Greg Smith
MP for Mid Buckinghamshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“As was mentioned earlier, the UK Sepsis Trust had a big bang in 2016 with the famous orange and red posters saying, “Just ask ‘Could it be sepsis?’”, which can be seen in many GP surgeries, hospital waiting rooms and so forth.”
“I am sure that many of my constituents considering a UK break will look to Cambridgeshire, where the always fiscally sound Conservative mayor Paul Bristow has made it clear that now is not the time for such a tax.”
“Ministry of Justice contractors are acting in a deeply inconsiderate manner, affecting my constituents in Edgcott, Grendon Underwood and the Springhill Road estate in the construction of a new mega-prison adjacent to HMP Grendon. I asked the Minister in writing over the summer if she would come and see with her own eyes those problems.”
“Over 2,000 flights cancelled, with more than 150,000 passengers affected; delays, disruption and pain; embarrassment for Britain—what an absolute mess! As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was no offer of a statement from the Government, hence this urgent question from the Conservative Benches.”
“A report by 16 September, which takes us into recess, and six months then to fully diagnose the problem—that is not good enough. A third failure deserves immediate action, not delaying tactics. The Government have a considerable say in how NATS operates.”
“If they were, why on earth are we back here again? Why are airlines and airports lacking suitable contingency plans for when NATS fails—when Government fails—and there is no Government support on the ground?”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Greg Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 12.
“It obviously depends on the cost of production, the blending of the fuel and many other factors, but the most important thing is that the mechanism for transferring the cost to the consumer be done in a very equitable way, so that you remove any competitive advantages or disadvantages resulting from airlines and other players in the industry potentially gaming the system. I would say that that is a more critical element to consider.”
“The revenue certainty mechanism addresses price risk, as it is designed to, but other challenges remain for the second and third-generation fuels, and they may need to be addressed as well. I think that it is the best solution for addressing price risk. As other witnesses have described, when we speak to our colleagues in Europe and elsewhere, they see the package of regulation that the UK is proposing as some of the most promising in the world. The UK will become a very promising place to invest in SAF. On your question about the price for the end consumer, it is very hard to forecast what that will be. There are a lot of forecasts out there.”
“Q Green finance is something of a minefield across various technologies. A straightforward first question is whether the Bill is the most effective way to get finance into UK SAF production via the price mechanism. If the answer is no, what would be a better way of ensuring UK SAF production and the protection of UK intellectual property in that production? Where do you sit in the debate about what the ultimate cost to the end user will be? Josh Garton: I think that the revenue certainty mechanism that is being proposed is a really good start to getting finance into the sector. Undoubtedly it will not be the only thing that is required: there are other risks that need to be addressed.”
“The technical design of the mechanism, which is not set out in the Bill, will be what is most critical to ensuring that the mechanism is adequate for facilitating investment.”
“Q From your experience of securing finance for green projects, and given that the other side of the coin to the Bill is the mandate and its demands for increasing percentages of blend of SAF, do you think that the mechanisms within the Bill that we are considering in this Committee will deliver scalability fast enough to meet those elements of the mandate—the 2%, or the 10% over time—or are we going to find ourselves in the position where, to meet the mandate, we will still need to rely to some degree on imports? Josh Garton: I think that imports will definitely play a role, particularly for the first-generation fuels. The structure of the mandate provides space for second-generation fuels, which are quite novel with the sustainability requirements attached to them, so the UK will be a good place for producing them.”
“Q Building on those last two questions, in terms of the investment landscape in the UK for technology, and for SAF in particular, we are in an emerging technological race where, for example, the mandate itself starts to wind down HEFA use quite quickly. We can see waste-derived fuels coming down, but then we have heard from witnesses, such as Zero Petroleum and other manufacturers of e-fuels and power-to-liquid fuels, that this might be where the technology settles in the long term. How much reticence is there from those who might finance these projects to go there on a technology that could well be stood down in 10 or 20 years in favour of something else coming upstream? Josh Garton: To go there? Are you talking about the first-generation fuels?”
“Well, first and second, until we get to third. Josh Garton: It is certainly a consideration, but I think most investors are very cognisant of the fact that the third-generation fuel, while absolutely necessary in the long term, has some way to go to evolve to that point. There is a lot of space still for the first and second-generation fuels to develop, but there will be some consideration about not building overcapacity in those sectors.”
“Q Can I gently push you on that? We heard from the witness from Zero Petroleum earlier that they are ready to scale now, in reference to a question from one of the Liberal Democrat Members on the Committee. If that is the case, what do you see as the barriers to those later-generation fuels being scalable now, when one witness who actually does it—sat where you are sat not half an hour ago—said they are ready to scale? Josh Garton: Certainly, the technologies are at that point. There are still commercial challenges; they have been proven at demonstration scale but not at the commercial scale. In the UK, we have a mandate that provides space for second-generation fuels. While that mandate remains intact, there will be a lot of space for that fuel over the long term.”
“It took me about four years to get a much simpler plant up and running to a point of satisfactory operation. We should not underestimate the challenges of getting those initial assets over that first set of hurdles, but the RCM is an absolutely necessary part of the mix that needs to be put in place.”
“The prospect is that by having more competition for black bin waste, we reduce costs for local authorities. It is really nice if we can get there, but for now, while these technologies are so uncertain and regarded as such a risk, it is difficult for local authorities to commit to them with enthusiasm, because they are afraid that they will end up paying landfill fees if they do not manage to do it. That is one example suggesting that there should be some more comfort around feedstocks. The rest of the answer are the mechanisms that could be put in place to smooth some of the risk around the very first projects. The risks there are around integrating new technologies for the first time and then getting through some of the operating teething problems, because everyone involved will be coming across those issues for the first time.”
“The way that the RCM has emerged so far is very highly aligned with the proposals that emerged in that original report. From that point of view I would say, “So far, so good.” The mandate is evolving well and the RCM feels pretty much where it needs to be. The questions that are still out there, as I think Josh Garton was referring to, are specific to very first-of-a-kind technologies. Part of the issue with the second-generation products is that, while the feedstocks are already wastes, they are often already being used in other sectors. There needs to be, I think, some greater degree of comfort to enable some of those wastes to be bid away without wrecking the project economics of the SAF developer. A good example is black bin waste.”
“My first thought when I saw the RCM was that there was very little that was needed: if you believe that the market will be short of SAF, as many people do, with a buy-out price and a target, you would expect the product to price close to the buy-out price—that which is available. That sends a very strong price signal to investors. I was unfortunately thinking of that from my historical perspective as a strategic investor and had underestimated the conservatism of the banking community. It was clear to me that they were pushing very hard—perhaps because they had grown very comfortable with the idea of a CFD in other parts of the green transition—and they were really enthused and insistent on the idea of a revenue certainty mechanism.”
“Q Good afternoon, Mr New. Fast-forwarding from your review to where we are today, is there anything that you wanted to see, that you recommended or that you found in that review, that is lacking in the Bill that this Committee is considering? If that is the case, how would you improve it—or is this the mechanism that you think will pump-prime the UK SAF industry? Philip New: The main conclusions from the report that I did were, first, that the SAF mandate as laid out—it was at a slightly more formative stage then than it is now—was a really smart way of trying to define the market mechanisms, the targets and the obligations framing a new market. The question then was what other mechanisms would need to be in place, having got the demand side largely mapped by the mandate, to enable supply to occur.”
“I think there might be something around a guarantee of some description that simply says to a local authority, “Look, if you give a contract to one of these companies and it fails—if it can’t live up to that contract—and you have to put it into landfill and pay the landfill tax, there could be some kind of keep-whole mechanism,” just to encourage them over the line. The other thing that you could consider is looking at the waste hierarchy. Simply moving this from being recovery to recovery-plus would send a very strong signal to local authorities that putting it into SAF is a better use of their waste than simply incinerating it and turning it into electrons.”
“In other words, rather than the local authority paying, it would get rid of the waste for free. The developer would not pay for it themselves, but the local authority would still save the money. We thought that would be necessary to give local authorities the comfort to take on the exposure. Later on, there might be scope for it to become a little more competitive, because people will get more comfortable and there will be more confidence in the technology. I do not think that we simply have to bail them out.”
“There is a probability that enough capacity will start to come off stream for it to be picked up. On top of that, the imposition of the emissions trading tax will start to free up some of the very difficult to recycle plastics, which could be used to make SAF. There is also an interesting stream of waste wood that will become available, particularly as some of the rocks start to fall away, which will start to happen in a couple of years’ time—and assets that at the moment are making renewable electricity out of waste wood will lose their rocks. We also need to remember that it is the local authority that is paying the energy from waste company to move it away. I have recently been involved with some economic analysis. We assumed that for the first wave of sites there would be a 100% discount.”
“Philip New: When I first engaged with this, I had exactly the same thought. However, a few things are starting to emerge that sit on the more optimistic side of the balance of risk here. First of all, over time there will be more and more pressure for the energy from waste manufacturers to access carbon capture and storage. It is not at all the cleanest way of generating an electron in this day and age. It would be reasonable to expect that over the next 15 years, we will see a number of those assets get to a point where the contracts are expiring. They will then need to contemplate refinancing, and if they do, whether or not they have access to carbon capture and storage will become important. Not all of them will be able to either afford or justify it, because they are too distant from where the carbon sinks are.”
“Q That is very helpful. As you raised, for example, the black bin waste stream, it strikes me that looking across the differing technologies to produce SAF, the waste-derived ones could end up being the most costly, not least because the bulk of waste goes through local authorities. Many of those—including my own in Buckinghamshire—are tied up in very long-term finance arrangements on incinerators, so they cannot simply take their waste somewhere else because they are locked in a contract. Buckinghamshire is by no means unique in that. Do you see waste-derived SAF hitting an even bigger buffer when the practicalities come, and it either requiring some significant state subsidy to buy out those incinerator contracts or simply not having the waste in the first place?”
“Q Good afternoon. Does the Bill get that balance right? Will it increase UK production of SAF to the point that we have domestic fuel security, or is there a better way of decarbonising aviation fuel? Geoff Maynard: I think the short answer is yes. It meets that requirement because, unless there are some incentives for SAF—which will cost more than the kerosene that would otherwise be used—there is no incentive for the aviation industry to use it. That presents a problem because there is then no environmental benefit, which we desperately and quickly need. The Bill is a good way forward, as we see it.”
“Q But it is the mandate that tells them they have to use it. The Bill is about domestic SAF production. Geoff Maynard: But production is important. You could have a situation in which there is a mandate but nobody can acquire the fuel, except at a totally extortionate price. There would then be pressure on the Government to revise the mandate. That is how we see it.”
“Q That is a very fair answer. On the cost basis, the Government have said that the end-user cost—as opposed to the cost to the airline or the producer—of buying a plane ticket is plus/minus £1.50 on a fare. We have heard from multiple witnesses today that that is potentially an optimistic figure. Where does your organisation’s analysis put it? Geoff Maynard: It depends on where you are within the mandate. If you are looking at low mandates, up to about 10%, then the £1.50 figure is probably correct, but as we move further on, it seems unlikely that it will be quite as low as that.”
“Therefore, at some point, as they kick in, to meet the overall figures, the cost base will rise. That is why we believe that, in the longer term, it will be slightly more expensive because there are not the cheaper feedstocks that are currently available.”
“Q Where does your organisation see the price of SAF going in the medium and long term? In theory, if the Bill works, SAF production in the United Kingdom will increase exponentially. Therefore, the unit cost—the per litre or per tonne cost—will come down. How long does your analysis suggest it will take us—as a country, as opposed to a global market—to be able to supply SAF to the airlines at a cost that is closer to the fossil-fuel equivalent today? Geoff Maynard: On the face of it, you would expect the cost to fall, but the problem is that there is only a limited amount of raw materials for the generation 1 and 2 fuels to proceed. You will have to move forward to meet the requirements; you will have to move to power-to-liquid fuels, and they are going to be more expensive to produce.”
“Hydrogen—forget it; it is never going to work and any pilot will tell you, “Not a chance.” That is just so we have that laid out there. We need SAFs both UK-wide and globally, and we are talking, as an academic institution, with very large airlines that want to produce SAFs in their own country. As academics, my colleagues and I would not pick one technology. What you need to do is what you are doing, which is having a levy that says, “If you produce SAFs, you will then have this benefit.” Then, you will work out which technology comes to the fore, whether that happens to be alcohol production or waste. You should stay agnostic to the successful SAFs output.”
“Q It is always good to get an academic perspective on these matters. We can get locked into all sorts of technical discussions and lose the bigger picture. From your work in the UCL centre, is there an academic view—a big picture view—on which of the technologies that the Bill could support through the price mechanism to scale up production in this country has the best chance of breaking through and being a long-term solution, on a scale that will give us domestic fuel security and at a cost that will not drive commercial passengers and holidaymakers away from the airlines? Professor Maslin : We take the very large view that the only way to make the international aviation industry net zero is by SAFs. Electric short haul—possible in the next 20 to 30 years.”
“I am hedging my bets, so I will not tell you that it will be higher or lower than £1.50. That is a very small amount per individual, but for the companies that are trying to make aviation work and are positive about trying to move to net zero, this is the perfect time to push, as they have suddenly woken up to the fact that they are laggards.”
“Airlines are worried about this levy system, not necessarily because of the extra cost, but because they are not reassured that when there is a surplus, which goes back to the actual producers, it will be then be passed back to the airline. Again, they are happy with the up and down mechanism, but there seems to be no way of shunting that back to airlines to say, “Okay, you have done well, so you can get some money back.” That is more the concern. Adding £1 or £2 to the price of a flight does not concern the airlines from the passenger point of view—it will not put passengers off. What will put them off is when the airlines suddenly realise that if you multiply that by 550, which is the number of people in an A380, you suddenly start to bankroll quite a lot of extra money that has to be found.”
“Q That is very helpful. You may have heard me ask previous witnesses about the cost to the end user. The Government’s analysis is that it would end up being plus or minus £1.50 on the airfare, but a succession of witnesses have not been willing to put their name to that, or even to go as far as saying that they think that that is a conservative estimate. Where does your analysis sit on that? Professor Maslin : Our analysis is slightly different because it is looking at the industry as a whole. On the airline side, there is a worry that these costs will literally be shoved on to the airlines. Many of us do not realise that the difference between this industry and others is that it is a very narrow margin industry. If there is any change in geopolitics, companies can go bust—for example, Finnair.”
“To answer in all seriousness, we are going to continue to monitor and control by managing the scale of the number of contracts we let. This gives the Secretary of State—whoever it is, from whichever party it is in the future—the power to look at what is happening and scale up or down if the market is badly distorted. We feel that there is no big impact on consumers taking their annual holiday to the south of Spain once a year. They will continue to do that unaffected.”
“We have a world-class aviation sector and, if we want to stay world class, it is absolutely essential that we pass this Bill. It is part of our manifesto commitment. We introduced the mandate on 1 January for 2% on the demand side, and this now begins to give investment to the supply side. You are absolutely right; we have to remain competitive in the aviation market if we are going to remain the third largest on the planet, and one of the most advanced. The figure we have from the departmental analysis teams is that it is plus or minus £1.50 of the price of a ticket over a year. That is less than my Bee Network bus fare, where Andy Burnham keeps the cost below £2. That is what we are looking at. You ask how we are going to look at this.”
“Q Minister, no doubt we will be able to go through much of this on Thursday and next Tuesday, but a central feature of the debate on Second Reading was the ultimate impact on airfare payers of the price mechanism in the Bill, on top of the mandate. You were very clear at the Dispatch Box that it was plus or minus £1.50. I have no reason to doubt that, but some of the witnesses today have. Is there some more work to be done by the Department as the Bill progresses to kick the tyres on those assumptions? How confident are you that it will stand the test of time, given that multiple witnesses today have challenged that number? Mike Kane: As the Minister, may I start by thanking all Committee members and witnesses for their time today? I think it is a great question.”
“There is a wider question across Government and UK security about intellectual property, and of course we will keep in contact with our colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade who look at that. The world is looking to us at the moment, as Lahiru from EasyJet said this morning, because we are the first doing this. We want to maintain the intellectual property by being first in the world to do this and then, as the companies come forward with the innovative technology, we want to properly IP that and maintain the competitive advantage in the UK.”
“Q Thank you. That is helpful. Can I also ask for your views on a couple of other areas of evidence we heard today? The first is about a point that also came up on Second Reading: the protection of UK intellectual property as contracts are let and participants come forward to take part in the price mechanism. Has the Department done any more thinking on UK IP, so that we are not just producing SAF, of whichever technology, within the United Kingdom for our own fuel security, but doing so with genuinely UK technology driving it? Mike Kane: As we said, we are agnostic to the technology. As we let the contracts, that is where the innovation will come.”
“That way, as we get to the power-to-liquids and the harder piece to do, in five, 10 or 15 years, there will be a market for it. The beauty of the Bill is that we can let contracts over five or 10 years. Personally, even though Exxon has reservations about this measure, the only emotion I would convey to Exxon is thanks for producing this fuel now, in this country. Exxon is happy about the SAF mandate; its issue is with the revenue certainty mechanism. That is an area where, once the market is established, the Government have an exit strategy; once the market begins to work, the then Secretary of State will have ways out of it, because Government will not need to be in it once we have established it.”
“Q This is my final question before we get to go through the Bill in detail on Thursday and next Tuesday. Accepting the agnostic position, has anything you have heard today from the various companies who have given evidence, be that global giants such as Shell, UK-based innovators such as Zero Petroleum or the companies developing SAFs from waste, changed your thinking on whether there might be emerging winners and losers, given some of the challenges that we have heard about—not least the municipal waste challenges? Mike Kane: As the Minister leading on the Bill, I would say, “My kingdom for a chemistry degree.” Actually, Mark said something that I thought was very pertinent towards the end: we just have to allow the technology to emerge.”
“Families should have the freedom to choose whether they want to drive petrol, diesel, hybrid, electric or other new technologies, and to make that transition when the market and infrastructure are ready, and when prices are more affordable. The Government’s approach has already had real-world consequences. We have seen the closure of Stellantis in Luton, in part due to insufficient demand for electric vehicles. That should serve as a warning.”
“This is yet another example of how the Government’s unrealistic climate targets are contributing to the rising cost of living for ordinary British families. Many other countries have opted for a 2035 target, recognising the economic and logistical challenges of any earlier deadline. In contrast, the UK’s 2030 mandate risks placing an undue financial burden on families here, forcing them to purchase more expensive vehicles while others abroad can wait and benefit from falling prices. We on the Opposition side believe in a demand-led transition to cleaner vehicles, one that respects consumer choice and understands the whole range of technologies available, following a genuine whole-system analysis—not just the tailpipe.”
“The Government will say, I am sure, that we formerly had a subsidy scheme—and that is true: we did, but it was used to create an EV industry in Britain, supporting it to overcome the barriers of entry into the UK market. When that EV industry was created, we ended the subsidy. But now, to cover their mistakes and the unrealistic nature of their targets, Ministers have been forced into using taxpayers’ money to pay for EV adoption and to mask the consequences of their own policy failures. In effect, taxpayers’ money is being used to subsidise a transition that the public are not willing to make. We warned the Government that that would be the outcome. However, driven by an ideological approach to net zero, they ignored those warnings.”
“With fleet sales removed, new EV registrations prove that this is just not a technology that people trust, desire or are willing to spend their hard-earned money on. The Conservatives previously pushed the zero-emission vehicle mandate transition date back to 2035, but this Government have brought it forward to 2030. The need for this subsidy––let us call it what it is––is a clear indication that the Government are struggling to persuade consumers to switch to electric vehicles. That failure stems from two fundamental issues: the high cost of electric cars and their lack of reliability in terms of both range and charging infrastructure.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I begin by drawing the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have spoken at length on this subject, in the last Parliament as a member of the Transport Committee and from the then Government Back Benches, and since the last general election as a shadow Minister. I begin with a simple concept: politicians should never ask someone to do something they are not willing to do themselves. I will put on the record that I am not willing to buy an electric car, and therefore anything that essentially uses taxpayers’ money to produce electric vehicles that so few people in the United Kingdom actually wish to buy—including, it seems from the weekend’s media, the Transport Secretary—is something that we cannot support.”
“Those choices that real people in the real world are making should drive what the Government do to ensure that they get the transition to a greener form of transport right, rather than just flogging the dead horse of a failing technology that nobody seems willing to buy unless heavily bribed to do so with their own taxpayers’ money through fleet sales and the like—and, in this case, through this motion that seeks to spend even more of that taxpayers’ money on propping up a product that just does not have the consumer demand underneath it. It is for those reasons that the Conservatives will oppose this motion.”
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we look at the marketplace out there for both private and commercial vehicles—particularly vans, heavy goods vehicles and larger vehicles—those who have to take a personal financial risk on them are not choosing to do so. Particularly in the HGV sector, they prefer to look at transitional fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil to keep their fleets on the road. That choice genuinely cleaner, but does not cost them two, three or maybe even four times the price for the same vehicle in an electric format—which, of course, comes with a lower payload, because the batteries are so heavy that it cannot legally take the same weight of goods.”
“The two bedrocks of our national defence are our own sovereign capability and our membership of NATO. The United Kingdom and France are both members of NATO, but, as the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, the paradox is that we and every other NATO member bar one are members of the NATO nuclear planning group. Of course, that “bar one” is France. As part of these discussions, is France going to join the NATO nuclear planning group? If not, how on earth will this co-ordination work within that partnership?”
“That is what we in this place are meant to uphold. Although the current Labour Government, particularly with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, want to ravage natural landscapes across our country, I will remain staunch in seeking to protect our neighbourhoods and my hamlets, villages and towns from this reckless agenda. I very much hope the Minister is able to give the Government’s commitment to neighbourhood plans and, as others have said, ensure that the funding can remain to produce them.”
“They have played their part in delivering homes, but on terms that respect the countryside and the unique Buckinghamshire character that makes these places attractive and worth living in. Neighbourhood plans are not optional extras. They are not tick-box exercises. They carry legal weight and must be defended robustly by planning authorities, inspectors and Ministers, even if this Government have never quite grasped that concept or shown any interest in doing so. If we truly want to build the right homes in the right places, we must stand with our constituents, communities, hamlets, villages and towns. We must back local people, who have done the hard work of saying, “Yes, here, but not there.” If we do not, we risk not just bad development but a total breakdown in trust between residents and the system that is meant to serve them.”
“We wanted to see homes built where they were genuinely needed and wanted, while protecting the green fields, rural lanes and historic character that make our villages so special. We knew that communities are more likely to support plans when they have real control over scale and location, not when that is dictated from Westminster. I am proud that in my constituency so many parish councils and volunteers in the villages I have mentioned—Marsh Gibbon, Waddesdon, Stoke Mandeville, Longwick and beyond—have done the hard graft of surveys, consultations and draft policies. They have balanced the need for new homes with the reality of local infrastructure and the natural environment and beauty.”
“In Longwick, the parish council produced a neighbourhood plan with the clear backing of the local community, yet despite that plan, and despite the village having nearly doubled in size already, Longwick continues to receive speculative applications for yet more housing. Sometimes we simply have to say enough is enough. Labour’s stated aim to build, build, build, no matter the consequences or cumulative impact of development on our rural communities, in reality means destroy, destroy, destroy. Consent from constituents is crucial to protect the rural identity of communities throughout Mid Buckinghamshire and right across the country. Under the last Government, we rightly strengthened neighbourhood planning powers, because we recognised that development must be rooted in local consent.”
“In Marsh Gibbon, for example, the parish’s neighbourhood plan, backed by a local referendum, capped the number of new homes in that small village at 25 until 2031, yet we now face an attempt by a speculative developer to push through 90 homes, all on farmland—nearly four times what the community had previously agreed to. Such proposals do not simply test the robustness of local policy; they erode trust in the entire planning system if they succeed. We see similar disregard for local issues elsewhere. In Waddesdon, a proposal has come forward for more than 500 homes and a solar installation—far beyond what local people had planned for. In Stoke Mandeville, a 650-home scheme threatens to overwhelm local roads, schools, drainage and other infrastructure.”
“In Buckinghamshire, a clear framework is taking shape. The new Buckinghamshire plan is being developed right now to set out how many homes we need in the county and, broadly, where they should go, building on the local plans of the legacy councils before we went unitary in 2021. However, it is our neighbourhood plans that give meaning to that strategy on the ground. They provide certainty to my constituents in Mid Buckinghamshire. They reflect the unique character, constraints and aspirations of each parish, village and town. They tell developers, planners and councillors alike where development is acceptable and, just as importantly, where it is not acceptable. In Mid Buckinghamshire, I have seen how the plans work when they are respected and, sadly, what happens when they are not.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this debate, which is incredibly important to our whole country, and certainly to my constituency. Neighbourhood plans are a vital component of a fair, balanced and genuinely democratic planning system. They are a testament to the principle that local people should not simply be told how their community will look by central Government, but be empowered to shape the future of the places they call home. Neighbourhood plans should guarantee that development happens with the consent of those who live there, and is not forced on them by speculative developers or bureaucrats in Whitehall, who too often view our villages and market towns as blank canvases.”