Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  How absurd it is that, on an issue that affects each and every one of our constituents, whether they drive their own car or take the bus or a diesel-powered train, not one Government Back Bencher—not one—sought to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make a speech either to defend the Government’s plan to increase fuel duty this September, or perhaps even to have the backbone to stand up and oppose it. Meanwhile, from the Conservative Benches, we heard the case set out clearly and with passion by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), in opening the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) rightly spoke about the volume of internal combustion engine vehicles in the United Kingdom, exploring how far this tax rise will go and how Labour simply does not understand rural life, as well as the folly and unfairness of “pay per mile” for rural communities. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) rightly identified the absurdity of the Government preferring to import oil rather than use our own resources in the North sea. On the fuel finder, he made an accurate point, which I recognise from my own constituency, about the scarcity of filling stations in rural communities. I accept that we had a bit of a trade-off with constituency sizes this afternoon, but I can think of only eight filling stations in my modest 336 square miles in Mid Buckinghamshire. It is a point well made that, in rural communities, people often have to travel great distances to fill up with fuel, and may end up burning more fuel by going to the apparently cheaper station further away. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) spoke good Buckinghamshire common sense when making points about rural communities. Likewise, that case was made by my hon. Friends the Members for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) made good points about the simply ridiculous and hideous levels of taxation on motoring in our capital city under Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan. Let us ask a very simple question. When the Chancellor talks about asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay more, does she mean the care worker filling up their car to get around to their house visits, particularly in rural communities? Does she mean the self-employed delivery driver keeping our high streets alive? Does she mean the small business owner trying to make ends meet? I very much hope that she does not, but what we see on the ground, as the reality, is that those are exactly the people who will be hit hardest by this policy of increasing fuel duty.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing an incredibly important debate for all of us who represent rural communities. If there is one issue that unites motorists across our country, and certainly across Buckinghamshire, it is that our roads are simply not good enough. In rural areas, roads are not a convenience; they are a necessity. They connect people to work, school, healthcare and family, yet too often, as we have heard this afternoon, those roads are deteriorating before our eyes. The national picture is stark. As others have said, the backlog for road repairs now stands at £18.6 billion. Local rural roads are resurfaced, on average, only once every 90 years. That is not maintenance; it is neglect. The AA recorded over 613,000 pothole-related call-outs in 2025, an average of 1,679 every single day. The Royal Automobile Club has reported a sharp surge this year, with February alone seeing more than 6,000 pothole-related breakdown reports. Meanwhile, compensation claims to councils have risen by over 90% in just three years, yet the vast majority are rejected. Motorists are paying twice: once through their taxes and again through their repair bills. First, we must recognise the growing strain on our road network. Much of our local infrastructure, particularly in rural counties like Buckinghamshire, was never designed for the volume and type of traffic that the roads now carry. Many roads began life as literal cart tracks, without the deep foundations needed to withstand modern use. The state-mandated transition to battery electric cannot be divorced from infrastructure realities. Electric vehicles are significantly heavier than their petrol and diesel equivalents, particularly in goods vehicles. The physics is simple: as weight increases, the damage inflicted on road surfaces increases exponentially. Yet there has been very little acknowledgement from Government of how the increased wear will be managed, or how dealing with it will be funded. We must also consider the impact of major infrastructure projects, of which we are seeing the misery at first hand in my county. High Speed 2 has brought thousands of additional heavy goods vehicle movements on to rural roads that were never designed for such use. The result is roads being churned up at an alarming rate. Too often, the burden of repairing that damage falls on local authorities and local taxpayers, which cannot be right. Where infrastructure projects cause damage, they must fix it. It is incumbent on HS2, as much as other projects, to fix what it breaks. We have seen that it can be done: projects such as East West Rail have resurfaced rural roads where construction traffic has taken its toll. HS2 must follow that example. On the question of funding, in Buckinghamshire there is a £210 million road repairs backlog, alongside significant financial pressures on the council. Despite that, the council carried out over 30,000 repairs last year, and even released additional funding from reserves to try to tackle the problem, finding a highways repair budget of £120 million. But that is not sustainable as the Labour Government take £44 million of spending power away from Buckinghamshire. The situation in Buckinghamshire is not unique. As we have heard from places such as Oxfordshire, councils across the country are repairing millions of potholes each year, yet the backlog continues to grow. Even with increased national funding, the gap between what is needed and what is delivered remains substantial. We cannot continue to pile pressure on to a system that is already at breaking point, so what is needed is clear: we need honesty about the scale of the challenge and sustained long-term spending that matches the backlog, not short-term sticking plasters. We are beyond pothole repair and into an era when we need full resurfacing. We need fair funding for areas facing significant infrastructure pressures; all too often it is rural communities that are being let down. We need accountability so that those who damage our roads pay to repair them. For my constituents, and rural communities across the country, driving today feels less like a journey and more like navigating a patchwork obstacle course.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  In answer to an earlier question, the Foreign Secretary rightly said that Ukraine’s security is our security. But in answer to the last question, she equally set out why the current regime in Iran is a threat to our security, both through proliferation—a level of enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon—and the IRGC, which not only slaughters thousands in Iran but has been responsible for plots, which have been foiled, on our own soil. It is all very well the Foreign Secretary saying that she wants to see a swift resolution, but when diplomacy so far has failed and the Government will not join our allies in the attacks, how does she think this will end?

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

  More

  The Liberal Democrat-chaired Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire authority has just consulted on closing Stokenchurch and Great Missenden fire stations and removing nearly a quarter of the fire engines from the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire authority area. It is no surprise that the consultation responses are in and the public do not want to see those dangerous cuts taking place. Yet the papers for next week’s meeting of the fire authority seem to show that it will ignore the consultation and carry on regardless. May we have a debate in Government time about the duties on public bodies to listen to consultations? Otherwise, the public will just look at these things as token exercises rather than real, meaningful engagement.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Defending Democracy Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s statement, and entirely concur with him on the domestic elements of protecting our democracy that he announced, but returning to the issue of foreign influence, those countries that mean our democracy harm of course do not recognise the value of democracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) mentioned China, and we have debated Russia at length in this House. The Minister was in his place yesterday when I questioned the Home Secretary on Iran’s influence on this country; there are a lot of fears, and a lot of reporting, that entities including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are using shell companies and proxies to operate on our shores. Given the heightened tensions in the middle east, and the focus on the Iranian regime, I ask the Minister to ensure that all loopholes are closed down, so that we stop the regime—no matter our views on the war, I think the whole House condemns the regime—being able to influence our democracy.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Protest Policing · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Home Secretary’s decision, but as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary made clear, this speaks to a much wider problem. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that the United Kingdom cannot be used as a safe haven for the wealth, influence networks or political activity of senior figures connected to the Iranian regime, with specific regard to recent reports that the new so-called supreme leader of the Iranian regime is linked to a network of high-value London properties acquired through associates or shell companies? What steps will she take to close any loopholes or strengthen such sanctions?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Following on from that last question, the loan charge and taxpayer fairness APPG, which I co-chair, wrote to Ministers on 1 July, 22 September and 25 November last year, with questions about the 2005 preferential deal with the large banks. Does the Minister feel that it is acceptable that we have not had a reply to those letters? When will we get one?

• 10 Mar 2026 · Draft Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The role of goods vehicles, whether heavy or relatively light, is critical to our economy. We know that the transportation of goods and logistics contribute billions to the UK’s GDP, yet they are often a forgotten element of our economy. In principle, therefore, I cannot object to measures that reduce the cost of doing business and that ensure that those using goods vehicles are not unduly burdened by the Government’s policies on electric vehicles. It would be a preposterous endeavour for the Government to encourage and mandate the use of electric goods vehicles and then to proceed to keep in place rules that would prevent them from carrying the same quantity of goods as their internal combustion engine equivalents. In addition, it is important to be proportionate when considering MOTs and driver hours. If we place too great a burden on individuals, without any demonstrable safety benefits, that places a cost on business that is not in the spirit of how the rules are drafted. However, we must acknowledge the context of these changes. They are not merely attempts by the Government to make proportionate changes to the regulatory burden to help business; they are against the backdrop of an initiative to move all drivers to electric vehicles. In the car market, with fleet sales put to one side, we have seen a stalling of electric vehicle demand, and market share even decreasing, with a Government mandate in place. Furthermore, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has highlighted that in 2025, despite small increases, battery electric van demand remained well below mandated levels, with the steep 2026 ambition set by the Government requiring urgent review. In that context, it is understandable that the Government are trying to pull every lever they can to try to stimulate demand, but at what price? Appropriately—the Minister mentioned this in his opening speech—the Government talked in their impact assessment about ensuring that there is no negative safety impact. In addition, it makes sense to monitor matters such as roadworthiness test failure rates. Nevertheless, when discussing direct and indirect costs in the impact assessments, the Government seem to have forgotten that the policy’s overall impact is to increase the weight of vehicles. Road damage increases exponentially with axle weight, and it would be a mistake not to recognise that this broader change, which encourages heavier vehicles, is unlikely to come without a cost to our roads. We need the Government to have a comprehensive understanding of whether these heavier vehicles could have any impact on road safety. I am not pretending that this statutory instrument on its own will alter our roads, but it is part of a broader trend where the Government have acknowledged that there will be heavier vehicles. Are the Government therefore making a broader assessment of the impact of this change on road surfaces? What assessments will they make? Furthermore, I hope the Minister can answer some specific technical questions on ensuring that the changes are practical. The specific changes to tachograph requirements will cause a divergence, and the Minister spoke in his opening remarks of the impact on Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if he could say more on the discussions the Department for Transport has had with officials in Northern Ireland to mitigate any impact, ensuring that we operate as one country—one United Kingdom—and one economy. Lastly, it is important that the Government retain the power to alter rules relating to matters such as road safety. When discussing aviation safety secondary legislation in September last year, I raised with the Government the impact of the expiry of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. At that time, they responded that they would have until the middle of this year. As we are fast approaching that point, do the Government truly have a plan for what they will do, as that legislative gap emerges, with regard to this statutory instrument?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Does the Minister think it is reasonable that my constituents did not receive a penny of carer’s allowance for the entirety of last year while caring for their daughter living at home with them and that whenever they phone the Department they are simply told, “Case awaiting update”?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The concept of paying someone who has come here illegally £40,000 to leave will stick in the throats of all taxpayers in this country. Notwithstanding the arguments that the Minister has put forward, what assessment has he made that making an offer of 40 grand will not act as a huge pull factor and cause more people to come here to collect our cash?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Support for NEET Young People · Hansard source

  More

  The Centre for Social Justice found that as of the end of last year, 707,000 young people with a university degree were out of work and on benefits. That statistic comes at the same time that employers in my constituency, from the furniture makers in Princes Risborough to the rocket scientists and space sector in Westcott, are saying that they do not want graduates any more—they want apprentices. What is the Secretary of State doing in conjunction with the Department for Education to better signpost young people into pathways for learning and education that will actually help them get a job further down the line?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  For all the Chancellor’s words about forecasts, reality bites when the real unemployment figures are examined. The figure today is 5.2%, the highest since the pandemic, and youth unemployment is at a considerable high. Instead of relying on forecasts that are never, ever right, should we not be asking how many more people need to lose their jobs, and how many more young people need to go without one, before the Chancellor accepts that it is her policies that are not working?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is correct that we did not pass the legislation during our time in government. No Government can do everything during their time in power. As we are having a fair debate here, will he at least accept that an enormous amount of work was done by the previous Government, which led to this Government being able to bring forward this Bill so quickly in the first Session of this Parliament?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind birthday wishes. We do support the SAF mandate. We do support the decarbonisation of air travel, as well as other means of travel, but it has to be done in a way that is economically viable not just to the industry but to all of us who ultimately pay to fly—or to go on a train or a ship, or whatever it might be—through the fares we pay. That is why the Opposition have been so laser-focused on the direct impacts on fare payers, as well as on the wider industry. The wider point, to return to the Lords amendments we are debating, is to ensure that the economic value of decarbonisation, which the British state is mandating through the legislation we pass in this Parliament, actually benefits British producers, British researchers, British engineers, and the incredible array of innovators and talent we have here in this country. With these amendments, the Bill is closer to meeting the test we established at the beginning of the first debate: that the sustainable aviation fuel policy the Government are pushing should reduce emissions while reinforcing the UK’s industrial base, safeguarding competitiveness and supporting high-skilled employment across the country. Indeed, our position remains clear: environmental responsibility, along with economic realism. That will be what protects competitiveness. We will continue to scrutinise the framework carefully as it develops, but on the fundamental point that British passengers’ money should back British production, the Government have adopted the Conservative position. Perhaps if they listen to us a little more often, they might find the turbulence a great deal lighter.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not have asked for a better birthday treat than to debate this issue with the Minister and with everyone else who has shown such a huge interest in the Bill this afternoon. When the Bill first came before the House, the Conservatives were clear that we support the innovation that underpins sustainable aviation fuel. Aviation matters enormously to this country: for families, for trade, for connectivity and for our standing as a global hub. The challenge has never been whether to decarbonise aviation, but how we do so without damaging competitiveness or pricing ordinary passengers out of flying. From the very beginning, we set a clear test. If the British public are underwriting a revenue certainty mechanism, whether directly or through levies that will inevitably feed into ticket prices, the economic benefit must remain here in the United Kingdom. That was not an afterthought. It was not something we discovered halfway through the Bill’s passage; it was one of the central arguments we advanced from day one. Throughout Committee and on Report, I pressed Ministers on how the contracts would work in practice. How would domestic production be prioritised? How would we prevent a scenario where fuel was largely produced overseas, given minimal processing here and then rebadged as British simply to qualify for support? Without clarity, that risk was real. My noble Friend Lord Grayling brought that concern into sharp focus in the other place. His amendment made the principle explicit: if sustainable aviation fuel is to receive support under a revenue certainty contract, it must genuinely be British. He made the point clearly: we cannot design a system that can be gamed. We cannot allow mostly complete fuel to be shipped here, polished up a bit, and then presented as a domestic product. That would not be an industrial strategy; it would be box-ticking with a Union Jack on it. What has happened since? The Government tabled Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4, restricting revenue certainty contracts to UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel. That principle was not explicit in the Bill, as introduced. It is explicit now and I genuinely welcome that. That change, however, did not appear out of thin air. It followed sustained pressure from those of us on the Conservative Benches here and in the other place. It was Conservatives who identified the gap, made the case and tabled the original amendments. I am grateful that the Government have now listened and moved. Of course, the detail matters. The definition of “UK-produced” refers to any part of the process of converting feedstock into fuel taking place in the United Kingdom. That must not become a loophole wide enough to taxi an A380 through. The intention is clear: real production, real value added and real jobs here. We will ensure that the practical application reflects that intention. There is also a broader point to the amendments, which speaks to capability. The United Kingdom has genuine strengths in synthetic fuel and e-SAF. We have companies demonstrating 100% synthetic flight, developed right here in the United Kingdom. We have world-class engineers and researchers. We have the technical expertise to lead. What we should not have are British passengers ultimately bearing the costs while overseas producers capture the opportunity. Now is not the time to relitigate the plus or minus £1.50 on fares argument we had in previous stages, but for the record I say that the Opposition are watching closely. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are assured that the non-HEFA—non-hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—requirements contained in the mandate will be met by industry at no more than the same cost to the passenger?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  The Iranian regime ignored the joint comprehensive plan of action, which completely failed. The Iranian regime’s terror activities have reached these shores, and while we meet here this afternoon, the Iranian regime’s rockets rain down on our allies across the middle east. That includes Hezbollah’s rockets into Israel. Will the Prime Minister clearly set out the evidence underpinning his view that the Iranian regime is in any way, shape or form interested in coming to the negotiating table?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Draft Merchant Shipping (General Lighthouse Authorities) (Increase of Borrowing Limit) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am generally cautious about borrowing beyond our means, but on every organisation significant costs are sometimes imposed that require capital spending. The general lighthouse authorities have been looking after our seafarers for hundreds of years and do critical work to maintain their safety and welfare. Even though they may no longer have the same number of almshouses to maintain, or responsibilities for mariners’ widows and children to fulfil, they still play an enormous role in maintaining the operational network of aids to navigation around the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It is a tremendous legacy of British maritime history, and given the importance of the maritime sector, it is right that the GLAs have the resources they need to ensure safe passage for vessels. In this case, I am aware that the draft order relates to a programme of vessel replacement needed due to many of them reaching the end of their service life. Having working vessels is of course an expense it is necessary to meet if the GLAs are to operate effectively, but can the Minister assure us that the types of vessel procured will be cost effective and that there will be no onerous procurement criteria that could increase costs? I understand that there is no direct provision for UK Government funding, but that the Department for Transport covers the financial risk of the GLAs defaulting on their repayments. As the former maritime Minister said in the debate on the 2024 Order, “This…does not expose the Treasury or the Department, because these are effectively loans to be paid back.” —[ Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 30 October 2024; c. 6.] Although I am sure that the Minister is confident in the GLAs’ ability to manage their finances, in increasing the borrowing limits through 10 statutory instruments, has any assessment been made of the financial security of the organisations? For example, I understand that the minimum general lighthouse fund cash reserves are set at £20 million to cover costs. While the current level is greater than that sum, will the Treasury need to make any changes? Has the Department for Transport engaged with the lighthouse authorities to ascertain their confidence in paying back the borrowing? Has the potential long-term impact on light dues been assessed? Avoiding increases business costs is critical, and I am sure we want to avoid imposing a greater financial burden on shipping businesses. The general lighthouse authorities have centuries of history, illustrating—some might say illuminating—their effectiveness in upholding the safety of mariners. It is essential that the Government act as the steward of this history and ensure that they remain operationally and financial viable.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to the deer management course that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) also attended last December, which was hosted by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. For transparency, I should also say that I am a member of the Countryside Alliance and of BASC, and both those memberships predate my election to this place. I myself shoot, and I am a shotgun certificate holder. However, I have come to this debate to talk not about my own passion for shooting—even though I am my own MP—but about the importance that shooting has for my constituency. Some 477 constituents signed the petition, and I have had many emails from fellow shooters in the constituency, as well as from those considering taking up shooting, having their first go at a clay ground and applying for a shotgun certificate. Indeed, I cannot exemplify the importance of shooting to my constituency better than my constituent Stuart, who said that you only need to spot the game feeders in the fields from any train passing through Buckinghamshire to see how important shooting sports are in the constituency. Of course, it is not just shooting sports that would be affected by the changes in the petition. As others have said eloquently throughout the debate, yes, it is about shooting sports; yes, it is about the clay grounds; yes, it is about game shooting; but it is also about farmers, pest control and predator control. It is about things like deer management, and if we did not have deer management and people willing to get a firearms licence to stop our countryside being overrun—people who often get called out by the police themselves to deal with a deer that might have been knocked over in the road and need humanely dispatching—we would be in great difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) concluded by saying that the wider economic impact is not just on those who hold a shotgun certificate or a firearms licence; it is also on people such as David and Nicky Florent in my constituency, who run—despite its name, it is in Buckinghamshire—the Oxford Gun Company in the village of Oakley, which is a gun shop and shooting ground. They do sell not just shotguns, rifles, cartridges and ammunition, but the clothing ranges, boots, glasses, ear defenders and everything else that goes into shooting at large. That would be at risk if the change that is being consulted on by the Government, and that this petition is about, goes ahead. As others have said, this change could lead to a huge number of people saying, “It’s just not worth it any more.” They would not put themselves through the process of renewing a shotgun certificate or even getting one in the first place. After the last significant reform of the licensing regime—back in 1988—there was a decline of about a third in the number of participants in shooting. Estimates out there suggest that this change from section 2 to section 1 would lead to a similar reduction in the number of people wishing to put themselves through the process of renewing their firearms licence.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman; he puts it very well. Someone said earlier that holding a shotgun or a rifle is a privilege. Yes, it is a massive privilege, but it also comes with an absolutely ginormous responsibility, and I believe that everybody who legally holds a shotgun certificate or firearms licence takes that responsibility very seriously. They have often been taught from a young age the proper safety protocols around handling a firearm, and the importance of keeping it locked away and of cleaning it, which is important for one’s own safety when handling a firearm—if it is not clean, that can lead to significant problems. We should acknowledge just how seriously legitimate, legal, properly licensed shotgun and rifle owners in this country take their responsibilities. We all want a safe system; for those of us who have the privilege of owning a shotgun or a rifle—I do not have a firearms licence, and I have never applied for one—it is imperative that there is a safe system underpinning that, because it protects those who own them as well as those who do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) went through the statistics in considerable detail, so I will not repeat them. It is worth acknowledging that our hearts go out to anyone who is affected by or a victim of a tragedy at the hands of someone wielding a firearm illegitimately—whether they somehow cheated the system and got a certificate or not. However, fatalities involving legally held firearms are extraordinarily rare: around one in 15 million annually, as other Members have said. The significance of that, which I do not think anyone else has mentioned in the debate, is that that falls far below the Health and Safety Executive’s intervention threshold of one in a million. That is not to say that there cannot be proportionate, evidence-based reforms to the licensing system. In many respects, there probably should be, to tweak it and make it safer. But what I do not see—I do not think anybody in the debate has advocated this—is that merging section 2 into section 1 will solve any problems or make anybody in our great country safer. It would, however, bring considerable cost and bureaucracy. I am lucky, with Thames Valley, to have one of the better-performing police force firearms licensing departments in the country. But as others have said, some forces have been found considerably wanting when it comes to new grants and renewal lead times. On the other side of the coin is the enormous financial cost to our economy: shooting is worth £3.3 billion each year in its own right and generates £9.3 billion of wider benefits. My constituent Scott believes that merging sections 1 and 2 could cost £1 billion a year and 20,000 jobs, and evidence from the Countryside Alliance looking specifically at alignment between sections 2 and 1 shows that it would reduce the total value by £2.38 billion in the first year, with a loss of between 13,600 and 17,400 full-time jobs. This debate is looking at a live consultation. I urge the Minister to stop and reflect on what she has heard this afternoon and what the shooting community in my—and I dare say in everybody’s—constituency is saying on this matter. As she goes through the process of reforming police forces, per se, she should perhaps pause any conversation on the changes until we know what those police forces will actually look like. I have heard arguments on the other side of the debate about a national firearms licensing scheme, and particularly that the existing system has local officers who, although they cannot know every certificate holder or licence holder in their constituency, are closer to the people they are licensing. The Minister should look at the bigger picture—where we have significant change to the policing landscape—and pause, look at the evidence, and understand the potential for significant damage to both safety and the economic survival of this sport and of wider conservation activity. Finally, a lot has been said about this being an urban versus rural matter, but I do not believe that it is. My constituency is entirely rural. Yes, there are many shotgun certificate holders and firearms licence holders in my constituency, and there are clay grounds, many shoots and lots of farms. But if we look at the number of certificates issued across the country, this is just as important to many people who live in our cities. Every year, 21,000 certificates are issued by the Metropolitan police to London residents. This matters to people who shoot, no matter where they live. They might go to a game shoot or a clay ground in the countryside but live in our cities. This is far bigger than just a rural issue.