydrogen infrastructure trials, especially in regional hubs, accelerating the certification and regulatory pathway for hydrogen aircraft and aligning hydrogen production strategies with the wider UK aviation sector.

The hydrogen age is not coming. It is here, and unless the Government correct course, the opportunity to lead it will pass us by. The last Conservative Government laid the foundations for hydrogen-powered aviation. I very much hope that this Government, and this Minister, do not allow the UK to lose that legacy through indecision. I challenge the Minister, who is very thoughtful on this subject and has the best interests of aviation at heart, to ensure that hydrogen is part of that future.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Before I begin, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, with respect to a donation from P1 Fuels. Although it does not make aviation fuel, it was in the synthetics business, and—as the Minister well knows—I ran a classic Land Rover on that fuel last summer to prove the point that this stuff works.

The test that net zero must meet is that all our constituents must still be able to do everything they do today—be it fly on holiday, drive, or get a ferry or anything else that runs on a liquid hydrocarbon—and that businesses must still be able to move goods around the world and trade at the same price as today, or for an equivalent price, just greener. In that, technology is our friend, as is the innovation we see—particularly on these shores, but also innovation that is happening abroad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), the shadow Secretary of State, said earlier in the debate, the Opposition do not seek to divide the House on Second Reading. This Bill is an extension of the previous Government’s agenda in this regard, and we fully recognise the need to replace fossil fuels over time and, in this instance, to replace aviation fuel with a cleaner, greener alternative. However, there will be key questions that the House should look at as this Bill goes through Committee and its later stages, which do need answers. We have heard some of those questions throughout this afternoon’s debate.

We have had a good and wide-ranging debate, with very little deviation from the core consensus that sits underneath the Bill. On the Conservative Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made the important point that aviation will be critical to get the tourists into the new Universal theme park in Bedfordshire when it eventually opens. He also focused on the important role that Cranfield University and industry in his constituency are playing—they are providing part of the solution to the problem that this Bill seeks to support and deliver. Equally, he asked the legitimate question of how the United Kingdom mechanism and mandate compare with those overseas, which I hope the Minister will reflect on in his winding-up speech.

On the Government Benches, the chairman of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), spoke well and in an informed way on this subject. She and I both served on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and we both worked on the inquiry and report on the fuels of the future that the Committee produced during that Parliament. She rightly made good points about the supply of waste for SAF technology and the trade-off with energy from waste facilities, for example. There will have to be some conversations within Government, particularly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, about the way in which so many councils, including my own in Buckinghamshire, now send all general waste to an energy from waste facility. Those incinerators and facilities have been financed through multi-decade deals, and if we are to get that waste into SAF production, some of those deals will inevitably have to be undone or renegotiated. Who will bear the cost of that?

The hon. Lady equally raised an important point about bioethanol—I do not know whether it was just shadow Ministers who received an email from Vivergo Fuels this week, or whether it was all Members of the House. That email gave a pretty stark warning, particularly about the impact of the US trade deal that the Government have done on the bioethanol space. Essentially, it warned that that deal could completely undermine the UK bioethanol industry. That is a serious concern that the Department for Transport and the Department for Business and Trade will have to work out if we are to have domestic bioethanol production, as much for sustainable aviation fuel as for petrol. We largely all fill up—unless we have classic cars—with E10 at the pump. E5 is still 5% bioethanol. As this Bill passes through the House and as the petrol debate for road cars moves on, that serious question will have to be answered. When we get a warning from industry as stark as the one from Vivergo Fuels, it needs to be addressed.

The hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) mentioned the role of hydrogen in the mix, and I look forward to debating that with him when he has a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall next week, I think. He is absolutely right that there are other technologies and other fuels out there. The hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) correctly pointed out that there can be no net zero without many of the elements of this Bill. The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke passionately about Doncaster airport and the sustainable future that the Bill will help bring about.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) spoke in support of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) spoke in an informed way about SAF production, which forms such an important part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) rightly spoke of the innovative landscape, although the drone taxis did worry me a little bit—I am not sure we have completely got goods being delivered properly by drones yet, so we should do that before we start putting people in them. Equally, she rightly spoke about the world-leading engineering jobs that will be created.

The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) slightly broke the consensus, but he was entirely right to speak up for his constituents and his constituency interests so passionately. I think there is a legitimate debate about the refineries that we have lost, the refineries that we still have and how this debate intersects with them.

I will not dwell too much on the puns of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). I thought he was a teacher before he entered this House, but perhaps he also wrote for Bobby Davro, given some of the puns he came up with.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

For the benefit of younger Members, Bobby Davro was a comedian.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman shows my age, and no doubt his own, with that sedentary interjection.

The hon. Member for Harlow was right to focus on the skills agenda that underpins this legislation, on which I do not think we have heard so much from the Government. Likewise, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) rightly pointed out the lived experience of Jet2 and the impact on cargo. We have heard a lot in this debate about moving people around the country and the world using aviation, but not so much about cargo, which is an equally important part of our role as a global trading nation. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), putting aside his little geek-off with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), was right to focus on that agenda of moving goods as well as people.

We also heard from Teesside, with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). In fact, I am a little worried. This morning I was in Westminster Hall with the hon. Member for Stockton North, for a debate on the space industry, in which I agreed with every word he said, and I am a bit nervous to say that I agreed with him this afternoon, too. That does not often happen in this House, but he was absolutely right that all our constituents work hard and save hard. They want that family holiday or that weekend away or whatever it is every single year, and it would be a gross dereliction of duty for any of us to lumber them with higher airfares or to try to make their holidays more expensive. That is not what any of them send any of us here to do; they want us to ensure that they can still live their lives in the way they wish.

Briefly, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam warned us that he might be boring but, uncharacteristically for a Liberal Democrat, he actually was not. [Laughter.] I very much enjoyed his speech and the knowledge that he brought from his 16 years of work in the aviation sector. The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) was equally right to focus on another matter that a few Members have raised in the debate: the use of SAF by our armed forces, particular the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.

The use of technology, from fuels derived from waste and feedstock to pure synthetics, is where I think much of the debate will go in the coming years. In fact, the technology to enable us to move on from those feedstock and waste-derived fuels already exists. In 2021 the RAF flew a plane not on a blend of SAF, but on 100% synthetic fuel made right here in the United Kingdom by a company called Zero Petroleum, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis).

Let me now turn to a part of the agenda on which I think we will need to have a conversation when the Bill goes into Committee. The Bill gives no detail on the approach to be taken regarding the specifics of the contracting between the producer and the counterparty, the Government contractor for the strike price. In the background material, especially that which can be found in the Government’s response to the consultation on the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, the ambitions are largely there, and we are not critical of the ambitions that sit within that document, but it might be beneficial to be sure that the contracting will follow those ambitions.

Given that the SAF mandate already in force includes a ringfenced mandate for an electro-sustainable aviation fuel quota, it is critical that eSAF projects are supported equally within the revenue certainty mechanism. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF and eSAF, and local production as created by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of SAF and eSAF, as that not only retains revenue within the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. Sadly, a great many projects supported by grants from the Advanced Fuels Fund are using foreign technology.

Perhaps I could suggest that the Government reflect, ahead of the Committee stage, on the possibility of adding another ambition to those that they have already set out: namely, to reward or incentivise the use of UK technology in projects supported by the revenue support mechanism. The House may be surprised to know that, despite the various programmes of UK Government support for SAF and eSAF, AFF grants, SAF mandates and the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, no UK Government bodies are mandated to support the development of the core technologies of fuel synthesis.

We have a great tradition of research and development in this country. Companies such as Zero Petroleum have been funded entirely by private capital—which is largely a good thing—and also through some of their RAF and Ministry of Defence contracts, for different reasons. Notably, however, the Aerospace Technology Institute is the Government-funded body that should be supporting SAF and eSAF manufacturing technology. It supports everything else, including hydrogen and electric aircraft, but, bizarrely, it is not permitted to fund SAF and eSAF technology programmes. That is a huge misalignment in the strategy, which I hope the Minister can address.

I have a few key questions for the Minister, and he is showing great enthusiasm about answering them. We will be spending three days in Committee, so there will be many more to come.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Only three?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

We can negotiate more, I am sure. [Interruption.] The less we hear about the hon. Gentleman’s date at Heathrow, the better.

Are the Government able to outline their level of certainty about the costs to taxpayers? Is there confidence that the levy imposed on fuel suppliers will not lead to significant rises in ticket prices? In other words, what will ensure that the £1.50 variance in either direction is not a hope, not a dream and not a best-case scenario, but a reality about air fares?

It would also be helpful if details could be provided about the expected cost of importing SAF in comparison with the cost of producing it in the United Kingdom. If we are imposing costs on passengers through levies, is it expected that SAF can be produced more cheaply in other regions, or is the policy focused primarily on energy security? As I have said, our view is that we should make the fuel right here in the United Kingdom using our technology, but in order to get the right price from our technology in the UK, it is important that we understand the market overseas.

Can the Minister outline what proportion of the SAF used in the UK is expected to be produced domestically in the first instance? What would constitute success in the first iterations? The Government have suggested that financing a plant costs between £600 million and £2 billion. From a regulatory perspective, what can be done to ensure that plants fall towards the lower end of that cost range?

There are many questions to be answered in getting the Bill right. We want to get it right, and we want to see sustainable aviation fuel used in our aircraft. We will not divide the House today, but the test, as always, is this: have the Government got it right?

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

At the Transport Committee in April, the Secretary of State admitted that under Labour’s watch,

“waiting times for access to driving tests hit new highs.”

For all the talk of a new plan, she then admitted that the Government only aim to reduce driving test waiting times to seven weeks by “summer next year”. That is no good for young people waiting, needing the freedom to drive to get to college or work now, is it? When will the Government see the real urgency for real people and pick up the pace?

[Lilian Greenwood]

We are acting to fix the mess that the shadow Minister’s Government left behind. Our seven-point plan is being implemented, and last month, the Secretary of State announced additional measures. We are determined to succeed where the last Government failed.

[Greg Smith]

I do not think the Minister has got the memo that she is in charge now. The Government cannot hide behind the same old excuses and try to blame others, as average test volumes are now lower—on a month-by-month basis—than they were in the previous two years. In quarter 1 alone, nearly 100,000 fewer tests were conducted than in the same period in 2024. The average waiting time for a driving test in the UK sits at 22 weeks—over five months. That is up from 17.1 weeks in July 2024 and 20.4 weeks in February 2025. For all the Government’s promises, there has been no actual delivery. Why has capacity not increased or, at the very least, stayed the same as when we were in charge?

[Lilian Greenwood]

The hon. Gentleman is not listening. We are implementing the seven-point plan, but turning around the mess and the problems that the Conservatives left us takes time. I am determined that we will see the results, that waiting times will come down and that we will support learner drivers. It cannot be done overnight when we are trying to fix 14 years of mess.

Road Safety and Active Travel to School

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage—and possibly for the Netherlands—(Olly Glover) on securing this important debate. In just an hour of Westminster Hall, we have had many contributions, far more than normal, including from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who I served on the Transport Committee with in the last Parliament, and who of course now chairs that Committee, and from the hon. Members for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and, of course, my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo).

I saved that one for last because the hon. Member for Henley and Thame spoke of the Haddenham and Thame greenway, which I have always supported. A significant chunk of it falls in my Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, from the village of Haddenham through to the Oxfordshire border. I believe we have a meeting coming up to discuss how to progress that. It is a project that should go ahead, for many of the good reasons that have been outlined by others in this afternoon’s debate, but it has a potted history of falling over at various hurdles, most recently as we came out of the pandemic. I gently say that it was actually Oxfordshire that pulled the funding plug on the project at that point, but I am delighted that it is back on track and that we are making progress.

The importance of road safety and how we improve it is something that we should all consider very carefully. There are always improvements that can be made to road safety, not least outside schools, and it is important that we reflect on those tragedies that some Members have spoken about that have occurred outside schools. Any death or injury of a child is one too many, and we must all take steps to prevent those. Indeed, nowhere is road safety more important than outside schools. To declare an interest of sorts, with three children—two at primary school and the youngest due to start primary school this coming September—it is something that I consider very carefully.

It is through that rural lens that I will make my first comments. It is undoubtedly the case that in many rural communities, no matter how much parents, or indeed the children themselves, may want to cycle or walk, the practical realities of not having a school in every village, of 60 mph country lanes with no pavements connecting villages, often going some distance, mean that many parents simply have no choice but to insist that they drive their children to school or that their children get the bus—where such a thing is still available. Indeed, although I do not want to set off the grammar school debate, in counties such as Buckinghamshire that have grammar schools, there is some considerable distance for that age cohort of pupils to travel—going from the edge of the county to get to the grammars in Aylesbury or Amersham, for example—where cycling or walking simply would not be practical.

While I want to encourage those who wish to cycle or walk to school, for some, driving is a necessity due to time. People have busy lives; all our constituents have busy lives; we have busy lives. To accompany a child, particularly of primary school age, on a walk or cycle to school may take significant time out of that parent’s, carer’s or guardian’s day—time that they may not have. It is therefore important for us not to judge those parents who make the choice to get their children to school by a different route.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I hope the Opposition spokesperson can do me a favour: a charity in my constituency headed by David Dixon, the bicycle mayor for Tynedale, and supported by No. 28 Community House in Hexham, is trying to get Northumberland county council to support a pretty innovative cycle to school initiative in Hexham. However, it is falling on deaf ears with the Tory group in Northumberland County Hall. Could the hon. Gentleman possibly have a word with some of his colleagues there?

[Greg Smith]

I think I am grateful for that intervention. I am not sure whether I have any contacts in the Conservative group on the hon. Gentleman’s council, but I will gladly see if I can get that message passed to them.

In the limited time we have available, I would like the Minister, when she sums up, to consider a few practical points about how we might start making this problem better. I will start with getting the basics right. When I drop my middle child to school—a rural primary school in a village—I watch a particular taxi driver pull up on the zig-zag lines every single morning. The dirty look I give him does not appear to be doing very well in stopping that behaviour. If we cannot enforce the basic rules that we already have outside schools, what hope do we have of making it better? I ask the Minister to reflect on how we can better enforce those rules and implement the important points that many hon. Members made about yellow line parking and pavement parking.

I also ask her to consider the physical infrastructure near schools, such as narrowing sight lines, which force drivers to slow down; there is a lot of evidence out there about those and other physical infrastructure such as chicanes. On the question of speed—I promise that I will draw to a conclusion very quickly, Mrs Hobhouse—we have heard examples from the Netherlands, but I have seen examples in France and some parts of the USA of variable speed limits outside schools at drop-off times. Can that be considered in this country, perhaps to answer the very good challenge laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth)? There is a lot more that can be done in this area, and I urge the Minister to get on with it.

Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as it relates to the use of synthetic fuel donated for my summer surgery tour last August.

My concerns about this statutory instrument, unlike my concerns about other recent pieces of parliamentary business, are narrow, which means—this will be a relief to Members from across the House, I have no doubt—that my remarks will be brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have never had such a big cheer.

I thank the Government for bringing forward sensible reforms, which will decrease the regulatory burden and provide more flexibility for category B licence holders. Many of the reforms are sensible steps that were widely supported in the consultation during the last Parliament. It is unfortunate, but unsurprising, that the Government’s so-called plan for change did not involve scrapping the limitations in this statutory instrument. Narrowing the scope of eligible vehicles from alternatively fuelled vehicles to zero emission vehicles is a mistake that cannot be ignored. As we transition to new technologies, we as a country must be less prescriptive. Too often, Governments want to tell industry and innovators what to do, and I am afraid that the restrictive nature of this measure risks hampering our country’s attempts to reduce emissions.

Let me be clear: my concerns are not a judgment on whether the Government are right or wrong to suggest that zero emission vehicles will be most effective. The issue is rather that limiting the measure’s scope to a smaller subset of non-petrol and non-diesel fuels makes them far too narrow.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the regulations could be of serious detriment to the UK’s synthetic biology research community? Significant effort is going into the creation of engineered bugs that can turn renewable matter, such as sugar cane, into fuel for internal combustion engines. In a circular economy, that would represent a completely renewable source of energy that would be carbon neutral throughout its entire life cycle.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point, which I have been making for many years. I certainly did so during my time on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and outside this place, as I have engaged with the classic car sector and all parts of the industry. He is right that there is a big innovative drive for sustainable fuels, if I can call them that. Some of them derive from feedstocks, others from waste matter, and they work in the internal combustion engines that we already have—in jet engines as well as motor vehicle engines.

There are also entirely man-made synthetic fuels that require no such feedstocks. They do not require food to be grown in order to be burned. There are innovators on that in this country and all over the world. For example, Zero Petroleum, just next door to my constituency—just over the Oxfordshire border at Bicester Heritage—has developed a fuel that works in every jet engine and every internal combustion engine that we enjoy today. It is entirely man-made; it is literally made out of air and water. It is a mixture of green hydrogen with atmospheric carbon capture. However, the ZEV mandate and the approach that the Government are taking in this statutory instrument rule that technology out of order, because there is still carbon at the tailpipe. The regulations ignore the fact that the carbon at the tailpipe is the same volume of carbon that is captured out of the atmosphere to make the next lot of fuel. In fact, a whole-system analysis shows that technology to be carbon-neutral—one volume of carbon is in a perpetual cycle. However, no matter how much Ministers and the Government claim to be technologically neutral, the test at the tailpipe, and the test in this statutory instrument, which explicitly refers to zero emission vehicles, rather than alternatively fuelled vehicles, do in fact mean that the Government pick a technological winner at every step, rather than letting our great innovators innovate.

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

I am interested to hear about the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and experience of alternative fuels. He perhaps understands this statutory instrument better than I do, but I understood that it was about the weight of vehicles, and that an alternative fuel going through the internal combustion engine does not result in additional weight. Will any of the technologies that he is describing result in additional weight, and might they therefore fall foul of the limits in the regulations?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is fundamentally about weight, but on the point about synthetic fuel, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) drew me on to a moment ago—I rarely need asking twice, given the number of years I have spent talking about this—it is true that there would not be an addition of weight. However, there would be for some alternatively fuelled systems. For example, in the case of hydrogen, the fuel tanks have to be much more robust. They certainly are in a hydrogen combustion vehicle, of which there are very few. As far as I understand it, it is only JCB that has developed the technology for a construction plant, but there could be an application to road vehicles in the future. Hydrogen runs at about 700 bar in the fuel tank, so we obviously would not put it in an existing car’s fuel tank; it simply could not take the pressure. There would be weight implications for such a system.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

It is interesting, when sitting in the Chamber, to hear colleagues’ expertise on subjects that we did not know they had expertise in. I wish to draw my hon. Friend back to a slightly different subject, which he was beginning to touch on. Electric vehicles, which of course have batteries, tend to be far heavier than equivalent vehicles with an internal combustion engine. Some of the vehicle combinations that the Minister talked about—for example, he mentioned a vehicle and a trailer not exceeding 7 tonnes gross vehicle weight—would vary in weight depending on whether the car or van was electric. That might affect a person’s decision to change from a vehicle with an internal combustion engine to an electric vehicle.

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend makes an accurate point. In some ways, the statutory instrument seeks to address that point. However, he is right that when real people out there in the country make choices on their vehicles, they will make practical decisions such as the one outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), rather than looking at some of the other things the Government from time to time wish they were thinking about when they make those choices.

To make rapid progress, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the consultation was conducted, 25% of respondents —I accept that that is only a quarter—favoured retaining alternatively fuelled vehicles on the basis of the extra flexibility offered by the current alternative fuels definition, particularly for hard-to-transition use cases. That is a small subset, but we risk limiting the capability of industry and technology if we close down the possibility of innovation. There may be occasions when the additional weight would be beneficial to those alternative fuels. However, without flexibility we will not know the answer. Those 25% will have to maintain the status quo. However, we believe we must let the technology decide, not the Government, to ensure that those hard use cases are not abandoned.

For those who may not be aware, the Government have already withdrawn this SI to correct a drafting error. All the Opposition are asking is for them to do exactly the same: amend the error, bring back the changes, and allow the reductions in regulation without the restrictions on alternative fuels. That is not only the right approach, but the fair one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I add my birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Significantly muddled messages are being sent to the aviation sector. On the one hand, the Climate Change Committee, upon whose altar the Government appear to worship, wants flights to fall by 2030, which is a massive blow to our aviation sector, while the Government equally say that they want growth and that they want to expand airports. Who is going to win? Will Ministers stand up to the Climate Change Committee or are we just going to end up with bigger, emptier airports?

[Mike Kane]

The Climate Change Committee advises; we decide. We are not going to take any lectures on tough decisions. I remember when the former Member for Uxbridge was Foreign Secretary in 2018, he concocted a trip to Kabul to avoid a debate on expansion plans for Heathrow. We are getting on with growing aviation in this country.

[Greg Smith]

If it is tough decisions the Minister wants, I invite him to look at what happened in the Budget of broken promises. Air passenger duty went up significantly. For example, a couple flying to New York will pay £204 in tax. That is a 16% increase. Does the Minister not see that he needs to stand up to the Treasury if he is going to stand up for the aviation sector? Otherwise he is doing what socialists always do: tax growth out of existence.

[Mike Kane]

I enjoy the hon. Member trying to polarise the Chamber. He is sort of all right at it, but we are getting on with decisions around Luton, Stansted, Heathrow and growing the aviation sector. Yes, tax is an important element, but in the past two months we have seen the biggest demand ever—even before the pandemic—in people wanting to fly. That is a testament to the work we are doing in Government to get on with the decisions that should have been taken years ago.

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.