Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

At the heart of every high street are wonderful hospitality SMEs—pubs, cafés, restaurants, bars and coffee shops—yet the 2024 Budget was a hammer blow to them. With £3.4 billion of extra costs, one in 10 restaurants faces closure this year. Indeed, Labour’s Budget has already cost hospitality 69,000 jobs. For context, in the same period the previous year, hospitality created 18,000 new jobs. Can the Minister assure the House that businesses that are hanging on by a thread will not face a hard landing this winter?

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is one of those Conservative Front Benchers who have yet to tell us, if they do not like the increase in national insurance contributions, how they would pay for the extra investment in hospitals, schools and our police force. I gently say that the difficult decisions the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to take in the Budget last year were a direct result of the £22 billion black hole left to us by the Conservatives. Our small business strategy will set out further measures that we will take to have the back of British entrepreneurs.

[Greg Smith]

That answer is simply not good enough for the 63% of employees in the hospitality sector whose jobs are on the line. Yet we now read in the press that the Government appear set on forcing restaurateurs to monitor customers’ calorie consumption—another crippling blow of red tape on top of national insurance hikes, minimum wage hikes and the regulatory firestorm of the Employment Rights Bill. Jeremy Clarkson is not wrong when he says that the Chancellor is

“using a machine gun on publicans.”

Can the Minister really look hospitality SMEs on our high streets and beyond in the eye and say that this is somehow good for business?

[Gareth Thomas]

One reason the hon. Gentleman’s party lost the confidence of business is that it promised many, many times that it would reform business rates and never did. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out our commitment to permanently lower business rates for the hospitality sector—we have already taken steps in that regard—and she will set out our plans to do even more. That is one way in which we are backing up our commitment to SMEs in the hospitality sector and more generally.

Financial Assistance to Industry

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I begin by drawing the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have spoken at length on this subject, in the last Parliament as a member of the Transport Committee and from the then Government Back Benches, and since the last general election as a shadow Minister.

I begin with a simple concept: politicians should never ask someone to do something they are not willing to do themselves. I will put on the record that I am not willing to buy an electric car, and therefore anything that essentially uses taxpayers’ money to produce electric vehicles that so few people in the United Kingdom actually wish to buy—including, it seems from the weekend’s media, the Transport Secretary—is something that we cannot support.

With fleet sales removed, new EV registrations prove that this is just not a technology that people trust, desire or are willing to spend their hard-earned money on. The Conservatives previously pushed the zero-emission vehicle mandate transition date back to 2035, but this Government have brought it forward to 2030. The need for this subsidy––let us call it what it is––is a clear indication that the Government are struggling to persuade consumers to switch to electric vehicles.

That failure stems from two fundamental issues: the high cost of electric cars and their lack of reliability in terms of both range and charging infrastructure. The Government will say, I am sure, that we formerly had a subsidy scheme—and that is true: we did, but it was used to create an EV industry in Britain, supporting it to overcome the barriers of entry into the UK market. When that EV industry was created, we ended the subsidy. But now, to cover their mistakes and the unrealistic nature of their targets, Ministers have been forced into using taxpayers’ money to pay for EV adoption and to mask the consequences of their own policy failures. In effect, taxpayers’ money is being used to subsidise a transition that the public are not willing to make.

We warned the Government that that would be the outcome. However, driven by an ideological approach to net zero, they ignored those warnings. This is yet another example of how the Government’s unrealistic climate targets are contributing to the rising cost of living for ordinary British families. Many other countries have opted for a 2035 target, recognising the economic and logistical challenges of any earlier deadline. In contrast, the UK’s 2030 mandate risks placing an undue financial burden on families here, forcing them to purchase more expensive vehicles while others abroad can wait and benefit from falling prices.

We on the Opposition side believe in a demand-led transition to cleaner vehicles, one that respects consumer choice and understands the whole range of technologies available, following a genuine whole-system analysis—not just the tailpipe. Families should have the freedom to choose whether they want to drive petrol, diesel, hybrid, electric or other new technologies, and to make that transition when the market and infrastructure are ready, and when prices are more affordable.

The Government’s approach has already had real-world consequences. We have seen the closure of Stellantis in Luton, in part due to insufficient demand for electric vehicles. That should serve as a warning.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I should declare that Ford’s UK headquarters is in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend also reflect that there is a real issue here for not just cars, but commercial vehicles? I am thinking particularly of the Transit, Ford’s best-selling international medium-sized van, which is known the world over and is a real staple of the UK. Is it not the case that we need to look at this issue in the round and that, when it is down to tradesmen what they want to buy, they need to be confident and comfortable in purchasing the product? At the moment, that is the only element providing significant profitability for Ford in the UK; removing that and essentially replacing it with a subsidy seems the wrong way around.

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we look at the marketplace out there for both private and commercial vehicles—particularly vans, heavy goods vehicles and larger vehicles—those who have to take a personal financial risk on them are not choosing to do so. Particularly in the HGV sector, they prefer to look at transitional fuels such as hydrotreated vegetable oil to keep their fleets on the road. That choice genuinely cleaner, but does not cost them two, three or maybe even four times the price for the same vehicle in an electric format—which, of course, comes with a lower payload, because the batteries are so heavy that it cannot legally take the same weight of goods.

Those choices that real people in the real world are making should drive what the Government do to ensure that they get the transition to a greener form of transport right, rather than just flogging the dead horse of a failing technology that nobody seems willing to buy unless heavily bribed to do so with their own taxpayers’ money through fleet sales and the like—and, in this case, through this motion that seeks to spend even more of that taxpayers’ money on propping up a product that just does not have the consumer demand underneath it. It is for those reasons that the Conservatives will oppose this motion.

Whistleblowers

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this important debate. We have had a short but good debate with well-informed contributions from all right hon. and hon. Members. I am pleased to speak about the contribution of whistleblowers —the men and women who often, at great personal cost, speak truth to power and expose wrongdoing that threatens the public interest.

Whistleblowers are a vital component of any transparent and accountable society. From exposing financial misconduct in public contracts to raising the alarm about unsafe practices in hospitals, schools and the criminal justice system, they are often the first line of defence against systemic failure. They help protect taxpayer money, uphold ethical standards and, in some cases, save lives. Under the previous Conservative Government, we took their contribution seriously. We recognised that whistleblowers must be supported, not silenced. That is why we commissioned a comprehensive review of the UK’s whistleblowing framework. That review, launched in 2023, aimed to modernise the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, reflecting the changing nature of workplaces, technology and organisational cultures.

We took concrete steps. The last Government expanded the list of prescribed persons—independent bodies to whom whistleblowers can safely report wrongdoing. We introduced new protections for whistleblowers in health and social care, ensuring that staff who spoke up about abuse or unsafe conditions could not be victimised or dismissed. We supported the establishment of confidential reporting channels across Government Departments, particularly in defence procurement and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, where vast sums of public money are at stake.

We also supported the Office of the Whistleblower Bill, championed in the other place by Baroness Kramer and others—a cross-party effort that recognised that current enforcement is fragmented and that an independent body with real teeth is essential if we are to protect whistleblowers and punish retaliation effectively. I regret to say that the current Government are undoing much of that progress.

[Sarah Russell]

My recollection of the development of the law during that time is that the cap on unfair dismissal awards applied to whistleblowing, which made it much more difficult for me to get adequate compensation for my clients, particularly if they were high earners in the financial services sector.

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Lady clearly has a great deal of experience as a solicitor before her election to this place. I am not trying to make the case that everything is as it should be—in fact, I just said that the system clearly needs reform—but I think the last Conservative Government should be proud of concrete steps they took, which I hope will be built on by the new Government, but at the moment, the evidence is pointing the other way.

Despite warm words about transparency and ethics in public life, Labour has shown a concerning reluctance to strengthen whistleblower protections. The much anticipated response to the 2023 review has been repeatedly delayed. In the meantime, those brave enough to speak up remain exposed to career-ending retaliation, blacklisting or legal threats.

Worse still, Labour has quietly watered down safeguards in some of the very sectors where whistleblowers are most needed. I point, for example, to the recent decision to roll back reforms on anonymous reporting in the national health service. In the name of organisational cohesion, Labour is silencing dissent and discouraging staff from flagging issues that could directly impact patient safety.

[Sarah Russell]

I need to apologise to the shadow Minister—I was inaccurate on that last point, so I just want to correct the record.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s correction. This House would be a far better place if everyone corrected their errors in a much timelier manner. We all make mistakes, and it is good when we stand up and admit to them.

This same attitude is evident in the Government’s approach to transparency in the armed forces. Those on the Conservative Front Bench in the other place have been pressing the Government to include a whistleblowing function in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. The noble Baroness Goldie’s amendments would give armed forces personnel the ability to raise a whistleblowing complaint to the commissioner, with the commissioner required to investigate and ensure complete anonymity. The Government have repeatedly opposed adding a whistleblowing function to that Bill. Labour peers and MPs have voted against the noble Baroness Goldie’s amendments three times to date, arguing that they are unnecessary.

The Government have claimed these amendments could make it less likely for someone to come forward purely by including the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing”, yet that language is already widely used in such schemes. The NHS has a whistleblowing scheme known as the freedom to speak up policy, which directly uses the term “whistleblowing”. The Children’s Commissioner issues an annual whistleblowing report. To say that those terms would discourage people from raising issues is a fallacy and is not consistent with Government policy. If Labour was serious about this, it would have backed our amendment that would allow whistleblowers to come forward to the commissioner.

We have also seen worrying reports that Labour’s planned overhaul of procurement oversight may remove mandatory reporting requirements that flag up the fraud or conflicts of interest that are often brought to light by whistleblowers working inside those systems. That is not the direction we should be travelling in. A Government who are truly confident in their integrity should not fear whistleblowers; they should welcome them. They are not saboteurs, and they are not disloyal—they are patriots who put principle before personal gain, and they deserve better.

The Opposition remain committed to championing whistleblower protections. We believe in robust and enforceable safeguards. We believe in the need for an independent body to investigate whistleblower complaints and to protect those who speak up, and we will continue to hold the Government to account for any failure to protect those who protect the public interest.

Draft Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and an enormous pleasure on this hot day to speak on the draft Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

The regulations seek to raise the threshold at which public subsidies must be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority’s subsidy advice unit from £10 million to £25 million. Let me be clear from the outset: the Opposition support a competitive, pro-investment environment in which Government act as careful stewards of taxpayers’ money. The principle of subsidy control is an important one. It ensures fair competition and transparent decision making in line with our international obligations and trade agreements. But this statutory instrument places us in a difficult position.

The Government are asking the Parliament to make a serious judgment on balancing the need to reduce burdens on public authorities and the need to maintain scrutiny of how large sums of taxpayer money are spent, but, remarkably, no impact assessment has been produced. Without one, it is almost impossible to determine the full consequences of this change.

We are told that increasing the threshold to £25 million will reduce the number of referrals by 28%. That might sound attractive on the surface—less red tape, fewer delays—but at what cost? We do not know how many significant subsidies—those with the potential to distort markets or that give rise to genuine competition concerns—will escape scrutiny under the new threshold; nor do we know the value of public funds that could be allocated without independent oversight. That brings me to the central flaw of the Government’s approach. They are asking Parliament to approve a relaxation of oversight mechanisms without providing it with the data to make an informed decision.

The Government’s own consultation received just 45 responses. Of those, a bare majority—23—supported increasing the threshold, and even on that views diverged widely, with some suggesting a threshold of £20 million, others £30 million and some even more than that. Eleven respondents opposed the change entirely, and the rest offered either no view or neutral comments. There is no transparency in the breakdown of those responses—no indication of who responded or the weight that should be given to their views. Why is that, and why has the Minister brought forward this change without providing a proper breakdown of consultation responses? More to the point, why was no impact assessment published? When public authorities and businesses alike are being asked to adjust to a new framework, this lack of rigour is unacceptable.

I have a wider point to make about the process and precedent. The Subsidy Control Act 2022, passed under a Conservative Government, was designed to replace the overly rigid EU state aid regime with a proportionate, sovereign system that protects the taxpayer while empowering public authorities to support investment. However, that system depends on the oversight and credibility of the CMA’s subsidy advice unit. If we start removing that oversight without evidence, we risk undermining the very confidence the system is meant to inspire. The Government argue that this change will allow the CMA to focus on higher-value cases, but without the data we cannot verify whether that trade-off is sound.

This is a serious matter that has real-world implications for competition, taxpayers and the integrity of public spending. The Opposition are not opposed in principle to reforming thresholds, but we do believe that any such reforms must be supported by evidence, transparency and proper parliamentary scrutiny. Until the Government are willing to provide that, we are not in a position to support or oppose these regulations. We will not hinder their passage; we will not vote one way or the other—not out of indecision, but because this Government have failed to provide us with the information needed to make a responsible and informed choice on behalf of our constituents.

Parental Leave Review

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

From personal experience—as a father of three—I understand the importance of fathers being able to spend time at home with their newborns and supporting mothers in those early days. Having experienced paternity leave both as a Member of Parliament in 2020 and 2021 as well as in very different circumstances in 2016 while self-employed, I am proud that the UK already offers some of the most generous maternity and paternity rights, but of course there is always room for improvement.

The Conservatives introduced shared parental leave, allowing new parents to spend precious time caring for their newborns. It is therefore with interest that we digest the contents of this ministerial statement today, but I do have deep reservations about both its substance and its timing. I understand that the Government pledged that this review would be done and dusted within a year—another broken promise—but it is curious that they have chosen today of all days to launch it.

I am in no doubt that today’s statement has been rushed into the Minister’s hands to deflect from what I suspect will be a difficult day of parliamentary business for the Government. That much is clear, as the Secretary of State was entirely incapable of confirming the current rates of statutory paternity pay on LBC this morning. I welcome the fact that he apologised to Nick Ferrari in admitting that he really should know—perhaps the Minister can set the record straight for his boss today.

I wish to take this opportunity to make it crystal clear that Conservatives are not opposed to increased parental leave, as long as it is proportionate, affordable and does not increase unemployment. Therein lies the problem, because this Government have left themselves no breathing room. Their political choices have imposed the most significant headwinds on business in a generation. Those choices have driven unemployment up by 173,000 since July last year. Businesses across the land are contending with taxes on jobs that Labour promised would never come, and now they are staring down the barrel of 300 pages of closely typed, union-led, red tape in the unemployment Bill, which will upset a carefully balanced and fair relationship between employees and employers that has spanned decades. Even Tony Blair and Gordon Brown refused to open that box. No real business supports that Bill. The five biggest business groups have warned against it. It will make hiring tougher, and force employers to take fewer risks on new starters, disproportionately pushing young mothers out of the workforce. Flexible working will be almost entirely eviscerated from Britain’s job market.

The reasonable measures from which employers and employees have benefited for years have allowed businesses to take a chance on new hires. We already know that businesses across the UK have had no choice but to cut jobs, reduce hours or put hiring on pause because of the Chancellor’s toxic treatment of enterprise. If it is helpful, I can spell this out for the benefit of those on the Government Front Bench. It really is quite straightforward: it is not possible to benefit from employment rights if people do not have a job in the first place. With that in mind, it deeply concerns me that the Minister’s statement made only a passing mention of the impact on businesses. That comes as no surprise as not one person around the Cabinet table has any real business experience.

The Government have admitted that this review, which they said would be squared away by now, will take 18 months. Over the next 18 months, we will watch the ravaging impacts of Labour’s anti-business policies transform from a drip to a deluge. With the jobs tax, the business rates relief cut, investment and capital forced overseas, the Employment Rights Bill and the family business death tax, unemployment will continue to rise, businesses will close and any chance of growth will be sapped from our economy. It is all well and good that the Minister announces this review in the House today, but let us be in no doubt that, when it concludes in 18 months’ time, Britain’s economy will have been stripped of all signs of life because of the choices Labour has made.

[Justin Madders]

I take it that the shadow Minister is not in support of the review. May I correct him on a few points? Of course it is not a coincidence that this is being announced today; our manifesto was clear that we would launch the review within one year of taking office, and, of course, this week we do celebrate that astounding election victory. On his point about statutory paternity pay, it is £187.18. We know from representations that we have already received that many do not think that that is the right level. He mentioned how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown refused to open this box, but it was their Government who gave us the right to statutory paternity pay and a number of other family-friendly rights, of which the shadow Minister himself has taken advantage.

I think we know where the Conservative party stands on these issues when their leader says that maternity pay has gone too far. I do not quite know what she meant by that, but I think it means that the Conservatives would be rolling back some of the well-earned gains in family-friendly policies.

The shadow Minister, as I would expect, does not miss an opportunity to mention the Employment Rights Bill. May I suggest that he has a word with his shadow Secretary of State who clearly has not read it? I refer to his recent open letter to businesses in which he mentioned a number of issues with the Bill. First, he complained that we are creating the fair work agency, conveniently forgetting that in both the 2017 and 2019 Conservative party manifestos, there was a similar pledge to create a single enforcement body. He referred to an introductory measure on electronic industrial action balloting. The Conservatives, of course, will be big fans of electronic voting given the number of leadership elections in which they have taken part in recent years. The shadow Minister needs to inform his shadow Secretary of State that that is not in the Bill. I do not know where he thinks that has come from. We are going to introduce electronic balloting, but it is not in the Employment Rights Bill, because we already have existing powers to implement it.

In that open letter, the shadow Secretary of State mentions, most curiously, that the Bill will include

“a trade union ‘right to roam’”.

I do not know if he was searching for a new mobile phone contract at the time, but no such right exists.

The shadow Minister talked about the effects on appointments, but he needs to keep up to date: the latest Lloyds business barometer says that business confidence is now at a nine-year high and that 60% of firms expect higher staffing levels in the next year. That is a sign that this Government are getting things done.

Businesses in Rural Areas

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone). We have had many great contributions from across the Chamber. Given the number, I will not seek to name all the Members who spoke; I will just pick three at random who I thought were particularly good: my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox).

It is a privilege to speak on a subject that is close to the hearts and livelihoods of so many of my own constituents in my rural constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire. I pay tribute to the immense contribution that rural businesses make to the United Kingdom. Whether they be in farming, tourism, food production, forestry, hospitality or manufacturing, or our rural innovators, these enterprises are not simply economic units; they are custodians of heritage, engines of local employment and lifelines for communities that could otherwise be left behind.

Some of the challenges have been picked up through the course of the debate. We will start with communications. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the shared rural network in 2020, which was a £1 billion joint programme, at that point, with mobile operators to attempt to eliminate the so-called notspots in rural coverage. Many of those spots were found in my constituency and some still are, such in as the village of Cuddington. The initiative is transforming how farmers, tourism operators and remote workers do business, but it is clear from the debate, and indeed my own experience, that there is still some way to go. As others have said, if we cannot solve the communications challenges in the digital age, that will hold everyone back.

A thriving rural economy also depends on a fair tax system, which is why successive Conservative Chancellors took steps to freeze fuel duty—a vital measure for those who live miles from the nearest market, school or supplier. It is why we increased the VAT threshold for small businesses and championed business rates relief for village shops and pubs, demonstrating their community value as well as their commercial one. We also froze alcohol duty, offering a crucial boost to rural pubs, breweries, cider producers and vineyards, which are often vital employers and social hubs in rural areas. These measures reflect a Conservative belief in letting enterprise breathe, rather than smothering it under tax and bureaucracy.

We also need to combat rural crime far more harshly—another area in which I speak with some experience from this place. What began as my private Member’s Bill grew into the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023. Once the Government finally introduce the secondary legislation required for it, it will protect farming businesses from agricultural machinery thefts.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

On that point, I recollect a visit I made in 2023 to one of the fantastic farms in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to his doughty and indefatigable campaigning to create that new offence, which protects farmers from rural theft and is an important change to the law.

Does my hon. Friend agree that illegal encampments are also blighting our rural communities? In Denmead and parts of Southwick and Fareham, we have had real challenges with illegal encampments. The last Conservative Administration introduced more police powers to move on some of the groups that cause a nuisance, destruction and intimidation, and sometimes engage in illegal activity. Of course, we respect the rights of minorities, but does he agree that a lot more awareness needs to be raised among the police and communities so that we can combat the scourge of illegal encampments more successfully?

[Greg Smith]

I remember my right hon. Friend visiting the farm. It was in my constituency at the time, but the boundary changes actually took it away from me. Preventing the theft of machinery from not just farms but all rural businesses, which suffer so badly when equipment theft takes place, is a critical measure that we have to get right.

I take the important point that my right hon. Friend makes around illegal encampments. Any illegal development needs to be clamped down on in whatever form it takes. I pay tribute to Thames Valley police’s rural crime taskforce for some of its work on that. It would be good if the Minister could work with Home Office colleagues to extend that work across the whole country, and push the Minister for Policing, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), to introduce the statutory instruments that would bring the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act into full force.

Let us turn to the direction of travel on rural business under this Government, which gives me real concern. First, as others have mentioned, the increase in national insurance contributions and changes to the NICs thresholds place a disproportionate burden on rural employers, many of whom already operate on the tightest of margins. For a rural farm employing five seasonal workers, or a family-run dairy business with a handful of long-serving staff, these extra costs are not abstract; they are the difference between hiring and firing.

The sharp rise in the national living wage is hitting rural sectors, with seasonal and low-margin employment—especially farming, food processing and rural tourism—hit particularly hard. These sectors do not have the luxury of passing on costs to consumers in the same way that some of the big urban retail or tech companies do. They face fixed contracts and price pressures from supermarkets, and this change risks hollowing out jobs that were previously viable.

Compounding that is the change to business property relief, which will strip tax protections from many family-run rural enterprises such as holiday accommodation and equestrian centres, undermining succession planning and deterring future investment in those rural businesses. Labour has targeted the very dynamism that it claims to support.

Labour’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill poses a serious threat to rural enterprise. By relaxing environmental safeguards and expanding compulsory purchase powers—removing hope value protections from prime farmland—the Bill risks allowing developers and central authorities to override local rural businesses and agricultural land. The removal of green belt-like protections from the mythical grey belt areas also paves the way for large-scale development in what were previously safe rural areas. Rural entrepreneurs now face heightened uncertainty over their long-term investments and succession plans. Farmers, holiday let providers and small rural manufacturers alike may wake up to find their economic foundations undermined by top-down planning interventions.

The Employment Rights Bill threatens significant administrative, legal and recruitment costs for rural businesses, which are estimated at up to £5 billion across the economy and are disproportionately heavier for small rural businesses, jeopardising their ability to hire flexibly or offer seasonal work.

But perhaps the most damaging of all is Labour’s recent change to agricultural property relief: the family farm tax. This is not simply a tweak to inheritance policy; it is a direct assault on the ability of farming families to pass on their land and their livelihoods from one generation to the next. An estimated 40,000 farming jobs will be lost under Labour’s plans to force all farmers to stop farming on up to 20% of their land.

The Government’s estimate of 27% of farms being impacted is based on outdated APR claims data from 2021-22 that does not reflect rising land values or the full economic picture of commercial family farms. Nearly 40% of farms rely on a combination of APR and BPR to mitigate inheritance tax liabilities. The £1 million threshold applies to both combined, making it far more restrictive than the Government’s modelling suggests. In my constituency, this is already causing disinvestment. I have spoken with farmers who are now deferring expansion, shelving plans for tourism ventures and, in some cases, considering breaking up long-held estates that have supported jobs and communities for generations.

Farm shops have, after years of successful trading, made the difficult decision to close. On rural high streets, costs have risen 15%. At Rumsey’s Handmade Chocolates in Wendover in my constituency, this is already leading to job losses and reduced hours for the staff they have been able to retain. The Pink and Lily pub in Lacey Green shut in February, just seven years after it first opened.

Rural Britain does not ask for favours, but it does demand fairness. It wants policies that reflect the unique challenges of doing business across distances, in smaller labour markets and with greater exposure to the weather, the global economy and regulatory interference. That is why the Opposition will continue to champion low tax, light-touch regulation and a level playing field for rural enterprise. The future of the rural economy cannot be sustained on sentiment alone; it must be underpinned by policy that understands the realities of rural life. On that test, thus far, Labour is failing.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I gently remind him to allow a couple of minutes for the mover of the motion at the end.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) made clear earlier, the ONS statistics are very clear: 109,000 fewer on payroll in May alone and 276,000 fewer since the autumn Budget. As UKHospitality points out, the NICs changes were

“felt most intensely by foundational sectors like hospitality,”

which “necessitates an urgent review”.

My question to the Minister is simple: where will his red line sit? How many more jobs have to come off payroll before the Department for Business and Trade will stand up to the Treasury on this? Another 100,000? A million? Where is the line?

[Justin Madders]

Again, it is interesting that those on the Conservative Front Bench do not seem to be in agreement with their own leader any more about the national insurance hikes. I will just point out some statistics to the hon. Member: the International Monetary Fund has predicted that growth will increase this year and the Lloyds business barometer found that business confidence was up. We are putting money back into people’s pockets and investing in this country. We are doing things that the Conservatives failed to do for 14 years and that is why they are out of power.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The Retail Jobs Alliance is very clear in its warning that the Government’s changes to business rates will

“accelerate the decline of high streets, reducing footfall…and creating a cycle of economic downturn.”

That letter was also signed by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—a Labour-affiliated trade union. Once again, the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade have a choice. Will they stand up for high street retailers, actual employers and even their own affiliated trade union, or will they just go along with Treasury diktat?

[Gareth Thomas]

Once upon a time, the Conservatives supported business rates reform to help the high street; the hon. Gentleman now seems to be shifting his party’s policy. Indeed, time after time his Government promised that they would reform business rates, but one of the reasons they lost the confidence of British business at the last election was because they did not act to reform business rates. We have said that we will introduce permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer set out our initial thoughts on that in the Budget in October, and we will publish an update on where we are on that issue in the coming months.

[Greg Smith]

We support business rates reform, but when Labour’s own trade union says that its plan is not going to work, Ministers should really sit up and listen.

Let me turn to another issue affecting our high streets: shoplifting—which continues to devastate many high street retailers. I see that in my own constituency in high streets in Princes Risborough, Wendover and Great Missenden. How is the Minister actively engaging with the Home Office, police and crime commissioners and police forces to move shoplifting up the agenda across the board, just as my home force of Thames Valley has done with its Disc scheme? Before he comes back with police numbers, let me tell him that there are more police in Thames Valley than ever before, let alone since 2010. Just talking the talk on numbers is not enough. What is he going to do proactively to make this issue go up the agenda?

[Gareth Thomas]

I think the hon. Gentleman, in his own way, is congratulating the Government on increasing police numbers in his constituency, and he is certainly right to do so. We have committed to an extra 3,000 police officers over the course of this financial year and a total of an extra 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. We are also taking action to end the immunity that his party introduced for shoplifters and taking steps to increase the powers that the police have to take action when shoplifters and others are violent against retail staff.

Space Industry

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) not only on securing this debate, but on his comprehensive opening speech—his knowledge is almost encyclopaedic. I also thank him for the leadership that he has shown on space in this Parliament and previous Parliaments, in particular as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for space.

We have had a very good debate this morning, with contributions of great quality from both sides of the House. In that cross-party spirit, let me say that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), in particular, hit many nails directly on the head. We clearly share an interest in the Satellite Applications Catapult, which has a base in my constituency, although I detected a note of disdain in his voice when he talked about battered Land Rovers. I would argue that a battered Land Rover is a sign that that great miracle of British engineering has been used properly and to its full capability.

It is a privilege to speak in this important debate on the state of the United Kingdom’s space industry, a sector of strategic importance to our national economy, scientific capability and future prosperity. Let me begin by making one thing very clear: the United Kingdom has the potential to be a true spacefaring nation. We have the scientific expertise, entrepreneurial ambition and geographic advantage to build a world-leading domestic space sector.

In my constituency, the space industry is totemic. From the Westcott space cluster and the national space propulsion centre at Westcott Venture Park, to UK Space Command’s headquarters and the national space operations centre at RAF High Wycombe at Walter’s Ash—the nation’s military hub for space operations, workforce development and space capability delivery—Mid Buckinghamshire stands out not only as a showcase for the space industry, but as an incubator for research and development. It is a true representation of the sector in its entirety.

The Labour party came into office with a good promise of a bold new era for science and technology. Its manifesto committed to supporting high-growth sectors, including space, and spending on sovereign capabilities to secure Britain’s place on the global stage. I hope the Minister can confirm that all that will become a reality, because in practice—and the Opposition are right to challenge the Government and kick the tyres when good promises are made—we have seen little more than rhetoric and inaction so far.

Since July 2024, the space sector has been left in policy limbo. Programmes vital to our future competitiveness have been stalled or scrapped. Promised investment zones with a focus on aerospace innovation have failed to materialise. I hope the Minister can correct that. The much vaunted Labour industrial strategy, which was supposed to support clusters in places such as Harwell, Leicester and Cornwall, remains a mystery. Perhaps she can confirm when we will finally see it.

The consequences are tangible and severe. We are already seeing UK-based satellite developers and launch technology firms relocate to more supportive environments abroad. Domestic providers face growing uncertainty in accessing long-term capital, while investors are left wondering whether the Government have any meaningful plan to support this vital sector. That is a blow not just to British industry, but to local economies. The space industry is not confined to a few square miles of south-east England; it is an ecosystem that stretches from satellite testing in Glasgow, to launch infrastructure in the Shetlands and mission control in Oxfordshire. Cornwall, as others have spoken about, also plays an important role. Every contract cancelled and every research and development grant deferred is a missed opportunity for skilled employment in communities that need it most. By contrast, under the previous Conservative Government, in late 2023, UKSA launched its national innovation programme, with up to £65 million distributed over four years, including a £34 million first tranche aimed at low technology readiness level disruptive technologies.

What of the young people inspired by the promise of a career in space science? The previous Conservative Government made education and outreach a priority. We backed science, technology, engineering and maths education, supported apprenticeships through the National Space Academy, and ensured that British students were represented in flagship European and international missions. Labour, by contrast, has made no clear commitment to supporting science education in the context of space, nor has it outlined any plan to secure future UK participation in global space exploration partnerships.

I must also raise the issue of our highly specialist supply chain, which sees components built in Wales, avionics manufactured in the midlands, propulsion systems designed in Surrey, and the excellent work of the national space propulsion centre at Westcott in my constituency. These are the unsung heroes of the UK’s space sector. They rely on steady R&D investment and long-term procurement planning. However, Labour’s failure to provide certainty on either means that many of those SMEs face an existential threat. They are simply relying on measures that we originally put in place.

The space industry, by its nature, is built on long-term vision. The last Conservative Government understood that. We launched the national space strategy, invested in sovereign launch capability through Spaceport Cornwall and SaxaVord, and worked to ensure that the UK could lead in space sustainability. We stood up for British science post Brexit by negotiating critical participation in global satellite projects. We now need a recommitment to that vision, which this Labour Government have so far failed to provide.

When will the Government publish a revised and fully funded national space strategy? When will they provide certainty for R&D tax credits to incentivise investment? When will they deliver on their manifesto pledges to support sovereign UK capability in launch, satellite navigation and Earth observation? If they are serious about Britain being a science superpower, they must start treating the space industry as the strategic asset that it is; otherwise, we risk watching our world-class talent, our world-leading innovation and our national ambitions quite literally leave for other shores.

Conservatives remain committed to the UK’s future in space technology. We will continue to make the case for ambition and leadership in a sector that speaks to the best of our country, scientifically, economically and aspirationally.

Carer’s Leave

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate.

On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I too want to underscore the indispensable role of unpaid carers in our society and highlight the pressing need to protect and enhance carer’s leave. Such individuals, often family members or friends, provide vital support to those with long-term care needs, enabling them to live with dignity and independence. Unpaid carers, as others have said in this debate, are the backbone of our social care system. Their contributions are not only compassionate but economically significant—estimates suggest that unpaid care in England and Wales alone is valued at approximately £162 billion annually. Without their dedication, our health and social care services would face insurmountable challenges.

Moreover, many carers balance their responsibilities with some employment. The ability to take carer’s leave is crucial to helping them maintain that balance, reducing the risk of financial hardship and social isolation. The last Conservative Government recognised the vital role of carers, but first I want to pay tribute to the private Member’s Bill—now the Carer’s Leave Act 2023—in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife. I think that all of us who have had private Members’ Bills know how difficult it is to navigate the various systems and to secure the Government of the day’s support in order to get those Bills through. I am pleased to say that, under the last Conservative Government, the hon. Lady persuaded the Government to support her Bill, and we now see it on the statute book. It was enacted in April 2024, granting employees the right to one week of unpaid leave annually to care for dependants with long-term needs. That was a landmark achievement, providing carers with much-needed flexibility and acknowledging their invaluable contributions.

Furthermore, under the last Government we increased the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance from £151 to £196 a week, enabling carers to earn more without losing benefits. That change enabled carers to work up to 16 hours a week at the national living wage, offering greater financial stability. Regrettably, this new Labour Government appear to be undermining those advancements. Recent welfare reforms have led to significant cuts in disability benefits, with over 150,000 carers losing access to carer’s allowance. Those cuts not only jeopardise the financial security of carers, but risk increasing pressure on our already strained health and social care system.

While the Labour Government have introduced the Employment Rights Bill—or the unemployment Bill—it notably lacks provision for paid carer’s leave. The omission is a missed opportunity to further support carers, particularly those on low incomes who may struggle to afford unpaid leave. To truly support them, the Government must take note of the foundations laid by the Carer’s Leave Act by continuing the introduction of paid carer’s leave, providing greater flexibility in how leave can be taken and ensuring that carers are not financially penalised for their invaluable contributions.

Additionally, the Government must do more to ensure that any welfare reforms do not disproportionately impact carers. Their wellbeing is intrinsically linked to the health of those they care for, and by extension, to the wellbeing of our society as a whole. Carers are the unsung heroes of our communities. They deserve our recognition, support, and commitment to policies that will empower them. It is incumbent on the Government to protect and enhance carer’s leave, ensuring that they can continue their vital work without undue hardship.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, if you can, please leave time for the proposer to wind up. I have no idea if we are going to have a Division, but it might be wise if we can finish before 5.30 pm.

US-UK Trade Deal: Northern Ireland

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this urgent question, although I agree that the Government really should have offered a statement to the House on this important subject.

Of course, the House has still not yet seen the full detail of the trade agreement with the United States of America. The Secretary of State says that this is just the beginning, but there are still a great many unanswered questions about what we have so far, including what are clearly ongoing negotiations on pharmaceuticals. In his answer, the Secretary of State said that the UK will have significantly preferential rates, but what does that mean in practice? Where is the detail about what “significantly preferential rates” actually means? There are similar questions about the digital services tax.

Last week, the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), asked the Trade Minister a straight question: whether this trade agreement would

“protect the special status of Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, 8 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 899.]

The Minister was unable to provide an answer at the time, and I remain unconvinced by what the Secretary of State has had to say today—there is still a lot of talk about the risks of goods entering the European Union. Clearly, this is a far more complex situation than the Secretary of State would like us to accept. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim made clear, the EU is still hugely influential in Northern Ireland trade law. The points he made about steel, for example, were accurate and deserve clear answers.

It is clear that this deal will have a number of implications for the functioning of the dual customs regime, yet businesses in Northern Ireland have been left in the dark for too long by the lack of detail in last week’s announcement. I would therefore be grateful if the Secretary of State would confirm what discussions he has had with his US and EU counterparts about rules of origin and the green lane in Northern Ireland. What specific measures are the Government implementing to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses are not disproportionately burdened by increased costs and administrative complexities as a result of this trade agreement? Finally, given that the Prime Minister is gearing up for his surrender summit with the European Union next week, can the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no backsliding on Northern Ireland’s place as an integral, absolute and total part of our United Kingdom?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

That was a fairly odd stream of consciousness, if I am being totally honest. It appears that I have given a stronger defence of the Windsor agreement negotiated by the former Conservative Government than the Conservative party has managed today.

The shadow Minister has asked for detail. I acknowledge that, particularly when dealing with the US and the style of the US system, negotiations have a pace—a pulse—and they are perhaps different from how we would present the detail of a complete trade agreement, such as the one we agreed with India. However, I think he would acknowledge the importance of last week’s announcements, because such a significant part of our exports to the US is covered by its sectoral tariffs, not the reciprocal ones. Businesses would have had to start planning this week for a world of—in some cases—25% tariffs, which would have had major repercussions for jobs, businesses and growth in the UK. Being able to give those businesses reassurance, alongside a clear indication of the ongoing nature of the negotiations, is a significant win for British business. I hope the Opposition recognise that.

The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about preferential rates on pharmaceutical products. Those in the United States have not yet completed their own investigations in respect of some of the sectoral tariffs to which they have alluded, and have not announced what they are putting in place. The nature of the agreement, given that it covers the sectoral tariffs, is to recognise that we would want the UK to be in a preferential position on those as well, rather than agreeing what we have already agreed on sectoral tariffs and then seeing further sectoral tariffs announced in future.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the digital services tax. It is not in the agreement; it is not a part of what was announced last week.

As for the question of the special status of Northern Ireland, this is the agreement that the Conservative party struck. It manages two very difficult countervailing pressures. The Conservatives might have thought more about this during the Brexit process, but they did not. They had to resolve the issue after the agreement, and to be honest, I do not think they did a particularly bad job in reaching the compromise that Windsor represents.

Exports from Northern Ireland are covered by the preferential trade terms that we have secured with the United States. When goods come into Northern Ireland, there is a differential depending on whether they are staying in the United Kingdom or there is a risk of their entering the EU’s single market. That is what the Conservative party agreed. I think that the new degree of complexity comes from differentials between the EU’s approach to trade and trade defence, and our own, but surely we all recognise that part of what we are talking about here reflects the fact that we are not in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman again engaged in some language about the European Union.

This country did a trade deal with India last week, one that the Conservative party promised many times but never delivered. We reached an agreement with the United States in the same week. We have the EU summit coming up. Everything that we have said about how this country does not have to pick just one trading partner—it can be the best connected market in the world—is borne out by the agreements that we have signed. Every Member of this House should get behind a UK that is strong on the world stage and connected to each and every one of the major economic markets that we need to be our partners.