Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to hear from a real solicitor who gives her wealth of knowledge to this area. I am not trying to suggest that everything is perfect and working well. I fully accept the fair and good point that the hon. Lady makes about many mothers getting back into the workplace or extending their careers, but the Bill is not the answer she is looking for, if she looks at it in more detail. The RPC gave the Government’s impact assessment for flexible working provisions a red rating, and that goes to the nub of the point. Is there room for improvement? Of course there is, but the impact assessment for the flexible provisions in the Bill was given a red rating—not fit for purpose. Once again, I ask the Minister this: what problem are the Government trying to solve with clause 7? Before rushing to pile more red tape on businesses through the Bill, did the Government consider options such as raising awareness of the right to request flexible working? Our new clause 84 requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact that clause 7 will have on employment, wages and economic output.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Energy Efficiency Standards · Hansard source

  More

  8. Whether she is taking steps to support landlords in upgrading housing stock to reach an EPC rating of C.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Energy Efficiency Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the answer that the Minister just gave, but when individual private landlords with just one or two properties are coming to my surgeries to say they will simply sell up and remove those properties from the private rented sector because they cannot afford to bring properties up to EPC C, when the National Trust is leaving properties in the village of Bradenham completely empty because it cannot afford to bring those rural homes up to EPC C, and when the charity Abbeyfield has closed its Princes Risborough property because it could not afford to bring it up to EPC C, displacing elderly and vulnerable residents, does the Minister agree that if the Government are to bring in new regulations, it is equally incumbent on them to help provide funding?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman may be aware that a private Member’s Bill I brought forward in the last Parliament—it is now the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023—would enable us to place that requirement on power tool manufacturers to fit forensic marking; it just requires secondary legislation. The Bill was discussed at all stages of debate during its passage through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, so will the hon. Gentleman support my calls from back then, and on the new Government now, to look at bringing in that secondary legislation to make the Act apply equally to power tools?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) on securing this debate. While I will talk about the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 in more detail later in my remarks, I assure him, because of the comments that he made, that GPS units were very much intended to be included within the scope of that Act; they were spoken about extensively at all stages of debate before the Act achieved Royal Assent. I urge the Minister to have that in mind as she prepares the necessary statutory instruments to fully bring the Act into force. I believe that has now been promised to come by this summer. Fundamentally, rural crime is devastating to all rural areas, not least those such as mine in Mid Buckinghamshire, where the economy is mostly agricultural and entire communities are centred around farming and the local economy that farming supports. Whether it is theft, hare coursing, fly-tipping or antisocial behaviour—to name just a few such crimes—the countryside is too often an easy target for criminal gangs looking to make a quick buck. It is imperative that the Government recognise that and take steps to build on the work that we did in government, particularly over the last few years, to tackle and prevent rural crime. According to the Countryside Alliance’s 2023 rural crime survey, fly-tipping accounted for the most commonly reported crime—to the point made by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna)—at 37% of cases, followed closely by agricultural machinery theft at 32% and trespassing at 31%. It goes without saying that farm machinery is essential to the smooth running of farms. Those items are not just tools; they are the backbone of the entire agricultural machine. Whether it is a combine harvester, a tractor, or a high-tech bit of equipment, the cost of replacing them can run into tens of thousands of pounds. In 2022 alone, rural crime cost UK farmers over £50 million, with farm machinery theft accounting for a substantial portion of that. NFU Mutual—which, let’s face it, insures the vast majority of agricultural machinery in this country—estimates that the cost of rural crime increased by 4.3% year on year in 2023 to £52.8 million, and the cost of GPS theft alone reached an estimated £4.2 million in 2023, which was a 137% increase. Quad bike and all-terrain vehicle theft cost an estimated £3.2 million in 2023—up 9% on 2022. It is not just heavy machinery and equipment that is targeted. Often it is fuel, which is all too easy for organised gangs to simply siphon off and load into a van, then off they go, leaving victims with huge losses and hefty bills to restock. Last year I visited a farm in my constituency that is directly opposite Chequers. It seems like an unlikely place for opportunist thefts to happen—opposite one of the most heavily armed and secure premises in my constituency—but the farmers fell victim to the loss of some 2,000 litres of red diesel that was siphoned off and taken away in the night. That particular farm operates a very good farm shop, and the thieves also got away with two chest freezers full of meat destined for it. That has not just a huge financial impact on those farmers and that business; there is an equally huge toll on business owners’ and farmers’ mental health, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall referenced. These criminal gangs are incredibly difficult to apprehend when operating across county lines, and the raids can often take several hours and go on through the night, with criminals targeting several farms and heading off great distances with the stolen items. Some are even shipped overseas and sold without any traceability. The ever-evolving nature and sophistication of criminal gangs makes this a severe uphill battle, but it is a battle that, I would put to this House and to the Minister, this country can win. We can defeat these gangs. The Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act, which was my private Member’s Bill, requires retailers to register ATV sales and to ensure that vehicles are fitted with unique identifiers in the form of forensic marking. That will help police forces to track those that fall into the wrong hands. The use of GPS trackers and forensic marking on machinery is already helping farmers who voluntarily fit them to their equipment to ensure that stolen items can be recovered; where voluntarily applied, law enforcement agencies have followed leads and caught criminals before they could profit from their crimes. Given that my Bill achieved Royal Assent in 2023, I was hopeful that the secondary legislation would have been passed before the general election was called last year, or quickly after it. That was not to be, but I am assured from commitments made in the main Chamber that those pieces of secondary legislation are coming. I would be grateful if the Minister could reconfirm in her speech that the summer is still the intended point of arrival for them, so that we can debate the regulations in a Delegated Legislation Committee. Another common-sense piece of legislation passed under the last Government was the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which increased the maximum sentence for hare coursing from a fine to six months in prison. It is not just the legislation that is making a difference; it is the commitment of local law enforcement. In Buckinghamshire, Thames Valley police has been working tirelessly to track down and apprehend those responsible for thefts and other rural crime. Increased patrols, better surveillance systems, and collaboration with local farmers and rural communities have contributed to a drop in farm machinery theft in areas where such initiatives have been rolled out. I argue that, with the support of the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner, Matthew Barber, Thames Valley police is leading the way, with a commitment in the 2024-25 policing budget for an uplift in officers to tackle rural crime—in fact, a doubling of Thames Valley’s rural crime taskforce. The national rural crime unit has been mentioned in this debate. Thames Valley’s rural crime taskforce, led by Stuart Hutchings, has been a trailblazer feeding into that. Launched in March 2022, the taskforce has made a huge impact. It has already seized more than £5 million-worth of property including vehicles, drugs, plant machinery and tools, as well as completing hundreds of investigations and supporting hundreds of people with crime prevention advice. I pay particular tribute to the national rural crime unit, led by Superintendent Andy Huddleston, who was instrumental in helping to put my Bill together and who I very much value as a friend and someone I look to for sage advice. The unit has recovered stolen property, including agricultural machinery and vehicles, worth £10 million since 2023. It has co-ordinated operational responses across the UK that have resulted in multiple arrests, as well as disrupting organised crime groups. The national construction and agriculture theft team, which sits under the NRCU, seized £3.1 million-worth of stolen vehicles and machinery in 2023 alone. Even in the last few weeks, this co-ordinated approach, started by the last Government and hopefully continued by this one, has produced significant results. Following a series of hare coursing and associated antisocial behaviour incidents across the south-east and east of England, key arrests were made by Cambridgeshire police with support from Thames Valley police. This reinforces the effectiveness of intelligence sharing and co-ordination between forces that makes entire regions and the whole country safer by stopping these gangs operating. To conclude, rural communities in Buckinghamshire and the whole country deserve the same level of protection as urban areas. We must ensure that our hard-working farmers are able to focus on what they do best— feeding the nation—without the looming threat of theft, intimidation or criminal damage hanging over their heads. I urge the Minister to ensure that the good words that have been said about fighting rural crime under this Government so far are turned into a solid reality that will protect rural communities—my own and all others across the country—in the coming months and years.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Formula 1: 75th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Formula 1 is a world championship, but it is a predominantly British success story. Would the best way for the Government to join its 75th anniversary celebrations not be to get behind the efforts of Susie Wolff and others to get more women into the sport, and to back the Hamilton Commission in getting more people from more diverse backgrounds to participate in motor sport at all levels?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Formula 1: 75th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  10. Whether her Department plans to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Formula 1.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Gaza: BBC Coverage · Hansard source

  More

  I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said and welcome her clear criticism of this documentary, but may I return to some of the—at best—mistranslation that happened during the documentary that my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State referenced? Instances of the Arabic words for “Jews” were changed to “Israeli” and, possibly worst of all, one interviewee praised the Hamas leader for his “Jihad against the Jews”, yet the BBC translated that to “fighting Israeli forces”. That is not an error in Google Translate; it is clearly a deliberate attempt to completely misinterpret the approach towards Hamas and the situation in the middle east. Can she give me an assurance that she will be robust in challenging those translations, because those terms are clearly antisemitic and take a pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist viewpoint?

• 26 Feb 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) on securing this important debate. He is right: high streets are the beating heart of communities and local economies across the whole of the United Kingdom. I see that in my own constituency, with the wonderful mix of retail, hospitality and services on high streets such as Wendover, Princes Risborough and Great Missenden, as well as those important smaller retail parades in villages such as Prestwood and Haddenham. They really are, as others have said, the beating heart of our local economies and communities. Unlike Labour, the Conservatives want businesses to keep more of their hard-earned money to grow and invest. In Government, we delivered the biggest long-term business tax cut in modern British history, to the tune of £11 billion per year. We froze the small business multiplier, saving an average shop £1,650 a year, and extended the retail hospitality and leisure relief for a year, which directly supports high street businesses. We took a third of properties out of business rates completely through small business rate relief and froze the tax rate for the last three years. We introduced a 75% business rate relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, meaning that the business rates of the average pub in England were £6,650 lower than they would have been. Meanwhile, breaking their manifesto promise not to increase the amount of cash raised by the levy, this Labour Government are delivering a stealth tax rise of £900 million this year and £2.7 billion next year through higher business rates. Rates paid by thousands of high street businesses will more than double next year as a result. Unlike Labour, we in Government cut national insurance contributions for businesses. We abolished an entire class of NICs and cut the NIC top rate from 9% to 6%. Labour’s first Budget launched a £25 billion tax raid on British business, breaking its manifesto promise and imposing a jobs tax. It has increased employer national insurance contributions, clearly breaking commitments made throughout its general election campaign. That jobs tax will increase the cost of employment to our high street employers and everyone else by £900 for the average worker. Labour’s Budget nearly halved business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, more than doubling the business rates of eligible businesses. Atlas Group estimates that the reduction from 1 April of the business rate discount for retail, hospitality and leisure firms in England from 75% to 40% in the ’25-’26 financial year will mean an average 140% rise in business rate bills for more than 250,000 high street premises in England. The average shop will now see its business rates bill spiral from £3,589 to £8,613 next April for the ’25-’26 year. The average business rate bill for pubs will increase from £3,938 to £9,451. Restaurants will see their average bill rising from £5,051 to £12,122. In short, this Labour Government have “complete disregard for the thousands of hard-working shop owners who form the backbone of our high streets”; not my words, but those of the commercial director at the British Independent Retailers Association. Labour looked business owners in the eye and told them it would be on their side, and at the first opportunity it imposed a slam dunk of measures to make it impossible to grow, to invest or even, in some cases, to survive. The Labour Government have zero credibility on this issue now. They are not the champions of our high streets that they want to proclaim themselves. The nation took them at their word, and their word has proven to be a gross misrepresentation.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Plant Oxford Site · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I expected the Secretary of State to hide from talk of CVs, but it seems that also applies to EVs. This weekend we saw the disastrous consequences of Labour’s rigid approach to net zero: BMW hitting the brakes on a £600 million investment in Plant Oxford. That deal, from 2023, would have secured 4,000 high-quality jobs and was a strong vote of confidence in the UK. Like other deals, it was possible only because the previous Government were willing to be pragmatic. The Conservatives made the sensible decision to delay the ban on internal combustion engine cars, bringing the UK into line with major global economies such as France, Germany, Sweden and Canada, but Labour said it knew better, restoring the 2030 phase-out date in its manifesto. When the negative impacts of that approach became clear, the Government launched a fast-track consultation on the zero emission vehicle mandate, pitifully attempting to buy themselves time. Surely, no consultation is necessary. The effects of their puritanical ZEV obsession is already clear: Jaguar Land Rover says that the ZEV mandate is causing disruption to the market; Vauxhall has confirmed that it will shut down its Luton factory, citing the ZEV mandate as making the plant less economically viable; and now the future of Plant Oxford—the home of the Mini since 1959—is uncertain. Labour’s reckless policies have shattered industry confidence, with consumer demand for EVs dropping off a cliff and numbers only just about sustained by subsidised fleet sales. Will the Minister do the right thing: stop hiding behind consultations and acknowledge that the Government’s ideological approach to net zero will lead only to economic disaster for our automotive sector and consumers alike?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Plant Oxford Site · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if we will make a statement on the Plant Oxford site.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Thames Valley police are £1.9 million down this year because of the flawed formula for distributing funds to police forces after a pay award is given. When will this historical anomaly be fixed?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 13 Feb 2025 · Electric Vehicles · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last year, just one in 10 consumers buying a new car chose battery electric, and in 2024, the private market for battery electric was 20% lower than Government intervention had tried to manipulate it to be. Without fleet sales—which we know are warped by huge tax incentives, promoting them over practical vehicle choices—electric car demand just is not there. When will the Minister understand that people are crying out for a different way to defossilise and decarbonise their private vehicles? Battery electric just is not popular, so when will the Government stop trying to tell people what they should want? This is just a “Government knows best” attitude at its very worst, is it not?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Electric Vehicles · Hansard source

  More

  The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders’ January report simply does not back up what the Minister has just said. I repeat that only one in 10 consumers—the people we all represent in this House—actively chose a battery electric vehicle. As the Minister knows from her time on the Transport Select Committee when we looked at the future of fuel, there are other technologies out there. The Government like to say that they are technology-neutral, but the ZEV mandate’s myopic focus on the tailpipe rather than whole system analysis effectively denies our innovators the room to defossilise and decarbonise in a manner that consumers want. Surely the Minister sees that, so instead of trying to force people to buy battery electric, will the Government just get the bureaucracy out of the way and let our innovators innovate?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Scrutiny of European Statutory Instruments · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me, as someone who sat on the European Scrutiny Committee in the last Parliament, that it is no surprise that the Labour Government do not want to scrutinise this legislation coming from the European Union, because for much of the last Parliament, with the exception of the former Member for Dagenham and Rainham, Jon Cruddas, the Labour Members on the then European Scrutiny Committee never turned up?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terms and Conditions of Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and I welcome the introduction of these two statutory instruments, which have been a long time coming. In 2019, the Conservatives made a manifesto commitment to introduce neonatal care leave. It was a shame that in that election, and in the most recent, no such commitment was made by the Labour party, now in government. That is no surprise, however; just like with all their good ideas, it usually turns out that they were ours. Our commitment to introducing neonatal care leave led to our support of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which was stewarded by the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, Stuart C McDonald and Baroness Wyld. That Act is the reason why the Government are introducing these statutory instruments today. I am pleased that, with reservations, we will support the measures, so that we can continue to build on the sensible improvements to workers’ rights that we, as Conservatives, introduced in government. We introduced shared parental leave, giving more choice and flexibility to families, and carers leave, giving employees more time off to give or arrange care for their families. We supported flexible working, giving employers and employees more flexibility over working practices, and we achieved all that while increasing employment and wages, a thing that the Government are now realising is no easy feat. The result of our reforms to workers’ rights is that Britain has some of the most generous maternity and paternity leave globally, meaning families are able to spend more time with their newborns. Those achievements were reached by working with businesses and employees. We worked with businesses not just out of courtesy, but because we know that without consulting businesses and taking on board their concerns, no progress will be made, no matter how good the intention. That is not something this Government have done, which is why their Employment Rights Bill is driving up unemployment before it has even been passed. In the plan to make work pay, the Government committed to rights from an employee’s first day, but for neonatal care pay, that is not the case. Will the Minister confirm whether this is the first step in rolling back on day one rights? Under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, the right to neonatal care leave and pay will come into force in less than two months. Why have the Government waited to introduce the instruments until now, leaving businesses less than eight weeks to prepare and plan? We have heard that the Prime Minister has requested a growth test on all policies. Has the Minister conducted a growth test on this policy? If not, why not? More generally, this Government’s record on health, in particular women’s health, has been disappointing. At the end of last month, the Health Secretary dropped women’s health targets and those for women’s health hubs. That decision will impact 600,000 women on waiting lists, lead to preventable disease progression and lead to more women attending A&E, unable to work, care or live a fulfilled life. The Labour manifesto made a commitment to prioritise women’s health, but this Government are making a habit of taking with one hand to give with the other. Will the Minister confirm whether he raised his concerns over the cancellation of health targets, which have an impact on these measures, with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Terms and Conditions of Employment · Hansard source

  More

  It is a brave Labour politician who talks about health targets when, for so long, the NHS in Wales was performing, and continues to perform, worse than in England when it was run by the Conservatives. To conclude, we will support these statutory instruments because they will support the 40,000 families who faced the incredibly difficult and worrisome experience of having a child in neonatal care. The instruments will build on our achievements that made the UK one of the best places in the world to be the parents of a newborn, and I hope the Government can continue to make progress. I end by again thanking the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and Baroness Wyld. I also thank Bliss and the Smallest Things for their consistent work that has kept neonatal care pay and leave at the top of all of our agendas.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Draft Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Harris. I am pleased to see that this statutory instrument builds on the good work of the previous Conservative Government in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, which received Royal Assent in May 2024, under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. As the Minister said, the instrument amends legislation in consequence of part 3, part 4 and chapter 2 of part 5 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which I shall refer to as the DMCCA henceforth. Part 3 of the DMCCA updates powers to investigate and enforce consumer protection law. Part 4 gives consumers protections in respect of unfair commercial practices, subscription contracts and prepayments to savings schemes, and regulates the provision of alternative dispute resolution for consumer contract disputes. Chapter 2 of part 5 confers statutory authority for UK regulators to provide investigative assistance to overseas regulators that have functions corresponding to those of UK regulators in relation to competition consumer protection and digital markets. The draft regulations update references across the statute book to the legislation that parts 3 and 4 of the Act replace, ensuring that regulators and others can disclose information to enable consumer enforcers to investigate and enforce breaches of consumer protections. I welcome the measures taken by the Government in this statutory instrument, which builds on the work of the previous Government, but given the importance of the legislation, I would like the Minister to provide further clarity on a couple of points. The instrument updates various pieces of legislation that restrict disclosure of information to allow disclosure for the purposes of part 4 of the DMCCA. It also amends the Water Resources Act 1991 to allow disclosure for the purposes of part 3, part 4 and chapter 2 of part 5 of the DMCCA. Will the Minister elaborate on the protections in place to ensure that information sharing is handled appropriately and remains secure? On perhaps more of a political note, my second question is about one of the DMCCA’s purposes, which is to provide consumers with protections against subscription traps. As the Minister well knows from our long time together in the Employment Rights Bill Committee, the Employment Rights Bill will automatically opt in trade union members to a political fund unless they expressly opt out. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on subscription traps? Are they holding businesses and trade unions to different standards?

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I genuinely welcome the Minister’s commitment to the upgrading of radiotherapy machines, but I share the concerns of the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), about the scale of the ambition. In defeating this horrible disease, technology and innovation is our friend. What is the Minister’s ambition for minimally invasive cancer therapies in the national cancer plan? These technologies are coming along every day, but awareness of them and the ability to get them rolled out on the frontline is slapdash at best. Will he commit to looking at those emerging therapies and getting them rolled out as soon as possible?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Energy-based Development: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  In answering my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) earlier, the Secretary of State completely dismissed the legitimate concerns of rural communities and farmers who are being asked to take on energy projects. Yet last night in the Adjournment debate, the Under-Secretary found a more reasonable tone, accepting the point on cumulative impact in constituencies such as mine that are being asked to take up to 3,000 acres of projects. Will the Under-Secretary go into more detail about how the Government will put in mitigations on cumulative impact to protect communities such as mine?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Energy-based Development: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  14. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of energy-based development proposals in Mid Buckinghamshire constituency.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Draft Space Industry (Licence Exemption for Military Activities of Allies) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Furniss. It is rare to volunteer for a Delegated Legislation Committee, but as my constituency is home to the Westcott space cluster and the national space propulsion test facility, actual rocket science is the backbone of our local economy, so my ears always prick up at any mention of space and its regulatory framework. I thank the Minister for his remarks. Clearly, regulations should be adjusted accordingly where matters pose challenges to the Ministry of Defence, particularly in relation to testing and our allies. If the licensing process were to have an adverse impact on our allies’ ability to use the UK’s MOD ranges as locations of choice, that would unquestionably disadvantage our national defence interests. As such, it is essential that we and our allies can use the UK’s locations and expertise to launch such projects. With the CAA’s backing on safety, it seems sensible for the Government to introduce these regulations. I therefore confirm that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not seek to divide the Committee; indeed, we support the regulations. As the Minister said, we must remain as united as possible on national security and national defence issues. I will, however, pose a couple of specific questions to the Minister regarding the longevity of these regulations. The Government’s explanatory memorandum highlights that these exemptions are intended to remove defence-related barriers in the short term. Although it is welcome that short-term barriers are being lifted, is the Minister aware of any work being undertaken to resolve some of the issues more permanently and provide a long-term solution? The CAA also reported on the broader regulatory regime. It acknowledged that the historical safety record of the MOD at its sites is something to be rightly proud of and that the changes in these regulations are appropriate. It noted that there are no immediate problems, but it identified some areas of potential risk in the future. What work are the Minister, his Department and other Government Departments doing to mitigate that risk and ensure that we have a secure and safe spaceflight regime for the foreseeable future?