Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Jun 2025 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement and his Committee’s report, which is welcome. The summary clearly says: “Britain’s economic institutions and markets—especially in public procurement, energy, skills” and, critically, “the diffusion of innovation and finance—must be modernised for new times.” In the spirit of the partnership he spoke of between the public sector and private sector, he will no doubt have been glued to the debate on the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill yesterday, when I pointed out that most of the Government’s advanced fuels funding is going on foreign-owned technologies. How does he think, and did his Committee consider, the way that the approach to Government grant schemes for innovation needs to change to ensure that we keep talent and innovation here at home?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Gibraltar · Hansard source

  More

  Notwithstanding the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to the sovereignty clause, the question of sovereignty can only really be answered once we have the full detail of the treaty. That scrutiny is made poorer by the Government’s decision when they took office to abolish the European Scrutiny Committee, which did detailed work on this subject in the last Parliament. If I may tease out a further response, given the unique nature of Gibraltar airport, where the runway and aerodrome are owned by the Ministry of Defence and operated by the Royal Air Force, will a member of the British armed forces landing in Gibraltar have to prove their British identity to anyone in order to go to work?

• 12 Jun 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  We support business rates reform, but when Labour’s own trade union says that its plan is not going to work, Ministers should really sit up and listen. Let me turn to another issue affecting our high streets: shoplifting—which continues to devastate many high street retailers. I see that in my own constituency in high streets in Princes Risborough, Wendover and Great Missenden. How is the Minister actively engaging with the Home Office, police and crime commissioners and police forces to move shoplifting up the agenda across the board, just as my home force of Thames Valley has done with its Disc scheme? Before he comes back with police numbers, let me tell him that there are more police in Thames Valley than ever before, let alone since 2010. Just talking the talk on numbers is not enough. What is he going to do proactively to make this issue go up the agenda?

• 12 Jun 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The Retail Jobs Alliance is very clear in its warning that the Government’s changes to business rates will “accelerate the decline of high streets, reducing footfall…and creating a cycle of economic downturn.” That letter was also signed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—a Labour-affiliated trade union. Once again, the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade have a choice. Will they stand up for high street retailers, actual employers and even their own affiliated trade union, or will they just go along with Treasury diktat?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Theft of Tools of Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the hon. Lady for her work. In the last Parliament, my private Member’s Bill received Royal Assent as the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. It requires some statutory instruments to be passed, in the first instance on agricultural theft, but it is written in such a way that it can incorporate tool theft from builders’ vans and so on. Does she agree that a necessary first step in tackling this scourge is getting those SIs made?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before I begin, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, with respect to a donation from P1 Fuels. Although it does not make aviation fuel, it was in the synthetics business, and—as the Minister well knows—I ran a classic Land Rover on that fuel last summer to prove the point that this stuff works. The test that net zero must meet is that all our constituents must still be able to do everything they do today—be it fly on holiday, drive, or get a ferry or anything else that runs on a liquid hydrocarbon—and that businesses must still be able to move goods around the world and trade at the same price as today, or for an equivalent price, just greener. In that, technology is our friend, as is the innovation we see—particularly on these shores, but also innovation that is happening abroad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), the shadow Secretary of State, said earlier in the debate, the Opposition do not seek to divide the House on Second Reading. This Bill is an extension of the previous Government’s agenda in this regard, and we fully recognise the need to replace fossil fuels over time and, in this instance, to replace aviation fuel with a cleaner, greener alternative. However, there will be key questions that the House should look at as this Bill goes through Committee and its later stages, which do need answers. We have heard some of those questions throughout this afternoon’s debate. We have had a good and wide-ranging debate, with very little deviation from the core consensus that sits underneath the Bill. On the Conservative Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made the important point that aviation will be critical to get the tourists into the new Universal theme park in Bedfordshire when it eventually opens. He also focused on the important role that Cranfield University and industry in his constituency are playing—they are providing part of the solution to the problem that this Bill seeks to support and deliver. Equally, he asked the legitimate question of how the United Kingdom mechanism and mandate compare with those overseas, which I hope the Minister will reflect on in his winding-up speech. On the Government Benches, the chairman of the Transport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), spoke well and in an informed way on this subject. She and I both served on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and we both worked on the inquiry and report on the fuels of the future that the Committee produced during that Parliament. She rightly made good points about the supply of waste for SAF technology and the trade-off with energy from waste facilities, for example. There will have to be some conversations within Government, particularly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, about the way in which so many councils, including my own in Buckinghamshire, now send all general waste to an energy from waste facility. Those incinerators and facilities have been financed through multi-decade deals, and if we are to get that waste into SAF production, some of those deals will inevitably have to be undone or renegotiated. Who will bear the cost of that? The hon. Lady equally raised an important point about bioethanol—I do not know whether it was just shadow Ministers who received an email from Vivergo Fuels this week, or whether it was all Members of the House. That email gave a pretty stark warning, particularly about the impact of the US trade deal that the Government have done on the bioethanol space. Essentially, it warned that that deal could completely undermine the UK bioethanol industry. That is a serious concern that the Department for Transport and the Department for Business and Trade will have to work out if we are to have domestic bioethanol production, as much for sustainable aviation fuel as for petrol. We largely all fill up—unless we have classic cars—with E10 at the pump. E5 is still 5% bioethanol. As this Bill passes through the House and as the petrol debate for road cars moves on, that serious question will have to be answered. When we get a warning from industry as stark as the one from Vivergo Fuels, it needs to be addressed. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) mentioned the role of hydrogen in the mix, and I look forward to debating that with him when he has a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall next week, I think. He is absolutely right that there are other technologies and other fuels out there. The hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) correctly pointed out that there can be no net zero without many of the elements of this Bill. The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke passionately about Doncaster airport and the sustainable future that the Bill will help bring about. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) spoke in support of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) spoke in an informed way about SAF production, which forms such an important part of the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) rightly spoke of the innovative landscape, although the drone taxis did worry me a little bit—I am not sure we have completely got goods being delivered properly by drones yet, so we should do that before we start putting people in them. Equally, she rightly spoke about the world-leading engineering jobs that will be created. The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) slightly broke the consensus, but he was entirely right to speak up for his constituents and his constituency interests so passionately. I think there is a legitimate debate about the refineries that we have lost, the refineries that we still have and how this debate intersects with them. I will not dwell too much on the puns of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). I thought he was a teacher before he entered this House, but perhaps he also wrote for Bobby Davro, given some of the puns he came up with.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We can negotiate more, I am sure. [Interruption.] The less we hear about the hon. Gentleman’s date at Heathrow, the better. Are the Government able to outline their level of certainty about the costs to taxpayers? Is there confidence that the levy imposed on fuel suppliers will not lead to significant rises in ticket prices? In other words, what will ensure that the £1.50 variance in either direction is not a hope, not a dream and not a best-case scenario, but a reality about air fares? It would also be helpful if details could be provided about the expected cost of importing SAF in comparison with the cost of producing it in the United Kingdom. If we are imposing costs on passengers through levies, is it expected that SAF can be produced more cheaply in other regions, or is the policy focused primarily on energy security? As I have said, our view is that we should make the fuel right here in the United Kingdom using our technology, but in order to get the right price from our technology in the UK, it is important that we understand the market overseas. Can the Minister outline what proportion of the SAF used in the UK is expected to be produced domestically in the first instance? What would constitute success in the first iterations? The Government have suggested that financing a plant costs between £600 million and £2 billion. From a regulatory perspective, what can be done to ensure that plants fall towards the lower end of that cost range? There are many questions to be answered in getting the Bill right. We want to get it right, and we want to see sustainable aviation fuel used in our aircraft. We will not divide the House today, but the test, as always, is this: have the Government got it right?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman shows my age, and no doubt his own, with that sedentary interjection. The hon. Member for Harlow was right to focus on the skills agenda that underpins this legislation, on which I do not think we have heard so much from the Government. Likewise, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) rightly pointed out the lived experience of Jet2 and the impact on cargo. We have heard a lot in this debate about moving people around the country and the world using aviation, but not so much about cargo, which is an equally important part of our role as a global trading nation. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), putting aside his little geek-off with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), was right to focus on that agenda of moving goods as well as people. We also heard from Teesside, with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) and the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). In fact, I am a little worried. This morning I was in Westminster Hall with the hon. Member for Stockton North, for a debate on the space industry, in which I agreed with every word he said, and I am a bit nervous to say that I agreed with him this afternoon, too. That does not often happen in this House, but he was absolutely right that all our constituents work hard and save hard. They want that family holiday or that weekend away or whatever it is every single year, and it would be a gross dereliction of duty for any of us to lumber them with higher airfares or to try to make their holidays more expensive. That is not what any of them send any of us here to do; they want us to ensure that they can still live their lives in the way they wish. Briefly, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam warned us that he might be boring but, uncharacteristically for a Liberal Democrat, he actually was not. [ Laughter. ] I very much enjoyed his speech and the knowledge that he brought from his 16 years of work in the aviation sector. The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) was equally right to focus on another matter that a few Members have raised in the debate: the use of SAF by our armed forces, particular the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. The use of technology, from fuels derived from waste and feedstock to pure synthetics, is where I think much of the debate will go in the coming years. In fact, the technology to enable us to move on from those feedstock and waste-derived fuels already exists. In 2021 the RAF flew a plane not on a blend of SAF, but on 100% synthetic fuel made right here in the United Kingdom by a company called Zero Petroleum, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). Let me now turn to a part of the agenda on which I think we will need to have a conversation when the Bill goes into Committee. The Bill gives no detail on the approach to be taken regarding the specifics of the contracting between the producer and the counterparty, the Government contractor for the strike price. In the background material, especially that which can be found in the Government’s response to the consultation on the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, the ambitions are largely there, and we are not critical of the ambitions that sit within that document, but it might be beneficial to be sure that the contracting will follow those ambitions. Given that the SAF mandate already in force includes a ringfenced mandate for an electro-sustainable aviation fuel quota, it is critical that eSAF projects are supported equally within the revenue certainty mechanism. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF and eSAF, and local production as created by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of SAF and eSAF, as that not only retains revenue within the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. Sadly, a great many projects supported by grants from the Advanced Fuels Fund are using foreign technology. Perhaps I could suggest that the Government reflect, ahead of the Committee stage, on the possibility of adding another ambition to those that they have already set out: namely, to reward or incentivise the use of UK technology in projects supported by the revenue support mechanism. The House may be surprised to know that, despite the various programmes of UK Government support for SAF and eSAF, AFF grants, SAF mandates and the SAF revenue certainty mechanism, no UK Government bodies are mandated to support the development of the core technologies of fuel synthesis. We have a great tradition of research and development in this country. Companies such as Zero Petroleum have been funded entirely by private capital—which is largely a good thing—and also through some of their RAF and Ministry of Defence contracts, for different reasons. Notably, however, the Aerospace Technology Institute is the Government-funded body that should be supporting SAF and eSAF manufacturing technology. It supports everything else, including hydrogen and electric aircraft, but, bizarrely, it is not permitted to fund SAF and eSAF technology programmes. That is a huge misalignment in the strategy, which I hope the Minister can address. I have a few key questions for the Minister, and he is showing great enthusiasm about answering them. We will be spending three days in Committee, so there will be many more to come.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Space Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) not only on securing this debate, but on his comprehensive opening speech—his knowledge is almost encyclopaedic. I also thank him for the leadership that he has shown on space in this Parliament and previous Parliaments, in particular as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for space. We have had a very good debate this morning, with contributions of great quality from both sides of the House. In that cross-party spirit, let me say that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), in particular, hit many nails directly on the head. We clearly share an interest in the Satellite Applications Catapult, which has a base in my constituency, although I detected a note of disdain in his voice when he talked about battered Land Rovers. I would argue that a battered Land Rover is a sign that that great miracle of British engineering has been used properly and to its full capability. It is a privilege to speak in this important debate on the state of the United Kingdom’s space industry, a sector of strategic importance to our national economy, scientific capability and future prosperity. Let me begin by making one thing very clear: the United Kingdom has the potential to be a true spacefaring nation. We have the scientific expertise, entrepreneurial ambition and geographic advantage to build a world-leading domestic space sector. In my constituency, the space industry is totemic. From the Westcott space cluster and the national space propulsion centre at Westcott Venture Park, to UK Space Command’s headquarters and the national space operations centre at RAF High Wycombe at Walter’s Ash—the nation’s military hub for space operations, workforce development and space capability delivery—Mid Buckinghamshire stands out not only as a showcase for the space industry, but as an incubator for research and development. It is a true representation of the sector in its entirety. The Labour party came into office with a good promise of a bold new era for science and technology. Its manifesto committed to supporting high-growth sectors, including space, and spending on sovereign capabilities to secure Britain’s place on the global stage. I hope the Minister can confirm that all that will become a reality, because in practice—and the Opposition are right to challenge the Government and kick the tyres when good promises are made—we have seen little more than rhetoric and inaction so far. Since July 2024, the space sector has been left in policy limbo. Programmes vital to our future competitiveness have been stalled or scrapped. Promised investment zones with a focus on aerospace innovation have failed to materialise. I hope the Minister can correct that. The much vaunted Labour industrial strategy, which was supposed to support clusters in places such as Harwell, Leicester and Cornwall, remains a mystery. Perhaps she can confirm when we will finally see it. The consequences are tangible and severe. We are already seeing UK-based satellite developers and launch technology firms relocate to more supportive environments abroad. Domestic providers face growing uncertainty in accessing long-term capital, while investors are left wondering whether the Government have any meaningful plan to support this vital sector. That is a blow not just to British industry, but to local economies. The space industry is not confined to a few square miles of south-east England; it is an ecosystem that stretches from satellite testing in Glasgow, to launch infrastructure in the Shetlands and mission control in Oxfordshire. Cornwall, as others have spoken about, also plays an important role. Every contract cancelled and every research and development grant deferred is a missed opportunity for skilled employment in communities that need it most. By contrast, under the previous Conservative Government, in late 2023, UKSA launched its national innovation programme, with up to £65 million distributed over four years, including a £34 million first tranche aimed at low technology readiness level disruptive technologies. What of the young people inspired by the promise of a career in space science? The previous Conservative Government made education and outreach a priority. We backed science, technology, engineering and maths education, supported apprenticeships through the National Space Academy, and ensured that British students were represented in flagship European and international missions. Labour, by contrast, has made no clear commitment to supporting science education in the context of space, nor has it outlined any plan to secure future UK participation in global space exploration partnerships. I must also raise the issue of our highly specialist supply chain, which sees components built in Wales, avionics manufactured in the midlands, propulsion systems designed in Surrey, and the excellent work of the national space propulsion centre at Westcott in my constituency. These are the unsung heroes of the UK’s space sector. They rely on steady R&D investment and long-term procurement planning. However, Labour’s failure to provide certainty on either means that many of those SMEs face an existential threat. They are simply relying on measures that we originally put in place. The space industry, by its nature, is built on long-term vision. The last Conservative Government understood that. We launched the national space strategy, invested in sovereign launch capability through Spaceport Cornwall and SaxaVord, and worked to ensure that the UK could lead in space sustainability. We stood up for British science post Brexit by negotiating critical participation in global satellite projects. We now need a recommitment to that vision, which this Labour Government have so far failed to provide. When will the Government publish a revised and fully funded national space strategy? When will they provide certainty for R&D tax credits to incentivise investment? When will they deliver on their manifesto pledges to support sovereign UK capability in launch, satellite navigation and Earth observation? If they are serious about Britain being a science superpower, they must start treating the space industry as the strategic asset that it is; otherwise, we risk watching our world-class talent, our world-leading innovation and our national ambitions quite literally leave for other shores. Conservatives remain committed to the UK’s future in space technology. We will continue to make the case for ambition and leadership in a sector that speaks to the best of our country, scientifically, economically and aspirationally.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I have absolutely no sympathy with the comments and rhetoric of the two Israeli Ministers that the Minister has announced sanctions on. In his statement, the Minister said clearly, “we will not sit by while extremists wreck the prospects of future peace”. If the action he has just announced is not to be seen as a double standard, where are the sanctions against Ministers within the Palestinian Authority who have incited violence and made vile comments of hatred against Jews and Israelis?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman just said that CPO powers are, to the landlord, an inconvenience. I would say that having a home, farm or business taken is absolute devastation, not an inconvenience.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that where CPO powers already exist, there is a massive lack of trust between landowners and the acquiring authority? All too often a proposal will be put on the table, and an agreement will be reached, but then the legal agreement that actually comes along is totally different. Does he agree that there needs to be a CPO code of practice that gives landowners much greater protection?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Nuclear Power: Investment · Hansard source

  More

  Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. To give credit where it is due, I totally welcome today’s announcement on nuclear. Where I disagree with the Secretary of State is on his persistence to plough ahead with inefficient technologies such as solar and the associated paraphernalia, such as battery storage, which trash the Buckinghamshire countryside and, indeed, the wider British countryside. Nuclear works 24/7; solar works about 10% of the time. Will he have greater courage and plough ahead with this much more efficient 24/7 nuclear technology and drop solar?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When the Minister says that agricultural protections are very strong, that simply is not true, is it? In the new NPPF that the Government brought in after being elected, they removed the important clause that explicitly protected land used in food production.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have always been very clear that my top priority is the protection of the Buckinghamshire countryside and all of our farmland for the production of food, not for development. It is through that lens that I rise to speak to a number of amendments that I think will make this horror show of a Bill that tiny bit better. First, I will speak to new clause 44, which deals with sustainable drainage, and new clause 53, which would stop development on floodplains. I can think of so many examples in my constituency where development has either happened directly on the floodplain or caused horrendous flooding concerns in communities. In Ickford, the developer’s expert said that flooding would be a “once in 100 years” eventuality, in an area that flooded six times in six months. I stood with the water lapping at the top of my wellies before that development was built to try to make a point, and now those homes are built, guess what? On Worminghall Road in Ickford, the houses that were there before are regularly flooded. Likewise, the construction of HS2 has had an impact on flooding in Calvert Green. Calvert Green simply did not flood before HS2 poured concrete into the fields next door, and now, guess what? It does. I also support new clause 45, which would stop planning permission in cases where illegal development took place. I can think of examples in my constituency, such as between the villages of Askett and Longwick, where illegal development took place, yet the planning inspector has perversely now rewarded that bad behaviour by giving planning permission. Bad behaviour should not be rewarded and that new clause would stop it. Others have spoken about chalk streams, which are incredibly important in Buckinghamshire, and new clause 87, which would designate chalk streams as protected sites, is incredibly important.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  During the general election campaign, that well-known political giant, “a Labour spokesman”, said that Labour had no plans to change the winter fuel payment, but within weeks, the Government had cruelly cut it, withdrawing it from millions of pensioners, and 13 months later, the Minister is performing this screeching U-turn. Given the hokey-cokey nature of this policy, can he give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that what he is announcing will apply not just this winter, but every winter in this Parliament?

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  The number of banks that have left my constituency has driven me mad: in the 336 square miles of Mid Buckinghamshire, only one high street bank is left standing. One of the most absurd things that I have heard multiple banks say over the years is: “Oh, but there’s a bank just a few miles away.” That might be technically true on Google Maps, but to pick somewhere close to my constituency entirely at random—I see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in her place—in High Wycombe it takes an enormous amount of time compared with how it looks on Google Maps to get into the town centre and back again. If one bit of the criteria needs to change, it is that banks should not be able just to say, “Oh, there’s a bank a few miles away.” They need to look at the time it takes in real life to get from a village to a nearby town.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Battery Energy Storage Sites: Safety Regulations · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on bringing forward this important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in it, because this is a matter of considerable concern to the many rural communities in the Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, particularly given the safety risks posed by battery energy storage systems. Let me be clear from the outset: this is a debate not about the principle of energy storage, although I am in principle opposed to such schemes taking agricultural land and challenging our food security, but about—and this is deeply concerning and the House must urgently address it—the real, growing and too often overlooked safety implications of these installations, particularly when placed in close proximity to villages and rural road networks that are ill-equipped to support them. The most pressing risk, and one that has already led to devastation elsewhere, is the danger of thermal runaway, as others have said. These are not hypothetical risks; they are documented, real-world events. In Merseyside, a fire at a battery site in 2020 caused an explosion that shook nearby homes and required a major emergency services response. In Arizona, a BESS fire led to an explosion that seriously injured eight firefighters, and in Belgium, a BESS fire burned for over a week and forced the evacuation of nearby businesses. These systems contain highly reactive lithium-ion batteries. When one cell fails—often due to manufacturing defects, overheating or damage—it can cause a chain reaction across the entire installation, releasing toxic gases, generating intense heat and creating a fire that cannot be extinguished with conventional methods. In rural areas, where response times may be slower and firefighting resources more limited, the consequences could be catastrophic. In my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, we are increasingly seeing applications for these industrial-scale storage sites in rural settings near homes, farms, schools, conservation areas, watercourses and rivers. These are often justified in the name of green energy, but residents rightly ask: green for whom and safe for whom? It is not just the risk of fire; the cumulative impact of associated infrastructure—substations, cabling, transformer enclosures —often means miles of narrow rural roads being torn up by heavy goods vehicles, with lasting safety implications. Roads that were never designed for such weight and volume are left with potholes, uneven surfaces and subsidence. For local motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders, or schoolchildren walking along rural lanes, this poses a daily and wholly unnecessary danger. I have received multiple reports from parish councils, residents and emergency services who are concerned that the access routes used for construction and maintenance of these sites are not fit for purpose. My constituents in the Claydons and in Little Missenden are at risk from convoys of lorries, with junction visibility reduced, verges destroyed and road surfaces degraded if BESS projects planned for those areas go ahead. Should an emergency arise at the site itself, one has to ask: would a fire engine or ambulance even be able to reach it safely and quickly? Could the fire service even attempt to deal with such a fire? That is why I am pleased that Buckinghamshire Council rejected a 500 MW site in the Claydons last year. I trust that other speculative developers, such as the one planning a site just outside Little Missenden, will take note and spare my constituents from these unacceptable fire risks and road safety risks. We must take a more precautionary approach. At the very least, the Government should introduce clear national guidelines on the siting of BESS installations, including minimum separation distances from residential properties, fire resilience standards, mandatory site-specific risk assessments, and restrictions on placing these facilities on or near rural roads. I urge the Government and local planning authorities to take these concerns seriously. Safety must never be sacrificed on the altar of speed or ideology, or the first technology that happens to be on the shelf that day. Our rural communities in particular deserve better protection.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I listened carefully to the answer that the Minister gave to the right and proper question from the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) just now. Will the Minister not accept that simply calling for Hamas to go back to the negotiating table is nowhere near strong enough? For there to be accuracy in this debate, it must be publicly and clearly acknowledged that the only blocker to a ceasefire deal that will get the hostages out, and the bodies returned of those hostages who have died, is Hamas.

• 22 May 2025 · School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations · Hansard source

  More

  I am full of admiration for all the hard-working teachers across my constituency, and indeed the whole country, and my sister-in-law is a secondary-school English teacher, but I have no doubt that every teacher and headteacher watching our proceedings, either live or later, will have had their jaw on the floor when they heard the Minister say that she wants to give them time to plan, but will not tell them what funding they will get to pay for this. It is inconceivable that she does not know the answer to that question, given that a statement on the issue will be published at 1 o’clock. Is she not giving the answer because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) said, No. 10 has told her not to? Better still, is it because the Department is in a live negotiation—some might say a row—with the Treasury to get that settlement for our teachers?

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was a leave voter himself, as I know many traditional Labour voters around the country voted for Brexit. I certainly voted for Brexit and campaigned for it. I think the hon. Gentleman is making some presumptions as to why people voted. My central pitch when knocking on doors in that referendum was the point around control and sovereignty, and that it would be this Parliament that set our laws. Dynamic alignment blows a huge hole in that. I will touch briefly on a couple of other factors that have come up in the debate. There is a point that is made that somehow Brexit has been economically damaging. In the Government’s own rationale— [ Interruption. ] It is always good to have an audience laughing, but I am going to quote from the Government’s own rationale. They talk about declining trade and so on from 2018. I hate to break it to them, but we had not left the European Union in 2018. The withdrawal Act did not come into effect for years after that. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2018, for example, UK food exports were £10.6 billion. Guess what had happened by 2024? They had gone up to £11.34 billion. We need a little greater clarity in this debate where we get the dates right and compare apples with apples, rather than apples with pears.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I have given way several times. I may well come back if time allows, but I am aware of the time limit that you have set, Ms McVey. My constituency could pretty much not be further from the sea, but we do enjoy a lot of fish in Buckinghamshire. I am very much aware of just how angry fishermen around the country are, particularly Scottish fishermen. Yesterday, I debated with SNP Members on the BBC, who confirmed how angry fishermen in Scotland are at this deal. Once again, it is important that we look at some facts. The crude trade gap for fish is actually about 274,000 tonnes in the EU’s favour. The key point I make to those who argued that the deal is somehow good because it means we can export more fish to the European Union is that we cannot export that which we have not been allowed to catch in the first place. I would invite hon. Members that have made that point to reflect on it a little more.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to take part in this debate this afternoon. Having been first elected to this place in 2019, I feel I missed out on the meaningful votes and the main Brexit wars of a few years ago. However, I had the privilege, for the whole four and a half years of the 2019 to 2024 Parliament, to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee under the wonderful chairmanship of Sir William Cash. His choice to retire before the last election leaves this debate and indeed the whole House of Commons poorer. I am sure that he would have had many points to make in the debate. The reason that I refer to the European Scrutiny Committee is the detailed work that Committee did to truly understand the way that EU law pre-Brexit and indeed post-Brexit, and the involvement of the European Court of Justice post-Brexit, still pervaded our nation, our country and the way that many of our laws were made. After Labour won the election last July, the Government took the deeply regrettable decision to disband that Committee. We lost not just that parliamentary scrutiny, which would have been invaluable in considering the deal that we are debating today, but the expertise of the Clerks and the expert advisers who served that Committee, and who often ensured that parliamentary debate on all matters between ourselves and the European Union was well informed. If the Government do anything after this new deal has been struck—a deal that I do not support and that I believe sells out the decision of 17.4 million people in 2016—it should be to re-establish the European Scrutiny Committee, so that each and every one of those rules that we will now take is scrutinised line by line, and reported to the whole House and the relevant Select Committees. Then, whatever side of the Brexit debate we fall on and whatever our view of the world may be, we can all understand where those rules have come from and what they mean to our constituents and our country.

• 22 May 2025 · EU-UK Summit · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister is talking about pragmatism and the national interest, perhaps I can set him a very brief maths test. On dynamic alignment on carbon trading, the EU’s carbon price today is £58.84 per metric tonne, while the UK’s price is £38.13. Does that increase or decrease costs on British business?