Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Apr 2025 · Road Safety and Active Travel to School · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage—and possibly for the Netherlands—(Olly Glover) on securing this important debate. In just an hour of Westminster Hall, we have had many contributions, far more than normal, including from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who I served on the Transport Committee with in the last Parliament, and who of course now chairs that Committee, and from the hon. Members for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew), for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley), for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer), for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and, of course, my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). I saved that one for last because the hon. Member for Henley and Thame spoke of the Haddenham and Thame greenway, which I have always supported. A significant chunk of it falls in my Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, from the village of Haddenham through to the Oxfordshire border. I believe we have a meeting coming up to discuss how to progress that. It is a project that should go ahead, for many of the good reasons that have been outlined by others in this afternoon’s debate, but it has a potted history of falling over at various hurdles, most recently as we came out of the pandemic. I gently say that it was actually Oxfordshire that pulled the funding plug on the project at that point, but I am delighted that it is back on track and that we are making progress. The importance of road safety and how we improve it is something that we should all consider very carefully. There are always improvements that can be made to road safety, not least outside schools, and it is important that we reflect on those tragedies that some Members have spoken about that have occurred outside schools. Any death or injury of a child is one too many, and we must all take steps to prevent those. Indeed, nowhere is road safety more important than outside schools. To declare an interest of sorts, with three children—two at primary school and the youngest due to start primary school this coming September—it is something that I consider very carefully. It is through that rural lens that I will make my first comments. It is undoubtedly the case that in many rural communities, no matter how much parents, or indeed the children themselves, may want to cycle or walk, the practical realities of not having a school in every village, of 60 mph country lanes with no pavements connecting villages, often going some distance, mean that many parents simply have no choice but to insist that they drive their children to school or that their children get the bus—where such a thing is still available. Indeed, although I do not want to set off the grammar school debate, in counties such as Buckinghamshire that have grammar schools, there is some considerable distance for that age cohort of pupils to travel—going from the edge of the county to get to the grammars in Aylesbury or Amersham, for example—where cycling or walking simply would not be practical. While I want to encourage those who wish to cycle or walk to school, for some, driving is a necessity due to time. People have busy lives; all our constituents have busy lives; we have busy lives. To accompany a child, particularly of primary school age, on a walk or cycle to school may take significant time out of that parent’s, carer’s or guardian’s day—time that they may not have. It is therefore important for us not to judge those parents who make the choice to get their children to school by a different route.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Road Safety and Active Travel to School · Hansard source

  More

  I think I am grateful for that intervention. I am not sure whether I have any contacts in the Conservative group on the hon. Gentleman’s council, but I will gladly see if I can get that message passed to them. In the limited time we have available, I would like the Minister, when she sums up, to consider a few practical points about how we might start making this problem better. I will start with getting the basics right. When I drop my middle child to school—a rural primary school in a village—I watch a particular taxi driver pull up on the zig-zag lines every single morning. The dirty look I give him does not appear to be doing very well in stopping that behaviour. If we cannot enforce the basic rules that we already have outside schools, what hope do we have of making it better? I ask the Minister to reflect on how we can better enforce those rules and implement the important points that many hon. Members made about yellow line parking and pavement parking. I also ask her to consider the physical infrastructure near schools, such as narrowing sight lines, which force drivers to slow down; there is a lot of evidence out there about those and other physical infrastructure such as chicanes. On the question of speed—I promise that I will draw to a conclusion very quickly, Mrs Hobhouse—we have heard examples from the Netherlands, but I have seen examples in France and some parts of the USA of variable speed limits outside schools at drop-off times. Can that be considered in this country, perhaps to answer the very good challenge laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth)? There is a lot more that can be done in this area, and I urge the Minister to get on with it.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Non-disclosure Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this debate. I remember sitting as the shadow Minister on Report of the Employment Rights Bill, listening to her speak about her amendment to the Bill in that debate. All too often, we sit in the main Chamber and listen to speeches from Members in all parts of the House that are, perhaps loosely, hung off handouts from Whips.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Non-disclosure Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  I can say in response to the Minister’s quip from a sedentary position that I have never spoken with a handout from the Whips. Sometimes, we sit there in the main Chamber listening to the usual yah-boo of party politics, but every so often there is a speech—it can come from any part of the House—that makes our ears prick up a little bit and think, “They have a point.” The Member is making a genuine case about a real grievance or a real problem out there in our country that needs resolution, almost undoubtedly via primary legislation. I therefore congratulate the right hon. Lady on her passion and dedication to this cause, and on ensuring that we continue to debate it here in Westminster Hall this morning. The right hon. Member was absolutely right to highlight the two-tier absurdity brought about under the current law. I was particularly struck by her point that 27 states in the United States of America have passed legislation on this issue. The United States is hardly a nation that is looked to for high-end employment rights. It is a country where, for example, most people get only two weeks’ holiday a year, and where maternity and paternity rights are far short of those we have here, so the fact that those 27 states have passed laws on this issue in varying respects is something that we should reflect on. During the debate the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke powerfully about the creative sector; the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) clearly brought extensive experience of this matter from her time as a solicitor; my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) brought his usual eloquence to supporting this cause; the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) gave powerful examples from his experience working for a trade union—the example he gave about a school setting was particularly powerful—and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) powerfully cited a local case. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who is Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, gave a particularly powerful speech, reminding us that of course this issue is not about banning NDAs in their entirety, but about stopping this very particular abuse. In fact, the hon. Lady’s most powerful point—on top of the one about self-employment, which is a subject that I will always prick my ears up about, having been self-employed myself for 15 years before I entered this House in 2015—was that people are being forced into signing these agreements at the lowest ebb of their lives, at the time when they are at their most vulnerable. We should face that fact and reflect upon it. I am grateful for this opportunity to continue the debate on non-disclosure agreements, which have become a tool that too often is used to silence victims of harassment, discrimination and abuse in the workplace. This is not just a matter of employment law; it is a fundamental issue of justice, accountability and transparency. At their worst, NDAs allow perpetrators to escape scrutiny, enabling toxic workplace cultures to persist unchecked. Undoubtedly, some victims, facing an imbalance of power, are pressured into signing away their right to speak out in exchange for a financial settlement. This not only denies individuals the justice they deserve, but prevents organisations, and indeed our society at large, from learning from past failure and making necessary change. Of course, we are not in any way suggesting that every single NDA out there is inherently wrong. There are legitimate reasons for their use in protecting trade secrets or commercially sensitive information. However, when they are used to cover up wrongdoing, they become a shield for bad employers and an obstacle to a fair and open working environment. Like other Members, I believe that the vast majority of employers do act in good faith and are good people, but where it goes wrong and they are acting in bad faith or—let’s say it how it is—criminally, NDAs should not be a shield for that. The Government have said they are committed to tackling workplace discrimination and harassment. There are elements of the Employment Rights Bill that the Opposition support, but we had a particular debate about the provisions on third-party harassment. I say this in a spirit of wanting to solve this problem: we all want to see harassment stamped out, but those provisions will have the unintended consequence of what we call the “banter ban”, whereby an employee can take their employer to court if they happen to overhear something that politically offends them in a hospitality setting or whatever it might be.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Non-disclosure Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  I do not particularly want to relitigate our debate in the main Chamber a few weeks ago. It is the job of the Opposition to kick the tyres on legislation that the Government put forward, and that is what did in that debate. I hope the hon. Lady turns out to be right, but the Employment Rights Bill is still a Bill, and when it undoubtedly becomes an Act due to the parliamentary arithmetic at the moment, we will be able to fully test that and see who is right. I want to focus on the importance of the issue before us today. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition echo the question that Members have asked the Minister this morning: when can we expect legislation to be brought forward to tackle this issue? Will it be stand-alone, or will the Government amend the existing vehicle available to them in the House of Lords? We also need to ensure that the Government’s own house is in order on this front. I gently ask the Minister for transparency on the Government’s own use of NDAs. How many non-disclosure agreements have been used across the civil service since the Government took office last July? Do the Government rely on these agreements to settle disputes within their own Departments? If the Government believe, as I hope they do, that NDAs should not be misused—and misused is a light term for this—they must lead by example. I do not believe that this is about party politics; it is about ensuring fairness and justice in our workplaces. We must end the practice of silencing victims and start fostering a culture where wrongdoing is exposed and addressed. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, more importantly, seeing the meaningful action that every Member who has spoken in this debate this morning wants to see come to pass.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Non-disclosure Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  I will just finish the point; I am pre-empting the hon. Lady. There is still time, as the Bill passes through the other place, to look again at this legislation. Instead of risking those unintended consequences in hospitality settings, for example, the Government could put provisions in the Bill to tackle the serious, life-changing problem that we are debating this morning and stop this use of NDAs to silence victims.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an accurate point. In some ways, the statutory instrument seeks to address that point. However, he is right that when real people out there in the country make choices on their vehicles, they will make practical decisions such as the one outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), rather than looking at some of the other things the Government from time to time wish they were thinking about when they make those choices. To make rapid progress, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the consultation was conducted, 25% of respondents —I accept that that is only a quarter—favoured retaining alternatively fuelled vehicles on the basis of the extra flexibility offered by the current alternative fuels definition, particularly for hard-to-transition use cases. That is a small subset, but we risk limiting the capability of industry and technology if we close down the possibility of innovation. There may be occasions when the additional weight would be beneficial to those alternative fuels. However, without flexibility we will not know the answer. Those 25% will have to maintain the status quo. However, we believe we must let the technology decide, not the Government, to ensure that those hard use cases are not abandoned. For those who may not be aware, the Government have already withdrawn this SI to correct a drafting error. All the Opposition are asking is for them to do exactly the same: amend the error, bring back the changes, and allow the reductions in regulation without the restrictions on alternative fuels. That is not only the right approach, but the fair one.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right that this is fundamentally about weight, but on the point about synthetic fuel, which my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) drew me on to a moment ago—I rarely need asking twice, given the number of years I have spent talking about this—it is true that there would not be an addition of weight. However, there would be for some alternatively fuelled systems. For example, in the case of hydrogen, the fuel tanks have to be much more robust. They certainly are in a hydrogen combustion vehicle, of which there are very few. As far as I understand it, it is only JCB that has developed the technology for a construction plant, but there could be an application to road vehicles in the future. Hydrogen runs at about 700 bar in the fuel tank, so we obviously would not put it in an existing car’s fuel tank; it simply could not take the pressure. There would be weight implications for such a system.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as it relates to the use of synthetic fuel donated for my summer surgery tour last August. My concerns about this statutory instrument, unlike my concerns about other recent pieces of parliamentary business, are narrow, which means—this will be a relief to Members from across the House, I have no doubt—that my remarks will be brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I have never had such a big cheer. I thank the Government for bringing forward sensible reforms, which will decrease the regulatory burden and provide more flexibility for category B licence holders. Many of the reforms are sensible steps that were widely supported in the consultation during the last Parliament. It is unfortunate, but unsurprising, that the Government’s so-called plan for change did not involve scrapping the limitations in this statutory instrument. Narrowing the scope of eligible vehicles from alternatively fuelled vehicles to zero emission vehicles is a mistake that cannot be ignored. As we transition to new technologies, we as a country must be less prescriptive. Too often, Governments want to tell industry and innovators what to do, and I am afraid that the restrictive nature of this measure risks hampering our country’s attempts to reduce emissions. Let me be clear: my concerns are not a judgment on whether the Government are right or wrong to suggest that zero emission vehicles will be most effective. The issue is rather that limiting the measure’s scope to a smaller subset of non-petrol and non-diesel fuels makes them far too narrow.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Driving Licences: Zero Emission Vehicles · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point, which I have been making for many years. I certainly did so during my time on the Transport Committee in the previous Parliament, and outside this place, as I have engaged with the classic car sector and all parts of the industry. He is right that there is a big innovative drive for sustainable fuels, if I can call them that. Some of them derive from feedstocks, others from waste matter, and they work in the internal combustion engines that we already have—in jet engines as well as motor vehicle engines. There are also entirely man-made synthetic fuels that require no such feedstocks. They do not require food to be grown in order to be burned. There are innovators on that in this country and all over the world. For example, Zero Petroleum, just next door to my constituency—just over the Oxfordshire border at Bicester Heritage—has developed a fuel that works in every jet engine and every internal combustion engine that we enjoy today. It is entirely man-made; it is literally made out of air and water. It is a mixture of green hydrogen with atmospheric carbon capture. However, the ZEV mandate and the approach that the Government are taking in this statutory instrument rule that technology out of order, because there is still carbon at the tailpipe. The regulations ignore the fact that the carbon at the tailpipe is the same volume of carbon that is captured out of the atmosphere to make the next lot of fuel. In fact, a whole-system analysis shows that technology to be carbon-neutral—one volume of carbon is in a perpetual cycle. However, no matter how much Ministers and the Government claim to be technologically neutral, the test at the tailpipe, and the test in this statutory instrument, which explicitly refers to zero emission vehicles, rather than alternatively fuelled vehicles, do in fact mean that the Government pick a technological winner at every step, rather than letting our great innovators innovate.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier, the Prime Minister seemed reluctant to answer a direct question about his jobs tax. Next time he visits my constituency to enjoy the beautiful Buckinghamshire surroundings of Chequers, will he go five minutes up the road to Wendover, and explain to Kate Rumsey of Rumsey’s Handmade Chocolates why his choices and those of his Chancellor have led to a 15% increase in costs for that business? As a result, it has already had to lay people off, and has had to reduce the hours of those whom it still employs. Is that what he meant by growth?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  On Friday in my surgery, a constituent came to talk to me about her eight-year-old adopted son who was born withdrawing from the drugs that his birth mother took during pregnancy as well as from alcohol abuse. The birth mother also suffered significant physical and emotional abuse. That has left this poor boy with many needs; he has foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, developmental trauma, attachment disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyspraxia, dyslexia and a damaged nervous system. The therapy, play therapy and occupational therapy funded by the adoption and special guardianship support fund is essential for that boy. If there is one thing the Government should do, it is to prioritise children who have those needs. While I welcome the £50 million for the financial year we are just starting, boys like him and thousands of children around the country need not only certainty for the upcoming financial year but long-term certainty that they will get the care and support they need. Will the Minister work with the Treasury to find a long-term settlement, so that the most vulnerable in our society are not in this year in, year out funding trap?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Scunthorpe Steelworks · Hansard source

  More

  The news from Scunthorpe is deeply concerning. Jobs are at risk and our thoughts are with all those who now face uncertainty. The world is becoming more dangerous and we need to bolster our defence industry. Without the ability to produce our own primary steel, those efforts could be put in jeopardy. What impact does the Minister believe the news will have on Britain’s defence industry and what impact does she believe closure would have on our national security? It takes a special something to be able to offer someone £500 million and for them to reject it, but whatever it is, I guess the Business Secretary has it. Whenever Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Whether with Mauritius, AstraZeneca or now British Steel, the Government confirm that—and so far, at least, that appears to be the case with the United States too. The Government pretend that tariffs on steel are inevitable, which, as we showed in government, is simply not the case. Therefore, will the Minister update the House on United States trade negotiations, in particular in relation to steel? Will the Minister confirm that the Business Secretary has engaged further with Jingye since it rejected him? Tariffs are but one challenge facing the industry. Alongside the jobs tax and the unemployment Bill, the steel industry is being choked by the Government’s ideological green targets. Will the Minister tell the House what concerns British Steel has expressed about those net zero targets? As I said at the beginning, this news will be deeply concerning for steelworkers in Scunthorpe. Has the Minister or the Secretary of State spoken with them about the news and, if so, what support are they being offered?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Aviation Sector: Support · Hansard source

  More

  I add my birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Significantly muddled messages are being sent to the aviation sector. On the one hand, the Climate Change Committee, upon whose altar the Government appear to worship, wants flights to fall by 2030, which is a massive blow to our aviation sector, while the Government equally say that they want growth and that they want to expand airports. Who is going to win? Will Ministers stand up to the Climate Change Committee or are we just going to end up with bigger, emptier airports?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Aviation Sector: Support · Hansard source

  More

  If it is tough decisions the Minister wants, I invite him to look at what happened in the Budget of broken promises. Air passenger duty went up significantly. For example, a couple flying to New York will pay £204 in tax. That is a 16% increase. Does the Minister not see that he needs to stand up to the Treasury if he is going to stand up for the aviation sector? Otherwise he is doing what socialists always do: tax growth out of existence.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The point she makes is absolutely right and it applies equally to my constituency as to hers. In my constituency, the backbone of our economy is agriculture and food production. The Labour party used to say in its manifesto that “food security is national security” yet this Bill seeks to build all over the very land that our farmers in Buckinghamshire and across the country use to produce the very food that gives us national security. I want to focus on the infrastructure implications from the energy sector. I entirely approve of transitioning to cleaner forms of energy production, but it is a point I have made in this House time and again, and I will never get bored of saying it, that it takes 2,000 acres of ground-mounted solar panels to produce enough electricity for 50,000 homes on current usage. That is before everyone has two Teslas—which is perhaps not the brand that people would choose now—on the drive. However, a small modular reactor needs just two football pitches to deliver enough electricity on current usage for 1 million homes. Why on earth in this country are we messing around with solar, destroying thousands of acres of food-producing land, when other clean technologies are out there that can clean up our energy and electricity production in a way that is kinder and gentler on our national fabric and rural communities? When I hear the Secretary of State talk about, as she did in her opening address, protecting high-grade agricultural land, I take that with a large pinch of salt. That is because, in my constituency in Buckinghamshire, we have caught those paid exorbitant amounts of money to come and grade the land prior to a planning application deliberately testing the land in the headland of the field—the bit not used to grow crops or grass or to graze animals. Of course, they will always get a lower land grade by testing the headland. If the Government are serious about wanting to protect high-grade agricultural land, I would urge the Minister to look at measures he could take to ensure that the fertile part of the field is tested, not the headland.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) in what is a critical and important debate that will affect my constituency in Mid Buckinghamshire very deeply. Back Benchers on both sides of the House have made some sensible suggestions in this debate. I particularly support the points made on the protection of chalk streams, which is important to my constituency as well. But I have deep concerns about the tone of the Bill and some of the rhetoric underneath its defence. I would categorise it as a Bill that does things to communities, particularly rural communities, as opposed to with them. The Minister can probably predict some of the things I am about to say, as we sat on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee in the last Parliament together over very many weeks and with many, many housing Ministers over that period. I will not apologise, however, for representing my constituents who, time after time, are fed up to the back teeth of losing our rural identity and our rural character due to the constant flow of housing and infrastructure projects that devastate our countryside and the rural identity of Buckinghamshire.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Milton Keynes is very close to me. I visit Milton Keynes all the time. I have many friends in Milton Keynes. It is a great city. However, a line in the sand has to be drawn as to the amount of our countryside, our farmland and our food-producing land that we allow to be lost to development of whatever kind. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), in his speech earlier, reeled off a list of things that were already happening in his constituency, where they are already playing their part. In my own constituency, while we have had concerns about a lot of it, there has been an enormous list of things. The amount of house building in Buckinghamshire has been extraordinary. The village of Haddenham is unrecognisable from what it was because of the sheer volume of new house building that has gone on there. There are also incinerators, and we are about to get a new prison. Despite our objections, HS2 has ravaged the middle of the constituency. It is not as though Buckinghamshire has not done anything.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I just want to say that we in Buckinghamshire feel that we have probably already done our bit with a new town, as it is now a 250,000-population city called Milton Keynes. With that, I will give way to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis).

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The point the Minister makes is one that certainly in Buckinghamshire I would challenge. I do not think any Labour Members were there, but there was a good cross-party meeting a couple of weeks ago on the scale of solar projects coming into this country. That disproportionately affects rural communities, and this Bill seems to take against them in favour of the UK’s towns and cities. On top of the stats I gave earlier on the efficiency of solar, we have had scientists—not just campaigners—come here to give clear evidence that, of all the countries in the world, only one is less suitable for solar than ours, and that is Iceland. The Government are not even making the case for a technology that is particularly suited to the United Kingdom, yet the Bill would just make it easier, and those who object to or challenge it on any level will just to have to go away, suck it up and take those projects in their backyard. This Bill takes away local control, and for me, local control will always be the most important part of the planning process. Unlike those doing the desktop exercise from afar, the community know the fields that flood every single year, know the local factors that would impact a planning application, understand the local roads that would have to take the construction traffic and that get churned up every time a development comes along, and know how unsuitable they are. Local control is critical, and I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, to go back and think about whether what he wants to do is simply ride roughshod over local opinion.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Shipyards: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the points that the hon. Lady makes. The point from my earlier comment still stands—I was the shadow Minister over the summer; I survived my party’s reshuffle—that many asks were being made by Harland and Wolff much earlier, and that was something that was not initially forthcoming. I fully accept the timeline that the hon. Lady sets out. This was not something that suddenly happened on 4 July, but when a new Government come in they should be judged on the speed of their response and exactly what is done to save that sector. We must continue to back our shipyards, provide long-term certainty for workers and reinforce Britain’s position as a global leader in shipbuilding. By doing so, we will not only create a prosperous economy, but ensure that our nation remains safe and secure for generations to come.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Shipyards: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) on securing this debate on the often overlooked but critical contribution of great shipyards to our nation’s economic strength, employment prospects and national security. Many hon. Members have spoken with great passion and knowledge about the sector and about yards in their constituencies. My own constituency is a stone’s throw from Leighton Buzzard, which is the furthest point in England from the sea, so I cannot speak with any local knowledge but I absolutely acknowledge the shipbuilding sector’s critical role. For centuries, shipbuilding has been a cornerstone of British industry, sustaining local economies, providing skilled jobs and securing our place as a maritime power. As we have rightly heard during this debate, the UK’s shipyards have played a dual role—driving economic growth at national and local levels while ensuring our security at sea. Under the previous Conservative Government, decisive steps were taken to secure the future of British shipbuilding and maintenance, including supporting jobs, upskilling our workforce and reinforcing our defence infrastructure. Under the new Government so far, we have seen a more lacklustre set of steps taken towards supporting this sector. Shipyards are more than just industrial sites; they are economic lifelines for the communities that surround them. For example, in Portsmouth and Govan, BAE Systems surface shipyards have been instrumental in building the Royal Navy’s cutting-edge fleet. The last Conservative Government’s commitment to the Type 26 and Type 31 frigate programmes guaranteed long-term employment and training opportunities for engineers and apprentices. Those contracts not only secured local jobs, but strengthened the wider economy. In Cumbria, the BAE Systems submarine yard in Barrow-in-Furness has been at the heart of our nation’s defence. Thanks to strategic spending by the previous Conservative Government, Astute-class and Dreadnought-class submarines continue to provide thousands of highly skilled jobs while reinforcing Britain’s nuclear deterrent. That is a prime example of how economic security is directly linked to national security. Spending on our defence industry ensures that we remain prepared for the threats of the future. In Birkenhead, Cammell Laird has been a stronghold for commercial and defence-related shipbuilding. Contracts secured under the previous Government provided much-needed stability, supporting jobs in the north-west and reinforcing the UK’s ability to maintain its naval and commercial fleets. One of the most important aspects of shipbuilding is its role in training the next generation of workers. The previous Conservative Government recognised that, and supported and backed apprenticeship schemes that ensured that young people could gain the skills needed to drive innovation in the sector. The workforce at shipyards such as Govan and Barrow-in-Furness includes thousands of highly trained welders, engineers and naval architects. We ensured that their skills were passed down through new training programmes and partnerships with local colleges. Without continued spending, there is a real risk of losing that expertise to foreign competitors, yet the current Labour Government have failed to provide the necessary assurances to sustain those initiatives. The lack of new contracts, clear strategic direction and industry support has left many shipyards facing an uncertain future.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Shipyards: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, and it is absolutely good news that Harland and Wolff has survived, but throughout the entire summer, not long after the new Government were elected to office, there were constant asks for financial support that were not forthcoming. It took a very long time. This is fundamentally a debate, but I would gently suggest that the saving of Harland and Wolff—which I reiterate is good news—happened in many respects despite the early actions of the new Government and not because of them.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Shipyards: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  That is indeed good news. The Conservative party, as His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, has supported the Government’s increases in defence spending. We moderately disagree on the pace of that increase, because we want to go considerably faster, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point about the good news for that particular shipyard. I ask the Minister whether, following the defence uplift, the Government will commit to construct all our military vessels in the United Kingdom. The link between economic security and national security cannot be overstated. A strong shipbuilding industry means a strong Royal Navy, ensuring that the UK remains a global maritime power. It also means domestic manufacturing capabilities, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers and keeping critical national infrastructure under British control. The Conservatives understand that reality. When we were in government, our national shipbuilding strategy was designed to create a steady pipeline of work to provide stability for our shipyards and to ensure that Britain could defend herself in an increasingly unpredictable world. That approach guaranteed not just warships but support vessels, reinforcing our ability to project power on the world stage. However, the Government’s delay in awarding many new contracts and the absence of a clear vision for the future of UK shipbuilding weakens our defences and threatens those skilled jobs. That threat extends to virgin steel production—a critical component in the shipbuilding supply chain. The Government have failed to negotiate a deal with the United States, whereas we secured the 500,000-tonne tariff-free agreement when in government. The lack of a deal is a real threat to the industry. Shipbuilding depends on steel production, which is already suffering from Labour’s failure to negotiate. Will the Minister provide the crucial update on talks with the United States that people whose jobs are on the line are desperate to hear? We need urgent action to safeguard our economic and national security interests. Does the Minister have any ongoing concerns, or is she confident in the future of those sites? The Government’s handling of Harland and Wolff when the company needed financial support—it was threatened with administration, and the Government did little or nothing to stop that—was hardly a boost of confidence for the thousands of jobs that depend on the supply chain.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Shipyards: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  It is a debate, so by all means.