Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Nov 2025 · Police Reform · Hansard source

  More

  In Thames Valley, we are fortunate enough to have a model that is working under the leadership of Matthew Barber, our police and crime commissioner. Police numbers have gone up, and he has led the creation of the country’s best rural crime taskforce and brought in other great initiatives on things such as shoplifting. Instead of throwing the whole system up in the air and scattering it back out across the country with different models for different areas, why not take the police and crime commissioner models that do work and make them the norm for everywhere, and not just in areas that are failing?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Carbon Budget Delivery Plan · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Since the Labour Government took office, they have pursued an ideological net zero agenda that places meeting targets above supporting our constituents and cutting bills across the country. The carbon budget delivery plan is the latest example of that: a glossy plan that completely ignores affordability and reality. The Secretary of State has spent much of his time in office promising that his policies will cut household energy bills by £300. That promise was made at the last election and was supported by the Prime Minister, yet that figure is not mentioned once in the flagship carbon budget delivery plan. There are sections on energy security and lower bills, but nowhere does it reference the £300 promise that the Secretary of State and others from the Labour party incessantly trumpeted across the media and from the Dispatch Box. If that pledge were real—if it were costed or credible—it would surely appear in the document that is supposedly designed to deliver it. Its absence tells us everything. The Government’s priority is not cutting bills, but chasing net zero goals regardless of the cost to hard-working taxpayers. At a recent Energy Security and Net Zero Committee hearing, senior executives from the country’s biggest energy suppliers warned that even if gas were free in 2030, household energy bills would still rise because of the policy costs being loaded on to bills in the relentless pursuit of net zero. I repeat: even if gas were free—even if the wholesale market delivered us a miracle—bills would go up, not down. That is a failure not of the market, but of Labour Government policy. Those energy companies are not hostile to decarbonisation; they are some of the loudest champions of net zero. Yet even they warn that the current approach—piling levies, subsidies and obligations on to consumers—is unsustainable and unrealistic. When those who believe in the Government’s energy objectives start doubting the approach, perhaps it is time for the Government to revisit their plans. Even Professor Sir Dieter Helm, one of the country’s most respected energy economists, has in effect described the Government’s clean power 2030 plan as economically incoherent. As he put it, we are “baking in very high costs” for the future. He is right. It is not possible to legislate for lower bills while loading more costs on to every unit of power people use—a simple equation that the Government do not seem to have grasped, exemplified by what we have all seen in the carbon budget delivery plan. It is a classic Labour approach: a headline without a policy, a promise without a plan, a bill for everyone else to pay, and a vanity project that will simply not work. The truth is that Britain will not decarbonise by taxing, banning and bribing people into submission. As the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), said at our party conference, the best way to cut emissions is to “make electricity cheap”. Cheap means clean power, because people and businesses naturally choose the most efficient technology available when it saves them money. This Government, however, have made electricity the most expensive form of energy that we produce. They have loaded every kilowatt with green levies, obligations and subsidies, and then tried to subsidise and redistribute when families cannot afford to heat their homes or to switch to electric vehicles. We see the same erratic pattern in the operation of the Climate Change Act 2008, which forces Ministers to take decisions that make the British people less well off and our economy weaker, for the sake of meeting arbitrary climate targets. Take their boiler tax: it increases the cost of gas boilers to force people to adopt heat pumps, which may not work for them, to meet climate targets. We are chopping down trees in America, shipping them across the Atlantic and burning them in Yorkshire to generate electricity at three times the price of gas, because it is labelled as clean for the purpose of meeting the Government’s climate targets. These are not the decisions of a Government guided by science or economics; they are the decisions of a Government trapped by targets, with a Secretary of State dogmatically following them. If the Government truly believed in innovation, they would focus on reforming the electricity market to bring prices down; they would remove the outdated levies that make our electricity the most expensive in the world; they would spend more on nuclear baseload; and they would back British energy security, from new nuclear to North sea gas, rather than making us more dependent on imported fuel by choosing to shut down the North sea. The public understand that we must reduce emissions. They want a cleaner environment and a stable climate for their grandchildren. But they also expect honesty from the Government, and an approach that will actually work and actually decarbonise.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Mobile Phone Signal: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but villages in my constituency—less than 50 miles from where we all are now—such as Cuddington and Bryants Bottom still have zero mobile coverage. I have raised this issue with the Minister’s predecessor and all the networks. When are we going to get to a point where warm words about rural connectivity turn into actual rural connectivity?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Mobile Phone Signal: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  3. When she expects all rural communities to have a reliable mobile signal.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulation 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Maritime regulations are critical to maintaining high standards at sea and ensuring our compatibility with the many international maritime treaties to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. The safety, integrity and reputation of our maritime sector depend on a clear, consistent and modernised regulatory framework. It is therefore essential that our regulatory regime is updated periodically, in line with international standards, not only to ensure compliance but to make certain that it remains workable and effective for those across the industry who rely on it. The shipping and maritime equipment sectors are vital to the UK’s trade and economy, and they deserve a regime that helps them to prosper, innovate and compete on a global scale. Broadly, as I understand it, the Government’s proposals are technical in nature and introduce only limited changes to the existing regulations. One of the more consequential proposals appears to be the approval regime for ballast water management systems. It may not be a great surprise to the Committee that my expertise does not extend to the finer points of ballast water management, so I defer to the judgment of the industry which, when consulted, indicated its support for the proposed changes, with only minimal comment. Given the lack of concern from those most directly affected, it seems reasonable to conclude that the changes are sensible and proportionate. I wish to press the Minister on the equivalents provision in the regulations. The provisions allow for the installation of non-UK-approved equipment in certain circumstances. Will the Minister outline whether discussions have taken place with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency regarding the expected frequency and scale of such requests? Will he also provide assurances that the mechanism will not be used as a back-door route to circumvent post-Brexit approval requirements, but will instead apply only to genuine case-specific situations, thereby maintaining both the integrity and the safety of our regulatory regime? I note from the consultation that the MCA has said that the UK’s membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is expected to provide an additional supply of UK-approved maritime equipment, while offering British manufacturers greater opportunities to export to CPTPP member states. That in itself is a positive development. However, although steps have been taken to maintain co-operation with EU-notified bodies, will the Minister confirm whether there are plans to engage proactively with partners across the Pacific region to ensure that any streamlining or mutual recognition of standards is carried out on a genuinely global basis? Doing so could help to reduce regulatory burdens while strengthening the United Kingdom’s position as a world leader in maritime excellence. I hope the Minister can provide clarity on those few points so that we can continue to ensure that the UK’s maritime regulations are clear, effective and internationally aligned, and that our maritime industry remains as competitive and innovative as possible in the years ahead.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Draft Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has said that there needs to be proportionality, but he supports some of the other amenities being reported on. If it is possible for any fuel retailer to say whether they have a current working coffee machine or microwave, how is it not possible to report on whether they have any petrol or diesel in the tanks?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Draft Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Lewell. His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the urgent need for transparency in the fuel market, something the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), took significant steps towards under the previous Government through the introduction of Pumpwatch—now called Fuel Finder—which received Royal Assent in 2024. That went alongside the work of Howard Cox from FairFuelUK, whose persistence has been instrumental in pushing for progress through 15 years of research into fuel pricing. The regulations require every fuel station to register with the Government’s appointed data aggregator and report any change in pump prices within 30 minutes. That data must then be made openly available, free of charge, for use by third-party apps, navigation systems and consumer groups. The aim, as the previous Conservative Government set out, is to allow motorists to see in real time who is offering the best price in their area, enabling genuine competition across the fuel market. Fuel Finder is not a bold new idea from the Labour Benches. It is a continuation, albeit a delayed and diluted one, of the Conservative commitment to ensure that motorists can finally see in real time who is charging what and where. This is a rebrand, not a positive policy change. It was the Conservatives who commissioned the Competition and Markets Authority’s landmark investigation into road fuel pricing, which revealed that retailers were increasing margins at the expense of consumers. The study showed that average supermarket fuel margins had risen by around 6p per litre since 2019 and that a typical family driving a car could save up to £4.50 a tank by driving just a few minutes further to a cheaper station. It exposed a market that was not functioning as it should—one where falling wholesale costs were not being passed on to consumers and where, in some cases, motorists on motorways were paying 20p plus more per litre than they needed to. There are several areas where the Government fall short, starting with margin transparency. Motorists will see today’s prices, but not how they have changed over time, nor whether any increase reflects market forces or simply wider retailer margins. The CMA’s evidence shows that it is precisely those margins that have driven up prices in recent years. Without addressing margin transparency, the real cause of the problem remains hidden. Across Europe, in Austria, Germany, France, Italy and Spain, Governments publish not only live pump prices, but also historical and margin data, allowing drivers and regulators to see whether retailers are passing on savings or quietly padding profit. By comparison, this Government’s fuel finder offers only partial transparency. It tells motorists where fuel is cheapest today, but not whether the price is fair. The Opposition also object to the lack of a legal requirement for fuel stations to report when a fuel type is unavailable. Drivers need to know not only the cost of a litre of petrol or diesel, but whether diesel or petrol will actually be available when they get there. Making that optional undermines the very purpose of transparency. Enforcement is also left vague. The CMA has powers to issue civil penalties and pursue criminal sanctions, but the Government have not set clear thresholds or standards for when those powers will apply. Nor have they addressed the risk that some operators may plead technical failure or poor connectivity as an excuse for not reporting prices promptly. That kind of leniency invites abuse. If the Government truly want transparency, they must ensure that IT issues cannot be used as a standing excuse for non-compliance. The same potential penalties—up to 1% of global turnover or 5% of daily turnover per day—apply to all data reporting obligations under this legislation. While sanctions for non-compliance in price reporting were anticipated, it is notable that the same provisions extend to non-price data. The Association of Convenience Stores, for example, has raised concerns that this could include reporting on the availability of coffee machines, baby changing facilities and even microwaves. I am sure people do want to know if such things are available, but we believe that level of reporting goes beyond the original policy intent and imposes unnecessary burdens on retailers already facing significant compliance pressures. Furthermore, there has been no formal engagement with industry ahead of publishing the non-price data requirements. With the obligation to report on 30 additional categories, that introduces unnecessary cost and complexity for retailers, not only during the initial registration window which runs from 18 December to 2 February, but also on an ongoing basis, given the requirement under the regulations to update information within three days. That directly contradicts the Government’s own target of reducing the regulatory burden by 25%, penalising businesses that are already operating in a challenging economy and diverting resources away from delivering value and service to consumers. Then there is the question of smaller, rural fuel stations like those in constituencies like, to pick one at random, mine of Mid-Buckinghamshire. The regulations are set out to apply universally but there is little evidence the Government have considered the burden on low volume operators, or how those will be supported to comply. Transparency should not come at the cost of driving independent rural stations out of business. Finally, we must look at timing. The Government intend to launch Fuel Finder by the end of this year, two years after the CMA’s recommendation and a year later than originally planned under the previous Conservative Government. For motorists already struggling with record living costs and high fuel prices under this Government, progress has been far too slow. Every month of delay means that families continue to overpay at the pump and competition remains weaker than it should be. The Opposition do support the principle of open data for fuel prices. We welcome the continuation of a Conservative policy that sought to bring transparency for drivers, encourage competition and deliver accountability in a sector that too often escapes scrutiny. But we will not let the Government claim credit for a policy that they did not originate, nor overlook that its implementation has been slow, cautious and incomplete. Conservatives began this work and in opposition we will continue to press for its full and timely delivery for fuel, with stronger enforcement, real transparency and genuine competition for every motorist in Britain. I hope that when the Minister concludes this debate he can address some of the shortcomings I have highlighted this afternoon.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. With reports that the Chancellor is eyeing up doubling council tax for bands G and H, can she tell me whether she really considers the family who wrote to me yesterday—both have mid-range salaries, are fully eligible for child benefit and bought a home for just shy of £500,000 in 2013—rich enough to see their council tax double to £800 a month?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrat-chaired Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire authority has cooked up a dangerous plan to remove nearly a third of the fire engines from the area, including Haddenham. They are also fully closing Stokenchurch and Great Missenden fire stations in my constituency. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of not just local fire services but joined-up thinking, given that this Government wish to massively increase the number of homes built in Buckinghamshire and plaster our countryside with dangerous things like battery energy storage systems, which pose a huge fire risk?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for securing this debate. We have all heard from constituents who say that they now avoid driving at night altogether because of dazzling headlights. The BBC recently reported on this issue, highlighting the frustration of drivers who say that modern lights, while being brighter and more energy-efficient, are simply too intense for oncoming road-users. Drivers have spoken of being momentarily blinded by glare or of feeling unable to judge distances, and consequently of losing confidence behind the wheel. For many, that means avoiding night-time journeys altogether. However, this issue is not just about comfort; it is also about access and safety. When people tell us that they no longer drive at night because the glare from other vehicles hurts their eyes or makes them anxious, that represents lost freedom and independence, particularly for older drivers or drivers in rural areas, such as my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire. The data supports those stories. According to the RAC’s headlight glare study, which was published in February, a quarter of drivers who have been dazzled by the headlights of oncoming vehicles now stay off the roads more at night; 61% of drivers said the problem is worse than it was a year ago; and three quarters of those who are driving less say that it is because others cars’ headlights make the experience uncomfortable or more difficult. The issue matters because glare does not just cause discomfort; as I have already said, it interferes with people’s ability to process visual information quickly. Older drivers are particularly affected. The evidence shows that a 70-year-old’s eyes can take nine seconds to recover from glare, compared with about one second for a teenager. Nine seconds is a very long time to be effectively blinded while driving at any speed, let alone at national speed limits on a country lane. However, we should also be guided by the data on collisions. The Department for Transport’s records show that the number of road traffic accidents in which dazzling headlights were recorded as a contributory factor has not risen sharply in recent years; the figures fluctuate from year to year, but they do not indicate a dramatic upward trend. However, although the statistical picture does not suggest that glare is causing more crashes, it does confirm what drivers have been telling all of us: that glare is making people feel less safe, which in itself is a serious issue. We know that several factors contribute to glare. Misalignment of headlights is one of the most common. Of the 32.4 million MOT tests carried out in 2022 on cars and light vehicles, 1.6 million vehicles—1.6 million!—failed because their headlights were misaligned. Even a small upward tilt can make a big difference to the intensity of glare experienced by other road users. Newer lighting technologies also play a role. LED headlamps, which are now fitted to most modern vehicles, produce a whiter and more focused beam than traditional halogen bulbs. The human eye reacts differently to such light and although LEDs improve visibility for the driver using them, they can cause real discomfort for oncoming traffic. I also want to raise a related concern about the glare from powerful bicycle and personal lights. Many drivers and pedestrians now report being dazzled by high-intensity LED lights that are poorly aligned or excessively bright. Some of these lights are designed for off-road use, yet they are now being used on busy streets and in shared spaces, creating unnecessary discomfort and danger for everyone else on the road. Some cyclists and runners even wear head-mounted lamps, which can shine directly into the eyes of other road-users. The issue is not about stopping people being seen; clearly, visibility is vital. However, it is about balance and consideration. It might be time for the Government and the British Standards Institute to consider introducing clear standards for all lights used on the public highway, whether on a car, a bike or a person, to ensure that they are properly focused, safe and considerate to others. Of course, we also have the problem of illegal retrofitting—drivers replacing their halogen bulbs with cheap LED kits that are not compatible with their vehicle’s design. These conversions are not road-legal; they fail the MOT test and make glare far worse. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has increased surveillance to tackle this, but more needs to be done to stop the sale of unsafe aftermarket products online. The Government have said that research into that is under way, but it was first announced by the previous Conservative Administration in May 2024. The research, commissioned by the Department for Transport and undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, was meant to include real-world testing to examine how different lighting technologies, vehicle designs and driver characteristics affect glare. However, here we are more than a year later and the findings have still not been published. I ask the Minister directly: when will the research be released and will the full findings be made public? Until that happens, drivers will rightly question whether the issue is being taken seriously enough. It is also worth recognising the international progress made under the previous Government. They raised the issue of dazzling headlights with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which oversees global vehicle standards. In April 2023, that body agreed to tighten rules on headlamps, aiming to make automatic headlight levelling mandatory for new vehicles. That technology ensures that when a car is heavily loaded with passengers or luggage, the headlights automatically adjust downwards to avoid dazzling oncoming drivers. Those rules with tighter tolerances come into force in September 2027, which is welcome progress. But it only applies to new vehicles; millions of older cars will remain on our roads for years and decades to come. We should be asking what more can be done to mitigate glare in the existing fleet of vehicles—whether that is tougher and better MOT checks, awareness campaigns, proper headlight alignment or encouraging wider adoption of adaptive headlight systems that dip automatically when other vehicles approach. A lot of evidence has been put out and it has been a good debate. The issue is about balance: making sure that headlights are bright enough to see, but not so bright that they blind. It is also about fairness—ensuring that drivers of all ages in all types of vehicles can travel confidently and safely, whether it is noon or night.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Gaza and Hamas · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that, on top of the absolute imperative of Hamas releasing the remaining hostage bodies and not only completely disarming but being removed from all governance in Gaza, there must be a widespread deradicalisation programme to undo the damage done by innocent children in Gaza being taught in their textbooks, some of which were funded through the UNRWA—an uncomfortable truth—to hate Israel and Jews? That deradicalisation must happen too.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  In 2023, my private Member’s Bill received Royal Assent, becoming the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. In order to bring it into force, some statutory instruments had to be introduced. Police forces up and down the land, as well as police and crime commissioners, hailed it as a major step forward in preventing agricultural equipment theft and, indeed, power tool theft, as was envisaged in the original debate on the Bill. Yet last week, I had a letter from the Policing Minister telling me that the contents of the Act would be hollowed out, with the requirement for immobilisers on quad bikes removed and only forensic marking required for GPS units. That is a bad let-down for rural communities up and down the land, so can we have at minimum a statement, or better still a debate in Government time, to explore what this Government’s real approach is to rural crime? Without the full provisions of the Act, it is a free ride for the criminals.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Coal Tip Safety and New Extraction Licences · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing the debate. The themes of the debate are at the centre of Britain’s industrial sanity. The Government’s approach to our own resources, making us more dependent on dirtier foreign imports of materials rather than producing them at home, is not climate policy; it is economic vandalism dressed up as the same old virtue-signalling that we have come to expect from the incumbent Secretary of State. It is fair to say that this country’s methods of energy production have changed dramatically since the industry peaked in the 20th century, particularly after the second world war. But what we are witnessing from this shambolic Labour Government is an accelerating obsession with shutting down productive, strategic British industries in the name of ideology. The Government seem determined to pursue a hollow version of net zero, not as a plan for environmental stewardship, but for the purpose of political point scoring and making this country economically neutered and directionless. As the Leader of the Opposition has rightly stated, the Conservatives remain committed to maximising the responsible extraction of our own natural resources, particularly at a time when ordinary working people are grappling with astronomical energy bills, which are now among the highest in the developed world, and our steel industry is on its knees. Yet rather than backing British industry and jobs, the Government continue their relentless campaign to strangle domestic industry in the name of tackling climate change, when they could be looking towards places such as the North sea to bring in tens of billions of pounds in tax revenue, skilled, well-paid jobs, and inward investment. When the Secretary of State decided not to challenge the court’s blocking of the proposed Cumbrian coking coalmine, he sabotaged an opportunity for investment and skilled employment. British Steel executives made it clear that UK-mined coal could power their blast furnaces efficiently and cleanly, cutting import costs and emissions alike. We all know where that ended. It makes no sense to make ourselves more reliant on other countries for things that we could produce ourselves here in the United Kingdom just because they do not count towards our climate targets.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Coal Tip Safety and New Extraction Licences · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make, but I will never apologise for trying to protect the British countryside. The Labour Government are closing industries at home, patting themselves on the back for imaginary environmental victories and then importing the same resources from halfway across the world, racking up shipping emissions, losing domestic expertise and devastating industrial communities. That is not a green policy; it is economic negligence. It is bad for the economy, disastrous for security and utterly self-defeating for the climate. Let us be honest: Britain cannot reach meaningful environmental goals by eroding its industrial base. Real sustainability comes from innovation, not prohibition. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter, because it allows me to acknowledge what responsible governance should be about: balancing progress with protection. The Government’s policies will harm our communities, hollow out industry and do nothing measurable for the global climate. Let us have the courage to revisit them and stand up for common sense, working people and British industry. If we continue down the path of ideological self-harm, we will soon find that the only thing we have truly exported is our prosperity, and the only thing we have imported is decline.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Coal Tip Safety and New Extraction Licences · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think that the right hon. Lady and I are a million miles apart on this. I am suggesting that those great technological innovations that are coming on board but are not ready right here, right now in 2025 need time to develop and become commercially viable, and that in the transition we will still need coal for certain functions. Simply turning it all off overnight is not the responsible thing to do. Coal tip safety is an incredibly serious issue and deserves resource, engineering expertise and local accountability. Communities across Wales and England in particular live with the physical remnants of our industrial past. Those sites must be monitored and maintained responsibly. When tips are abandoned and left unmanaged, they become dangerous, as we have seen in past tragedies. Cutting off the licensing regime entirely risks creating more orphan sites with no responsible operators to maintain them. We should be modernising the licensing system, not abolishing it. A well-regulated extraction framework would provide both the revenue and the oversight needed to ensure tip safety for generations to come. By banning new coal extraction licences, the Government have not reduced demand for coal; they have simply exported that demand abroad. That is exactly what we have seen with the approach to the North sea and to British industry more generally. The Times recently reported comments from the industrialist Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who warned that the UK faces a “chemical breakdown” if Ministers continue ignoring the realities of domestic energy and feedstock production. His message was blunt: if we keep shutting down energy-intensive industries here, we will just import the same materials from countries with far higher emissions, fewer safeguards and lower labour standards. The Government are just lost. To give an example, even the GMB’s general secretary, Gary Smith—no relation—rightly called this strategy “catastrophic” for not just jobs, but the environment. He warned that importing coal, gas and manufactured products from overseas is far more carbon intensive than producing them domestically. He went further, saying that the Government’s net zero drive is “bonkers”—his word—because it undermines the workers who will be essential to any genuine green transition. When even the trade unions are pleading for common sense, it is a clear sign that Labour has lost touch with not just the science, but the people they apparently represent.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Coal Tip Safety and New Extraction Licences · Hansard source

  More

  The ending of coal-fired power stations was incredibly welcome, but the reality of the transition is that just turning things off overnight does not work. In the example of the steel industry, had we opened the coalmine in Cumbria and delivered cheaper, less carbon-emitting coal from our own shores into the blast furnaces operated by British Steel, the Government may not have had to nationalise it. We now see an industry that will only have electric blast furnaces that cannot produce virgin steel, leaving us incredibly vulnerable, particularly on domestic security and defence infrastructure.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the importance of ensuring that genuine parking violations are fairly and consistently enforced. Effective enforcement maintains order and encourages compliance, but it should never become a source of excessive revenue or allow over-zealous practices to flourish. Unfortunately, motorists’ experience with some private parking operators has too often been poor. We have heard of cases involving unclear signage, punitive charges and threatening correspondence from debt collectors. That background means the Government must take care before extending their powers any further. The draft order extends existing keeper liability provisions under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to railway property—land that has until now been subject to railway byelaws rather than civil enforcement. On paper it may look like a technical change, but in practice it could give private parking firms greater ability to pursue motorists for payment on railway land. Before agreeing to such an extension, we should be confident that the wider regulatory framework is robust, transparent and fair. That is why the timing of this proposal is somewhat problematic. The Government’s consultation on the private parking code of practice closed only on 26 September. Those responses from motorists, consumer groups and the parking industry itself have not yet been published or analysed. It is therefore premature to legislate before that evidence has been properly considered. The responsible approach would be to review the consultation findings first, finalise the new code to ensure that it genuinely curbs poor practice, and only then revisit any question of expanding enforcement powers. Our concern is not about legitimate enforcement. Where parking rules are clear and proportionate, they help to keep stations accessible and traffic flowing, but enforcement must always be fair, transparent and accountable to the travelling public. At present, key safeguards are clearly missing. The Government have not released a Treasury estimate of the potential enforcement revenue, so the financial impact on motorists is equally unknown. Nor have we seen confirmation that the forthcoming code will provide effective oversight and meaningful appeal rights. Without that assurance, it would be wrong to widen private operators’ powers on railway land. Although we will not divide the Committee this afternoon, I would like the Minister to reflect on those points, pause, and hear our call for proper process and proportionate changes. Motorists deserve confidence that parking rules are enforced in the public interest, not driven by other motives. The Government should publish the consultation outcomes, set clear limits on private enforcement practices, and demonstrate that passenger and driver interests come first. Once that framework is in place, any further legislative changes can be judged on their merits and with full transparency.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. In a stunning setting with superb facilities, Garsington Opera in Stokenchurch provides incredible training opportunities for young people who want a career in the arts. Does the Minister agree that this is a vital facility, and what more will she do to ensure that all young people who want a career in the arts have those training opportunities?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, but I am not sure the Government have understood the level of uncertainty and panic that has set in following their approach to this grant scheme. Some of the most cherished buildings in our constituencies are waiting on clarity for when the Government will come forward with concrete steps to extend this scheme. What will happen after March 2026? I would be grateful if the Minister could give us that clarity now.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  8. What recent discussions she has had with relevant stakeholders on the potential impact of changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme on listed places of worship.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House; I could not have put it better myself. It is essential that whatever measures, on any matter, are brought forward by any Government—be it the current Government or any future Government—real people’s lives and the cost base be reviewed regularly, so that we are not making people poorer, or stopping people from being able to do what they want, be it go on holiday, travel for business or move goods around. With that, I come to amendment 8 and the cost impact on passengers. The amendment would require the designated counterparty to report on the impact of the revenue certainty mechanism on passenger air fares. One of the most contentious areas surrounding the Bill, and indeed the Government’s whole approach to net zero, is: what does it actually cost real people? The amendment seeks to clarify that, and it gives the Government the opportunity—in theory, they should cheerfully embrace this—to lock in a claim that they profess to believe, namely that the Bill will have an impact of plus or minus £1.50 on air fares. The previous Minister repeated that statistic time and again on Second Reading and in Committee. The new Minister has the challenge today of either sticking with his predecessor’s assertion, backing the amendment and locking in protections for consumers, or admitting that this may well be more costly to air travellers. It is worth noting that during the evidence stage of Bill Committee, none of the witnesses was willing to affirm the Government’s figure. In fact, some noted that the estimated price appeared low. For example, Jonathon Counsell from International Airlines Group stated: “We think there are potentially some elements that have not been included in that calculation, but £1.50 per passenger feels quite low when you think the costs of the SAF itself will be nearer to £10.” –– [ Official Report, Sustainable Aviation Fuel Public Bill Committee, 15 July 2025; c. 17, Q12.] Consumers need peace of mind that the Bill will not cost them dear, and will not act as a financial barrier to the family holiday or any other trip, so failure to back the amendment can only mean uncertainty. I turn to amendment 11, which is focused on transparency. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to set a standardised levy rate, payable by all suppliers of aviation fuel, that must be publicised by suppliers of aviation fuel on invoices to their customers. Valero, for example—one of the world’s largest renewable fuels producers—has contacted the Opposition arguing for the amendment, saying that it would offer a workable solution; it would support the development of new SAF production without significantly impacting the industry as a whole. The amendment would apply the levy equally to all jet fuel suppliers, providing a fair and transparent mechanism for supporting the broader SAF industry. Just this week, I have been contacted by Virgin Atlantic, which is arguing that transparency safeguards must be in place to keep costs low for consumers. As organisations including the International Air Transport Association have highlighted, since the mandate came into effect in January 2025, fuel suppliers have been adding compliance risk premiums to the cost of mandated SAF, contributing to the price of SAF and doubling it for some carriers. That is to cover the eventuality that they do not meet the 2% mandate target and must pay the buy-out price for any missed volume. Virgin Atlantic has argued that to prevent SAF prices increasing further, the revenue certainty mechanism must have sufficient safeguards in place to ensure transparency over cost pass-through. There must also be a transparent process for refunds in the event of over-collections, and all revenues generated under the RCM should be ringfenced, rather than going into the general taxation pot. Amendment 9 looks at British technology and intellectual property. It would require the designated counterparty to prioritise UK-based technology when entering contracts. As I said from the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, there is a historical reality that we need to confront, and the amendment would stop history repeating itself. The historical error that I refer to is this: a great many projects supported by grants from the advanced fuels fund use foreign-owned technology. It cannot be right that the British state, while arguing for domestic fuel security, funds overseas technology when we have incredible innovators and manufacturers right here. Domestic fuel security must mean domestic fuel IP, manufacture and supply. It is important both to develop a UK market for SAF, eSAF and local production, as is provided for by the Bill and the mandate, and to support and encourage the use of home-grown technology for the manufacture of those products. That not only retains revenue in the United Kingdom but leverages a huge amount of revenue for future exports through technology licensing. The amendment tackles that head-on, and a failure to back it would be a failure to back United Kingdom innovators. Lastly, amendment 10 is on technological choices. It states: “The terms under subsection (4)(c) must include a requirement for the producer to consider the longevity of supply and relative environmental impact when prioritising between organic and synthetic derived sustainable aviation fuel solutions.” I feel incredibly strongly about this amendment. It is on a matter that I have championed in this House for many years—in the last Parliament, during my time on the Transport Committee and, since July, from this Dispatch Box. The amendment is in the name of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and it is relevant to new clause 7 and amendment 12 in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley, both of which I have a great deal of sympathy for. Governments of all political persuasions have professed to be technologically neutral. They seldom are. There is a natural tendency to pick winners and losers. We need to look through that lens, and ask ourselves what the Bill is promoting and using the levers of primary legislation to enable. The disappointing answer to that is the potential to bring alive SAF plants using technologies that have already been superseded—plants that would therefore be temporary at best. Stepping up something with no longevity, and with an estimated build cost of between £600 million and £2 billion, would be no small mistake. Power-to-liquid solutions, otherwise known as eSAF or synthetic fuel—liquid hydrocarbons literally made out of air and water—are surely the better and sustainable future for aviation fuel. We had debates on Second Reading and in Committee about other solutions. I cannot imagine that anyone is ready to defend growing food to burn it, but equally, waste-derived fuels simply are not sustainable in the long term. Solid waste is not readily available; the primary source is local authorities, the majority of which are on contracts with energy-from-waste facilities and incinerators that have decades to run. Likewise, I am not sure there is enough chip oil in the country to meet our aviation fuel needs. That leaves power-to-liquid solutions and eSAF. Many say that it is not ready; some say it is too expensive; but those of us on the Public Bill Committee heard loud and clear from Zero Petroleum that it is ready to scale right now. It just needs the green light from the regulators, and with scale will come affordability. Amendment 10 is in many ways a light-touch amendment to bring this debate to the fore. It does not close down other technological routes, but forces the Government to acknowledge the risk, both to the environment and in terms of cost, when choosing contracts under the RCM. As other speakers have said, the Bill can still be improved. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments, which would improve the Bill, and to ensure a strong and affordable future for sustainable aviation fuel in our great United Kingdom.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To begin, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to the synthetic road fuel provided to me for a constituency surgery tour last year. That is not strictly relevant to sustainable aviation fuel, but I want to be entirely transparent about it, as I have been throughout this Bill’s passage. May I also welcome the new Minister to his place? He has a big pair of shoes to fill, and I equally want to commend the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—we did not always see entirely eye to eye—for the effort and attention he put in to getting this Bill through the House and to his other duties in the House. I begin with new clause 6, which requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the economic impact of the Act once it is in force. This amendment goes to the nub of what is important. Does the Bill enable growth or stifle it? Does it support our world-class aviation industry or go against it? More importantly, does it enable our constituents to do what they have always done and fly, be that on holiday, on business or to visit family and friends overseas, or does it hinder them in doing that; and does it hinder our businesses in bringing goods in and out of the country by air? New clause 6 forces the Secretary of State to confront the realities of the Bill on multiple fronts. It covers the impact on the UK’s aviation fuel industry and the UK’s sustainable aviation fuel supply, and the impact on small, medium and large producers and potential importers of sustainable aviation fuel.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come on to some of the technological points he made earlier, which it may surprise him to hear that I was incredibly sympathetic towards. On the timescale he asks for, I think it reasonable that, when a new Act comes into force, the Government should review it on a yearly basis at least, if not more frequently, to check that it is working. The point he makes is valid, and I thank him for it. Last on the list of impacts covered by new clause 6 is the impact on international and domestic tourism in the UK and passenger air fares. We in this House can pass all manner of laws and schemes, and we can mandate new things, but their impact, including on the wider economy, matters. Reviews like the one proposed by new clause 6 would ensure that Governments of all political persuasions monitored real-life outcomes and, if necessary, tweaked provisions—or completely changed course. I cannot for the life of me understand why any Government would run scared of such a clause; it would help them govern better in the long run.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is necessary for any Government to review the legislation they are passing to check that it actually works, does what it says on the tin, and does not negatively impact real people and businesses going about their day-to-day lives. If he has paid attention to the debates in previous stages of this Bill, he will know that I support a move to sustainable aviation fuel; I will come on to that shortly, when I speak about other amendments. I think, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) does, that some technologies are superior to others when it comes to power-to-liquid, but the move to those fuels is very important. We have to get it right. If we do not, and we do not make it affordable, it will not happen.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  There is a widely held belief that the catalyst for the pure evil that happened on 7 October was the fear among Iran and its terrorist proxies that Saudi Arabia was close to signing the Abraham accords. The good news is that the Abraham accords peace agreement, between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco, has endured over the past difficult two years and is a model for regional economic co-operation and peaceful co-existence in the region. On the back of yesterday’s agreement, what concrete steps will the Prime Minister take to encourage and extend the Abraham accords as a key part of the emerging picture in the middle east, with particular reference to getting Saudi Arabia back to the table?