Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  rose—

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

  More

  Was I? I was never a Minister.

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

  More

  The Minister seems to have pivoted towards electricity and away from heating oil, which this debate is about. On the wind auctions, I am not sure consumers will thank him for the price that has just been paid. However, we are talking predominantly about the many rural homes that are off the gas grid. Many are built out of stone—I declare an interest, as mine is built out of witchert, which is a form of cob—and heat pumps do not touch the sides. Will he at least acknowledge that for those rural homes, we need to look at things such as alternative fuels? Boilers can be converted to run on hydrotreated vegetable oil and, in the future, synthetic fuels. We must not just keep talking about electricity.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. After 25 years on Princes Risborough High Street, retailer Kado has said that it is closing, citing hikes in business rates and the increases in taxation on employing people among its reasons. A few yards up on Duke Street, Salon Twentyfour Hair cannot afford for the first time in 21 years to take on a new apprentice. How many more businesses need to close, with jobs lost and apprenticeship opportunities trashed, before this Prime Minister understands that the practical out-turn of his policies is not working?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As the Minister invoked a couple of events in his speech, I will go for a different safety first approach by drawing the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to Silverstone Circuits Ltd and Ascot racecourse, and to my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Formula 1 and motorsport. I do not believe that our debate is materially to do with those events, but as the Minister invoked them, I thought it best to draw the Committee’s attention to those points. Aviation safety underpins the whole of our aviation sector, and the necessity of getting it right is of the utmost importance to those in the industry and the public. It is therefore welcome that we have seen continual improvements over the last few decades in the United Kingdom’s overall aviation safety. However, as noted in the CAA’s most recent annual report, the accidents we have seen must serve as a sobering reminder that safety must never be taken for granted. I reference that because the measures we are debating appear to broadly strike a sensible balance between upholding safety and allowing some loosening of existing restrictions. Considering the regulations as one, the fundamental question is about the CAA’s capacity and ability to deal with the changes. Can we be confident that it will maintain the strong standards associated with these rule changes? The alterations proposed to article 71 of the basic regulation appear to promote proportionate deregulatory change, including by opening the possibility of extending exemptions for testing new technologies and for several one-off events. Critically, those changes received support from stakeholders when consulted on by the CAA, and that was followed up in a subsequent consultation to address any concerns. If safety can be maintained, it is clearly welcome to have measures in place that encourage innovation and that could allow air navigation service providers to offer radio assistance for events, which appears to be an upgrade on existing rules. As the Government’s impact assessment notes, that should reduce barriers to entry for businesses in some circumstances, which should be welcomed. However, given the comment that those circumstances must be exceptional for an exemption to be granted, is the Minister able to answer the concerns set out by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that, as these exemptions would be used for day-to-day activities, they are not in fact exceptional? I am not contesting the principle of the regulations, but is the Minister content that the terminology “exceptional” will support the day-to-day activities the CAA believes are safe? Also, has the Department for Transport engaged with the CAA about its capacity to process these applications? Is it comfortable that there is the capacity to do this work? The second element of the regulations, regarding the removal of the criminal sanctions, also deserves consideration. Although the sanctions have never been used, can I get an assurance from the Minister that the CAA believes they would never be used in the future and that the existing rules relating to threshold distances are sufficient to stop unsafe behaviour? We recognise the need for the regulations to be altered, given other changes the CAA is considering, but is there a clear assurance that there will be no reduction in safety because of this change? It is right to support measures that uphold safety, while also allowing the sector greater freedom to participate in activities the CAA believes to be safe. What is paramount, though, is that the regulator continues to ensure that all such activities are safe, so that we can maintain confidence in the British aviation sector, of which I am sure all Members of this House are already rightly proud.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Vaz. I note at the outset that the Opposition will not divide the Committee on this statutory instrument. We do not oppose the principle of reducing the burden of policy costs on household energy bills. However, the fundamental question this statutory instrument raises is one of transparency. Are the public being given an honest account of what the Government’s policies do? Moving some of the renewables obligation funding to be paid from the Exchequer does not eliminate a cost: it relocates it. The £70-odd saving that Ministers claim to be making is still being paid by all our constituents: they are paying it through their tax bill, rather than their energy bills. As Martin Lewis noted, that is the mechanism behind the majority of the advertised £150 saving. That is not nothing, but it is not quite the windfall it is presented as either. The huge subsidies that entitle some windfarm owners to three times the market price of the power they generate still flows to energy developers, all funded by the taxpayer. Crucially, the savings that the Labour Government have put forward do nothing to cut bills for businesses, which are seeing their network costs double thanks to the Government’s net zero policies and are getting no support from their big energy bill package. The regulations extend the section 13 powers of the Energy Prices Act 2022 by a further six months to October 2026. The Government have been clear that primary legislation will follow, and the Minister repeated in his speech this morning, when parliamentary time allows. Well, a King’s Speech is in the diary for next month, so all eyes will be on it to see if that appears. I am sure that the Minister will not be tempted to confirm or deny items in the King’s Speech this morning, but if this is not in it, questions will be asked. That prompts a reasonable question about whether the Minister can offer assurances about the timetable. Does he expect it to be this year, next year or at some point before the next general election? Can he confirm that the extension in the regulations will not become a pattern of repeated deferral? It is right to support measures that ease the cost of living. What is equally important is that the public are given a clear and honest account of how those measures work and who will ultimately foot the bill. As we all know, a very great lady once said that there is no such thing as public money, only taxpayers’ money.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend hits the nail precisely on the head. It is the interests of those families that motivated me to speak in this debate, and I entirely endorse the point that he makes. In the last few moments that I have, I will briefly raise another specific case that I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s reflections on in her summing-up speech. The case was brought to me by a constituent who adopted two children in 2020. Both children experienced significant early trauma and later received diagnoses indicating multiple and complex needs, not least foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which can involve more than 400 co-occurring difficulties affecting physical health, cognition, executive functioning and behaviour. Delays in intervention have had real and significant consequences. As adoptive parents, my constituents are aware of research estimating that adoption generates significant long-term social and economic value—I doubt that anyone would disagree with that. Yet, paradoxically, by adopting their children, they appear to have lost priority access to some state-funded support that would have been available had those children remained in foster care. That unintended consequence is deeply concerning. More broadly, adopted children with SEND often fall between services. Responsibility is frequently passed from one agency to another without the care and attention that the children need, and I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on that. Too many families are being let down. “One size fits all” does not work and never will. Let us focus on the child and the needs of each child, and build a system that genuinely works.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is the whole system that suffers in the circumstance that he describes, such as the teaching staff who do their absolute best and every other child in those classes. He makes a very fair point. Before we even get to the question of school places, the system is already falling behind. In Buckinghamshire, nearby SEND schools are already oversubscribed, and despite the best efforts of heroic teaching staff, mainstream schools cannot always meet complex needs. This is where we in Buckinghamshire have been most let down by this Government. Back in May 2024, the Department for Education wrote to Buckinghamshire council and committed to a brand-new, 152-place SEND school for Buckinghamshire. That was not a political pledge or a general election campaign promise; it was officially announced by the Department for Education. This Labour Government have formally scrapped it. What was a £20 million spend has been downgraded to £8 million over three years for Buckinghamshire. That is not good enough. That school would not have solved all our problems, but it would have gone a very long way. I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to think again and deliver this school for my constituents. Children and families in Buckinghamshire would benefit so much from it. Let me turn to the Government’s proposed SEND reforms. Many parents have contacted me on this issue, and I am concerned, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has outlined, that the Government are not even close to getting this right. One constituent wrote to me: “I am concerned that the direction of SEND reform risks children and young people having to fit into whatever provision is available, or else missing out on education entirely. I’m really worried that these new proposals will leave parents having to battle directly with schools to get help for their child.” That is an important point. We need a system that works for the needs of each and every child, not a system that works for a faceless bureaucracy. My constituent continued: “My two children both have an autism diagnosis, but are significantly different in their support needs. A one-size fits all type provision will not be suitable for even these two siblings. I would love them to be able to manage at a mainstream school, but the solution is not for schools to become more SEN friendly, the solution is a complete overhaul and reform of the schooling system. It is antiquated and not fit for purpose.” I was lucky enough to go to an event in Portcullis House with parents and teachers of SEND families this afternoon, chaired by Rory Bremner. The evidence given by those parents and teachers was quite frightening; many fear that under this White Paper, if it is brought in, their children will be excluded altogether. I urge the Minister to get a read-out from that meeting. That leads on to wider concerns about the loss of individualised and legally enforceable support, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon put it in his own excellent speech. That is about not just the risk of children being forced into inappropriate provision, but the potential loss of legal protections and tribunal rights and the potential loss of “education other than at school” packages for children who cannot attend any school setting. That cannot be right.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by a huge number of constituents raising concerns about delays to EHCPs, a lack of specialist placements and the struggle to secure the support that their children need. Like so many other Members of the House, SEND issues dominate my surgeries and casework, and it is heartbreaking to see the delays and the pain and anguish brought to those children and families as they wait for what they deserve: an education that works for them and their specific needs. What troubles me even more is not those cases that have been brought to me, but how many more there must be who have not come forward. One of the most troubling aspects of this SEND crisis is that too many children simply do not have a suitable place at all. Children are left in settings that cannot meet their needs or, in some cases, are left out of education altogether. But this issue does not begin with placements; it begins much earlier in the system. Buckinghamshire council has advised that there is a shortage of occupational therapists to carry out assessments and there are delays of up to 56 weeks just to issue an EHCP. That is over a year in which a child may be stuck in the wrong setting, a year of lost progress and a year of growing pressure on families.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  For years, and well before this conflict took place, Members across the House have called on the Government of the day to proscribe the IRGC. Regardless of whether it has been the Prime Minister or other Ministers answering, there has always been a pivot to economic sanctions against the IRGC. We know that the Iranian regime has found ways, through cryptocurrency and fake corporate structures, to evade those sanctions. What assessment has the Prime Minister made of the effectiveness of UK sanctions against Tehran? On the presumption that those sanctions are failing, what precise action will he take to strengthen them?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Driving Test Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  The reality on the ground is very different: people are waiting far longer for their driving test than they should have to, and that is happening under this Government. Waiting times have got worse by weeks since July 2024. The Minister likes to talk about recruitment campaigns. The reality is that there has only been one recruitment campaign, which led to those 26,000 applications. In other parts of the public service, such as the police, there are constant recruitment campaigns. Will the Government now put driving instructors on a constant recruitment campaign?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Driving Test Waiting Times · Hansard source

  More

  The waiting time for driving tests has got worse since the Government took office. As others have said, it is critical that, whether for work or education, young people are able to get a test and have the use of a car to grow our economy and get their lives on track. Cabinet Office Ministers answered a written question from the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), saying that 26,000 people applied to become a driving examiner. Why are more of them not in training or in post?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Support for Motorists · Hansard source

  More

  The costs of motoring are going up for everyone later this year because of the choices of this Labour Government. A set of motorists who are too often forgotten are those who drive our heavy goods vehicles and light goods vehicles; as the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), said in an earlier question, they are suffering because of their rest facilities. In particular, we are seeing increasing fuel thefts from our hauliers. Freight crime is an incredibly serious matter. Will the Secretary of State set out clearly what she is doing with urgency to support our hauliers, who keep our economy quite literally moving, and to get the facilities they need that will not just give them good rest space, but keep them safe?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil: Rural Homes · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest: my home is off the gas grid and my boiler is fuelled by domestic heating oil. I have listened carefully to the Minister’s answers, and there have been significant gaps—there has been no mention of liquefied petroleum gas, for example. Although it is always right to support the most vulnerable in our society, I am not sure that he has fully understood that there are many households on modest incomes across rural communities that do not receive benefits and simply do not have £500, £600 or £700 lying around to meet a bill that they have not budgeted for. Perhaps the Minister could answer a specific question on certainty. While the CMA investigation goes on, customers continue to place orders without knowing how much they will be charged when the oil is delivered. He could implement an interim measure before a wider set of changes to stop that practice. Will he do so?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  On top of the direct attacks by Iran, its principal proxy in the region, Hezbollah, continues to defy the Lebanese Government by using Lebanon as a base from which to fire rockets into Israeli civilian populations. What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking, in conjunction with the Lebanese Government, to help them dismantle this absolute cancer in Lebanon? More importantly, what steps are being taken to ensure that infrastructure built in Lebanon in recent years using British taxpayers’ money is categorically not being used for any of those attacks?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Hatzola Ambulance Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Minister in condemning this evil attack and expressing my sympathy with the British Jewish community. To build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), we have been talking about this issue for years, including when I sat on the Government Back Benches in the last Parliament. When I went to a Hanukkah event in my constituency led by the South Bucks Jewish Community in 2024, the rabbi opened the ceremony with words of welcome, saying “even though we no longer feel safe to meet as a community”. That should shock each and every one of us. Does the Minister accept that we need not incremental change or modest change but a sea change in the way that we as a country put our arms around the British Jewish community and protect them?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Draft Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) (Specified Period) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. Energy efficiency in the home sits at the heart of our ability as a country to support those struggling with energy bills, protect consumers from volatile energy bills and maintain the skilled retrofit workforce that this country will need in the years ahead. Since 2013, the energy company obligation has delivered around 4.4 million measures in 2.6 million properties. Under ECO4 alone, around 949,800 measures have been installed in approximately 281,000 households. Whatever its imperfections, it has been a lifeline for millions of low-income families, and the supply chain that grew around it employs tens of thousands of people across the country. As the Minister said, this statutory instrument will extend the ECO4 end date by nine months to 31 December 2026. The stated purpose is to allow suppliers additional time to meet existing targets, remediate non-compliant installations and avoid a cliff edge in delivery before any successor arrangements are in place. The Opposition support this extension. It is responsible and the right thing to do and we will not stand in its way this afternoon. However, support for the principle of orderly transition does not mean that the Government escape scrutiny and there are several questions that I would be grateful if the Minister could answer clearly. On cost, the Chancellor was emphatic in her Budget statement last year that ECO costs households £1.7 billion a year through levies on their bills and that ending the scheme would save the average household £59 annually. She described it as a failed scheme and said that she was scrapping it. However, this nine-month extension means that the levy continues on bills for longer than households were led to expect. Ministers must set out plainly how much consumers will pay during this extended period, and whether that figure of a £59 saving remains accurate. As the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has rightly observed, moving costs from energy bills to general taxation is not the saving it appears on paper. Households are still paying; they are just paying from a different pocket. On the issue of quality, a National Audit Office report published in October 2025 found that many of the home improvements funded under ECO were carried out to a poor standard, particularly those involving external wall insulation. Families have been left with damp, mould and homes made worse by interventions that were supposed to help them. That is not an abstract concern and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has raised those failures directly in the House. The Opposition have committed to working cross-party to ensure that affected households receive proper remediation—and we stand by that commitment. However, the Government must confirm that Ofgem’s oversight is fully resourced, that installers and not consumers are funding that repair work, and that further audits will be carried out without delay. Finally, on the supply chain, the Government’s own rationale for this extension acknowledges the need to protect the supply chain and jobs while continuing support for low-income households. That language reflects a real anxiety in the sector. Anna Moore, chief executive of retrofit company Domna, put it plainly when she warned that suddenly removing £1.3 billion of funding was “chaotic” and had “created a cliff edge for thousands of low-income households in fuel poverty as well as SMEs employing some 10,000 people.” Joel Pearson of Net Zero Renewables made the same plea directly to the Chancellor. These are not abstract economic arguments; they are real firms, jobs and communities that depend on this sector continuing to function. The extension buys a little time, but time alone is not a strategy. The Chancellor has announced that there will be no successor to ECO4, and that future support will come through the warm homes plan—£15 billion over five years, funded through general taxation. The Opposition do not oppose the principle of that shift, but the warm homes plan remains, at this stage, more promise than programme. It has not yet been finalised, piloted or mobilised. This extension exists in part precisely because the replacement is not ready. This is an honest admission and we welcome it, but it underlines that the instrument is a holding measure, not a solution. ECO4 is also estimated to deliver carbon savings of around 0.38 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year once all measures are installed. Whatever replaces it must be designed to match and exceed that ambition—not simply to fill a political gap. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could address three specific points. Can he confirm the precise additional cost to bill payers during the nine-month extension period? Can he provide a full update on the remediation programme for substandard installations and give this Committee confidence that affected households will not be left waiting indefinitely? Finally, can he set out a clear timetable for the warm homes plan so that the supply chain can plan with confidence, rather than continuing to operate under uncertainty? The households who have relied on the ECO scheme deserve an efficient transition, not the chaotic cliff edge that the Government are presenting; the retrofit workforce that will be central to this Government’s own climate ambitions deserve certainty, not managed decline; and taxpayers deserve full transparency about what this extension will cost them. We support this instrument, but the Government must use the time it buys wisely.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Leader of the House seriously think it is reasonable for the Government to announce a new framework that will have a profound effect on Mid Buckinghamshire—and indeed every constituency represented in this House, not least as regards food security—by written ministerial statement, rather than through an oral statement in the Chamber, which would allow scrutiny by Members from all parties? Will he reflect on that, particularly as Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Question Time continues to be just 40 minutes long, rather than a full hour? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make a full oral statement in the House about the framework?

• 19 Mar 2026 · UK Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Now that the Government have some experience of running a business with British Steel, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the £37 million cost of the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the national insurance jobs tax increases on the viability of our steel industry?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Rural Broadband · Hansard source

  More

  I could reel off countless examples of villages in my constituency where hard-to-reach areas simply have no broadband at all, let alone fibre broadband. Constituents and businesses are tearing their hair out. At what point will the Government possibly accept that if the millions—if not billions—of pounds are to reach those hard-to-reach places, it would probably be better to help those people to get, for instance, satellite broadband instead, so that they can have access to the internet now rather than having to wait for years?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Traffic chaos from a botched road realignment is affecting Calvert Green, Steeple Claydon and Twyford. Landowners are still awaiting payment for land taken. There is woeful underfunding of promised mitigation projects in Wendover after inadequate noise modelling. Many years ago, the Prime Minister and I used to be united in our opposition to High Speed 2. He changed. With the upcoming HS2 reset, will he make a personal intervention to ensure that my constituents and communities living with this hell on earth of a construction project are finally treated with the fairness and respect that they deserve?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a clinically accurate point, and he is absolutely right to do so. The truth is that the headline figure does not even tell us the full story. This is not just a tax rise; it is a tax on a tax. Fuel duty is applied first and then VAT is charged on top of it. So when the Government increase fuel duty, they are also increasing the VAT paid on that tax—a tax on a tax. That means that what they present as a 5p rise is not really 5p in practice, but closer to 6p at the pump—a hidden double tax built into the system, taking more from every driver, every business and every household. We saw that argument tested just this weekend. The Energy Secretary was asked directly about the soaring cost of fuel and his instinct was simply to point to global events, external pressures and anything other than the decisions being made here at home in Whitehall. But he was confronted by a simple, undeniable fact: a breakdown of the price of a litre of petrol showed that fuel duty alone accounts for around 38% of the cost and, once VAT is added on top, that more than half of what drivers pay at the pump is tax—more than half. Let us be clear: this is not simply about international markets or events beyond our control. Of course global factors play a role and of course wholesale prices fluctuate, but when over half the price at the pump is made up of taxes set by this Government, Ministers cannot hide purely behind external circumstances. They cannot blame global markets and ignore their own policy choices. And they certainly cannot claim to be easing the cost of living while actively increasing the tax burden built into every litre of fuel. The consequences ripple through the entire economy. Equally, when prices go up, including at the hands of the Chancellor, crime also rises. Already we are seeing reports from our hauliers across the country of fuel thefts taking place. That is serious. Fuel is not a luxury; it is fundamental to how the country works. It is how goods get to our supermarkets, how tradespeople get to jobs and how carers reach the most vulnerable. When the cost of fuel rises, the cost of everything else rises—shops feel it, businesses feel it, families feel it—and it is, of course, inflationary. That matters not just for household budgets, but for the public finances. Around a quarter of the United Kingdom’s national debt—some £750 billion—is index-linked, so higher inflation means higher debt interest costs. In other words, this policy risks making the Government’s own fiscal position worse even as it makes life harder for working people. The question is: what are the Government going to do, and why are they doing this? Why impose higher costs on drivers, businesses and families at a time like this? The answer lies in a failure at the heart of this Government’s approach: they have lost control of welfare spending. Instead of taking the difficult decisions required to ensure that welfare spending is sustainable and properly targeted, they have allowed costs to rise and rise. Now, having failed to grip that challenge, they are asking working people to pick up the bill. We have already seen tax increases on jobs, family businesses, our high streets and our farmers; this is simply the next step. Drivers are being asked to pay the price for the Government’s failure. There is a different approach. In government, the Conservatives understood the pressure that fuel costs place on households and businesses, which is why we cut—I repeat, cut—fuel duty, froze it year after year, and stepped in again when global pressures caused prices to spike. We recognise that Governments do not balance the books by making it more expensive for people to go to work or to set up or operate a business and do not hide tax rises within the price at the pump. No one can create a system where people are taxed twice—once through fuel duty and then again through VAT applied on top—and call that fair. This policy fails the basic tests; it is an unfair tax. We Conservatives will oppose this unfair tax rise, and any Member who cares about what our constituents are paying at the pump will surely vote for our motion tonight.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful—

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is late to the debate—we have been around that a few times over the course of the afternoon. The record of the Conservatives in government was to freeze council tax and freeze fuel duty—indeed, we cut it when we saw Russia invade Ukraine in 2022. Conservatives stand on a proud record of keeping fuel duty down, freezing it and cutting it. It is his party that, in government, is going to increase it on hard-working people this very year. Let us be absolutely clear: this is a tax rise, a regressive tax hitting the poorest the hardest; a deliberate, calculated and, frankly, cynical tax rise phased in carefully in the hope that people will not notice. We have a rise in September—a back to school tax. We have another in December—a Christmas shopping tax. And then, in March, we have a spring clean of people’s wallets. Three moments in the year, three hits to working people.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has potentially misunderstood the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). She is making the case, perfectly rightly, for better public transport in this country, but bus companies and train operators running diesel trains—of which there are still a number—pay fuel duty, too. If fuel duty goes up, that will impact fares.