Greg Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  Back from the Division break, we can think about the possible impact of the court judgment and the Government’s decision. I put it to the House that it is crazy that the Government have made this decision affecting our brave coastguard rescue officers. We face the prospect later this year of huge numbers of our coastguard personnel leaving because the Government have failed them. I appreciate that the Minister has reiterated in multiple written answers that this was not a decision that the Government wanted to take. It was taken after a recommendation from the MCA; after engagement through the MCA with the coastguard rescue service—although on the basis of speeches earlier in the debate we can question the veracity of that—over previous months on the implications for the service; and after further conversations with area management teams, senior leadership visits and national representative forums, as well as two all-member surveys, which played a direct part in understanding the impact of the models upon the service. It is important to reflect on those remarks, because while they show on the face of it that steps were taken, I am unsure of the level of consideration they demonstrate. The Government seem to have sought to understand the models but reverted to the simplest option. There needs to be a comprehensive explanation of the thought processes within the Department. Let us consider the action stemming from the legal decision. What steps were taken to establish a path forward? Can the Minister explain how much time the Government took to analyse the legal decision and whether other bespoke approaches would have been more appropriate? I acknowledge that the Minister has said that the suggestion came from the MCA and the Government accepted it. However, the MCA’s annual report for 2024-25 highlighted a lack of legal resources within the organisation. To quote one of the priority concerns listed in the annual report, the MCA said that there is a “lack of lawyer resources to implement legislative change – the ability to bring about legislative change hinges on the availability of scarce lawyer resource. The Agency continues to work with the Department for Transport Legal Team to ensure that it can access necessary resource. Progress is being made but the risk remains current.” I hope that the Minister can clarify whether that remains the case, because the issue of remuneration and volunteer status is clearly a legal matter that could have consequences for legislation. If the MCA was considering the issue with the Department for Transport legal team, is it right to frame this as a decision merely stemming from the MCA? What legal resources were provided by the Department, and what work did its officials undertake to consider alternative options? I hope that the proposal did not merely stem from the Department’s own legal team. Furthermore, the Minister’s previous responses referenced the discussions he has had with senior leadership and the surveys that were conducted. But for such a consequential decision, unless I have missed something, the Government have failed to publish significant analysis of the decision’s impact on volunteer numbers. From the outside, the Government seem to have chosen not to fully explain the scope of the options available to them and their full reasoning. That exacerbates worries among hard-working volunteers across the country who know about their loss of pay but get the sense that there is a lack of explanation. That is reflected in the comments of the anonymous volunteer who told the BBC that they thought the choice would “damage morale and weaken the service”. I say all this recognising that there is no simple option for the Government, but we cannot ignore the fact that they have taken a decision with possibly serious consequences for an institution with over 200 years of history. Given the reports about the impact of the change, I ask the Minister whether there is anything that can be done to delay it while the Government sort out the mess that many volunteers have identified. Meanwhile, the Government have known the outcome of the case since January. The judgment on this area of law consisted of just 14 pages; since then, we have not seen anything as detailed from the Government. They should have anticipated the decision from the court, and we believe that they need to put together a solution that does not cause droves of people to leave our coastguard service. The current allowances should not be abolished before that is resolved. Across the House, it feels like it has been lost on the Government that they have significant powers available to them and they should use those powers to achieve the best outcome for the British people. In this case, that should mean maintaining the existing system until they are confident that they have found a positive way forward that actually works for the safety of our coastlines and the future of our coastguard.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing today’s debate—quite a feat, given that the Department for Transport was not meant to be answering Westminster Hall debates this week. He managed to secure a debate on an issue that has caused serious concerns not just for our coastal areas across the United Kingdom, but for all of us; I speak as a Member of Parliament representing a seat about as far away from the sea as it is possible to get within England. The changes to the renumeration of coastguard volunteers have raised fundamental questions about the future of the service, as we have heard clearly from across the House today. I thank my colleagues who have attended the debate to set out those concerns and the scale of the challenges facing the coastguard. Those colleagues included my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who has had to go to run the drop-in event. I welcome his informative comments on the process in the main Chamber, given his constituent’s role in the legal case and the need to get the response to the legal decision right. The question of how the coastguard operates truly matters. Protecting our coastlines from harm is essential, and the coastguard has played a central role in that over centuries. We must preserve the lives of those who are in danger and support our coastal towns and cities, where upholding safety is a priority. That brings us to the issue underpinning the debate: what happens if we no longer have those volunteers? We know that the 3,000 volunteer staff play a considerable role in protecting the public; it is integral that they remain part of the service. For as long as the coastguard has existed, there have been questions of remuneration. For example, in 1831, the Admiralty published new regulations as part of a plan for the coastguard to become a reserve for the Royal Navy. It included payments and allowances—a salary of £10 for a chief boatman and £5 for a commissioned boatman. As volunteer servicemen entered the system, the Government provided support to the coastguard and to volunteer lifesaving organisations across the UK. More recently, the 1990s saw the Department conduct internal reviews of the role that auxiliaries should play in the service compared with those working full time. The relationship between the state and the coastguard has changed throughout the years along with the evolution of its structure, but there has been a principle of ensuring that people can volunteer, while maintaining incentives so that the coastguard is able to operate effectively. Worryingly, the decision that was accepted by the Government, stemming from the court case, completely alters the relationship that has been put in place.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Mid Buckinghamshire is proudly home to RAF High Wycombe and RAF Halton. Given everything in the defence investment plan on aircraft, drone innovation and the space field, coupled with the Secretary of State’s absolutely correct commitment to our defence personnel, training is critical. RAF Halton has been on a rollercoaster of closure as a training base. Where does the defence investment plan sit with the long-term future of RAF Halton?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  The site identified as MOD Bicester sits just over the Buckinghamshire border in Oxfordshire and is incredibly close to villages in my constituency, including Boarstall, Oakley, Long Crendon, Marsh Gibbon, Ludgershall, Twyford, Charndon and others. I can assure the Minister from comments I have heard from constituents over the weekend that nobody thinks this is a good site for such a centre. I would like to pick up on the answer the Minister gave an hon. Member earlier about medical provision on these sites. He said that medical provision is provided on site. I know from bitter experience in the last Parliament that provision was delivered on site at an asylum hotel, but it was delivered by a local GP practice, which then could not serve everybody else in the area in the normal, timely manner. Can the Minister be really clear, given that he cannot magic up doctors and primary care, that if the Bicester site goes ahead—I hope that it does not —there will not be pressure on local GP services in my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire or, indeed, on the Oxfordshire side?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I add my voice to those concerned about the transfer to TV over IP. Technology moves very fast, and I accept at face value the Secretary of State’s commitment that no one will be left behind. However, we have had 20 years of change, from fibre to cabinet and now fibre to premises, yet some of my constituents are still on copper to premises, surviving on download speeds of 2 or 3 megabits per second, which is not capable of getting television into their homes, whether the switchover is in 2034 or later. Can I urge the Secretary of State, before any decision is made, to work very closely with DSIT? No matter what the core statistics say about how many homes have fibre to premises, people will still be left behind, particularly in rural communities. Added to that, in many villages where there is only one fibre provider and no competition, there is fibre and there is fibre, and not all of it is as reliable as it looks.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept that it is a choice made by this Government—maybe not by DEFRA, but by the Treasury—to bring in the carbon tax from 1 January? The Government cannot change events in the middle east, but they could choose to delay or scrap that tax.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming: Financial Sustainability · Hansard source

  More

  Would my hon. Friend agree that another uncertainty is coming down the path? The Climate Change Committee is asking farmers to reduce livestock numbers by up to 40%. That would devastate and make unviable so many farms—complete madness.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Farming Road Map and Profitability Review · Hansard source

  More

  Farmers have been innovating since the dawn of time, and they really do not need a word salad document to tell them that it might be a good idea. I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s answers on fertiliser, both in terms of the current price shock and the impending additional shock, made by this Government, of carbon taxes on fertiliser. Surely, while there is lofty ambition for long-term innovation, there needs to be a direct answer and relief now on the shock that is going to come in January.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Support for Industry · Hansard source

  More

  Mid Buckinghamshire is home to a number of businesses that are part of the supply chain for the aerospace and defence industries. Those businesses rely on steel that is categorically not made here in the United Kingdom. If the Department for Business and Trade fails to rectify the cliff edge that is coming on steel tariffs, what will the Treasury do to backfill that and ensure that many businesses, such as those in my constituency, do not become completely unviable?

• 22 Jun 2026 · G7 Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The Deputy Prime Minister was right to say that Iran must never be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, but history teaches us that the Iranian regime ignored the deal that was in place—the joint comprehensive plan of action. Can he be clear with the House about what the Government are doing to make any future deal meaningful and prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring the level of enriched uranium that would make a nuclear weapon?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  Prototype Productions in Long Crendon, Gibbs Gears in Stoke Mandeville and Aircraft Materials in Stokenchurch are all businesses in my constituency that categorically rely on grades of steel not made here in the United Kingdom. We have heard countless examples from around the Chamber of such businesses in other parts of the country. I have heard the Minister say “if” there is a problem with quotas; I would put it to him that there quite clearly is a problem with quotas. As we approach this cliff edge, I urge him, as so many others have, to stop, pause and ensure we get this right, or jobs will be lost.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The Opposition do not intend to oppose this statutory instrument. There is no doubt about the importance of a strong nuclear safeguards regime for the success of our nuclear industry. It must demonstrate to the world that civil nuclear material is not being used for malign purposes in the United Kingdom. That is precisely why the last Government legislated to create Britain’s current nuclear safeguards regime, so that the UK would remain an independent and responsible nuclear state after leaving the European Atomic Energy Community. It is also why the last Government recognised the importance of working closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency to design a safeguards regime that reflects the sophistication of our nuclear industry. I welcome the fact that the post-implementation review for those regulations found that the United Kingdom’s new domestic nuclear safeguards had been successful in equalling the level of the safeguards that Britain had as part of Euratom and that we retained industry and international trust in our safeguards regime. The review also recommended certain parts that could either be improved and clarified or that had served their purpose and could now be removed. As I understand, the Government are seeking to implement several of these recommendations in these regulations. I have a few questions. It is clear from the responses to the consultation for these regulations that the nuclear site operators and other industry parties have concerns about the practicalities of many of the Government’s proposed changes.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Nuclear Safeguards (EU Exit and Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. His point speaks to the practicalities of these regulations, and I join him in his ambition for his constituency and the wider nuclear industry in the UK to be the absolute global gold standard. We must be competitive to ensure our energy, security and economic growth in the United Kingdom. Although a strong nuclear safeguards regime is necessary for our civil nuclear industry to function—nobody questions that—the Government must ensure that they are not placing unworkable burdens on the nuclear industry. Will the Minister confirm whether nuclear site operators have now agreed to the amended proposals on notification timings for design information changes and the import and export of nuclear material, given that most respondents in the consultation initially opposed those changes? Secondly, will the Minister clarify what support will be made available to nuclear site operators during the proposed transition period to adopt the IAEA’s design information questionnaires, given the concerns raised by operators about the extra burdens that updating their processes and training their staff would entail? Thirdly, will the Minister clarify whether the Government intend to provide further guidance on the number of qualified staff required by operators to meet their accountancy and control obligations given the concerns raised by operators over what would be considered an adequate number of staff? His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have been clear in our support for building new nuclear power, the only form of energy that can provide fully clean and reliable power. A strong nuclear safeguards regime is inseparable from that aim, and the Government must ensure they are giving operators the support they need to meet their safeguarding obligations.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary rightly challenged the Government on the use of Chinese slave labour in the manufacture of solar panels. Chinese companies also dominate the mining companies using slave labour to extract cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, so how much more needs to happen for the Government to challenge this evil use of slave labour, particularly by the Chinese state?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  I have a huge list of complaints about Thames Water across Mid Buckinghamshire, and I am sure it is identical to that of the Secretary of State next door in Wycombe, so I add my voice to my hon. Friends’ calls for real detail about the plan, rather than just ambition. In the meantime, there is something that is causing Thames Water and every other water company to chase their tails: their inability to have a proper voice in the planning system. When a village such as Ickford in my constituency, which already has its sewage pumped away by road in tankers because the system just cannot cope, is told that it has to connect another 90, 100 or 150 properties, it is never going to work. Given the huge demand for house building and data centres in Buckinghamshire, what action will the Secretary of State take to ensure that the water companies can have their say and say no when they cannot connect areas?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I was reflecting with my constituents Greg and Sally, whose son has a brain tumour, when I met them in my constituency office this morning—they also attended the all-party parliamentary group meeting a few weeks ago—on what has actually changed since I last spoke in a Backbench Business debate on brain tumours in 2023, and the sorry answer on funding is not a lot, and certainly not enough. In the few moments I have in the debate this afternoon, I want to cut to the chase and ask the Minister some direct questions about how we get that money spent and how we get real results to find cures and ways to prolong lives. To start on that, we must have a clear breakdown of the total spend on brain cancers by year over the last decade and how that breaks down by actual treatments; research into treatments, including into how much has been spent on trials; research into other areas with a bearing on brain cancer outcomes; research into how each of those involves artificial intelligence; and infrastructure. Specifically, I would very much like the Minister to address the issue of how the Government are planning to make the radical change in approach to brain tumour detection and treatment that is necessary for the UK to achieve its ambition to move from the fourth to the first quartile for survival in nine years. That is a worthy ambition, but we need to see the detail and the concrete steps that will be taken. It will involve answering big questions about artificial intelligence and other innovations. What I will say in my last few seconds is, given that brain cancer is the biggest killer of under-40s, we need to challenge the idea that it is really a rare cancer and ask whether the definition of “rare” is fit for purpose in the modern age.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Brain Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  Notwithstanding the important points raised by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), about robust safeguards in the testing of new treatments, the United States has legislated for a right to try for those who have got to the point at which they have little other option left. Will the Government look to that model to ensure that brain tumour patients can have the right to try innovative new treatments?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister for Housing and Planning review the 2,500 square metre threshold for edge of town centre and out of town centre planning applications and conduct an assessment of their impact on the high street, particularly through the lens of supermarkets setting up things like key cutting and shoe repair kiosks, which decimate our high streets, as has recently happened in Princes Risborough?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire: Transport Links · Hansard source

  More

  It has been announced to great fanfare that East West Rail will be the main transport connection from Cambridgeshire to Bedfordshire, as well as in the other direction to get to the new Universal park. However. if the Government cannot get the bit of East West Rail that has been built operational—we know that that is all down to a row with the unions—what hope does anyone in Cambridgeshire or Bedfordshire, or anyone wanting to go to Universal, have of being able to travel there by rail?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  More than two thirds of driving test centres have a maximum 24-week waiting time, and the average waiting time for a test is 22.3 weeks—a month longer than in July ’24. For all the Government’s talk of recruiting new examiners, the instructor recruitment conversion rate is just 4%. When will the Government stop talking about taking action and actually get a grip of the driving test wait time crisis?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  If local authorities pass on the fee, what will be the Government’s response?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Wishart. Across the country, drivers, particularly of older, often less expensive vehicles, have been hurt by the fees imposed by low emission zones and so-called clean air zones. Between ultra low emission zones and clean air zones, it is estimated that over £1 billion has been extracted from the public who are just trying to get about and live their lives: travelling to work, taking the kids to school, completing the family shop, getting to medical appointments or visiting relatives. Despite clear guidance that clean air zones are not to be used to raise revenue, in practice they are used for precisely that, generating significant money for the authorities that will be impacted by today’s regulations. If we consider two of the largest authorities impacted by the changes, Bristol’s clean air zone brought in over £22 million in 2024-25 from daily charges and penalty notices. That brought a transfer to Bristol’s reserves of over £16 million, which contributed to the spending of £14 million on other transport projects. Meanwhile, a 2026 report by Birmingham city council showed that the authority had spent over £92 million from net surplus revenue since its scheme was put in place. Of that £92 million, over £73 million was spent on active travel and transforming the city centre. While these can be worthy goals, it reflects a complete disregard for the motorist, with only £10 million being spent on issues such as road safety. That is indicative of the fact that authorities have repeatedly used clean air zones as a mechanism for funding other projects. The Minister will no doubt recognise that is not the purpose of the system but a by-product of it, and one that these regulations will impact. I listened carefully to the Minister’s speech, in which he extolled the virtues of clean air. Getting clean air is a worthy goal, but it is not the stick that works on this occasion; it is the carrot. It is using technology as our friend—even modern diesel cars are cleaner than their predecessors. It is the evolution of technology and leaning on future technologies, from battery electric to synthetic fuels and more, that will deliver clean air, not just punishing people for what they happen to be able to afford today. The draft regulations will impose a fee on authorities that use the central services function operated by the Government. On the face of it, there should be nothing to be worried about. According to the Government, there will be no impact on motorists. However, it would be naive in the extreme to believe that further costs will not be imposed on drivers—in other words, that these increased charges will not just be passed on to drivers who are already struggling with the cost of fuel, road duty, insurance costs and so much more. The Minister had the audacity to reference fuel duty, which is one of the weakest of the Government’s U-turns. They tried to pretend that they were keeping it low, but then they U-turned and said, “It won’t be September that we put it up; it will be a few months later.” The Government are still going to put fuel duty up and impose this additional burden on motorists. Are we really to believe that local authorities, which have revelled in using drivers as a cash cow, will allow the multiple millions that will be transferred to the Government on the basis of this increased fee to simply vanish overnight? Let me be absolutely clear: the Conservatives oppose this instrument. Our opposition to the proposal is because we are concerned that the effect will not merely be about cost recovery for the central services but will encourage further action from local authorities to raise yet more money from drivers. That is a consequence of these changes that I fear the Government have not properly considered. Furthermore, clean air zones are meant to be transitory, to improve air quality—although I question whether they do—and then find alternative solutions. That is why local authorities were strongly encouraged to find other mechanisms to control air quality, without resorting to clean air zones. Allowing these services to be used until 2031 suggests that there is no clear path for moving away from the existing rules, which cost motorists so dearly. Driving is not a luxury. For millions, driving a car is necessary for daily life. It is freedom and a right that all of our constituents should be able to enjoy unencumbered by the state, whether national or local. Driving is practical. A weekly shop for a family of five cannot be carried on the back of a bike. The measures that Labour is introducing walk all over the realities of life for millions for whom the car is essential. This is Labour’s war on the motorist, and it is unjust. This instrument fans the flames of that war on the motorist, and we will oppose it.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Draft Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The lens through which we must view any legislation on contracts for difference, including the draft regulations before us, is one that asks: what do contracts for difference mean for all our constituents who ultimately pay the energy bills? The Opposition oppose forcing families and businesses to pay even more money to subsidise wind and solar developers, which I am afraid is precisely what happened in the last allocation round for contracts for difference, which the draft regulations amend. My Conservative colleagues and I warned Ministers for months that wind and solar developers would take advantage of the Government’s blind commitment to building more clean power, regardless—I repeat, regardless—of the cost. What was the result? Prices that were far higher than those agreed in the previous allocation round, higher than the average cost of electricity the year before, and the highest in over a decade. The Government are locking in uncompetitive electricity prices for decades to come. Britain already has the highest electricity prices in the world, and it is now clear that it is the cost of the excess capacity, curtailment, batteries, storage systems and interconnectors, as well as the imports of gas needed to offset the intermittency of renewables and the subsidies that developers are extracting to pay for this, that are driving up prices in the long term. It is a reality that seemingly everyone but the Government have come to accept, with energy bosses giving a pointed warning to Parliament last year that the price of electricity could be higher in 2030 than it is now even if gas were free, because of these rising network and policy costs. If the Government believe that their policy will lower energy bills in the long term, can the Minister promise that the maximum strike prices agreed in allocation round 8 will be lower than the price of gas-powered electricity last year, and lower than the strike prices agreed in previous allocation rounds? If the Minister cannot answer those straightforward questions, how can the Government continue to claim that their policy is lowering the cost of energy, when the available evidence suggests otherwise? Today’s draft regulations may involve just a number of minor technical amendments, and His Majesty’s official Opposition will not divide the Committee today, but the bigger picture to which the draft regulations speak should be of concern of all members of the Committee, and all Members of the wider House.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As if the Government’s announcement on watering down the provisions of the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 were not disappointing enough, the secondary legislation to enact what is left of it still has not been tabled. Where is it?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Water Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I have many criticisms of the operating practices of Thames Water, but further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), I am very concerned about the total dysfunctionality in how the planning system interacts with water companies. This is a problem now, even before Buckinghamshire is wrongly asked by this Government to build 95,000 homes. We have seen a lot of development in recent years—in the village of Ickford, for example, the wagon to pump sewage out and take it away by road has already become the norm. Does the Minister agree that if the Government are determined to build all these homes, water companies should get statutory consultee status for all planning applications? Otherwise, they are going to be chasing their tails rather than fixing the problems we already have.