Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  If the Minister is serious about, in his words, “doubling down” on brownfield first, will he look again at the Campaign to Protect Rural England report, which was put together with academic rigour, which identified enough land in England alone for 1.4 million homes on brownfield sites? If he looks again at that seriously, he will find that it is right and will mandate to build on those sites first before a single farm, field or piece of green-belt land is built on.

• 15 Dec 2025 · NATO Defence Expenditure Target · Hansard source

  More

  2. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of Exchequer on meeting the NATO target of 5% of GDP on defence expenditure.

• 15 Dec 2025 · NATO Defence Expenditure Target · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but it is curious to see what is and is not in the Red Book from the Budget we just had. Page 88 shows in intricate detail just how big the welfare budget will get as a result of the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, but there is no such analysis anywhere in the Red Book of defence spending. Will he set out clearly at the Dispatch Box when the UK will hit the domestic 3% target, and when we will ultimately get to that 5% target? In which financial year will that be?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. Given that Germany has lifted its partial arms embargo on Israel, why do the UK Government persist with restrictions on defence export licences to our ally?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, Mr Vickers, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The Opposition have a deep and growing concern about the direction in which Ministers of this Government are taking our energy system. It is a direction that depends increasingly on the weather, and I do not believe that anyone in this House should pretend that such dependence makes our country more secure. I have battled with this in my own constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, where large-scale solar development projects threaten to consume vast areas of productive farmland and countryside while adding yet more intermittent generation to an already fragile system. Expanding weather-dependent capacity without addressing firm power needs not only strains local communities, but further undermines the resilience of our national grid. We are also moving towards a system in which electricity supply must follow the wind rather than meeting the needs of households and businesses. This is being presented as modern, progressive and resilient. In truth, it is none of those things. It is a system built on hope rather than reliability, which is not what this country needs. The National Energy System Operator has already set out that the future system will require a very large amount of what it calls flexible demand to prevent power shortages and to keep the lights on. “Flexible demand” is a polite phrase. What it means is encouraging or requiring people to use electricity at times when they might not want to use it. It means shifting everyday life around the weather to accommodate low output from wind power. That is not energy security; it is energy insecurity by design. As the economist Sir Dieter Helm has put it, such arrangements amount to voluntary power cuts, because they rely on people reducing their demand whenever renewable output falls. Sir Dieter has also warned that wind and solar do not provide firm power and that without enough firm capacity, the system simply cannot function reliably. The facts support Sir Dieter. A recent study of wind patterns found that extended periods of very low wind are surprisingly common and can last a week or more. These wind lulls occur at times, and for durations that exceed the capability of storage and interconnectors to compensate. In those conditions, families, hospitals and industry cannot simply wait for the breeze to return, yet that is exactly what the current strategy risks requiring them to do. Consumers are already paying the price for an energy system that prioritises intermittency over reliability. According to the Nuclear Industry Association, balancing costs, which are the payments needed to bring dispatchable power online when renewable output is too low, reached £2.1 billion between January and September this year. That represents a 25% increase on the previous year. These costs add nothing to the strength of the system; they simply mask its weakness and push bills upwards. NESO’s winter outlook for 2025-26 forecasts an operational margin of 6.1 GW. Although this is the highest margin since 2019, the operator warns that there will still be tighter periods, when further interventions may be needed. In other words, even now, with relatively healthy margins, the system is fragile. As more dispatchable plants retire and more intermittent generation comes online, that fragility will only deepen. That point leads me to the most pressing issue underpinning this debate. At the end of this decade, the United Kingdom faces a firm capacity crunch. Older baseload and dispatchable plants are closing, and they are not being replaced at the required scale. Nuclear projects are delayed, investment in new gas capacity has slowed, and Government strategy appears to assume that flexibility and good fortune will fill the gap. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has called for greater private investment in gas power stations to provide the security of supply that only firm capacity can deliver, yet the Government persist in placing their hopes in demand shifting and in a growing share of intermittent power. That is not a credible energy strategy for a modern industrial economy. Other major economies are not taking this gamble; they are investing in firm, reliable power generation, because they understand that energy security is the foundation of economic strength and national resilience. I ask all Members to consider what this would mean in a time of national emergency or war. In such circumstances, our productive capacity would need to run at full speed, continuously and without interruption. A system that is built around weather-dependent electricity and consumer demand shifting simply could not meet that requirement. We should not resign ourselves to an energy future in which households are constantly asked to postpone cooking, heating or charging appliances during peak times purely to compensate for low wind output, nor should business be expected to halt operations because the breeze has dropped. Innovations that give consumers the option to save money or lower bills are welcome. Where demand flexibility is voluntary and genuinely benefits consumers it should be encouraged, but it must never become the cornerstone of our national energy strategy. Flexibility should support the system, not prop up its structural weakness. Our ambition as a country should be far higher. We should aim for an energy system that provides cheap, reliable and abundant electricity at all times of day and in all seasons; a system that does not depend on weather patterns and does not require consumers to become the balancing mechanism; a system with enough firm capacity built in that the lights remain on, even in the stillest winter week.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Net Zero Transition: Consumer-led Flexibility · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but the trains will continue to run 24/7, whereas we are talking about a system in which if renewable sources drop and the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine, the electricity is not there. I am not sure that his analogy is necessarily a helpful one, but I hear the point that he makes. Ministers are creating a system that depends on the weather, while claiming that it makes us more secure. It simply does not. It papers over a capacity crisis that is approaching fast, and it risks burdening families and businesses with the consequences of that miscalculation. True energy security requires firm power, serious planning, serious investment and, above all, a willingness to confront reality rather than wishing it away. I urge the Government to rethink their approach and pursue a strategy based on reliability first and flexibility second. The country deserves nothing less.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this debate on an issue that matters greatly: ensuring that transport, in this case on the railways, effectively serves rural communities. It is particularly important to me, as a rural MP representing 336 square miles of rural Buckinghamshire, that these timetable changes work in the interests of rural communities in Buckinghamshire and across the whole of our precious United Kingdom. The mindset of Government must always be passenger-focused. Whatever form of transport someone is using, we should ensure that the priority is providing the service that best helps most people. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the proactive steps that he is taking, and arguing for, to ensure that people in the borders are effectively served by the timetable and that communities like his are not cut off because of timetabling changes that have resulted in the removal of services. Unfortunately, in our communities we have too often seen transport policies from the Government and from Labour councils that are more focused on helping them to raise revenue or penalise drivers, for example, as opposed to serving local residents. Those concerns have only hardened as rural areas across the country have been squeezed and treated like a cash cow by the Government. As the Government continue to expand their ever growing control over the railways, it is essential that the changes they implement consider rural areas at their very heart. Although I acknowledge that the Government had a wide array of elements to examine, it is interesting to note the absence of any mention of rural areas in their response to the consultation on the Railways Bill, which is having its Second Reading debate in the main Chamber right now. There was only one reference in the impact assessment, which noted “fewer services in rural areas”. The Government’s lack of consideration as to how their reforms may impact particular areas does not instil confidence about how the new organisation will treat rural communities. The Government claim that Great British Railways will play the critical role in establishing timetables as we move to the new system. I stress that I have no contention with the idea that a unified body can play an important role in setting timetables. The Williams-Shapps plan for rail was born out of chaotic timetabling in 2018 and specifically recommended that its version of GBR should set the timetables. However, much remains to be answered about how effective the new body will be in serving rural areas and setting the timetables that serve rural areas. There is nothing that means intrinsically that it will inherently help those locations. In fact, other policy decisions, such as those on the bus fare cap, have seen the Government make travelling more expensive for rural communities rather than cheaper. There are real risks that nationalisation may result in timetabling that serves the organisation itself rather than the passengers who use the network.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Chiltern Railways serves my constituency and Buckinghamshire more widely, on both the Chiltern main line and the Aylesbury branch. The Aylesbury branch in particular is a very rural service; it stops at a number of very small stations, often village stations, between Aylesbury and Marylebone. For a very long time, it was the gold standard of railways: the reliability was high, the fares were not too bad, and lots of my constituents praised it. Only in the post-pandemic era, when services have not been put back on as most of us would have expected, have standards slipped on the branch line. When we debate the timetabling of rural services on the rail network, it is important that we do not lose sight of where the real challenges have come from. Am I going to stand here and say that everything about the way the railways were privatised was absolutely bang-on perfect? No, but I will defend the principle of having private sector risk to drive up standards and to improve competition, rather than the one-size-fits-all nationalisation model that the Government are proposing—the delivery model of which is being debated in the main Chamber right now, although I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to spend his afternoon in this debate and not that one. The Minister may well say that nationalisation will not lead to timetabling that serves Great British Railways more than it serves passengers. However, without sufficient safeguards in the system, it remains a possibility that the timetabling proposed will not match the needs of commuters and other passengers. The example of Berwick-upon-Tweed station that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk mentioned demonstrates the role that services play in connecting our communities to locations across the country. A reduction in service hurts not just Berwick, but the surrounding areas on both sides of the England-Scotland border. I hope that the Minister will consider what more the Government can do to ensure that rural locations are served better by transport links. Rural areas of the United Kingdom absolutely depend on those links, and it is essential that the Government prioritise them.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  We have a Government who could not even keep their own Budget under wraps. What hope do they have with our personal data?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Seafarers’ Welfare · Hansard source

  More

  The point of my comments on the actions of the previous Government is not to say that they were wholly conclusive and the end of the matter. But I believe the steps that were taken by the previous Government did demonstrate a step forward, as I think the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged in the debate—perhaps not the entire length of step that he would have preferred.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Seafarers’ Welfare · Hansard source

  More

  I heard the reference that the right hon. Gentleman just made. Secondly, the last Government introduced a statutory code of practice on fire and rehire that was intended to ensure that employees are properly consulted and treated fairly. Importantly, it included powers for employment tribunals to increase compensation by 25% where an employer unreasonably fails to comply. Thirdly, the start of the seafarers’ charter was launched, with operators including Brittany Ferries, Condor Ferries, DFDS, Stena Line and, at the time, even P&O was committing to work towards meeting the requirements of that charter. The charter placed seafarers at its heart, from ensuring they are paid equivalent to the national minimum wage throughout their engagement, to establishing two weeks on, two weeks off tour of duty baselines on high-intensity routes, and providing appropriate training and development opportunities. Crucially, the charter also committed to providing social security benefits, such as sickness benefits, family benefits and medical care, and adopting roster patterns that properly account for fatigue, mental health and safety. That demonstrated a clear commitment to ensuring that seafarers’ welfare is not an afterthought but a priority. The framework further made it clear that, where provisions differed from those mandated in the maritime labour convention 2006 or any other standard, the higher standard would apply. I acknowledge that progress. Many Members rightly believe that more remains to be done. It is therefore appropriate to turn to the measures set out in the Employment Rights Bill that returns to the House of Commons next Monday. Some hon. Members will know that I had the good fortune to sit through the 21 Committee sittings on that Bill as a shadow Business and Trade Minister, speaking for the Opposition on its many and varied proposals. During that process, we saw the ever-expanding scope of Government intervention illustrated vividly, with the Bill growing from an initial 149 pages when first introduced to 320 pages the last time it left the House of Lords. Some Members may ask why that matters. As I said on Report, although the Bill contains many good and well-intentioned measures, the Government have struggled to get the balance right between the rights of employees and the needs of the employers who create the jobs in the first place. When it came to provisions relating specifically to seafarers, such as changing collective redundancy notification requirements for ship crews, the Opposition did not oppose them. Indeed, I explicitly recognised their relevance in preventing the sort of unacceptable conduct we have seen in the past. However, we also flagged concerns. For example, the Bill grants the Secretary of State broad powers to detain a ship without clearly defining how long the detention could last. That is a perfect illustration of the need for balance. We must uphold the highest standards of seafarer protection while avoiding measures that may deter responsible businesses from operating in the United Kingdom. That links to a broader point recently emphasised by my party. One of the most important ways to protect workers’ rights is to ensure that people remain in work. We can and should tackle fire-and-rehire practices, but if we overburden the economy with excessive taxation and growth-suppressing regulation, the outcome will be the worst of all worlds—fewer jobs and weaker protections. With UK unemployment having risen by 0.9 percentage points since the election and reached an estimated 5% by September 2025, we cannot ignore the reality that the welfare of workers, including seafarers, depends on the Government restoring economic stability. We owe it to seafarers to create an economy in which their livelihoods are secure and not vulnerable to the Chancellor’s mismanagement. Ultimately, I welcome all sensible and proportionate measures that prevent scandalous behaviour and advance the welfare of seafarers, because our maritime workers deserve nothing less.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Seafarers’ Welfare · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As an island nation, Britain has always been reliant on our sailors, as other Members have said. For centuries, we have depended on them to protect our nation, to transport goods around the world and to deliver the products of our national endeavours across the seas to other countries. The continued significance of maritime trade to our economy cannot be overstated. Of all international freight traded with the United Kingdom, around 85% by weight and 55% by value is moved by sea. Our seafarers also play a vital role in connecting communities across the United Kingdom, whether that is in our Scottish islands or the Isle of Wight, where my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) has introduced proposals around fares on ferries, demonstrating that those services remain essential to our national fabric. Even for those of us representing constituencies that could not be further away from the sea—Mid Buckinghamshire proudly holds the title of the second-most landlocked constituency in the country—the importance of the maritime sector to the UK’s past, present and future prosperity is abundantly clear. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. It is right that we recognise the work of the estimated 23,700 UK seafarers active at sea, according to data from 2024, whose skill and dedication power this indispensable industry. Understandably, the debate has referenced the actions of P&O Ferries in 2022. For all who observed that situation, the conclusion was unmistakeable: P&O’s decision was wrong. That is why the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, condemned it in the strongest possible terms. Indeed, during my time on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament, we heard very detailed evidence—often difficult to listen to—about the scandalous and wholly inappropriate behaviour of P&O. As the Minister will know from his briefings, the last Government acted swiftly in response. It is worth briefly reflecting on those steps, as they represented meaningful progress in protecting seafarers’ rights and, therefore, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, their welfare. First, the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 ensures that those working on ships that provide a regular international service from the United Kingdom are paid at least the equivalent of the national minimum wage while operating in UK waters. This reduces the incentive for operators to employ overseas labour on worse terms and conditions—although I heard the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and the discrimination that he highlighted, which is still a wrong to be righted.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Australia has listed Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a state sponsor of terrorism. What discussions have Ministers had with their Australian counterparts about matching that important action against terror at home and abroad?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Music Recording Studios · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps she is taking to help support small and medium-sized music recording studios.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Music Recording Studios · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies for making it just in time. Chiltern Railways are entirely to blame. I thank the Minister for that answer, however a couple of weeks ago I met my constituent Dom, who runs a small music studio. The cost pressures on the music industry coming from this Government are unsustainable at the moment, not least from business rates—even after yesterday’s announcement—employer national insurance and the minimum wage. With so many small music studios having closed in recent years in this country, how will the Government ensure that our music industry has a solid future?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. Much of Buckinghamshire’s tourist economy is under- pinned by walkers coming to enjoy our countryside and the beautiful Chilterns, but on top of the tourism tax, the industry is threatened by the Secretary of State’s Government threatening to plaster Buckinghamshire with solar panels, which will drive the walkers away. What representations is she making to her colleague the Energy Secretary to protect tourism in Buckinghamshire?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Labour Members are like a broken record. The last Conservative Government certainly made a number of mistakes—we have put our hands up to that—but we left employment high and unemployment at a record low, and jobs were being created every single day. Now, businesses are not taking on—or are planning not to take on—more new starters, or, like Rumsey’s Chocolaterie on Wendover High Street, have already had to lay people off or cut their hours because of employer NI, business rates and the looming Employment Rights Bill. Those are the real-world consequences of the Labour Government’s policies. The dividends tax in the Budget struck right at the heart of the entrepreneurs—the small business owners—who risk everything to create growth, employ people and create the jobs that we want in our economy. It has sent them the message: “There will be less in it for you, if anything at all.” Many of those businesses operate on narrow margins, working their socks off almost for nothing, and this Government are making it even harder for them. That is no way to run an economy. I am lucky enough to have many farmers in my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, where around 90% of the land is agricultural, and I talk to them as often as I can. My party held an emergency food and farming summit at Fleet Marston farm in my constituency a couple of weeks ago, where my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and the shadow Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), joined me to again hear directly from farmers about the impact the family farm tax will have. They will have to either sell up to a third of their farm to meet that tax bill or take on a level of debt that it will take over 40 years to pay back. The National Farmers Union, many other organisations and farmers directly have tried to reach out, including yesterday on Whitehall, to get Labour MPs and Ministers to listen and understand the real-world consequences of their decisions. And yet the Budget yesterday was entirely lacking anything other than the transferable allowance to take away the stress, anxiety and existential threat to British agriculture that the family farm tax and changes to business property relief represent to family businesses and family farms up and down the country. I can assure anyone who challenges the point I am making that it will not be other farmers who buy the land when farms have to sell to meet the inheritance tax bill—it will be property developers and those with all sorts of other concerns, who will not keep that land in food production. The nation’s food security will suffer as a direct result of the failure to scrap the family farm tax yesterday. I want to talk briefly about another issue I have been focused on for a number of years, during the last Parliament and this one. I draw the House’s attention to my co-chairmanship of the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group. I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the new Exchequer Secretary for the time they have taken to reach out on this issue. Some of the announcements yesterday were welcome, off the back of the McCann review. However, I am sorry to say to the House that they have not been met with total joy from the victims of the loan charge, because many people caught up in the loan charge are still being asked to pay amounts of money that they simply cannot afford. The Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and other Ministers are on the record saying, when in opposition, that the victims of the loan charge were “victims of mis-selling” and that the perpetrators—those who promoted these schemes—should have been brought to justice. What we got yesterday was nothing of the sort. We did not get the fully independent review that the APPG and the Loan Charge Action Group have been calling for. Despite the concessions yesterday, many people simply will not be able to pay. Two thirds of the victims are now over 55, 40% are over 60 and a quarter are already retired. They just do not have the ability to find the amounts of money being asked for, and the offer on the table is nothing like the settlement made with the big banks some years ago, which was in the region of 10% to 15%. I urge the Exchequer Secretary to look at this again and to deliver a genuinely fair settlement to everyone caught up by the loan charge and pursue those who sold the schemes.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Answer the question! This is a debate.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  In reflecting on the title that the Government have offered up for today’s Budget resolutions debate, “Economic Sustainability and Fair Choices”, I have found myself wondering on what planet anyone could possibly call yesterday’s Budget sustainable or fair. The forecasts show that GDP growth will be down in every year from 2026 to 2029, consumer prices index inflation will be up 3.5% this year, taxes will increase by £26 billion, the unemployment rate will hit 4.9% in 2026, the size of the state itself will increase to 44.8% of GDP, borrowing will go up £11 billion, and debt interest will be higher in every year of the forecast. That is not the makings of a sustainable economy or growth, and it is certainly not fair on the taxpayers who will have to shoulder the burden to pay for it all. As I visit businesses in my constituency—the retailers and hospitality businesses on the high streets of Wendover, Princes Risborough, Great Missenden; the village pubs; the furniture manufacturers in Princes Risborough and the surrounds; and the rocket scientists and big businesses at Westcott venture park—they all paint a picture of preparing for things to get worse. They say that they are not planning to take on new employees or apprentices.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely endorse the argument that my hon. Friend is making. The big punishment in yesterday’s Budget was the increase in taxation on dividends. That says to our wealth creators and entrepreneurs—the people who create jobs—“Don’t bother.”

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  While the spousal transfer is a very narrow measure that might give a couple of years or maybe a decade’s relief, at the end of the day farmers will still have to sell massive chunks of their farm to meet the inheritance tax bill. What will the hon. Lady say to her farmers when that point comes?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this debate on an issue affecting families, young people and local businesses across the south-east, including in my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, and indeed across the whole of our United Kingdom. The backdrop to this debate is a driving test system that is under unprecedented strain. Data obtained through a freedom of information request submitted by the AA Driving School shows a staggering deterioration since the start of this calendar year. There has been a 60% increase in the number of driving test centres with average waits of 24 weeks. In January 2025, 161 centres were at the maximum wait time of 24 weeks. By 5 May 2025, that figure had risen to 258 centres. Shockingly, more than 80% of all test centres are now operating with the longest possible delay. Those are astonishing figures that illustrate a system not merely struggling but spiralling. It is not a regional anomaly. It is a systemic failure and responsibility sits squarely with this Government. When the Conservatives left government in July 2024 the average wait time was 17.1 weeks. That was unprecedentedly high as we were recovering from the backlog created by the pandemic. If anyone still doubts that this crisis has worsened after the election, the Government’s own data sets it out plainly. In the first two quarters of 2024, just over 1 million driving tests were conducted. In the same period this year, under this Government, that number fell to 914,000. At a time when the backlog should have been the priority, capacity has gone backwards. Learners, parents and instructors feel the consequences every single day. Driving, particularly for young people, is not a luxury; it is essential. It is often the difference between securing an apprenticeship, a job or a place at college and missing out, or between being able to take an opportunity or left without options. It provides access to education, healthcare, caring responsibilities, family life and independence. Nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. Youth unemployment is now at 15.3%, the highest level since before the pandemic. At a moment when we should be opening doors for young people, the Government have instead allowed driving test delays to become yet another barrier in their way. A genuinely pro-motorist Government would have grasped the urgency sooner. A genuinely pro-opportunity Government would recognise driving as a lifeline, particularly in areas where public transport is limited and where a licence is the gateway to employment. A Government serious about growth would not tolerate a system in which a young person must wait the best part of half a year or even longer simply to sit a driving test. The Government’s approach has not only failed learners. It has alienated the professionals who keep the system safe and functioning—our driving instructors. In my constituency, I have heard directly from two established driving schools: Chiltern Learners and Alltime Driving. Both have always been able to book tests on behalf of their pupils responsibly and professionally. They have told me how disruptive, damaging and ill-considered the Government’s new measures are, introduced without genuine consultation with industry and without any understanding of how the booking system is used in practice. They feel as though they are being treated as the problem, as if they were the bots—we all want to see the bots stopped—rather than the driving instructors recognised as part of the solution. Their experiences are echoed by instructors across the country. A colleague has shared similar correspondence from an instructor who described the shock felt across the profession when the reforms were announced without notice, transparency or any meaningful engagement. Instructors consistently say that preventing them booking tests or managing test slots sensibly will make the system less efficient, not more. They warn that stopping instructors swapping tests will result in more wasted appointments and unused examiner time. They are concerned about the future of intensive driving schools, many of which are already struggling due to a shortage of the availability of tests. And they highlight, rightly, that little thought has been given to vulnerable or neurodiverse pupils who might not be able to navigate the system alone. What they all say in different ways is the same thing: the Government have pushed ahead with a sledgehammer approach that punishes the wrong people, ignores expert advice and risks making a bad situation worse. We all welcome the action to stop the bots, but that needs rapid action with rapid, real enforcement, while at the same time leaning on those, like the instructors I have just mentioned, who can make a real difference. We also see the Government grasping for headlines and distractions rather than solutions. The decision to bring in Ministry of Defence driving examiners has been presented as a major intervention. In reality, that means 36 military examiners will conduct public tests one day a week for a year, just 6,500 extra tests when hundreds of thousands are needed. As one instructor put it, that is little more than moving the deckchairs around. It is no substitute for a serious plan to recruit and retain examiners and fix the underlying issues. The result is a system in chaos: record delays, shrinking capacity, frustrated instructors, disadvantaged pupils, and young people being held back at the very moment they need opportunity and support. Instead of leadership, we see press releases, gimmicks and a refusal to confront the scale of the problem. Driving should be a route to opportunity, not another obstacle created by Government. Learners deserve better, instructors deserve better and motorists across the south-east and the whole of our United Kingdom deserve far better than the declining service they face today.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Buckinghamshire Council: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  That is a curious answer, because modelling by the County Councils Network indicates that, assuming there is a punishing 5% annual council tax increase, core spending for Buckinghamshire council will go up by only a below-inflation 2.2%—a real-terms cut. What assurance can the Minister give Buckinghamshire council that it will not find itself with a real-terms cut in spending power as it delivers essential services to my constituents?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Buckinghamshire Council: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  4. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of his Department’s funding for Buckinghamshire council.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, it is on their own website. But I will turn to another Government blunder: taxpayer-funded schemes to bribe the public into buying something that they do not want, which, we now learn, will financially hammer people for doing what the Government told them to do in the first place. Is it not time to let people choose what they want to drive, before electric becomes the new diesel?