Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill

Debate between Greg Smith and Nusrat Ghani

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Greg Smith. I believe it is your birthday. [Hon. Members: “Aw!”] Happy birthday!

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not have asked for a better birthday treat than to debate this issue with the Minister and with everyone else who has shown such a huge interest in the Bill this afternoon.

When the Bill first came before the House, the Conservatives were clear that we support the innovation that underpins sustainable aviation fuel. Aviation matters enormously to this country: for families, for trade, for connectivity and for our standing as a global hub. The challenge has never been whether to decarbonise aviation, but how we do so without damaging competitiveness or pricing ordinary passengers out of flying.

From the very beginning, we set a clear test. If the British public are underwriting a revenue certainty mechanism, whether directly or through levies that will inevitably feed into ticket prices, the economic benefit must remain here in the United Kingdom. That was not an afterthought. It was not something we discovered halfway through the Bill’s passage; it was one of the central arguments we advanced from day one. Throughout Committee and on Report, I pressed Ministers on how the contracts would work in practice. How would domestic production be prioritised? How would we prevent a scenario where fuel was largely produced overseas, given minimal processing here and then rebadged as British simply to qualify for support? Without clarity, that risk was real.

My noble Friend Lord Grayling brought that concern into sharp focus in the other place. His amendment made the principle explicit: if sustainable aviation fuel is to receive support under a revenue certainty contract, it must genuinely be British. He made the point clearly: we cannot design a system that can be gamed. We cannot allow mostly complete fuel to be shipped here, polished up a bit, and then presented as a domestic product. That would not be an industrial strategy; it would be box-ticking with a Union Jack on it.

What has happened since? The Government tabled Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4, restricting revenue certainty contracts to UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel. That principle was not explicit in the Bill, as introduced. It is explicit now and I genuinely welcome that. That change, however, did not appear out of thin air. It followed sustained pressure from those of us on the Conservative Benches here and in the other place. It was Conservatives who identified the gap, made the case and tabled the original amendments. I am grateful that the Government have now listened and moved.

Of course, the detail matters. The definition of “UK-produced” refers to any part of the process of converting feedstock into fuel taking place in the United Kingdom. That must not become a loophole wide enough to taxi an A380 through. The intention is clear: real production, real value added and real jobs here. We will ensure that the practical application reflects that intention.

There is also a broader point to the amendments, which speaks to capability. The United Kingdom has genuine strengths in synthetic fuel and e-SAF. We have companies demonstrating 100% synthetic flight, developed right here in the United Kingdom. We have world-class engineers and researchers. We have the technical expertise to lead. What we should not have are British passengers ultimately bearing the costs while overseas producers capture the opportunity.

Now is not the time to relitigate the plus or minus £1.50 on fares argument we had in previous stages, but for the record I say that the Opposition are watching closely. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are assured that the non-HEFA—non-hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—requirements contained in the mandate will be met by industry at no more than the same cost to the passenger?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind birthday wishes. We do support the SAF mandate. We do support the decarbonisation of air travel, as well as other means of travel, but it has to be done in a way that is economically viable not just to the industry but to all of us who ultimately pay to fly—or to go on a train or a ship, or whatever it might be—through the fares we pay. That is why the Opposition have been so laser-focused on the direct impacts on fare payers, as well as on the wider industry.

The wider point, to return to the Lords amendments we are debating, is to ensure that the economic value of decarbonisation, which the British state is mandating through the legislation we pass in this Parliament, actually benefits British producers, British researchers, British engineers, and the incredible array of innovators and talent we have here in this country.

With these amendments, the Bill is closer to meeting the test we established at the beginning of the first debate: that the sustainable aviation fuel policy the Government are pushing should reduce emissions while reinforcing the UK’s industrial base, safeguarding competitiveness and supporting high-skilled employment across the country. Indeed, our position remains clear: environmental responsibility, along with economic realism. That will be what protects competitiveness. We will continue to scrutinise the framework carefully as it develops, but on the fundamental point that British passengers’ money should back British production, the Government have adopted the Conservative position. Perhaps if they listen to us a little more often, they might find the turbulence a great deal lighter.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Follow that, Lee Pitcher.

Road Safety

Debate between Greg Smith and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

First and foremost, I thank Members from across the House for taking part in this debate, and I particularly pay tribute to all those mentioned who tragically lost their lives or faced life changing injuries in road accidents. It is right that we do all we can to stop such terrible incidents occurring again in the future.

The ability to travel in our cars and on the roads is integral to the vast majority of people’s everyday lives. Not only is it the most popular form of transport, but it is a lifeline for many people, so all motorists and every other road user, whether they are lorry drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or others, deserve safe journeys.

In considering the Government’s road safety announcements, the Opposition support and welcome some elements of the strategy, while the effectiveness of other measures remains in question. We strongly support measures such as stronger fines for those who commit egregious offences and action to combat ghost number plates. However, the overwhelming sentiment, which I hope the Minister adopts when putting into practice the policies set out in the strategy, is about enforcement. One of the worst things to hear when there has been an accident is that it involved people breaking existing laws, putting themselves and others in danger.

Unfortunately, since the Government released the strategy, we have seen further decreases in police officer numbers, with a decrease of more than 1,300 officers between September 2024 and September 2025 and further decreases occurring before that date. How can we expect the Government to enforce our wide range of existing road laws, let alone new ones, if there are insufficient police officers? It would be useful to know what discussions the Department has had with the Home Office to ensure that sufficient officers will be allocated to police our existing road laws and any additional ones the Government might bring forward. Also, I understand that the Government’s police performance framework says that there is a target to “decrease” the number of

“People killed or seriously injured in road traffic collision”,

but does not actually say what that target will be.

To improve enforcement, we must have a targeted response to problem drivers, who put everyone on the road at risk. One issue that demands an even greater focus is drug driving. The Government’s consultation acknowledges that some police forces are arresting more drug drivers than drink drivers, and that there has been a steady increase in the number of people convicted. Although that represents some progress, I would call on the Government to go further. Data shows that, in 2023, 22% of deceased drivers tested positive for impairment drugs, an increase from 11% in 2014. Among the youngest cohort of drivers—those most likely to get into terrible accidents—the vast majority of cases involved illegal drugs only. While there are sensible proposals within this strategy about testing and looking at further fines, the Minister must work with the police to ensure they are doing more to target drug driving and not relying on tests after the fact.

In addition, I hope the Government strongly consider any further measures that stop those committing these terrible crimes on our roads from being able to avoid punishment, whether that be due to testing or statutory limits, which, in particular cases, have enabled those who have committed the worst crimes on our roads to avoid the full weight of the law.

To conclude, for road safety measures, I believe that the Government must bring drivers with them in any changes and measures that they take. Where drivers do not feel that those road safety measures actually help them—such as with 20 mph limits—they will not take them seriously. This is a strategy that must be delivered, and delivered well, but with drivers, not just against them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister, who I am told is aware of how much pressure there is on timing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Greg Smith and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

At the heart of every high street are wonderful hospitality SMEs—pubs, cafés, restaurants, bars and coffee shops—yet the 2024 Budget was a hammer blow to them. With £3.4 billion of extra costs, one in 10 restaurants faces closure this year. Indeed, Labour’s Budget has already cost hospitality 69,000 jobs. For context, in the same period the previous year, hospitality created 18,000 new jobs. Can the Minister assure the House that businesses that are hanging on by a thread will not face a hard landing this winter?

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Debate between Greg Smith and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The news from Scunthorpe is deeply concerning. Jobs are at risk and our thoughts are with all those who now face uncertainty. The world is becoming more dangerous and we need to bolster our defence industry. Without the ability to produce our own primary steel, those efforts could be put in jeopardy. What impact does the Minister believe the news will have on Britain’s defence industry and what impact does she believe closure would have on our national security?

It takes a special something to be able to offer someone £500 million and for them to reject it, but whatever it is, I guess the Business Secretary has it. Whenever Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Whether with Mauritius, AstraZeneca or now British Steel, the Government confirm that—and so far, at least, that appears to be the case with the United States too. The Government pretend that tariffs on steel are inevitable, which, as we showed in government, is simply not the case. Therefore, will the Minister update the House on United States trade negotiations, in particular in relation to steel? Will the Minister confirm that the Business Secretary has engaged further with Jingye since it rejected him?

Tariffs are but one challenge facing the industry. Alongside the jobs tax and the unemployment Bill, the steel industry is being choked by the Government’s ideological green targets. Will the Minister tell the House what concerns British Steel has expressed about those net zero targets? As I said at the beginning, this news will be deeply concerning for steelworkers in Scunthorpe. Has the Minister or the Secretary of State spoken with them about the news and, if so, what support are they being offered?

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Greg Smith and Nusrat Ghani

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Ahead of getting into the detail of the many amendments before us, which the Minister rattled through in just 10 minutes, let me say that overnight we learned that the Government are moving the responsibilities of one quango to another. They are moving the responsibilities of the Payment Systems Regulator to the Financial Conduct Authority, putting one quango into another. Conveniently, they already share a building. The Prime Minister has hailed that as “the latest step” in the Government’s attempt to “kick-start economic growth”, though the amendments we are discussing do the very opposite.

The Chancellor said:

“The regulatory system has become burdensome to the point of choking off innovation, investment and growth”,

but that is precisely what the Bill does. I do not know how the Government can say that with a straight face when, as we stand here today, blocking regulatory burdens cost every business in the land—small, medium or large—£5 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the shadow Minister agree that the only jobs that will be created by these Bills are for people employed by trade unions?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before Mr Smith responds to that intervention, I must add that we have just shy of 40 people hoping to contribute to this debate, and I want to get them all in.

[Greg Smith]

As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take your advice and will speed up. [Interruption.] The Minister urges me to carry on, but of course I would not ignore your advice—never say never again.

I make no comment on the value that those activities will add to public sector employers and their productivity. What I will say is that we have already seen this Government being happy to hand over large pay increases to trade unions with no guarantee of anything in return. That is why we have tabled amendments 293, 295 and 296, in an attempt to ensure that the taxpayer gets something out of this latest concession to the trade unions.

On amendment 297, trade unions can create significant disruption in the economy, whether by stopping work from taking place or preventing people from getting to work, school, hospital appointments or many other activities. We must strike a fair balance between the ability of trade unions to strike and the public whom we all serve.

Our amendment 297 will mean that vital public services such as the NHS can better plan and prepare for strikes. It simply seeks to keep the status quo of two weeks’ notice. Without adequate warning, constituents of Members from across the House are more likely to miss hospital appointments, not be able to travel to see loved ones or get to work, or suffer greater disruption when schools close due to strikes. That is part of the reason why, in the consultation on thresholds, 58% of those who responded supported retaining the 14-day period as it currently is, with 7% preferring a longer period. Two thirds of respondents therefore wanted the period to stay the same or be longer. Labour promised that it would work with business on this Bill, but its response to that consultation is just another example of the Government having their fingers in their ears and simply not listening. The reduction to 10 days is against the wishes of business and will do harm to all our constituents. That is why we have tabled amendment 297 to retain the notice period of 14 days.

On amendment 299, strikes should only take place when there is a clear mandate for them, but clause 58 will mean that strikes can happen with low thresholds by removing the 50% turnout requirement and the 40% support requirement. Combined with Government amendments to extend the mandate for strikes from six months to 12 months, this Bill allows unions to unleash waves of low-support, rolling strikes. Those costs will come on top of the national insurance jobs tax and changes to business rates—mistakes that the Government are already making—making it more difficult to run a business. That is why we have tabled amendment 299, which will remove clause 58.

There is much in this Bill to speak to, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will not test your patience or the patience of the House further by going into those things. I look forward to a thorough debate that will further point out—not least through Conservative Members’ contributions—why the amendments to this Bill that the Government have tabled this afternoon will harm our economy, destroy jobs, and just give more power to the trade unions.

Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire

Debate between Greg Smith and Nusrat Ghani

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

It would not be an Adjournment debate without the hon. Gentleman. I am interested to see how he will get Mid Buckinghamshire into his intervention. I am all ears.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind you, Mr Shannon, that this debate is about energy development proposals in Mid Buckinghamshire. We are ready for your intervention.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of land. The priority for agricultural land is to provide the food to feed this nation, not for solar energy projects that clog and take away the land. My constituency is similar to his, and my interest is to ensure that that good land is kept for the production of food, as it should be.

Income Tax (Charge)

Debate between Greg Smith and Nusrat Ghani

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail exactly on the head. In its briefing, which I am sure all Members have received, the National Farmers Union points out that the Treasury’s own figures on who will get caught up in the APR changes are fundamentally wrong, because they include a lot of very small-scale areas—perhaps a private residence with one or two fields or a very small number of livestock. That is not what any of us would define as a working farm. In reality, when all those family farms are brought into the numbers, the vast majority of our food producers who contribute to food supply chains will get caught up in those changes.

When the Chancellor was on the BBC on Sunday morning, she said that the individual claim for agricultural property relief is now £1 million, but if a farm is owned by two people, that allowance could be transferred to the other person. Some confusion needs to be ironed out here, because unlike the nil-rate band and residential nil-rate band, the policy paper entitled “Summary of reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief” published on 30 October this year states that

“any unused allowance will not be transferable between spouses and civil partners.”

Perhaps in summing up the Minister can clear up that confusion caused by the Chancellor on the Kuenssberg show.

The APR changes are not the only changes that will hammer our farming families and agricultural communities. I am sure there is a joke somewhere along the lines of “When is a pick-up truck not a pick-up truck?”, but it is no laughing matter for farmers. For them, it is just a basic bit of equipment that they need to operate, but this Government are hammering them on the cost of that equipment if it happens to have rear seats. As I raised earlier today in this House during the urgent question, the Government’s carbon tax will put up the price of fertiliser by between £50 and £75 a tonne. Either that is going to have a direct impact on the cost of food, or the Government are asking farmers—already operating on incredibly tight margins, often with no profit at all—just to swallow that extra cost. I urge them to reconsider.

Other measures in the Budget that are clearly wrong and the Government must U-turn on include VAT on private school fees. The vast majority of parents I talk to in my constituency who choose to send their children to independent schools scrimp and save and make sacrifices in order to give their children that opportunity. An additional 20% in fees makes that unaffordable for those parents, and when I talk to representatives of independent schools in my constituency some are saying that they can see a path to having to close their doors. I know that a lot of Labour Members would probably quite like that outcome, but the reality is that it will be denying children opportunity and denying parents choice, and it will have the knock-on impact of class sizes in my kids’ school—and, I am sure, every other hon. Member’s kids’ school in the state sector—going up. That will cause overcrowding and put pressure on our state schools. This is all before I come on to the other problems in this Budget, not least the cruel attack on our pensioners through the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment.

Lastly, just to prove how bizarre and simply unserious the Government are about value for money, they have chosen someone as their new value-for-money tsar who is inextricably linked to one of the most inefficient and wasteful projects ever to come out of the British state: HS2. How on earth can someone so linked to that project be considered an arbiter of value for money?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now come to another maiden speech. I call Andrew Ranger.