Rail Performance
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Haigh
The truth is that the previous Government deliberately provoked and prolonged that strike, the longest in the history of our railways. They budgeted for a pay settlement not far off where we landed, and that pay settlement has already paid for itself through increased revenue and improved services for passengers.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Chiltern Railways was absent from the Secretary of State’s statement, but when it comes to rail performance, for my constituents —both those on the Chiltern main line and those on the Aylesbury branch—daily overcrowding is a reality, with passengers often being left on the platform. Given that the previous Government stepped up, with a commitment to ensuring that Chiltern got more rolling stock to tackle the overcrowding challenges, will the Secretary of State make it a double priority to get Chiltern those extra trains and end this overcrowding?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Chiltern was the worst-performing operator last year, in terms of the reduction in punctuality, which further makes the case for public ownership. The previous Government made lots of commitments, few of which were funded, but I will take that question away and determine where the rolling stock order is.
Roadworks: Journey Times
Greg Smith Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) on securing this important debate.
The consensual nature of the debate shows that if there is one thing on which we on the Opposition Benches and those in His Majesty’s Government can agree, it is that nobody likes road closures and traffic jams and the misery that comes with them. In urban and suburban areas, they often mean unwanted congestion and pollution. As the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) said, they often mean delays not just for private motorists but for buses and hauliers. I gently suggest to him that after this afternoon’s Budget and the Chancellor increasing bus fares from the £2 cap that we brought in, people will be paying more to sit on the bus in a traffic jam under a Labour Government.
In rural areas such as my Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, and that of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), a 100-yard road closure can often mean a 5 to 10-mile diversion. That is before I even start talking about Government-sponsored programmes such as High Speed 2, for which the road closures seem to go on indefinitely and forever. Fixing that is in the Government’s gift. Likewise, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) about the intolerable problems on the A77 and A75, which the Scottish Government simply must fix.
Of course, in some cases road closures are not necessarily a bad thing—they are the result of getting things done—but how we manage them is important. Utility companies must be held to account. Whether action is taken by local government or by national Government through National Highways or another agency, it must be taken responsibly. The relevant authorities must remember that they are causing significant inconvenience to real people, their businesses, their school runs and their trips to the doctor, hospital or other medical appointments. If we can manage the situation, everybody will be much happier.
Let us not forget that it is only through economic growth that car ownership, and indeed other forms of transport, became affordable and grew for many. As part of our plan for drivers, the previous Government took action—we can discuss how to go further—on the critical problem of road closures that stick around for longer than necessary. We introduced a performance-based street works regime to ensure that utility companies resurfaced roads to the best possible standard, and a lane rental scheme, through which utility companies can be charged up to £2,500 a day for street works. That programme enabled the delivery of more than 2 million street works between 2022 and 2023.
In January, the previous Government launched a street works consultation, the results of which were clear. We therefore doubled fines in some instances from £500 to £1,000 for utility companies found to have breached the conditions of their jobs. We introduced charges of £10,000 a day for companies if their works overrun into weekends and bank holidays, which are the busiest days on the road network. We gave a direction for at least 50% of the money generated by lane rental schemes to be used for the improvement of roads and the repair of potholes. That money is already filtering down to local authorities.
In my own constituency, Buckinghamshire council’s “pothole pro” is making light work of what has historically been an incredibly time-consuming and labour-intensive task. The pothole pro effectively recycles and reuses damaged tarmac for resurfacing works, and roads are therefore being fixed more quickly and efficiently. That ultimately saves taxpayer money and reduces the time that people spend stuck in traffic or diverting around road closures. Technology is our friend. It can get repairs done so much quicker.
Conservatives are firmly on the side of drivers. What will the Minister and the Government do to improve the experience of Britain’s motorists, those who travel on our buses and that those who require the use of the road network to make deliveries and to get their goods around the country? What will the Minister do to meet the challenges set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne? What reforms will the Government introduce to build on what is already in place to hold those who dig up our roads to account?
It would be a good start for the Government to support the ten-minute rule Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), which the Opposition already support. That would bring about real action to improve the lot of all motorists. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s stance on that Bill, which we also saw in the previous Parliament? Britain’s motorists deserve to know.
The state of our roads is important, as right hon. and hon. Members have said. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government will maintain the £4.7 billion of funding, much of which was to be used to fill potholes across the north and the midlands over the next seven years, that the previous Government put in place in February through the local transport fund? Will it be put to good use in the way that the previous Government intended? Will the Government retain the £8.3 billion of funding for highways maintenance, which was announced in October 2023 in “Network North” and should last until 2033?
Will the new Labour Government continue that exact amount of spending? I fear that the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget today of £500 million for potholes will simply not touch the sides of the problem we face as a country. Looking at my own constituency, where Buckinghamshire council has a £105 million road repair fund for one county alone, I do not think that that £500 million sum of money will go far enough to challenge and fix the problems facing Britain’s motorists. It seems that both sides of the House agree on the problem. Labour is now in government; will the Minister confirm precisely what it will do?
Draft Vehicle Drivers (Certificates of Professional Competence) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Greg Smith Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
Although the draft regulations may be touted as innovative legislation, I am sure the Minister will be the first to accept that they were in fact the product of successive Conservative Governments, who, following our exit from the European Union, took the decision to simplify regulations for our hard-working hauliers by asking the industry what it needed to thrive, while of course ensuring the high standards of vehicle and driver safety that have always been upheld and enhanced. The draft regulations are a culmination of that process. Indeed, the previous Minister, Guy Opperman, is listed in the explanatory memorandum as having signed the declaration on the draft regulations. Therefore, as the previous Government would have laid this instrument anyway, the official Opposition will clearly not divide the Committee today.
The regulations deliver is the long sought-after flexibility that the industry needs to ensure that safety standards remain among the best in the world—all thanks to the work of the previous Government over the last few years. Hauliers will welcome options made available by the split between UK and international training programmes, and the means through which training is delivered—above all, the option to complete a course over a series of half days rather than full days.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us why one critical element—the incentive for hauliers to push the international training programme as a viable option for drivers—has been omitted from the regulations, risking the available pool of drivers for overseas work by essentially making that training an opt-in part of the job. Combined with the rumoured end to the previous Government’s fuel duty freeze, which has been critical to hauliers since its introduction by the Conservatives in 2011—if the rise goes ahead, hauliers estimate it could cost their businesses over £185 million a year—we must ask: who is really standing up for our hauliers and championing the vital role that they play in our economy?
I will simply end by saying that it is only because of our exit from the European Union that any of this is possible in the first place. While the Labour party in opposition sat on their hands without making any real contribution to the haulage sector, blaming Brexit for every challenge the sector has faced in recent years, it was Conservatives in government who took steps—including drafting the very regulations before us today—to support hauliers on terms that were right for the United Kingdom, not for the European Union. Although we welcome the regulations, I gently ask the Minister: what are the Government offering the haulage sector that is new?
Draft Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (Amendment) Order 2024
Greg Smith Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The draft order, as the Minister rightly says, is very technical in nature and will make few changes to the 2023 order. For the most part, it will simply bring the whole of our country under one set of rules by correcting the understandable omission of Northern Ireland from the original order. In the silo in which they are presented, the changes being made are broadly uncontroversial. The official Opposition will therefore not seek to divide the Committee today.
What is slightly more controversial, however, is the limit of the order and the wider questions that it poses about the Government’s approach to the ZEV mandate, our domestic automotive sector and the transition to de-fossilised and decarbonised forms of private transport. The Labour party had previously been clear that it wished to reverse the Conservative Government’s practical, pragmatic and sensible delay from 2030 to 2035 of the banning of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, yet the draft order will do no such thing: it leaves the 2035 date intact. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are leaving the 2035 date in place, which would be sensible, or whether we are set to see more orders coming forward? If so, will they come with a wider debate in the main Chamber?
What of hybrids? There is much talk in the media, but little actual legislation or rule making is coming forward. I gently ask the Minister to give the Committee and the wider House clarity in that regard.
Certainty is important for consumers and manufacturers alike, but the draft order will give neither any confidence about the detail of the Government’s intended direction of travel. That uncertainty is playing out in the real world: in real sales numbers, in real demand, particularly for battery electric vehicles, and in uncertainty for our great innovators at home and overseas, where they are pioneering technologies around other forms of fuel, hydrogen and synthetics.
It is a reality that consumers are turning their backs on battery electric vehicles. Taking fleet sales out of the picture, EVs are just not selling. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says that year-to-date private battery electric vehicle demand remains down 6.3%. Robert Forrester, chief executive of Vertu Motors, has observed that manufacturers are delaying deliveries of cars until next year, fearing that immediate deliveries would cause them to exceed the Government’s set quotas. In July, Stellantis announced that it would review its manufacturing footprint in the United Kingdom.
Can the Minister explain why the draft order does so little? It is just tinkering at the edges, with no practical steps to solve the real-world problems that we face. Can he confirm what the Government’s actual plans are to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel internal combustion engine cars? Is there even a plan? What confidence can he give to motorists and car manufacturers alike that the Government value—in a de-fossilised, decarbonised way—the freedom to drive?
Driving Test Availability
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Sir Roger, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today and I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) on securing this important debate.
Like other Members who have spoken this afternoon, I see the impact of this issue every week in my own inbox. Indeed, I saw it in the last Parliament, during the four and a half years that I spent on the Transport Committee, examining this issue as it evolved, particularly through the pandemic and the post-pandemic period.
Teenagers wait for months and sometimes over a year to get a driving test. People who have come to the United Kingdom to work also find themselves stuck in limbo, waiting for a test. I see the worrying knock-on effects for social and economic mobility for young people, particularly in rural areas such as mine in Mid Buckinghamshire, where freedom and opportunity very often come with the keys to a car and the ability to drive it.
As other Members have already mentioned, in rural areas public transport is often not a viable option for many journeys. Young people can be locked out of opportunities, even those within short distances of their own homes. Despite being qualified, young tradespeople—plumbers, electricians, carpenters and builders—cannot do their job without a car or a van. That creates a shortage in the local area, which in turn creates inflation for homeowners who cannot source labour for weeks or even months. It is not just individuals who suffer. I also see the impact on communities of young people and others who are stuck at home, unable to support elderly relatives and family members who require care. In some cases, they are unable to respond to a family emergency that could be a matter of life and death.
It is simply not tenable to stand by and let the situation continue, not when, as the RAC reports, unofficial websites are exploiting learner drivers to the tune of hundreds of pounds, which is more than three or four times the cost of an official DVSA booking. Other third parties are profiting from the backlog through cancellation alert schemes and apps that charge users a one-off fee to receive alerts every time a slot becomes available sooner than their original test booking. Sign-up fees can set drivers back nearly twice the amount of an official test, with VIP action and VIP packages. This problem requires very firm action.
As Government Members have criticised the previous Government, I will mention the fact that post-pandemic the Conservative Government took clear action. By the end of 2022, we had opened up nearly 10% more driving tests every week than had been the case before the pandemic, but despite the DVSA making 1 million extra tests available since the pandemic—1 million extra tests—waiting times have remained stubbornly high. That is partly because of the growing economy that the new Government have inherited and the demand that that growth has created for new tests—those are not my words, but the words of the chief executive of the DVSA.
A huge amount of work needs to be done, but I am concerned that we have seen frighteningly little urgency from the new Government to sort the problem out. Just last week at transport questions, the Secretary of State for Transport responded to a question about the crisis by suggesting that examiners would simply be deployed to areas with higher waiting times from areas with lower waiting times. If that is the extent of this Government’s plan—to move examiners around like a game of whack-a-mole—the backlogs will be going nowhere. We need to increase capacity, but according to the DVSA one of the main contributing factors to the lack of tests is “sustained industrial action”, which must be combated head-on.
Post-covid, the Passport Office showed the way: within two years of the pandemic finishing, thanks to a great new system and brilliant leadership, its backlog was smashed. There is hope that if the right measures are put in place and the Government really put their mind to it, these problems are not intractable and can indeed be solved.
Shaun Davies
Some of this has also been a long time coming. In Telford, for example, there are just two driving test assessors for the whole of the borough, which serves most of Shropshire—a population of about half a million. The previous Government should have done succession planning on driving test assessors and recruited more of them. Why did they not do so?
Greg Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I stressed, the pandemic blew a hole—it did so in virtually every walk of life—in the availability of driving tests. We got a million extra tests in place. Did every single test centre have exactly the resource it needed? The answer is clearly no. In the spirit of the debate, I am perfectly happily to accept that. I was on the Transport Committee for four and a half years, serving for some of that time alongside the now Minister, and we saw these problems emerging.
Governments are not able to solve every problem. The Minister will be happy to admit that she will not be able to solve every problem that comes across her desk but to solve the backlog that still persists from the pandemic as well as the growing demand for driving tests—that is not just my analysis; the DVSA acknowledges that there is a growing demand—greater resource is required and the whole system must be scaled up.
Where does this issue sit on the Minister’s priority list? Is it a matter of urgency for the new Government? Motorists up and down the country want to get their driving licences so that they can get on in life, access opportunities, achieve freedom and get the pleasure of driving in the United Kingdom. Or will this issue fall down the priority list and not get the action that thousands of people up and down this land want and deserve?
Oral Answers to Questions
Greg Smith Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Road safety is inextricably linked to the state of our roads. [Interruption.] Government Members might want to wait. New polling suggests that surface conditions on major roads are getting worse, risking more accidents. Will the Secretary of State confirm—a yes or no answer will suffice—whether her Government will maintain the previous Conservative Government’s commitment to £11 billion in road repair budgets?
Louise Haigh
I was fascinated to know how Opposition Front Benchers would approach their legacy when raising questions today. The legacy we have been left includes a maintenance backlog of billions and billions of pounds on our local roads. It is one of the biggest issues facing people across the country, and our manifesto committed us to repair and prevent up to a million potholes a year.
Transport
Greg Smith Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
In responding to this debate on the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024, may I say at the outset that the transition to sustainable fuel is a topic that has had my interest for many years? Some may even say that I am very capable of becoming a complete bore on the subject, but I will not push the limits too far this evening. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) knows that all too well; we both served on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament. Our “Fuelling the Future” report championed sustainable and synthetic fuel, and I have put it into practice—in my case, on the road, rather than in the air, in a classic Land Rover powered by synthetic fuel—during my past two summer surgery tours. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
There is a clear and undeniable role for such fuels across all transport modes in our path to 2050. Aviation is possibly the most difficult to de-fossilise and decarbonise, but it is also ahead of the curve, because sustainable and wholly synthetic fuels are an innovation that enables everyone to continue doing what they want to do—flying off on holiday or to see family, going on a business trip or general motoring—in a cleaner and eventually de-fossilised, carbon-neutral way. We are not reinventing the wheel, but reinventing the fuel.
I assure the House that the Opposition are not looking to oppose this statutory instrument or divide the House on it—quite the opposite, as it is a continuation of plans set out by the previous Government. The development of sustainable aviation fuel was one of six key measures in the last Government’s jet zero strategy, which supported the growth of sustainable aviation fuel in our United Kingdom. The cost-benefit analysis produced by the Department for Transport before the general election suggested that the SAF industry could add more than £1.8 billion to the economy and create over 10,000 jobs in the country. A gradual transition to SAF is the correct way to go; we should require 2% of UK jet fuel to be made from sustainable sources in 2025, 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040, and that should be incentivised through the award of tradeable certificates with a cash value. That said—it is rare that I make this comparison—the UK target for 2040 falls short of that set by the European Union, which is 34%.
The Conservative Government recognised that SAF may be more expensive than traditional jet fuel in the intermediate term. Our plan included a review mechanism to help manage prices and minimise the impact on ticket fares for passengers. My first question to the Minister is: can the Government reassure the House that the impact on passengers will be kept to a minimum, and can we ensure that they are not footing the bill? Provided that sufficient SAF is available, any increases in air fares as a result of SAF will fall well within the range of the usual fluctuations in prices that we see every year, and the previous Government had plans in place to prevent any major hikes. Can the Government confirm that they too will guarantee that there will be no major hikes in prices, so that we can transition to net zero in an affordable way, taking people along with us?
The Conservatives kick-started the UK SAF industry by allocating £135 million through our advanced fuels fund, which was funding 13 projects to reach completion and supporting our ambition to ensure that five plants were under construction by 2025. Will the Government provide an update on those projects, as they will be vital in helping us to move towards using sustainable fuel?
I urge the Minister to focus thoughts on how to ensure that the UK is a power hub for eSAF—to clarify, that is 100% synthetic aviation fuel—and to gently kick the tyres on whether we are progressing the technology as quickly as is humanly, financially and scientifically possible. We have significant players in this space in the UK, such as Zero Petroleum, which sits on the jet zero council and, indeed, holds a 2021 Guinness world record for “first aircraft powered by synthetic fuel”. Over the summer, I visited Zero Petroleum’s plant, where it produces engineering-level synthetic fuel, including aviation fuel, to hear about its progress and to better understand the obstacles in its way. It is essential that such innovators be empowered to grow, develop their fuels and provide green solutions and value to our economy.
Power-to-liquid SAF has a sub-mandate starting in 2028. We will reach 0.5% SAF by 2030 and 3.5% by 2040; that is slower and less ambitious than the European Union’s figure of 10% by 2040. Some experts have said that this suggests that the UK has a more cautious approach to power-to-liquid, and that the United Kingdom’s strategy focuses on monitoring progress under the mandate, and on us having the potential to revise targets depending on technological advances.
Where the SAF mandate, and the statutory instrument, could go further in future iterations is clear. According to the explanatory memorandum, if subsidised hydrogen is used to make eSAF, under the hydrogen production business model support scheme, SAF certificates cannot be claimed against the mandate. Without HPBM support, there is the risk that the cost of green hydrogen will be far too high for eSAF to be produced at a competitive price in the UK. Indeed, there is even the risk that the eSAF production cost will be above the eSAF mandate buy-out price. If the cost is above the buy-out price, that will mean that no UK eSAF plants will get built, so all the UK’s eSAF demand will be fulfilled by foreign producers.
The HPBM is needed to bring down the cost below the buy-out price under the SAF mandate. Both support under the HPBM and the revenue certainty mechanism are needed for UK eSAF projects to be bankable—for example, credit or potentially subsidy stacking needs to be explicitly allowed. This SI is clearly supportive of the power-to-liquid pathway. However, it would be prudent for the Government to express an intent to financially support domestic eSAF technology developers, such as Zero Petroleum or OXCCU—as opposed to project integrators—in order to give a boost to this much needed industry in the UK, as well as helping the country to benefit from the vast export potential of the technology. That could be through dedicated power-to-liquid technology grants, such as fuel synthesis, direct air capture specifically for fuel, and/or equity funding—for example, through the UK Infrastructure Bank. A further anomaly is that the Aerospace Technology Institute, which is UK Government-funded, is not permitted to deploy funds to power-to-liquid technologies. I put it to the Minister that that should be corrected.
We can be a powerhouse in the United Kingdom for SAF. The new Government are right to continue with the path set by the previous Conservative Government, so we support the motion, but the potential for the future is huge, and in the spirit of getting this right, I urge the Minister to consider the points that I have outlined, and to supercharge our great country’s role in this technology.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
My goodness, it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Congratulations on your election.
It has been a collegiate debate and I am grateful to all the hon. Members who have attended. I am grateful to the Opposition for their support. I say to the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) that I am looking forward to a picture on his social media of his SAF-powered Land Rover as he goes canvassing in his constituency—that is a must-see for us all.
Mike Kane
That is good news. The issue has had good cross-party support: when I was in opposition, I supported the Government on it.
In his maiden speech, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who is no longer in his place, thanked his predecessor, and I put on record my own tribute to the former Member for Witney; he undertook my current role with diligence, care and good humour and I wish him the best for the future.
Really, this legislation was set out by the Labour Government in 2003 in the aviation White Paper, “The Future of Air Transport”, in which we talked about the future of decarbonising aviation for the first time and about bringing in new sustainable fuels.
The shadow Minister had some specific questions. He asked about ticket prices. The Government recognise that SAF will be more expensive than traditional jet fuel, and it is right that the costs, as we have agreed in the past, are borne by the polluters—they will not be borne by the Government. I think the figures are that, by 2030, we expect tickets to be £4 more, which will be a 2% increase, and by 2040, we expect them to be £10 more, which will be a 5.5% increase. Before Mayor Burnham re-regulated the buses in Greater Manchester, a person could fly from Manchester airport to Dublin for £12.99 but they could not cross my conurbation on a bus and change transport providers for that amount of money. The shadow Minister was right to raise that point, but the increase is negligible.
The shadow Minister asked about the future fuel funds. We have seen some great things going on in private industry. In the north-west of England, we see Fulcrum BioEnergy producing sustainable aviation fuel at Ellesmere Port; we see Velocys in the north-east doing it at Immingham—I will come to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) in a minute—and Alpha Air doing it in Teesside. That is really good for the regeneration of post-industrial areas in parts of the north of England.
The shadow Minister talked about power to liquid. Yes, that is the future. In my speech, I set out some ambitious targets that we will have to meet to reduce the HEFA and improve power to liquid. He asked about our ambition. The UK does not want to be at a competitive disadvantage, which is why we have carefully balanced the HEFA cap in a way that recognises that HEFA is, currently, the only commercially available type of SAF, but that does not mean that we cannot go further and faster. I mentioned in my speech that there will be reviews every five years, starting in 2030, so I hope that that satisfies the Opposition. I am grateful for their support in this area.
Let me turn now to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington. I always like to thank him for his contribution to transport debates; he is always in these debates. He is a stalwart when it comes to transport issues and he is really considered. He is right that there are too many anagrams in the field of sustainable aviation fuel. When the Conservatives were in power, they always talked about the bonfire of regulations. Perhaps we should start the bonfire of anagrams. My hon. Friend is not wrong, but we will have to see. He did say that these are good, sustainable industrial jobs in parts of the country where we need them. That is what SAF brings us and that is what the Government are trying to achieve.
I also thank the Liberal Democrats for their support on this issue. We are working with suppliers. I have had roundtable discussions with suppliers, particularly in opposition, and there is more to come in government. I have mentioned some of the companies that we were working with. This is an ambition, but I think that we can go further and faster. The figures that I gave are not set in stone. We should be promoting new technologies, because there are new technologies beyond this area. There is hydrogen battery power. When it comes to UK emissions, would it not be a great day when a Minister can say that there will be no carbon burned in any planes flying internally within the UK? That would be a great place to be.
As a north of England Member, however, I have to disagree with the idea that we should stop people flying because there is a train. That might be fine in an area where there are great, reliable train services, but I invite the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) to come on my Avanti train occasionally to see how unreliable and how poor that service is. We have to keep it in mind that, one day in the future, we will improve the rail services through our great British rail Bill, but at the moment we have absolutely no plans as a Government to stop people flying.