Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Oct 2024 · Driving Test Availability · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Steel Industry · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister just said that she will review the options. I hope this is a binary yes/no question: is there a ministerial direction in the upcoming steel strategy to include a commitment to virgin steel production in the United Kingdom?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Steel Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham set out, the last Conservative Government took many concrete steps to support our steel sector. I gently remind Members on the Government side—there is no sugarcoating this for Members on my side—they won the election. They are responsible now and have to take decisions for the future of steel; it is no good constantly coming back and trying to do the political point scoring that we have seen time and again in the Chamber. The other side is in charge now, so they can make the decisions. If this Minister wants to stand at the Dispatch Box in a few moments and make those commitments to virgin steel, to steel production in this country, to Scunthorpe and Port Talbot, that will be welcomed by both sides of the House, because both sides of the House want the future of steel to be secured in this country. What we are seeing on the ground right now is something different, however, because we have returned to the Labour party playbook: scrap jobs, scrap production and become reliant on higher-polluting countries for imports. That is not what I call decarbonisation, so I ask the Minister to come clean. What has gone wrong so early in this Government’s tenure? Why are she and the Secretary of State unable to fulfil their manifesto commitments? Can the Minister explain what will happen to those thousands of jobs in the steel sector across our country? We need the steel strategy now, not a promise of it for the future. Time is running out.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Steel Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I am not quite a Minister yet, but I will give way.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Steel Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing this debate in Westminster Hall this morning. I also thank everyone who has contributed to it, particularly the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), whose intervention will potentially go down in history as one of the most innovative ways to participate in a debate on steel, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for his superb contribution. Just a few weeks ago, I challenged the Minister in the main Chamber on the Government’s approach, not just to Port Talbot but to the UK’s entire steel industry, yet just a couple of weeks later we are on the cusp of Scunthorpe steelworks potentially closing completely by Christmas, despite the owner’s clear ask to the Government to safeguard what amounts to thousands of jobs and a vital component of our economic security. If we let Scunthorpe close, on top of Port Talbot, we risk becoming dependent on cheap imports, particularly from China. Although I understand that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have had some issues understanding their own manifesto commitments of late, surely the Government cannot possibly have dropped their clear commitment to steel in their manifesto. Surely not, given that 90% of Network Rail steel is sourced from Scunthorpe, and that Liberty and British Steel support more than 3,500 highly-skilled jobs there—those people are dependent on the commitment that the now party of government made in their manifesto. I understand that the Government’s talks with the owners have already stalled and broken down—not the best start for the Secretary of State and the Minister. I remind hon. Members that, less than a year ago, when in opposition, the Secretary of State said that the drive for green steel must mean more jobs, not fewer, but the reality on the ground today is fewer jobs in steel in our country. The Minister knows that Scunthorpe is now the only site in the UK with the ability to produce virgin steel. If she allows it to close on her watch, we will be left open and vulnerable to cheap imports from China, and that must not be allowed to happen. Equally, I understand that the Government are not prepared to support virgin steel manufacturing while new electric arc furnaces are being commissioned and are coming online. Is that correct? If so, how does it chime with the Secretary of State’s previous commitment that decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation? With the import of coking coal due to end this month, and the possible closure of the Scunthorpe plant completely by Christmas, resulting in thousands of job losses, time is running out. The Government simply must get a grip of the situation. The loss of that vital industrial and economic asset will result in 5,000 job losses across the supply chain and the end to steel production for the first time since the start of the industrial revolution. Given the choice in front of them, the Government must take responsibility not just for Scunthorpe but for the downstream impact on our shipbuilding industry, the defence sector and, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said eloquently, the production of the wind turbines that, on the other hand, the Government are encouraging—in fact, one of their first acts was to end the ban on onshore wind. They cannot have it both ways: if they want to have their cake and eat it, they need to support the steel sector. The Government have already let Harland & Wolff down. Will they do the same with the whole of the steel sector? The Government’s plan seems to be to divert imports of steel from China through Brazil to give the impression that this is somehow an innovative solution. I am afraid there is nothing innovative about this Labour Government’s approach. They are masking their failure to secure a future for our steelworkers and our economy as a whole, and at the same time they are risking our national security in the face of growing threats from, among others, China.

• 15 Oct 2024 · Gaza and Lebanon · Hansard source

  More

  The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon has failed to prevent Hezbollah’s rearmament in southern Lebanon since 2006, sitting idly by while they amassed 150,000 missiles with support from Iran. Those missiles are now being used on Israeli communities, with UNIFIL and Lebanese civilians being used as human shields by the terror group. What discussions has the Minister had with her Israeli counterparts to counter that threat?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Adult Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  Given unfunded schemes such as the proposed national care service, given the new negotiating body’s aim of establishing a minimum pay floor, and given what clearly amounts to an expensive top-down reorganisation of the care system, can the Minister explain how he will maintain and enhance the role of local authorities, including Buckinghamshire Council, in targeting and delivering care, and how he plans to maintain day-to-day spending alongside this grand plan for reform, without raising taxes?

• 15 Oct 2024 · Adult Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps he plans to take to reform adult social care.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Farming and Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

• 8 Oct 2024 · Clean Electricity Generation · Hansard source

  More

  Contrary to what one of the Ministers said earlier, the last Government brought about one of the largest revivals in nuclear energy in 70 years in order to provide clean electricity generation, yet we hear precious little from the new Government on their plans for nuclear; we hear only their plans for inefficient technology that will destroy the countryside. Why are they so anti-nuclear, and when are they going to get on with delivering nuclear energy?

• 7 Oct 2024 · Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  It is vital that today and every day we remember every life lost at the hands of Hamas a year ago and every life lost in captivity since, and that we renew our calls for the release of every hostage. While I totally agree with the Prime Minister when he says that Israel must have that right to defend herself, some of the decisions he has taken have led to a feeling that the Government have stepped back their support for Israel, not least in the restoration of funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Does the Prime Minister regret that, and will he revisit that decision, so that actions marry up with words?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, may I associate myself with your words of thanks to Tricia Hillas, who has given superb service to this House and who will always have the gratitude of the Smith family, having baptised my sons Charlie and Rupert in 2022. Something else that happened in the previous Parliament was the passage of my private Member’s Bill—through to Royal Assent, with the support of the then Opposition —on combating equipment theft from farms and other elements of rural crime. That Act requires a statutory instrument to bring it fully into force. Instead of having all these general debates, will the Leader of the House bring that SI forward?

• 11 Sept 2024 · Port Talbot Transition Project · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. I wish I could say that I am surprised by any of its content, but the media and the press have, of course, been relentlessly briefed on it over the last couple of days. It is also no surprise that, once again, Labour is presiding over the demise of our steel sector. Output fell by 47% under the last Labour Government, and 56% of jobs were lost. Today’s deal means that 100% of output will go at Port Talbot. An electric arc furnace will take five years at best to get up and running; some suggest that it will be eight to nine years before a single new job is created, if we see any new jobs at all. As the statement says, this is a transition, but it is a heartbreaking transition for thousands of people—a transition from being in work to being out of work. In his discussions with Tata, why did the Secretary of State not take steps to ensure that the blast furnace will not be closed before the new electric arc furnace opens? Is this not the New Labour playbook—scrap jobs, scrap production and become reliant on higher-polluting countries for imports? That is not what I call decarbonisation. I must say, I feel a little sorry for the Secretary of State, who has been dispatched here to announce these spending decisions just a day after Labour’s day of shame on winter fuel cuts for pensioners. In government, the Conservatives provided a grant of £500 million towards the £1.25 billion invested by Tata Steel, one of the largest support packages in the government’s history. At the time of the last Government’s announcement, that support was expected to save at least 5,000 jobs in the company. We worked with the Welsh Government and Tata Steel to establish a dedicated transition board to support affected employees and the local economy, backed by £100 million in total. Will the Secretary of State provide an update on any of those job projections? Today’s announcement is notable for the absence of any reassurance or plans for the thousands of steelworkers in Scunthorpe who may not have jobs by Christmas. Equally notable is the Government’s failure, once again, to provide any detail on the domestic production of virgin steel. The Secretary of State says that we will have a steel strategy in the spring, but thousands of jobs, along with production capacity, have been scrapped today. It was no surprise that last week, during the urgent question on steel, four times, the Minister for Industry failed to commit to safeguarding the future of virgin steel production in this country. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not need reminding that if he allows the Scunthorpe works to close, too, we will be the only G7 country unable to produce virgin steel. That leaves us open and vulnerable to cheap foreign imports, particularly from China. To his credit, he has always argued against offshoring our steel industry. He conceded once that it would be a “fundamental political mistake”. What conversations has he had with the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Defence about the impact of the Government’s new steel policy on our national security and ability to deliver infrastructure? Will he assure the House that he is doing everything in his power to ensure that we do not lose virgin steel manufacturing in the United Kingdom? For the benefit of new colleagues, the Government, when in opposition, were committed to £28 billion a year of borrowing to fund their decarbonisation plans—a price tag that has magically disappeared, although the target has not. The Secretary of State made promises about that to the steel industry, but where are those promises now? Where is that money? Is he still battling the Chancellor? We know that Labour’s unions are quite successful in squeezing money from the Treasury, so maybe he can send them to stand up to the Chancellor if he is having problems. The Government have our support in ensuring that the future of steelmaking in this country is sustainable. That goes beyond Tata and South Wales. Only in Labour’s world can the word “improved” mean fewer jobs and higher-polluting imports. When he returns to the Dispatch Box, I hope the Secretary of State will do better for UK steelmaking.

• 9 Sept 2024 · Transport · Hansard source

  More

  It is on its way.

• 9 Sept 2024 · Transport · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 9 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister confirm that the funding announced on 9 May by the Conservative Government for a brand-new SEND school in the county of Buckinghamshire is in no way, shape or form “under review”, and that we will get that new school?

• 5 Sept 2024 · Electric Vehicles: Chinese Share of Market · Hansard source

  More

  What we have this morning is another chapter in the growing theme of what the Government said before the election and what they are doing after the election being entirely different things. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked in May about reliance on Chinese EVs undercutting British workers and leaving us exposed, but by July she was talking about the benefits of trade with China. What we have seen in this Chamber this morning is that, while the rest of the world—the United States, Canada, the European Union—is acting on Chinese dominance in the EV market, the United Kingdom Government continue to dither. What is it to be: clear action on behalf of the UK automotive sector, or continued dither and failing to make a decision?

• 5 Sept 2024 · UK Steel Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. “British steel is integral to growth and prosperity”. Those are not my words, but the words of the now Prime Minister less than a year ago. “The drive for green steel must mean more jobs, not fewer.” Again, those are not my words, but those of the now Secretary of State less than a year ago. During the election campaign, he said: “We cannot…lose the ability to make primary steel.” But now we see, quite clearly, that Labour’s plans for decarbonisation do in fact mean de-industrialisation, and that the drive for green steel will mean fewer jobs, not more. Under the last Labour Government output fell by 47%, and, similarly, the promises that this Government made just weeks ago to steelworkers in Scunthorpe, Port Talbot and Teesside, and across the country, have been broken. For weeks the Government have allowed rumour and speculation about the future of British Steel to run rife, while thousands of workers question whether they will have jobs by Christmas. Contrary to what the Minister has said, when we were in government we worked to deliver a more sustainable, long-term future for the steel industry across the United Kingdom, including Wales, through our £500 million commitment to building an electric arc furnace in Port Talbot. Now we risk being the only G7 economy without the ability to produce virgin steel. I ask the Minister the following questions. Has British Steel indicated to the Government that it will halt its import of coking coal later this year? If so, when did the Government become aware of that? Are they committed to seeing electric arc furnaces in Scunthorpe? What discussions has she had with the owners of British Steel about the possibility that it will switch to foreign imports from China to fulfil its supply chain obligations here in the United Kingdom? What meetings has she had with stakeholders, including Ben Houchen and the Welsh Government, regarding the impact of future announcements on other steelworks across the United Kingdom, including on primary steel production? Communities and supply chains across the United Kingdom need certainty from this Government.

• 3 Sept 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. It is estimated that the Bank of England will require a further £110 billion of taxpayer subsidy to cover long bond sale losses through to 2030. So why is the Chancellor clobbering pensioners to save £1.5 billion a year when she could be challenging the Bank of England to save tens of billions of pounds a year?

• 30 Jul 2024 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  In recent months, Hamas have targeted Israel’s Kerem Shalom goods crossing with rockets and mortars to prolong the misery of their own people. They are also estimated to have spent $150 million on constructing their terror networks by misappropriating aid. Does the Minister accept that Hamas will always prioritise conflict with Israel over the wellbeing of their own citizens in Gaza, and that more steps need to be taken to stop the misappropriation of aid by Hamas?

• 30 Jul 2024 · European Scrutiny Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I served on the European Scrutiny Committee for the entirety of the last Parliament. Its work evolved from simply scrutinising the documents that came from the European Union and had direct effect on our law, to taking over much of the functions of the Exiting the European Union Committee after it was disbanded. The Committee was doing critical cross-Government scrutiny on things such as retained EU law, the negotiations on the Gibraltar border and the continuing operation of the trade and co-operation agreement. As a Select Committee it was not departmental in its outlook but entirely cross-cutting across all of Government.

• 29 Jul 2024 · Public Spending: Inheritance · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor has made two key political decisions this afternoon: one, to fund extraordinarily high public sector pay increases; and two, to clobber pensioners to pay for it. Will she explain to the House and every pensioner who will lose their winter fuel allowance in the process why she did not challenge the Bank of England on the taxpayer bailouts that it requires, to the tune of tens of billions of pounds, to cover its losses from bond sales?

• 26 Jul 2024 · Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower · Hansard source

  More

  I add my congratulations to you on your new role, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick), and equally, I congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches in this debate. In particular, I join the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) in paying tribute to Craig Mackinlay, who was a superb Member of this House. As he makes his transition from being the bionic MP to being the bionic peer, I think I speak for the whole House in wishing him well. On today’s subject matter, I want to be clear from the outset that we absolutely have to decarbonise and we absolutely have to defossilise. The challenge laid down to our great innovators and scientific minds is enormous, and those great minds are rising to the challenge, from electricity generation to the fuels of the future. But that is also why I am so frustrated by an approach to cleaner energy and cleaner fuel from Government that always seems to favour the first, but not necessarily the best or most sustainable, solutions for the future. Let me start with the controversial topic of solar. Since I was first elected in 2019, the threat of large-scale solar developments has caused significant concern for many of my constituents. Across my constituency and parts of my former constituency now represented by others, field after field and farm after farm have already been blanketed by solar panels, to the detriment of the surrounding community, food security, nature and landscape. Food security is national security, yet before any of us who were elected on 4 July had even sworn in, the new Energy Secretary had signed off 6,000 acres of solar installation, later admitting in his statement a week after that a land use strategy was yet to come. We simply cannot have this language of community consent when the decisions that are taken walk all over the views of the communities so badly affected. Smaller, stand-alone solar is less impactful, quicker and easier to install, does not risk damaging the local infrastructure, and provides an additional, reliable source of income for many struggling farmers. It is not just the panels that consume vast amounts of our countryside. The infrastructure needed to carry the electricity generated through to the grid swallows up yet more. It is no coincidence that adjacent to the proposed Rosefield site in my constituency a battery storage facility is being put forward. In the ultimate manifestation of the tail wagging the dog, National Grid has come along and proposed another huge land take essentially to rebuild the east Claydon substation next door. Let that be a warning to any community where solar is coming: it does not end with the panels. Solar has its place, but that is on our rooftops and not our fields. Research by the wonderful charity, Campaign to Protect Rural England, found that there is potential for 117 GW of renewable energy to be generated from rooftops and other existing developed spaces in England. We should be prioritising that, and not losing our agricultural land. My solution has always been to propose nuclear as the option, and to look at small modular reactors. I have given this statistic in the House before, but I will do so again: we need around 2,000 acres of solar panels to generate enough electricity—on current usage and before everybody has two Teslas on the drive—for 50,000 homes. By contrast, just two football pitches are required for a small modular reactor that will power, again on current usage, 1 million homes. I fail to see how anyone can look at those two competing land uses and choose solar over the small modular reactor. It is simply not a good use of land to turn our farms into solar. Let me move to another clean energy that I am particularly passionate about, and away from electricity generation to the future of fuel. The United Kingdom is already an international powerhouse in the field of synthetic and sustainable fuel, with companies such as Zero Petroleum innovating right here, and international companies such as P1 Fuels making huge investments in bringing the manufacturing of fossil-free fuel to the United Kingdom. It is a straightforward fact that there are 1.4 billion internal combustion engine vehicles on the road worldwide, and that is before we start counting agricultural and construction vehicles, planes, ships and so on. They are simply not all going to convert to electric, as some argue that they should. Green hydrogen mixed with atmospheric carbon capture makes a wholly man-made liquid hydrocarbon that works in everything we already have. After more than a century’s refinement on those engines, and this clean fuel will just work in them.

• 26 Jul 2024 · Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Certainly for heavier application vehicles, batteries just would not work. I saw a diagram at one of these companies that shows that if we were to try to make a 747 fly on batteries, the batteries would be bigger than the plane. Therefore, that is not a viable option going forward. Synthetic fuels are entirely man-made. There is no need to grow food to burn or recycle old chip fat, or for raw earth mineral mining for batteries; it is just clean synthetics. My ask to the Government, as they look to a clean energy future—that is the right ambition; where we disagree is on how we get there—is that they truly embrace synthetic fuels and make them mainstream. They need to be scaled, and in order to be scaled, manufacturers need confidence that the Government will permit that. An important point to finish on is that the carbon at tailpipe when these fuels are burned is the same volume that is then recaptured to make the next lot of fuel. They are net zero. It is one volume of carbon in a perpetual circle. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, and ask him to take the message back to the Department that we need to embrace synthetic fuels as part of the clean energy revolution that he claims at the Dispatch Box to want to see.