Rebecca Smith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I have asked before about the future of the amphibious fleet and the replacements for HMS Bulwark and Albion, and Ministers reassured me that the multi-role strike ships were forthcoming and that the Government would recapitalise the Royal Navy’s amphibious fleet, with these new vessels ready to replace existing RFAs by 2033. The DIP implies that they are no longer being pursued. Is that the case? If so, does this change in plan mean delayed delivery and a capability gap for our amphibious forces?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Women’s Prison Estate: Biological Males · Hansard source

  More

  We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010 and that Scotland has taken the relevant steps. The Minister responded to my hon. Friend with a fairly vague answer about what needs to happen in England. We know that there are women who are not biological females in the women’s estate in England and Wales. When will women get the same protections as in Scotland?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Women’s Prison Estate: Biological Males · Hansard source

  More

  15. How many biological male prisoners are held in the general women’s estate.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Youth Guarantee · Hansard source

  More

  I am not surprised that Labour Ministers and Back Benchers are patting themselves on the back for their youth guarantee, but it is a sticking plaster solution to a problem of their own creation. Rather than U-turn on their triple whammy of increased business costs, higher national insurance, higher wages and higher business rates, the Government would rather use the state to subsidise jobs for the same young people who businesses can no longer afford to employ. Will the Secretary of State finally concede that no amount of Government work programmes can undo the damage that they have done to the labour market and to opportunities for young people?

• 25 Jun 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  11. What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the future EU-UK relationship.

• 25 Jun 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I was recently in Washington DC. On several occasions, our American counterparts raised concerns about the future of the EU-UK relationship and realignment. What discussions has the Paymaster General had with his US counterparts, as well as with EU counterparts?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for his recent reply to my letter offering my support for the “regulating for growth” Bill, which was announced in the King’s Speech. However, while he was effusive in his gratitude for my interest in the Bill, he definitely ignored my question about its timetabling in the House. The Bill is vital for the marine autonomy sector, based in my constituency. The sector is very keen to hear when the Bill will come forward. Given the comments of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), about how light Government business is at the moment, may I urge the Leader of the House to think about starting the process before the summer, so that scrutiny can be carried out by businesses, and by people like me, ready for the September sitting?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help tackle antisemitism.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism · Hansard source

  More

  The inaugural Jewish Culture Month has just concluded. More than 100 events took place across the country to celebrate Jewish culture, community and creativity. For example, the Plymouth Jewish community partnered with the Klezmer Village Band to bring traditional Jewish music to local schools and Plymouth Theatre Royal, helping to share Jewish culture with a wider audience. Given that the Prime Minister believes that rooting out antisemitism is a highlight of his tenure, what support was the Minister able to show for Jewish Culture Month, and did she attend any events?

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

  More

  On that point specifically, I raised Dartmoor and invited the Minister to visit my constituency. He has about 30 seconds left to speak, but could he respond to that point?

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

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. Let me start by inviting the new Minister—I welcome him to his place—to visit Dartmoor over the summer to meet farmers, commoners, the Dartmoor hill pony organisations and, importantly, the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group. I invite him to bring Natural England, too, because it is at the centre of quite a lot of what has been said about Dartmoor in the past few weeks. Previous meetings with Ministers and officials since the Government came into office do not seem to have made a difference and have not delivered a plan for sustainable farming on the moors. In 2023, the previous Government launched the Fursdon review on the future of Dartmoor. Its report includes a recommendation —No. 27, or paragraph 23.2 according to gov.uk—to ensure that ponies remain on the moors, but it also reports, in paragraphs 23.1 and 23.3, that cattle and sheep in significantly deliverable numbers are an intrinsic part of delivering that and the land management needed for Dartmoor; otherwise, farms on Dartmoor are not sustainable. The Dartmoor Land Use Management Group was set up following the Fursdon review to assess how farming and environmental land management can co-exist. It has yet to report back, which is why it is so disappointing that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England are pushing ahead with livestock stocking numbers that risk the sustainability of farms right across Dartmoor and, with them, the ponies themselves. A petition to adopt recommendation 27 has more than 200,000 signatures. Ponies, cattle and sheep are intrinsically linked on the moors. In a visit over the summer, the Minister could be assured of a friendly welcome and hear directly from those involved.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457) · Hansard source

  More

  Did I say “you”? I am sorry, Mrs Hobhouse. Obviously, where possible, face to face is good, but we are not convinced that it is the right trade-off—that it makes it acceptable not to see people as regularly as there should be an ambition to see them. As I highlighted, and the Minister has not addressed this, certain people will no longer need any support from PIP within that three-year period, and some might need more. If this instrument is purely about administrative convenience and enabling the backlog to come down, rather than having proper oversight, we feel that that is watering down the system and weakening the public’s confidence in it. It is also true to say that the regulations lack real ambition, because they have no end date; they just give the Secretary of State completely discretionary powers with no finish point. There is no ambition to say, “By x date, we want to have dealt with this backlog and then we will refresh.” Indeed, they give powers for a future emergency, when we seemed to manage perfectly well in the previous emergency, so we think it is not right to use that as a reason for these unending powers. We also believe that the measure risks locking more people into welfare, when we should be helping more people into work. I know that the Minister thinks the same, so I am surprised that this is the tool being used. For those reasons, we urge the Government to think again and we urge Members to reject this statutory instrument. Question put .

• 24 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457) · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, face to face is good, where possible. The 7% figure that you commented on was from the pandemic and from when you picked up. We know that we had a huge backlog to deal with—

• 24 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (S.I., 2026, No. 457). It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I appreciate that it is incredibly warm in here, but bear with me, because this is an important debate. I want to sound the alarm about the statutory instrument: it hands the Government sweeping discretionary powers, with too few safeguards and too little scrutiny, by allowing the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to extend the length of fixed-term personal independent payments. The measure is intended to tackle the backlog of award reviews following covid-19, but we believe it takes us backwards, not forwards. Under the previous approach, people’s awards were regularly reviewed to ensure that they received support that reflected their actual circumstances, yet under the new approach, most claimants will get only two checks in 10 years—one review period will last four years, with subsequent reviews lasting six years. That is just not good enough. Taxpayers deserve confidence that support is being targeted correctly. Previously, 77% of PIP awards were for up to two years, according to the Department for Work and Pensions, so many people will experience substantial extensions to their review periods. We must acknowledge the serious problems with PIP caseloads, which shot up after covid. At best, however, this secondary legislation is a blunt tool to fix a difficult situation; at worst, it grants the Secretary of State discretionary powers that are wide open to future misuse. It moves us away from proper oversight towards a system where awards can continue for ever longer periods without appropriate checks—in simple terms, more benefits, less scrutiny. The Government’s answer to that objection appears to be little more than a reminder letter. If reviews are pushed further apart, Ministers will rely more heavily on claimants to self-report changes in their circumstances, but given the longer timeframes, will people have a genuine incentive to report changes that could lead to their award being reduced or withdrawn? It is easy to loosen the system, but far harder to tighten it. Once rules have been relaxed, people adjust their expectations—the horse has bolted. One day, the backlog may be cleared—we hope—and the Department may seek to increase the frequency of reviews again, but if that happens, I worry that claimants will quite understandably resent the return of more frequent checks. There has been no public consultation on this secondary legislation, because it is supposedly a mere administrative tweak to support the delivery of PIP. Labour is in effect using this opportunity to extend assessment periods by the back door. Responsible welfare reform means building a system that works as best it can for those who need it most. For many, PIP is a lifeline; it helps them to live independently, to stay connected and, for some, to remain in work. In many cases, people with the most severe and lifelong disabilities already receive longer awards, where appropriate—the system already contains that provision. To maintain confidence in the system, PIP and other welfare entitlements must be accurate and fair. People’s health situations change, circumstances evolve and some conditions naturally worsen, but others improve. For those with less serious needs, this measure will reduce the opportunities to review whether the support being offered is still appropriate. That is not reform; it is retreat—a retreat to the la-la land of ever more state handouts and ever less oversight. I know that some will say that regular reviews create anxiety, and I understand that. Of course, no one wants unnecessary stress, but we must remember what reviews are for—they are there not to catch people out, but to ensure that support is going to the right people, at the right level and for the right reasons. In fact, for people who continue to have genuine needs, reviews can provide certainty by extending existing rewards. In cases where someone’s condition has deteriorated, they can also lead to higher levels of support. We believe that this statutory instrument is merely a symptom of a wider problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has said, we are becoming far too quick to sign people on to welfare and far too slow to help them into work. We are seeing a passive and permissive approach from this Government when what this country needs is an active and ambitious one.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457) · Hansard source

  More

  Of course we want to save money, but we do not think that this statutory instrument is the right way to do it. We think that it will just reduce the opportunities for people to have those reviews—the assessments that need to take place. Arguably, more money can perhaps be saved if those reviews happen within a quicker timeframe, because there are many people who, if the right things happen, can be moved off benefits much more quickly than we believe the statutory instrument allows for. Over 4 million people of working age are now on sickness and incapacity benefits, nearly half a million of whom are under 25. One in four people in the UK now report as disabled. At the same time, the Secretary of State has made it clear that the Timms review of personal independence payment is not designed to deliver welfare savings, something that I find extraordinary. How can that possibly be an effective review if it refuses to tackle the elephant in the room—our ballooning benefits bill? Real compassion means not abandoning people to a life on benefits. State support must act as a springboard, not a destination. As the official Opposition, we believe in supporting the vulnerable, but we also believe in fairness to taxpayers—fairness to those who get up every morning, go to work and expect the welfare system to be properly managed. The Government’s own rationale regarding work disincentives is also deeply inconsistent. PIP awards will be extended only for claimants aged 25 and over. The Department argues that unemployment can have “long-term scarring effects” on younger people. Therefore, those whose health has improved should not remain on PIP any longer than necessary. Of course, younger claimants are more likely than older claimants to see improvements in their functional capacity, which helps explain why they are exempt from these longer review periods, but the logic just does not hold up, because unemployment can have scarring effects at any age. If regular reviews are important for younger claimants because circumstances can change, why should that principle suddenly cease to apply when someone reaches 25? Either regular reviews matter or they do not. The Government cannot have it both ways. Speaking of work incentives, Members are being asked to trust the Government with a significant new power under the statutory instrument, but why should we place that trust in Ministers when they cannot even tell us the scale of the backlog in Access to Work? I have been told by the Department that it does not hold information about average waiting times between the approval of an Access to Work application and when support actually starts, because—so it says—it would require a painstaking manual review of individual records. If the Government cannot easily access that kind of basic data, is it any wonder that they have been so reluctant to grasp the nettle on other areas of welfare reform?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI, 2026, No.457) · Hansard source

  More

  I assure the Minister that we did know what was going to happen. We will not change our minds on the position that has already been set out. We believe that this instrument moves us in the wrong direction. I appreciate the points that were made by the Minister and, indeed, by the hon. Member for Horsham, who highlighted that there was apparently little difference between in-person and online reviews. That highlights that the issues that we have raised have not really been addressed—the Minister certainly has not.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  7. What fiscal steps she is taking to support the defence investment plan.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The former Defence Secretary has blown apart the defence investment plan, revealing that the Treasury was prepared to offer only a pitiful increase in defence spending—just 0.08% by 2030—despite growing threats across the world. At the same time, the Treasury continues to fork out billions for welfare and the net zero agenda. Innovative small and medium-sized enterprises in defence are effectively locked out of MOD contracts and denied the opportunity to scale their capabilities. As the Chief of the Defence Staff put it, “the price of peace is increasing”. Will the Chancellor commit this morning to filling the £28 billion gap in defence investment by 2030 to secure our position on the world stage, or will she stand in the way of the delivery of the DIP that we need?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Pathways Study: Puberty Suppression · Hansard source

  More

  I want to press the Secretary of State a little further on looked-after children in particular. At the beginning of his statement, he said that his bottom line is to protect the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. Given that parental or guardian permission has to be granted for the trial to take place, I am wondering who will give that permission for a child in care. Will it be himself, the Secretary of State? Will it be the foster parent? Will it be a social worker from a local council? We already know that looked-after children are overrepresented within the cohort of children with gender dysphoria. Ultimately, if we are going to protect them and make sure that their safety and wellbeing are at the forefront, we need some clear direction on what that is going to look like.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Steel Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  On Monday my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) asked the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), about the impact of these new steel tariffs on the defence investment plan. His answer was not particularly clear, which surprised me, given the strong representations that both he and I will have had from the Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group. What conversations have the Minister and his colleagues had with the Ministry of Defence about the impact of tariffs on the DIP, and will he agree to meet me and the Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Members of 42 Commando Royal Marines, led by Commanding Officer Tom Quinn, were a key part of the seizure of the Russian shadow fleet vessel yesterday morning. It is clear that our Royal Marines will always deliver for this country. They are world class, and I have had the privilege of seeing them in action at their home in Bickleigh barracks in my constituency. However, their ability to succeed can be sustained only if we invest in our defence and prepare for the wars of tomorrow. The former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—a former Royal Marine himself—said in his resignation letter: “We are still purchasing capability suitable for the last war while our adversaries arm for the next one.” Does the Minister agree?

• 1 Jun 2026 · UK Coastal Waters: Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I know that, like me, those on the Government Front Bench welcome the regulating for growth Bill, which will enable the modernisation of regulations for maritime autonomy testing and the creation of regulatory sandbox powers. That is vital for the unmanned vessels that we need to protect our coastal waters, but defence firms such as those in my constituency cannot afford unnecessary delay due to the parliamentary timetable, or we will risk losing ground to international competitors. What conversations is the Department having with colleagues across Government to speed up the progress of the Bill through Parliament? I am planning to ask the Leader of the House about that in due course.

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I have a simple question for the Minister. He keeps stating that 1,000 or so contracts have been signed, nearly all with companies based in the UK, but what percentage of those companies are small or medium-sized enterprises compared with the primes?

• 20 May 2026 · Defence Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard plenty this afternoon about the lack of a defence readiness Bill in the King’s Speech and lots about the yawning delay of the defence investment plan, which has been rehearsed over and over again. I want to remind Ministers of why that is important. It is important because SMEs right across this country are waiting for the detail to be set out so that they can plan for the future, to provide the skills and jobs that the country needs. We have already heard from the Minister that contracts have been awarded since the Government came into power, but that is not good enough, because they are not providing reassurance and security, particularly to SMEs. That is incredibly serious, whether to constituents of mine working in Portsmouth or to businesses in my constituency who tell me that they are waiting with bated breath for the DIP. However, I want to focus on two things: the regulating for growth Bill and the challenge that manufacturing is facing around the steel industry. The King’s Speech included a regulating for growth Bill. We might argue that that is a misnomer as regulations usually have the opposite effect and stifle growth, but I appreciate what is trying to be done here—it is something that I have long been calling for. Plymouth has been named the centre for marine autonomy by the Government. That is a welcome designation, but that means nothing if we cannot change regulations to enable these businesses to do what they have set out to do and deliver for our defence industry. I have raised this issue here time and again. I have met key stakeholders, local businesses, industry experts and the Marine Management Organisation. I have also spoken with relevant Ministers and I know that they have been aware of the issue for a considerable amount of time. I have to say, though, that I am disappointed with the speed at which things have moved. At the end of the day, marine autonomy waits for no man—it is progressing quickly down the river, so to speak—and we are not doing the industry any favours with the amount of time this is taking. The matter requires primary legislation, which is why the Bill is welcome. However, the Government were able to push through the removal of the two-child benefit cap, which was never on their programme, so that highlights their priorities. That is why I tabled an Autonomous Maritime Vessels (Regulation) Bill in March this year, because I was keen to force the conversation. That seems to have had the desired effect, so I will take some credit for the regulating for growth Bill. I am pleased to see that, within the Government’s write-up of the Bill as it stands already, there are illustrations from overseas. I was recently at Oceanology International at the Excel centre, where I met Canadians from Nova Scotia who already have the regulations that we need here, which, in about six weeks, enable equivalent marine autonomy businesses to get the right permissions to test and develop and put the development of the new vessels into practice. Similarly, I recently met an American company whose ambition to manufacture unmanned ships would not yet be deliverable in this country purely because of our out-of-date regulations. Local businesses such as MSubs, ZeroUSV and ACUA Ocean—I know the Secretary of State is familiar with many of them—are all cutting-edge and desperately in need of the legislation to fully deliver on their ambitious potential, a part of which is the developing of test sites. I believe the coast off Plymouth is the perfect place to pilot that, and we do not need to wait until it is ready for everyone at the same time. Turnchapel Wharf and those behind Team Plymouth are keen to get going, and I would be delighted for us to be that pilot, if that were helpful. I call on the Government to make the Bill a priority, and let us see Second Reading soon after the Whitsun recess so we can get moving. Please, let us also keep the Bill agile and flexible in its drafting to avoid a repeat situation where regulations cannot keep up with technology. Let us make sure this legislation is as good as it needs to be. Tomorrow sees the debate on the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. Before that even begins, however, we have another steel-related issue that has the potential to significantly damage UK manufacturing and, by association, our defence readiness. The new UK steel regime kicks in on 1 July. Plymouth is home to Plymouth Manufacturers’ Group, which is a cluster of manufacturing businesses ranging from Alderman Tooling, Lang and Potter, Olympus Algram and Plessey to Rittal CSM and Kawasaki Precision Machinery. All those businesses have been part of a system of manufacturing in Plymouth that was set up after the war when the dockyard was seeing a decline, so naturally, we have this hub there. Yet ultimately, the new regime that will come in on 1 July means those businesses are already seeing costs going into the hundreds of thousands—in one case, there are additional costs of at least £2 million a year—simply because of the steel quotas. I think you will agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that while I understand what the Government are trying to do to promote British industry, if we impact British manufacturing inadvertently—I am sure it is not deliberate—where the supply chain cannot always buy purely British steel, we ultimately hinder the Government’s aims to see growth, jobs, skills and manufacturing, particularly around the industrial strategy. I therefore urge the Ministers here to listen to manufacturers. Letters have gone to the Secretary of State about the issue, but it is vital that we do not tie another hand behind the backs of these manufacturing industry professionals, who want to help and make a difference and who are passionate about what they do. If we start giving them additional costs on top of the challenges they have had around employment, we will see the end of manufacturing in this country, and I am sure no one in this Chamber wants that.