Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2025 · Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to register my outrage at the unacceptable situation that all my constituents in Mid Buckinghamshire are facing: a tidal wave of energy infrastructure driven by hype, speculation and a closed-minded approach to energy security. As we have seen with countless other large-scale infrastructure projects, be they road, rail or housing, it is rural areas that are thrown under the bus with no thought for the huge impact that both the construction and the operation of those projects has on communities. I therefore strongly encourage the Government to take note of what I believe is a ticking time bomb that risks permanently devastating not just my constituency but countless others across the United Kingdom. I am sadly no stranger to the problem of big infrastructure. From the moment I was first elected, I have taken every opportunity to put on record the terrible destruction that High Speed 2 has brought on my constituency, from the shameless turfing out of farmers, who have often been left without compensation for years on end, to the sorry state of the roads used by heavy goods vehicles and the sheer size of the compounds that litter the Buckinghamshire countryside—literally industrial waste—for there is no justification for spending £200 billion of taxpayers’ money on a railway that has effectively already become obsolete. The same is true of ground-based energy infrastructure, which is the least efficient form of energy production. Put simply, the enormous loss of agricultural land required to double the share of national energy consumption generated by solar, which will amount to less than 10% even with the proposed increase, is not worth it.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend and fellow Buckinghamshire Member of Parliament for that intervention. She is absolutely right that the strain being put on our small, rural county from so many projects—the cumulative impact of the energy proposals that are the subject of my speech, HS2, East West Rail, mega-prisons and so much more—makes the attack on our countryside and the risk, to go to her point on flooding, all the worse. I just listed a number of things that should not be surprising. However, they seem surprising to promoters, who seem totally oblivious to the idea that farming gives us food, gives people jobs and a livelihood, and gives communities an identity and a vital source of income. However, that does not seem to have stopped them flooding the planning system in Mid Buckinghamshire with these BESS applications. What makes it all the more confusing is that, according to the Government’s newly formed national energy systems operator: “The number of speculative connection applications has substantially risen over the past few years resulting in an excessively high volume of contracted parties when in reality only about a third of the volume of projects will make it to Completion.” What we are actually seeing—what is very visible in Mid Buckinghamshire—is a number of these so-called zombie projects that are clogging up the system and causing incredible concern and outrage to local communities, but that may actually never happen. That is simply absurd. My constituents are constantly being told that the projects are needed for a transition to net zero, yet the vast majority will not even be completed. That goes to show how misguided the Government’s so-called energy security policy really is: unable to deliver and throwing my constituents under the bus. It should therefore not be a surprise that the misguided and highly speculative nature of the BESS projects has led to countless rejections by local planning authorities. Less than six weeks ago, when presented with its first BESS application—a 500 MW site in the Claydons—Buckinghamshire council resoundingly rejected it on the grounds of fire risk, lack of access and an inappropriate site location. Our local paper even described the plan as a “terrorists’ dream”. The same goes for York council, which rejected a 100 MW site in the village of Osbaldwick on fire grounds. The same reason led East Renfrewshire council to reject a 40 MW site in the village of Eaglesham in Scotland and Dorset Council to reject a 60 MW facility in the village of Chickerell. I trust the Minister will have taken note not just of those rejections but of the many others which are, if anything, increasing by the week. This, I hope, demonstrates the clear, strong opposition from local communities to BESS facilities. It is not just about battery storage, solar farms, substations or whatever else forms part of the Government’s flawed approach to energy security. For constituencies such as mine, it is about the cumulative impact of all that and more, over which, time and time again, the local community has had little, if any, say. For my constituents in the Claydons, nearly every major project has been Government-sanctioned with little to no thought as to how, when we combine one of the UK’s largest solar installations, three battery storage sites, two major new railways, a new substation and several new housing developments, a collection of small villages in the middle of the countryside is meant to cope. The short answer is: it has not. Initially faced with both East West Rail and HS2 construction, the latter ongoing for many years to come, my constituents in that part of Buckinghamshire now face a raft of new energy infrastructure, as well as yet more housing and a new prison. The cumulative impact is devastating, made worse by the fact there is no mechanism—no mechanism—within the planning system that allows the cumulative impact of multiple major infrastructure projects in the same area to be accounted for when local authorities are presented with them. It seems logical, yet the Minister must recognise that there is no circumstance that necessitates the flattening of an area that serves no benefit to local residents and leaves them in a near permanent state of disruption and misery. The latest example of that glaring omission is the application and subsequent rejection of Statera’s plan, which I spoke about a moment ago, to build a 500 MW BESS facility in the Claydons. It turns out that the promoters did not check that they could even get a grid connection on completion, as confirmed by National Grid when pressed on that substation expansion plan before Christmas. This is yet more evidence of the speculative nature of Government-backed infrastructure projects. Just as well, with Statera’s plans having now been rejected. Elsewhere in my constituency, yet another solar installation, at Callie’s farm near Ilmer, was recently granted planning permission, joining two other nearby sites at Bumpers farm and Whirlbush farm in Kingsey. As a result, when someone enters Buckinghamshire on the train from neighbouring Oxfordshire, they are met not with farmland but with acres upon acres of solar panels. Further south, and directly affecting my constituents in Little Missenden, we find yet another potential BESS site at Mop End, which if built would require infrastructure reaching 6 metres in height right in the heart of the Chilterns. In Long Crendon and the surrounding villages, I and the local community are fighting against Acorn Bioenergy’s proposed anaerobic digester, which once again cannot be justified in the middle of the countryside, not when there are 140 lorry movements a day during construction and then operation through villages—I declare an interest as they include my own village of Chearsley—that simply cannot cope and cannot be expected to cope. These are small rural villages with small rural roads, and often the front doors to people’s homes, and the entrances to primary schools and children’s playgrounds, are off those very same roads.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is always on point on these matters. I will come to the important matter of food security later, but he is right. The inefficiency of some energy projects coming forward in Mid Buckinghamshire, as well as in communities in Strangford, I dare say, is a huge challenge not just to food security but to the rural way of life that those in our communities enjoy. It takes 2,000 acres of solar panels to generate enough electricity to power 50,000 homes on current usage—before everyone has two Teslas on the drive—yet a small modular reactor requires just two football pitches to produce enough power for a million homes on current usage. It cannot be right that the Government are pursuing this technology. I put it to the Minister and to right hon. and hon. Members across the House that nuclear is the answer, but fingers seem to be in ears whenever it is raised. I assume that that is obvious to the Government, as is the vital importance of food security, which is directly compromised by taking land out of food production and giving it over to solar. The Government seem content with ploughing on. Last week’s revelation in The Daily Telegraph of intentions to convert a tenth of our farmland to use for net zero gives a blank cheque to those intent on destroying rather than preserving our countryside. The countryside is for farming. It is not a building site for solar panels, power plants, battery storage sites or wind turbines. It is for growing food. It is for the local communities and businesses that rely on it. Attempts to take land away from food production in my constituency are simply unjustifiable. An unjustifiable 3,000 acres of land are already lost or at risk of being subsumed by solar panels. Those 3,000 acres are taken out of food production, no longer farmed by families who have farmed them for generations but are now turfed out, with little to no compensation, and the land unlikely ever to return to food production. Let us bear in mind that that is just for the projects that have been proposed or consented to. Rosefield is a monster project of immense scale. For this monstrosity alone, over 2,000 acres of land—much of it arable grade 3a and 3b—have been sold off to EDF Renewables for the construction of vast swathes of solar panels right in the heart of the Claydons. That land produces a 10-tonne-a-hectare wheat harvest. Many farmers would bite your right hand off to get that, but it is cast aside by the consultants and proposers of the site as low-grade land. It simply is not. As the name suggests, the area is rich in clay soil, which is incredibly valuable to farmers as it retains rich levels of both nutrients and water. It allows us in Buckinghamshire to produce immense quantities of wheat, barley, beans, oilseed rape and much more. We are facing a clear trade-off between food security and what is considered today to be energy security. Members will know that I have consistently questioned the suitability and sustainability of solar as a renewable source of electricity. There is nothing renewable about land left to rot underneath solar panels, or the huge amount of emissions from the construction of these vast sites. We in Buckinghamshire face an equal if not greater threat from battery energy storage sites. These shipping container-sized units use hundreds of lithium ion batteries to store surplus energy, which is later sold back to the grid to meet demand when required. Not only are the battery storage sites noisy and unsightly, but they displace water run-off because of their concrete bases, create light pollution, are a target for vandalism and are a huge fire risk, as I will discuss shortly. On top of that, such sites are not a sustainable form of energy production. In fact, they do nothing more than hold surplus energy, no matter how or where that energy has been generated. In fact, with less than 5% of today’s energy consumption coming from solar, the chances are that the energy stored by these sites has not come from the site next door. It is utterly shameful of BESS promoters to label their projects as “sustainable” and “part of the solution”. It is, I am afraid to say, simply a matter of profiteering off the taxpayer while doing little to nothing—that is, for those who do not enjoy a chemically fuelled bonfire. It has been proven time and again, with tragic results, how dangerous battery energy storage sites can be. In September 2020, for example, a fire at a BESS site in Liverpool took 59 hours to extinguish. While the promoters may spout about new technology guarding us against fire today, it does not and cannot justify placing such sites in rural areas. That is because—surprise, surprise—it takes far longer for fire crews to respond in rural areas, especially ones that are prone to flooding, such as the Claydons, in my constituency, where three BESS applications have been lodged in just one year. It is not surprising that pouring concrete on to farmland exacerbates flooding, or that hundreds of shipping containers ruin the view for miles around.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has made exactly the point that I want to make, with, perhaps, more succinctness than I have been able to manage. This is indeed about local consent. It is about communities giving their views and actually being listened to when it comes to these projects. Far too often, the desktop exercise that is done in London or Birmingham or Leeds or Manchester, or any of our great cities, is done largely by those who have little or no understanding of rural life—of the way our rural roads actually operate, the way our farmland is actually farmed, and the way our countryside actually works. If local people were listened to a little more often, we might not have some of the problems that these energy infrastructure projects, or projects such as HS2 or East West Rail, throw up on the land that any local will tell you floods three or four times a year. Those doing the desktop exercise say, “Oh, that is nothing. It is nowhere near a floodplain. That land will not flood.” I have stood on many of these sites in my own wellington boots a number of times, on the land that the consultants in the city say will not flood, with the water lapping up at the top of my boots, and have gone home with wet socks. That is a reality that local people often understand in a way these consultants and desktop exercises never would. I gently invite the Minister to acknowledge that no matter how sustainable such projects claim to be, the hard truth is that whether it be during the construction or operation of these sites, the transportation of materials effectively offsets any benefit and does permanent damage to a local area, exactly as it has with HS2. Only this week I objected to yet another BESS application in the Claydons, in which the developer has not even bothered to include a battery safety management plan. It is utterly disgraceful, and a reflection of just how speculative these applications are becoming. Despite this speculation on solar and battery storage, wherever we go in Buckinghamshire there are few if any warehouse roofs with solar panels. That is a real shame, given the amount of unused roof space that could generate 15 GW of solar-derived energy without damaging a blade of grass or any crop growing in any field. That is equivalent to 46 million solar panels. Why, then, are the Government not actively incentivising the use of large-scale roof-mounted solar, particularly on industrial buildings—the distribution centres and warehouses and factories that we see popping up all around us, certainly near my area when we go out towards Bicester or up towards Milton Keynes? That is a question that is rightly being asked by farmers across my constituency who stand to lose everything when a solar developer comes along, or indeed someone involved in any energy project, with little or no compensation provided. This is, I am afraid, fairly typical in relation to infrastructure, especially in rural areas where a farm is not just a source of income but someone’s livelihood, and the very shape and beauty of the landscape in rural communities. When it comes to a project the size of Rosefield, which primarily affects tenant farmers, the loss of income not just for individual farmers but for the whole area is devastating. That is because, unlike a freeholder—in this case, the Claydon estate—tenant farmers do not have ownership rights and are therefore not entitled to proper compensation, although this and other sizeable projects are spearheaded by large multinational energy companies for which compensation is normally just a rounding error. However, it is not just farmers who are affected. Unpaid parish councillors across my constituency are spending ever more time fighting this infrastructure tidal wave. I dare say many have become rather good at it following years of doing battle with HS2, but that by no means justifies thousands of hours each year being spent by countless individuals—countless heroes—sometimes combined with significant sums of money, fighting projects that local residents do not want and did not ask for. They, along with farmers and local business owners, are paying the price for this nonsensical approach to energy security. For projects that are given the go-ahead, there is little chance of promoters paying up for the damage that they will invariably do to our local road network. That is the sad reality for infrastructure projects, as we have seen with the countless others that I have referenced, although I am proud of the work that I and Buckinghamshire council did to push East West Rail to pay up for the damage it caused. There is no such prospect with energy infrastructure, but the fact is that, with so many sites in one area, the impact on our roads from all the construction traffic would be far worse than any promoter is prepared to admit. Just as we have seen with the railways and the highways works clash, it will delay all projects in the area, ultimately costing the taxpayer and prolonging the misery for my constituents. This is the reality. If something is not done, we will lose our ability to produce food and we will see the continued erosion of rural communities, and all while doing little to source our energy sustainably. Energy infrastructure does not belong on farmland. It does not belong in Mid Buckinghamshire. Let us drop this nonsense and go for nuclear instead.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  The problem with the argument that the Minister is trying to construct is that every time a developer comes along with a proposal, and the community pushes back with “Why are you doing this?”, the answer—every single time—is “Because the Government are asking us to.” That is what frustrates communities and frustrates me every single time. If the Minister accepts that that is the developers’ excuse, he can either correct them and say, “No, the Government are not asking you to do this,” or find a way to challenge those presumptions and the cumulative impacts, which I am grateful that he says he wants to address.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Women’s Health Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  In an earlier answer, the Minister rightly talked about the arrangement the Government have over spare capacity in the independent sector. My female constituents and women up and down the land want to know what that actually means in practice: what does that mean for the 260,000 women waiting more than 18 weeks for gynaecology treatment? How many treatments will the independent sector be delivering, and to what timescale? We need to get those women the treatment that they need.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Business Confidence · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. When consumer confidence is low, business confidence is low, and nowhere is that more visible than in our automotive sector, with UK car production slumping to its lowest level since 1954. Autocar magazine warned today that the zero emission vehicle mandate “is currently the industry’s biggest headache, as…consumer demand is not there to meet the stringent regulations which are increasing each year.” When policy fails, it is sensible to admit it and change course. Will the Minister accept that the ZEV mandate flies in the face of what consumers actually want, and that a radically different path is required to boost business confidence in our automotive sector?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Business Confidence · Hansard source

  More

  It normally takes longer than six months for a Government to drift that far from reality. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has predicted that just 775,000 cars will roll off production lines in 2025, compared to 1.3 million in 2019. Today’s edition of The Telegraph reports: “The slump has been accelerated by a slowdown in demand across Europe, particularly by drivers shunning new electric vehicles”. Why does the Minister persist in a policy to undermine our automotive businesses by forcing them to make a product that people just do not want to buy? Is it not time to get the state out of the way, let our innovators innovate, and boost automotive businesses’ confidence by letting them deliver to actual consumer demand?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining in such detail the provisions of the draft regulations, which build on legislation passed by the last Conservative Government. The broad picture is that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome and support them and will not seek to divide the Committee on them. Essentially, they will expand the category of individuals who can apply to Companies House to have their information protected under the ROE and will allow trust information on the ROE that is currently restricted from public inspection to be accessed by application, subject to certain requirements. Although I stress that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the draft regulations, I have two sets of questions to which I would be grateful for an answer from the Minister, either directly this morning or in writing later. First, who makes the assessment of who meets the threshold for being considered at risk of intimidation or violence? Is there a published list of criteria for meeting the threshold? Is there any means for applicants to appeal the decision? Secondly, once an applicant has been successful in their application to have their information protected, how often will they need to reapply? How frequently will Companies House review their status?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Rural Housing Targets · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate. I fundamentally want to talk about fairness. The Labour party used to use fairness a lot to try to define itself. I have had exchanges with the Minister regularly on this subject, not least when we both sat on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee back in 2022. Many people remember 2022 politics for other reasons—we remember it for the nine months of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee. I put it to this House and to the Minister that when we look at the differential between what rural communities, such as those that I am lucky enough to represent in Mid Buckinghamshire, and our towns and cities are being asked to build, that fairness just is not there. Let us look at the example of Buckinghamshire as a county. We were already starting from a pretty punchy base and from the point of an expectation to build some 61,000 new homes over the coming decades. The new ask of Buckinghamshire under this new Government looked, from a starting base, like it would be 91,000 new homes, which would be a 42% increase plus the mystical 5% deliverability. The latest published number is a whopping 95,000 new homes expected over the next couple of decades. With the extra 5% added on, that is a nearly 50% increase, which does not include the proposals for new towns of more than 10,000 properties that may well come through. Buckinghamshire could well be looking at yet another Milton Keynes. I gently put it to the Minister that Buckinghamshire has already taken its hit on building a new town; that town is now the city with a population of 250,000 people that is Milton Keynes, which took away a huge chunk of rural Buckinghamshire. Buckinghamshire council has always been reasonable in its proposals. We have actually built tens of thousands of new homes in my constituency alone since the start of the century. Villages such as Haddenham are unrecognisable as a village after the level of development, and the developers keep piling in. There are more controversial proposals on agricultural land and on farmland being considered right now, just in the village of Haddenham. This issue comes up at door after door; people are fed up with the loss of farmland and our rural identity, and with making our countryside more urban. The reason I will talk about fairness is that when we compare and contrast what Buckinghamshire is being asked to do with what the Mayor of London is being asked to do, he is being let off on his housing targets by 20%. That is in our great capital city of London, where there are oodles of brownfield sites crying out for regeneration, and people crying out to be able to buy homes—starter homes through to family homes and everything in between. Why is Labour London being let off on those housing numbers when our rural communities in Buckinghamshire are being asked to take the pain? If I expand that argument on fairness, it is a reasonable expectation—as my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) has said is relevant to his constituency—that development from housing must be side by side with the other asks that are taking away our landscape, our nature and our agricultural land, which presents a challenge to food security. Those additional asks come on top of housing. There are the countless solar industrial installations that my constituency sees, from Rosefield in the Claydons through to Kimblewick and many others. The battery storage facilities that we see being proposed are again in the Claydons, and another one of them has popped up in recent weeks near Little Missenden in the south of my constituency. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East, we have the great destroyer, HS2, which has devastated mile upon mile of the Buckinghamshire countryside for no benefit whatsoever to my constituents. I ask the Minister to reflect on the point of fairness and, when he considers housing targets on rural communities, to look at the other projects going on—many of them state sponsored, such as HS2—that have an impact on those rural communities. My last point is that many services cannot cope with the residents we already have, be it GPs or hospital services. Let us take the Chiltern line, for example. The population growth is such that at Haddenham and Thame Parkway station, people are regularly being left behind on the platform in rush hour. That is not the fault of Chiltern Railways: it is because of the sheer growth in demand without anything to make up for it. I ask the Minister to reflect on fairness, and on the multiple demands on our rural communities, and to think again about the balance between rural and urban.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Schools · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) on securing this important debate and the powerful speech she gave. I add my condolences to the family of her constituent who so tragically died outside their school. Road safety is something that we have to take incredibly seriously. This is the second debate in Westminster Hall this week on the subject of road safety, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken powerfully in it. One death on the roads is one death too many, and it is particularly painful when the life lost is that of a child, who had so much in front of them and a whole life to live. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury said, in each and every one of them was so much potential. The risk profile in such accidents involving a child is self-evidently higher, and the impact on the lives of those around them is unimaginable. I do not think any of us—unless any Member has been in that place—can imagine the pain, horror and emotional rollercoaster that people go through in that nightmare scenario. It is of no solace whatsoever to those families who have lost a loved one, but it is important to reflect that there has been some significant progress in the right direction in recent years and decades. It is welcome that the rate of child pedestrians killed or seriously injured has fallen by nearly 41% since 2010. That is not to say that there is anything good about people losing their lives; every life lost is an absolute tragedy. However, that decrease does show that there is a positive trajectory and direction of travel. We need to get it to zero, but my central point is that we are not in a place where the statistics are going up or the problem is becoming worse. That is not to say that there is not a lot still to do. For child cyclists, the rate of those killed or seriously injured has also decreased by 43% since 2010. More broadly, the improvements across all road categories mean that, although there is more to do, the UK remains a world leader in road safety. According to the Department for Transport’s own figures, released in September last year, Great Britain ranked third out of 33 countries in 2023 for the lowest number of road fatalities per million of the population. That progress is reflected in child pedestrian fatalities, which have thankfully fallen; having regularly exceeded 100 a year, they are now consistently in the 20s. That is 20 too many, but it is a significant decrease. However, challenges clearly remain. DFT data equally demonstrates that, up to the age of 11, pedestrian boys are twice as likely to be killed or seriously injured as pedestrian girls of the same age, and among those aged 12 to 15, boys are still 33% more likely to be killed or seriously injured. What discussions has the Minister had with local authorities, schools and the Department for Education, not just about how we solve the overall problem of improving road safety around schools, but about effective approaches to reduce this particular disparity? Our focus has to be on making every possible move to improve road safety around schools. That is very much on my mind in my constituency, which is entirely rural, through a lens that is slightly different but makes the point well. A proposed anaerobic digester in one village would bring hundreds of additional HGV movements past schools, including those in Long Crendon and Oakley. It focuses the mind to think just how close so many of our schools—particularly those in rural villages—are to the fast-moving lanes and major routes that people use on a daily basis. The prospect of those dangerous, incredibly heavy HGVs being added to those roads focuses the mind even more. I am very sympathetic to the ideas that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury and others have mentioned about specific speed limits in the vicinity of schools. That is always, and has to be, a decision taken locally by local authorities. I do not think there is a definite, one-size-fits-all solution for every single circumstance that central Government should dictate, but it is for central Government to ensure that the framework is there to make it easy for local authorities to put in place such speed limits where they wish to, and to put in place effective enforcement mechanisms. It is all too often the case in my constituency—and, I dare say, in everybody else’s—that when a community comes forward and says it wants a particular change to road safety measures, such as a change in the speed limit to 20 mph, the hoops it has to jump through are so considerable, so difficult and involve so many different agencies that frustration sets in. In too many cases, nothing ever happens, or something a bit half-hearted happens. I encourage the Minister to look at what can be done to ensure that local authorities, when taking decisions on behalf of communities that want those changes, are able to do so easily and without the heavy-handed bureaucracy that too often goes with all these schemes. I encourage her in particular to ensure that schools themselves can go to their local authorities and get those changes made quickly. I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury once more on securing this debate. I hope it prompts real and significant action from the Government.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Growing the UK Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Given that construction of the Oxford to Milton Keynes section of East West Rail was completed when Hugh Merriman, the last Conservative rail Minister, pulled the last rail clip into place, it is a bit rich of the Chief Secretary to try to claim credit for it. In one breath he said that he wanted to work in partnership with local leaders, and in the next he reheated the idea of a top-down, Government-knows-best Ox-Cam arc, rebranding it the Oxford to Cambridge growth commission. Local leaders in Buckinghamshire have consistently said no to that top-down spatial strategy, choosing instead to grow jobs locally, including at Westcott space cluster. Does he really want to work with local leaders in Buckinghamshire, or does he just want to tell them what to do?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Solar Farms: Agricultural Land · Hansard source

  More

  Is it not the case that the Government are just plumping for the technology that is available right now, in the form of thousands of acres of solar, when we need 2,000 acres of solar panels to produce enough electricity for just 50,000 homes on current usage? A small modular reactor needs just two football pitches for 1 million homes. As I have said many times, why on earth are the Government messing about with solar given its impacts on food security, which the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) mentioned?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Solar Farms: Agricultural Land · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with every word the hon. Lady has said so far. Does she agree with me that if we are to protect food security and give it equal billing with energy security and national security, not just solar installations are inappropriate, but the ancillary projects like those I am seeing in my constituency? For example, we have battery storage and National Grid coming along and saying it has to completely rebuild all of the substations on—guess what?—more agricultural land. This is a much bigger problem than just solar.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Young Drivers · Hansard source

  More

  It is important that we look at all evidence suggesting a problem and explore the basis for solving it, but I am no fan of knee-jerk legislation. This House is at its worst when we jump to knee-jerk solutions to any problem presented. It is important to look at all the evidence, practical outcomes and potential unintended consequences. The case that the hon. Gentleman raises and the point that he makes are important and should be looked at—as he referenced, it is being looked at by the DVLA at the moment. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point. I double-underline that we should bear in mind that every death on our roads is a tragedy, but there has been significant improvement in road safety over recent years.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Young Drivers · Hansard source

  More

  I hesitate to go there, on what is a political point. When we are having a serious debate, comments like that are not necessarily helpful to the spirit of trying to engender cross-party working. I have a history of looking at this subject, including with the Minister for the future of roads. In the previous Parliament, we both served on the Transport Committee, which conducted a deep inquiry into novice and young drivers and the implications for safety. We looked carefully at graduated driving licences and other things, such as the Under 17 Car Club, which was referred to earlier, and which I am a huge fan of. I am a huge fan of trying to get young people—potentially very young people—in an off-road, safe, private-land setting and starting to understand how to drive and control a vehicle safely.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Young Drivers · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I entirely agree. The younger we can get people into any sort of powered vehicle, so that they can learn how to control it safely in different conditions in a safe, off-road, heavily supervised setting, the better. That work is all to the good and powerful, and I was certainly impressed by the evidence I heard in that Select Committee inquiry. That raises a wider point that I invite the Minister to reflect on. I think it was encapsulated well by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) when he said that young people are focused on passing a test rather than learning to drive. Our testing and learning system is too focused on a very limited set of circumstances that any individual seeking their first driving licence has to go through. Testing is done very often in an urban environment, but rarely on the rural roads that we have heard so much about, and learner drivers never go on the motorway and learn to control a car at significant speeds. My challenge to the Minister is this: how can we ensure that when a young person—or any person, for that matter—is granted their pass certificate and gets their full driving licence, they are properly equipped? To me, the solution is not putting in a graduated system afterwards; it is having the confidence that, when someone is issued with their licence, they are able and safe to control any motor vehicle to the best of their ability. Graduated driving licences would take away too much from young people. We heard from young people in the Select Committee inquiry that I spoke about. What if a young person wants to go into the world of work? What if they want to do night shifts but are told they cannot drive at night? What if they wish to go into one of the emergency services and have to attend night-time emergencies, be that as a police officer—

• 28 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Young Drivers · Hansard source

  More

  I will just expand this point and then give way to the hon. Lady. Since road user casualties peaked in 1965, with nearly 8,000 deaths, there has been a concerted efforts to reduce the numbers. Thankfully, that effort has largely been successful, across successive Governments of all political persuasions. According to Department for Transport figures, released in September last year, Great Britain ranked third out of 33 countries reported on in 2023 for the lowest number of road fatalities per million of the population. Of course, that number is still too high, but the direction of travel is positive, and we need to take further action—

• 28 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Young Drivers · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall this morning. I thank all those who have contributed with powerful speeches. My heart goes out to any family who have lost a child or relative in a road accident. Every single death is a tragedy that should spur us on to do more to prevent future deaths and injuries, and make our roads safer. I cannot imagine the pain of any family getting the knock on the door from a police officer, or however the news is broken to them, to tell them that a child has died on our roads, as in this case, or under any other circumstances. We must always look at practical measures to improve road safety through the lens of “To drive is freedom”. To drive brings opportunity. For many—I include myself in this—to drive brings pleasure. Our challenge is: what will protect those freedoms, opportunities and pleasures in a safer way?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Young Drivers · Hansard source

  More

  I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), and will just finish this point. Mindful of time, I may then take one or two more interventions. Although the claim of a 13% fall in casualties accurately reflects the raw data between 2010 and 2023, it fails to account for the context of vehicle miles, which have significantly increased. During that time, the number of vehicle miles increased from 306 billion to 334 billion. When adjusted to that context, the Department’s data indicates a decrease in the casualty rate from 681 casualties per billion vehicle miles in 2010 to 398 in 2023, which is a 41% reduction. I repeat that we must still take action to get the number down to zero, but the direction of travel has been good.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Young Drivers · Hansard source

  More

  In a few moments, I will come on to the measures that I think would protect the freedom to drive far better, as well as the safety of those who do so. There will perhaps not be agreement with every single point that hon. Members have made in the debate, but I repeat the point. Central to how I would like to look at this issue is not how we can restrict people more, but how we can make people safer in the first place by ensuring that they have the skills required to drive safely, be it in our cities and towns, on our rural roads and motorways, or indeed abroad, where often the rules can be very different. We all know the example of the German autobahns, many of which have no speed limit. It is vital to equip any British citizen going to Germany with the ability to handle a car at very great speed and be safe on those roads. The challenge before us is how to make everybody—young people, for sure, but also old people, for whom the statistics are just as stark, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned—safer and able to handle a vehicle in all conditions on our roads.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Road Safety: Young Drivers · Hansard source

  More

  I have limited time, but I am happy to take up the debate afterwards. What if the path that a young person wants to go down requires them to be able to drive a car at night? There have to be answers to these questions. I gently say to all hon. Members here this morning, including the Minister, that a driving licence must be equal for everybody, and that we must look most of all at how we can improve our confidence that everybody who is issued with one can control a vehicle in all circumstances, in all conditions and on all road types. That will involve a significant change, which will improve road safety for everybody.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source

  More

  Deradicalisation must form a key plank of any plan for reconstruction in Gaza, along with ensuring that Hamas have no role in its future running, as the Minister says. However, a sickening reality on the ground is that in textbooks and school curriculums in UNRWA schools in Gaza, there are materials that promote antisemitism, that incite hate against Jews and Israel, and that promote violence. Unless we stamp out that hateful incitement to violence that is being put in front of schoolchildren in Gaza, there can be no successful and peaceful future. What is the Minister doing in her conversations with UNRWA to stamp that out in its schools?

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  This deal is absolutely the right thing to do, and I very much welcome the Minister’s commitment to our continuous at-sea deterrent, which has not always received universal support on the Labour Benches. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State asked the Minister a very clear question about how she sees this underpinning the AUKUS deal for the long term, but unless my hearing is even worse than I thought, I am not sure that she gave a clear commitment in that regard. May I give her another opportunity to make absolutely clear this Government’s commitment to AUKUS and this deal’s central role in its long-term future?