Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jun 2026 · Digital Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  I am genuinely pleased that the Government have at least come to the table on preventing harms to children from social media and online content, but it strikes me that it is rather piecemeal. Listening to voices on the Conservative Benches, other parties in opposition and the Government’s own Back Benchers, it seems everything is pointing in the same direction: we need an outright ban on social media for under-16s. This House has proven in the past that when we want to act quickly, we can. Before any more children are harmed, will the Minister bring forward legislation?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  When it comes to planning policy, there is little I agree on with this Government. However, I hope that we can find some consensus on the point of retrospective planning applications. In the villages of Upton and Dinton in my constituency, land the size of football pitch was taken over the weekend and tarmacked, and mobile homes and caravans were installed, with no planning permission. It seems that a retrospective application enables those who breach the rules so egregiously not only to wash that away, but not to have to comply with things such as biodiversity net gain provisions, which a fresh planning application would. May we have a debate in Government time on how we shut down the ability for those who so egregiously breach the rules to obtain retrospective permission?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the fundamental point that the state of the roads in this country is getting worse and worse. The Government crow about the amount of money they have given to Buckinghamshire, my local authority, for pothole repairs, but it is absolutely and completely inadequate to fix the problems. Conservative-run Buckinghamshire council is spending £120 million—tenfold what the Government have given in a grant—to get the roads fixed. Anyway, let me get back to my point—it was a good try. We need to allow people to make the choices that best suit their circumstances. Indeed, the condition of our roads is why the Conservatives have proposed targeted measures to repair potholes and limit damaging policies such as 20 mph by default, which have cropped up in authorities both in urban areas and where small towns are situated. Furthermore, the bus fare increases that we have seen under this Government pose significant challenges to increasing demand. Although the Government have been reticent to admit it, the fare cap increased on their watch by 50%, and in many areas there have been further increases in the price of buses. That is simply factual. Those decisions impact bus users in our small towns, and it is this Labour Government who are putting the price of buses up. It is inevitable that increasing costs disincentivises travel between these areas. Some authorities are taking on the cost of bus services, and it remains to be seen whether a balance can be struck and services can be improved in a way that persuades people to use bus routes. This is occurring at the same time that the Government are taking on their project of rail nationalisation, after a period of significant passenger growth over the past three decades. We can debate the challenges around rail and whether the solution could ever be nationalisation, but that increase in numbers is irrefutably beneficial when we consider connections between small towns. I therefore hope the Government consider the measures put forward by the shadow Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which highlight the importance of passenger growth in the Government’s proposals. Small towns do not need transport policies that pit one mode of travel against another. They need practical solutions that improve mobility across the board.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Small Towns: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The importance of connecting our small towns, villages and wider urban areas is evident from the number of Members who have taken part in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing it. What unites the vast majority of travel needs across our small towns and villages is the importance of personal vehicles and—not instead of—affordable, reliable and useful public transport. Those two elements are critical to connecting small towns. The 2024 national travel survey showed the dominance of the car and other private vehicles, particularly in rural areas. That was alongside buses, which are paramount to supporting local travel. However, I am afraid that under the current Government, there is a mentality that, despite some worthy funding promises and powers to local authorities, risks damaging links to our small towns. The 2024 travel survey showed that car trips made up 76% of distance travelled. The 2022 survey paints an even stronger picture for those in small towns. Those in rural towns and fringes used their car to travel twice the distance of those in urban conurbations. People in even more isolated areas used their car to travel nearly three times the distance of those in most urban areas. It is critical that the Government’s policies reflect this fact and support drivers in going about their everyday lives. Any other approach would impose self-inflicted damage on our small towns by disrupting the mode of transport most widely used, which in turn contributes to economic growth. Although I recognise that the classifications are different, as it uses the more traditional rural urban classification system, some of the proposals in the Government’s integrated transport plan, published this April, highlight a complete misunderstanding of the public’s transport needs. The plan says: “we will consider how we set clear expectations that local authorities and developers should maximise sustainable transport interventions before considering any increase in road capacity.” That is accompanied by comments in the section on rural and suburban areas that give the impression that cars should only be used as a last resort—a statement devoid of real life. It is the state telling people what it thinks they should want, not listening to what they actually want. Talking about them being relied on in this way completely misses why many people choose to use vehicles—they are making a choice. Supporting public transport and improving it to enhance links between our small towns is clearly also important—no argument there. In my constituency, I am a supporter of delivering the Haddenham to Thame greenway. However, we cannot do so by sacrificing or denigrating motor vehicle usage. That is indicative of why the Government struggle so much with economic growth. Rather than considering what they can do to improve one form of transport, their integrated transport strategy appears more comfortable trying to encumber drivers either by not increasing capacity or by putting in place policies such as bus priority routes, which in larger areas have done a great deal to restrict the ability to enter towns and some cities. It is easy to talk about this issue broadly and for it to sound like hyperbole, but we can all reference local examples of our failure to take a balanced and practical approach to transport spending. In Buckinghamshire, the Aylesbury spur of the East West Rail project was originally viewed as an integral part of the scheme. It was removed from the plans during a major cost-cutting exercise about eight or nine years ago, yet the case for restoring it remains as strong as ever. It would vastly improve connectivity between Winslow and Aylesbury, both of which are expected to grow significantly in the coming years, while strengthening onward links to London and the north. Importantly, it would do so in a way that supports economic growth, which the Government repeatedly tell us is their overriding priority. Better connectivity means greater access to jobs and opportunity. That example, along with the excellent examples from my right hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), demonstrates the wider point. The challenge facing small towns is not that people have too many transport options; it is that in too many places they do not have enough. The answer is not to make driving harder in the hope that people will choose another mode of transport; it is to improve all forms of connectivity, whether road, bus or rail.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  I listened carefully to the Minister’s answers to Conservative Members on national insurance, business rates and the Employment Rights Act, but I fear the Minister has been, at best, attempting to dance on the head of a pin. If he wants to come to Mid Buckinghamshire, I can take him to business after business that desperately want to take on new apprentices and young people, and would love to use the incentives of the national insurance provisions for under-21s, but cannot because of the overall impact of taxation from this Government, not least national insurance rises on employment. Can he at least accept that it is the overall impact and not the incentive that is the problem?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  Labour came to office with bold promises to cut energy bills, but in the real world we have seen bills go up, up and up again. In answer to the first question, the Secretary of State said that he wanted to do all he could to cut energy bills, so here are some ideas for how he could do so. He could scrap carbon taxes, he could remove VAT from energy for three years, and he could scrap legacy renewable subsidies—that would save people £200. It is called the Conservatives’ cheap energy plan and, in the national interest, we do not mind if he steals it. Will he?

• 21 May 2026 · Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Given that no UK steel producers produce the specialist grades of steel used by precision engineers such as Gibbs Gears in Stoke Mandeville, in my constituency, which supplies components for the aerospace and defence sectors, what is in this Bill for them? All they can see are incoming tariffs on the steel that they necessarily have to import because nobody makes it here.

• 19 May 2026 · Draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. In what has been a week of chaos, psychodrama and endless plotting, it must be a welcome break for the Minister to debate legislation that, as the explanatory memorandum sets out, results in “no changes to this policy and the regulatory regime associated with port State control is retained.” As I understand it, the draft regulations do not implement any new obligations, and it is therefore expected that there will be no direct costs to UK businesses or familiarisation costs for existing inspectors. As such, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not object to this statutory instrument given the support at consultation and the alterations that were made in response to comments. However, I encourage the Government to explore wider measures that do not merely impose further direct costs but, rather, remove regulatory costs in a proportionate manner. I hope the Government ensure that they keep existing legislation up to date to ensure that port state control can operate effectively. Of course, one of the factors that makes these regulations necessary is a shipping sector that is able to operate effectively. I understand that our maritime sector is concerned that the Iran war is squeezing bunker fuel supply. We have heard a lot about the impact of jet fuel shortages, but as the Minister is here, I hope the Government have the same focus on the shipping industry’s fuel supplies as they have on the aviation industry’s fuel supplies. One analyst from Aon noted that bunker fuel shortages tend to feed through to shipping costs more quickly than many other cost pressures. I therefore hope that the Minister can outline in more detail, either today or at another time, what the Government are doing to ensure a sufficient supply of fuel at port.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  In her statement, the Secretary of State said that she was angry, and I can assure her that I have been consistently angry about this unaffordable, unwanted railway ever since it was green lit—angry on behalf of my constituents, who have to live in hellish conditions while it is constructed. Landowners are still waiting for payment for land taken, and our roads are churned up by construction traffic, and still unfixed. There is still not the money to deliver mitigation projects that were promised a decade ago. I heard nothing about any of those challenges in her statement. May I ask the Secretary of State specifically about noise modelling? Modelling has found that in Wendover—where trains were already going to come through at 320 kph—hundreds of homes will face noise that is above the permitted decibel limit set down by the World Health Organisation. Will she commit to the Government fully remodelling the noise impacts on real people—certainly in Buckinghamshire—of the new speed that she has set for HS2, and come back to the House with a commitment that the noise level will not be above the level set out in WHO guidance?

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  On roads, the precedent was clearly set by East West Rail, which fully resurfaced 21 roads that its heavy goods vehicles had trashed. Does my hon. Friend agree that HS2 should follow that precedent and fix that which they have broken in our communities?

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it is patently absurd that the Secretary of State casually said at the Dispatch Box earlier that the overall bill for phase 1 will breach £100 billion—I predicted that years ago—yet even though the taxpayer will keep bailing out phase 1, there is no money to fund the mitigation projects that were actually promised to our communities, such as fixing our roads. It seems that the taxpayer will bail out everything else, but not the community impact.

• 14 May 2026 · National Security · Hansard source

  More

  The level of fear felt by British Jews is nothing short of a national emergency and requires the most urgent and rapid action. The last time that the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box, just before the last Session ended, I raised with him the case of the south Buckinghamshire Jewish community. While I welcome his commitment to increased funds, they still find themselves falling between the cracks for grant funding, because they do not have a building of their own and meet in different venues from time to time. I have sent him the details, so may I plead with him to look at that issue very urgently? Will he help me find a way to ensure that all my constituents and British Jews from neighbouring constituencies who are members of the south Buckinghamshire Jewish community can genuinely feel safe and that action comes very rapidly?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Fire and Rescue Services: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  In Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, there was a consultation. The public overwhelmingly said no to cuts that that fire authority was pushing, and firefighters very clearly said, “No, this is crazy. Don’t do it.” How can the Government ensure that fire authorities, which are making local decisions, reflect the important views not just of the public, but of firefighters themselves?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Fire and Rescue Services: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a superb speech. In Buckinghamshire, the Lib Dem-led fire authority has consulted on removing a third of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire engines and closing two fire stations in my constituency, Stokenchurch and Great Missenden. At a time when risk is increasing and we are seeing more fires, not least from battery storage, now is not the time to reduce frontline firefighting capability.

• 28 Apr 2026 · National Accident Prevention Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) on securing the debate and on the thoughtful way in which he presented his opening remarks, highlighting the need for a national strategy to prevent accidents, not least through the lens of the horrific tragedies that he outlined in the royal town. I am always pleased to see the Minister in her place, but this debate was tabled to discuss a national accident prevention strategy, which would need to extend well beyond the Minister’s portfolio and the Department for Transport. Roads and other transport methods represent only a portion of the challenges raised in the debate. For a Government whose principal ideology appears to be predicated on a misguided notion of due process, it seems that there has been an accident in today’s assignment. The issue at hand requires a Minister whose responsibility it is to think about the broader impact and prevention of accidents, which I would argue is someone in the Cabinet Office or the Department for Work and Pensions, which holds significant responsibility in this area as the sponsoring Department for the Health and Safety Executive. I say none of that as a criticism of the Minister, for whom I have a high regard and respect; I do say it as a criticism of the Government, because I cannot understand why they have chosen to field the Department for Transport in this debate rather than a Department that cuts across the whole of Government. This is an incredibly important issue. There is a risk of accident from the moment we wake up in the morning, when we travel to work or enjoy a leisure activity, and when we go about our daily business. Risk is in our journeys, and in every product we use and place we visit. The Government have a regulatory responsibility to mitigate those risks as much as possible—to prevent avoidable accidents, save lives and shield the taxpayer in the process. A national accident prevention strategy should be about creating not a burden or over-regulation, but the safety and confidence that people and businesses can live, operate and thrive in an environment with lower risk. The cost of accidents to the NHS is estimated at around £6 billion a year. It is suggested by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that accidents are the leading cause of death in the under-40s. We have a duty to do what we can to get to grips with the significant causes of accidents, especially as they change with new developments in our way of life. It is interesting to dive into the figures about prevalent accidents over time. Transport-related accidents are horrific, and of course the Government should want to do more to reduce those further, but they have already fallen by 17% over the past two decades. The number of falls, however, many of which will affect our elderly constituents, is up considerably by 90%, making up 46% of all accidents. I am interested to know how the Minister plans to address some of the major emerging causes of accidents, particularly by working across different Departments. RoSPA’s November 2024 report makes several recommendations, but the clear theme is the need for a more holistic, joined-up approach to accident prevention. The Health and Safety Executive does a robust job of upholding safety standards in the workplace, but there is a need to ensure that the safety standard is consistent at work, at home and in the public realm. Future-proofing our safety standards will also play a key role in mitigating risk for the long term. I would like to hear from the Minister what considerations the Government have made to accommodate the growing use of artificial intelligence and robotics in industry and business, both to mitigate accident risk and to utilise new technologies to reduce risks elsewhere. We have seen in our newspapers this week an example that is relevant to the Minister’s Department: a self-driving car drove straight through the police cordon around a crime scene in London. That emerging technology is clearly not foolproof, and has shown on the streets of our capital city this week that it is potentially dangerous, so how will the Government rise to the regulatory challenge? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield eloquently set out, this is a broad topic. It is clear from delving into the issue of accidents that the Government must take it seriously. Given that real strain and cost are being placed on our NHS and public services, and that some truly horrible accidents are happening around us each and every day, I would like to hear that the Government are taking this issue seriously and that work is being done across Government and not just within the Department for Transport. When it comes to delivering a broader accident prevention strategy, I hope that they will not take a narrow approach, but will listen to the recommendations of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and take the cross-departmental approach that is clearly necessary.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  I raised with the Prime Minister at PMQs a couple of weeks ago the case of Twentyfour Hair, a salon in Princes Risborough in my constituency, which for the first time in 21 years cannot afford to take on a new apprentice. That message is echoed by businesses across my constituency. In order to improve uptake in new apprenticeship starts, which I entirely support, what steps is the Secretary of State taking with the Chancellor to get rid of this punitive level of business taxation, which is preventing businesses from taking them on?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  Prices are going up, and if the Chancellor’s 5p increase in fuel duty between September and next March goes ahead, we will be the European country with the eighth highest fuel duty. Surely this is not the time for that increase. If she wants certainty, the best thing she could do, at that Dispatch Box, is cancel the fuel duty hike.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wind Farms: Protected Peatland · Hansard source

  More

  The Conservative party has been very, very clear on that. We believe in decarbonisation, but we need to do it in a way that people can afford and that does not trash our country in the process, in the way that ground-mounted solar and these wind farms do. The points I am making in arguing that damaging untouched peatland ends up causing more environmental damage than the supposed benefits of the wind farms that those who argue for them want to put there should make every Member of the House pause. They should think whether, in getting to decarbonisation, we are not creating more problems than we are solving by simply taking the first technology off the shelf or going for the convenient bit of land that might be available to build this on. It is a totally false economy to go down the rabbit warren of saying, “It looks green, so we must do it,” rather than doing a whole-system analysis, from the manufacture of parts to the destruction of habitat, land and place across our country. That may actually reveal that the results are not as green as they look on the metaphorical packaging. The guidance does little to help the communities living along these landscapes, the wildlife that depends on them, or indeed the climate if carbon storing habitats are destroyed in the name of carbon reduction. In contrast to that inaction, there is a straightforward solution: prohibit wind farm development on protected peatland across our country—full stop. Despite the Secretary of State holding responsibility for both energy and net zero, it is preposterous that no such ban has been enacted. It is either that the Government do not wish to constrain their ambitions or are displaying sheer negligence towards the natural environment they claim to champion. The reality is that this is not an abstract problem. These are living landscapes that once destroyed cannot be recovered on any human timescale. We need the Government to bring forward a clear prohibition—not guidance, balance or nuance deployed as a smokescreen, but a complete ban. Without the will to protect these habitats absolutely, the peatlands will be lost, and with them 3 billion tonnes of stored carbon, a quarter of our drinking water supply and the quiet, irreplaceable richness of the United Kingdom’s upland landscape.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Wind Farms: Protected Peatland · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate. Since this Labour Government came to power, they have been recklessly zealous in their commitment to net zero targets over all else, not least their willingness to trash our countryside for wind turbines, ground-mounted solar and more, when far less land-intensive energy solutions such as small modular reactors would deliver our energy needs in a much more sympathetic way to our landscape, food security and natural environment. On the one hand, the Government promise to restore our natural environment, while on the other, they open England’s protected peatlands to industrial wind farm development such as Calderdale, which my hon. Friend mentioned in his speech. I wish him luck, and I support him, in his fight against that monstrosity as he sets out to protect his constituents and iconic Brontë country. The consequence is that habitats storing more than 3 billion tonnes of carbon, formed over centuries and millennia, are now exposed to excavation, road building and the foundations of turbines. What do people get in return? They get not a ban, not a firm line, but guidance from the Government that says that deep peat should be “avoided”—a word that is not a prohibition, merely a suggestion. That will create irreparable damage to irreplaceable habitats, and it has been reduced to a footnote in a planning document. In January 2026, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero published guidance permitting wind farm development on peatland. The national planning policy framework states that development on irreplaceable habitats, which includes a quarter of England’s peatland, should be refused, yet the Government have chosen just guidance over prohibition. It is shocking but unsurprising of this Labour Government—we find contradictions in their policymaking at every corner. Crucially, the new guidance on construction practices for wind farms on peatland has not even been published yet—the bulldozers may arrive before the policy framework lands. That failure extends beyond one habitat. Peatlands supply more than a quarter of the UK’s drinking water and provide fertile agricultural land and habitats for rare wildlife. The Government’s secondary legislation, which came into effect in December 2025, removed the de facto ban on onshore wind, handing planning consent back to the corridors of Whitehall, rather than local communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said, that bypasses the consent of local people and empowers the Secretary of State to impose infrastructure irrespective of their concerns. Given that Labour controls the levers of national Government, energy policy and planning guidance simultaneously, that should give us pause for thought: what are they trying to achieve? The Government hold a statutory responsibility to protect irreplaceable habitats, which makes it even more important that they demonstrate visible leadership on this issue, rather than convenient ambiguity. Instead, Energy Ministers tell us that existing protections are sufficient, yet those existing protections have not prevented the guidance from being issued. The Government cannot have it both ways. Over recent years, costs imposed on rural communities by energy infrastructure decisions have grown significantly. With the expansion of the NSIP regime, increases in centrally directed planning consent and innovations in bypassing local democratic oversight, the least that those communities could expect is that their most precious landscapes would be protected. In addition, when the science itself warns against development on peatland, the Government should be able to point to a clear policy to reflect that. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has been unambiguous, stating that “modelling…suggests” that “emissions from the windfarm development on undamaged peatlands…will not”— I repeat, “will not”— “be offset by…the green energy generated.” That is not a fringe position, but the conclusion of the body dedicated to this very question. As ever, I would like to be charitable, but it is hardly surprising that the Government have been slow to draw a firm line when their approach to net zero treats all means as justified by the end.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Foreign Secretary give a guarantee that there is nothing in the so-called reset negotiations with the European Union or the rumoured reset Bill that is incompatible with section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Hammersmith Bridge · Hansard source

  More

  For the second time this afternoon, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has suggested, it is a bit of a blast from the past for me, having previously served on Hammersmith and Fulham council both as deputy leader and then latterly as leader of the opposition. If only my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) or the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) were here, we could go some way to recreating the Hammersmith town hall council chamber in Westminster Hall this afternoon. Back in 2014, when I was leader of the opposition on Hammersmith and Fulham council, the bridge had restricted access but was not yet fully closed; I think one bus at a time was allowed on at that point, which raised significant concerns. It is very disappointing that, across multiple Governments, we have not been able to resolve the challenges on Hammersmith bridge since then. I note that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick was quick to boast about Hammersmith and Fulham having the third lowest council tax in the country—if only I knew how it got to that point! It could possibly have been the period between 2006 and 2014 when, under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, we cut council tax by 20%, taking Hammersmith and Fulham from mid-pack to third lowest in the country, rivalled only by Wandsworth and Westminster at that time. However, since then, Hammersmith and Fulham council has increased council tax on their residents by hundreds of pounds. More gallingly, under Sadiq Khan, the amount claimed by the Mayor of London has increased by over 70%, and what do the residents of Hammersmith and Fulham get for all those increases? A bridge that cars and buses cannot cross. Under a Labour council, a Labour mayor and a Labour Government, the speed of action is slower than a cyclist with a punctured tyre. Ironically, that cyclist would be one of the few people who could actually make use of the bridge in its current state. In January, the Minister stated in a written answer that the taskforce would meet soon. We now understand that it is waiting for submissions to the structures fund. The primary mechanism to bring all the stakeholders together and unblock the problem has not met for a year. Of course, as we have heard eloquently from the hon. Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), this failure extends beyond Hammersmith and Fulham. It affects the boroughs of Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Hounslow, and it has displaced traffic to areas such as Ealing. Given the Labour party’s control over various forms of Government, it needs to give pause for thought as to what it is actually doing. Of course, Hammersmith and Fulham council—there is no getting around this point—holds the statutory duty to maintain the highway, which makes it even more important that it demonstrates visible leadership and urgency in advancing a funded, deliverable plan for the strengthening phase and full reopening. However, that has not been forthcoming, and the 2026 business plan from TfL makes no mention of Hammersmith bridge. Over the past decade, the costs imposed on motorists in our capital city have grown significantly, with those both inside and outside London facing costs because of decisions made by the Mayor of London: expansions of the ultra low emission zone, increases in the cash cow known as the congestion charge and innovations to find new methods of fining drivers. The least those motorists could expect is infrastructure that works. In addition, when they are unable to use their cars, they should be able to use public transport. However, the closure of the bridge has had a massive impact, curtailing many bus routes, notwithstanding the tube strikes we are enduring today. I would like to be charitable, but I am afraid that it is hardly surprising that the Government have been so slow to act when their recent strategy for integrated transport has little to say about cars in urban areas beyond commenting that “Promoting car and lift sharing should be used to manage congestion”, and that those cars should be electric vehicles, which few people actually want to buy. That attitude does little to help people in Hammersmith and Fulham or those other London boroughs south of the river who need their vehicles in the capital. In contrast to that inaction, Conservative councillors in Hammersmith and Fulham have put forward a temporary solution to the problem. The Secretary of State was the previous deputy Mayor of London for transport, and it is preposterous that a team led by someone with such a background has not convened people to get a plan in place. It must be either that Labour authorities do not want to fix it, or negligence. This problem is not abstract; it is impacting people’s lives. The centre director of Castlenau community centre in Barnes recently told the Evening Standard that “There are lots of people who need to go to Charing Cross Hospital, who are having to undergo stressful journeys and potentially risk not making their appointment in time”, and earlier in the debate, we heard a similar example of people struggling to reach St George’s hospital. We need the Government to bring together those in their party who are responsible to put forward a plan. Sadly, I am afraid that, without the will of the local authority and Transport for London, the bridge will remain closed off for most people.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Antisemitic Attacks · Hansard source

  More

  I will share with the Minister some distressing words that I have had from a wonderful man, Rabbi Dr Neil Janes, who leads the South Buckinghamshire Jewish community of which many of my Jewish constituents are members. He said that the recent attacks had become more than just one-offs, and that the “unacceptable strain on Jewish life has been normalised”. The South Buckinghamshire Jewish community do not have a building; they meet in different places around the area. Because of that, they do not qualify for funding from the faith communities security grant. Rabbi Janes tells me, however, that after every attack, they have to become more secretive in where and when they meet. That is unacceptable for any group in our society. On top of the words that the Minister has given, which I accept—I think he is a good Minister and I have faith in him—can he set out for the South Buckinghamshire Jewish community and every Jewish community in our country the concrete steps that he will take to ensure that they are safe and can live freely in this country?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Tourism Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. With people coming to Buckinghamshire to enjoy the beauty of our countryside walking in the Chilterns, the tourism sector is important, but with the punitive levels of business tax hitting all those businesses—such as camping at Orchard View and country retreats at Starveall farm—talk of a tourist tax and an overnight levy could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Can the Secretary of State confirm that she is actively lobbying the Chancellor not to bring in such a levy?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Tourism Sector · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps her Department is taking to support the tourism sector.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this important debate. I must start by declaring an interest: my home is off the gas grid, and we use heating oil. When constituents have raised this issue with me—many have—I therefore understand it not just as their Member of Parliament, but as a fellow purchaser of heating oil. When prices doubled—or, as we heard, sometimes tripled—overnight following the outbreak of war in the middle east, it was a genuine financial shock that was even greater than when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. According to evidence from Martin Lewis of Money Saving Expert, customers who had paid around £300 to £350 for 500 litres of heating oil in February were being quoted between £600 and £1,000 just weeks later, and that price continues to go up. That is not a marginal increase. For families on fixed or modest incomes—not just the poorest households—that is the kind of bill that forces a choice between heating, eating and other necessities. So far, the Government have allocated £53 million in very targeted financial support across the United Kingdom, as we have heard. They have announced intentions to introduce consumer protections, including dispute resolution, greater price transparency and enhanced protections for vulnerable groups. To be fair, they have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to examine the market, and have signalled that an energy independence Bill will include powers to establish an ombudsman or appoint a regulator. I acknowledge all those steps—they are not nothing—but let us be honest about what they amount to in practice. As we have heard, in Northern Ireland, where almost two thirds of households rely on heating oil, the allocation amounts to roughly £35 per household. The First Minister of Northern Ireland described it as a “slap in the face”; the Finance Minister said it was “significantly below par”. In Scotland, eligible households can apply for £300 in support. In England, the money flows through local authority crisis and resilience funds—I particularly note the example given from Norfolk. Are Ministers confident that funding is actually reaching people in every part of our country at the pace and scale required? The evidence from many places suggests that the answer is not a straightforward yes. Also, why has LPG—this has come up in the debate—not been more consistently included in the scope of support? LPG users are in much the same position as heating oil customers—off grid, without alternatives and facing the same challenges—yet they have too often been an afterthought in support announcements. That needs to be addressed. The problem is not confined to households. I have heard from businesses, some in my constituency, that are dependent on oil and LPG, including a pub that has had to completely close its kitchen and food offering because the cost of running it has become prohibitive. Thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises across rural Britain are in the same position, and the Government have not even attempted to support those businesses. That needs to change. That is the structural failure at the heart of this debate. Unlike gas or electricity, the heating oil market is not regulated by Ofgem. There is no ombudsman or binding transparency requirement. The Competition and Markets Authority is now examining the market, which I welcome, but the CMA’s own chief executive has acknowledged troubling reports of cancelled orders and sudden price increases. That is precisely the kind of sharp practice that exploits the absence of regulation, examples of which Members have raised in this debate. We should end the practice of accepting orders without stating a clear, binding price up front, only for consumers to receive a bill on delivery significantly higher than anticipated. That is not a complex regulatory ask; it is basic consumer protection. When someone agrees to take delivery of heating oil, they should know what price they are paying before the tanker arrives, not after. The Government’s promise of an ombudsman and stronger consumer protection signals the right direction of travel, but it is a promise of future action, not present support. Rural households and businesses cannot wait for primary legislation to wend its way through Parliament before they receive the most basic of protections. I say to the Minister: adequate support means three things. It means emergency financial assistance that is genuinely proportionate to the scale of the crisis, not the equivalent of £35 per household, when those households are facing hundreds if not thousands of pounds in additional bills. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other Conservative colleagues, including myself, were the first to write to the CMA to investigate failings in the sector. I urge the Minister to continue to examine that “at pace”, which I think is the fashionable term, to get this right in future. We are also urging for LPG users to be treated with equal importance to heating oil consumers. That means immediate binding price transparency requirements, so that consumers know what they are paying before they commit. Around 1.5 million households across the UK rely on heating oil. They are disproportionately older, rural and without alternatives. They deserve better than warm words and a timetable that seems to stretch endlessly into the future.