EU-UK Summit

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to take part in this debate this afternoon. Having been first elected to this place in 2019, I feel I missed out on the meaningful votes and the main Brexit wars of a few years ago. However, I had the privilege, for the whole four and a half years of the 2019 to 2024 Parliament, to be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee under the wonderful chairmanship of Sir William Cash. His choice to retire before the last election leaves this debate and indeed the whole House of Commons poorer. I am sure that he would have had many points to make in the debate.

The reason that I refer to the European Scrutiny Committee is the detailed work that Committee did to truly understand the way that EU law pre-Brexit and indeed post-Brexit, and the involvement of the European Court of Justice post-Brexit, still pervaded our nation, our country and the way that many of our laws were made.

After Labour won the election last July, the Government took the deeply regrettable decision to disband that Committee. We lost not just that parliamentary scrutiny, which would have been invaluable in considering the deal that we are debating today, but the expertise of the Clerks and the expert advisers who served that Committee, and who often ensured that parliamentary debate on all matters between ourselves and the European Union was well informed.

If the Government do anything after this new deal has been struck—a deal that I do not support and that I believe sells out the decision of 17.4 million people in 2016—it should be to re-establish the European Scrutiny Committee, so that each and every one of those rules that we will now take is scrutinised line by line, and reported to the whole House and the relevant Select Committees. Then, whatever side of the Brexit debate we fall on and whatever our view of the world may be, we can all understand where those rules have come from and what they mean to our constituents and our country.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I am slightly perturbed that the hon. Member says, “whatever side of the Brexit debate we fall on”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, Brexit has happened. We are now in the real world of today, in which there is a war in Ukraine and huge issues because of the energy crisis, and it is absolutely vital that we work with partners across the world, whether that is through the India trade deal or this one. Can he not acknowledge that we are now living in a different world and that the word “Brexit” is of no use to us any more?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for her intervention, but I am not sure that I fully agree with her analysis. This deal is relitigating Brexit. It is reintroducing dynamic alignment and a role for the European Court of Justice in many ways that we thought we had put behind us after the last Government delivered on Brexit, which meant that we left the European Union.

[Sam Rushworth]

Inevitably, in any deal, you have to put something on the table in order to get the benefits of that deal. Could the hon. Gentleman give me an example of a UK trade agreement where the UK has not had to put something on the table?

[Greg Smith]

Clearly, in any trade negotiation an agreement is made between two countries. The difference with a negotiation on, for example, our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or the trade deal-lite that the Government managed with the United States and the Trump Administration, or indeed the India trade deal, is that there is no dynamic alignment. No foreign court will be the arbiter of UK law, UK standards and our sovereignty.

The principle on which I believe people voted for Brexit was that we would be in control. There was a very good reason why the Vote Leave campaign came up with the “Take Back Control” slogan; it resonated with the British people. However, that slogan will only ever mean something if we actually are in control. This deal, which we saw being announced with some glee by the Prime Minister the other day in the Chamber of the House of Commons, gives control in many areas—certainly on agrifood and the carbon trading mechanism—back to the European Union, and takes it away from this House and this Parliament.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about control, but that result was mainly motivated by immigration. After the Brexit vote, annual migration tripled to 900,000. Does he call that control? Also, does he welcome the fall in net migration to 400,000 that was announced today? If he does, would he call that reasserting control on migration?

[Greg Smith]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was a leave voter himself, as I know many traditional Labour voters around the country voted for Brexit. I certainly voted for Brexit and campaigned for it. I think the hon. Gentleman is making some presumptions as to why people voted. My central pitch when knocking on doors in that referendum was the point around control and sovereignty, and that it would be this Parliament that set our laws. Dynamic alignment blows a huge hole in that.

I will touch briefly on a couple of other factors that have come up in the debate. There is a point that is made that somehow Brexit has been economically damaging. In the Government’s own rationale—[Interruption.] It is always good to have an audience laughing, but I am going to quote from the Government’s own rationale. They talk about declining trade and so on from 2018. I hate to break it to them, but we had not left the European Union in 2018. The withdrawal Act did not come into effect for years after that. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2018, for example, UK food exports were £10.6 billion. Guess what had happened by 2024? They had gone up to £11.34 billion. We need a little greater clarity in this debate where we get the dates right and compare apples with apples, rather than apples with pears.

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

I have given way several times. I may well come back if time allows, but I am aware of the time limit that you have set, Ms McVey.

My constituency could pretty much not be further from the sea, but we do enjoy a lot of fish in Buckinghamshire. I am very much aware of just how angry fishermen around the country are, particularly Scottish fishermen. Yesterday, I debated with SNP Members on the BBC, who confirmed how angry fishermen in Scotland are at this deal. Once again, it is important that we look at some facts. The crude trade gap for fish is actually about 274,000 tonnes in the EU’s favour. The key point I make to those who argued that the deal is somehow good because it means we can export more fish to the European Union is that we cannot export that which we have not been allowed to catch in the first place. I would invite hon. Members that have made that point to reflect on it a little more.

[Sam Rushworth]

“Angry, disappointed and betrayed” are the words that the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations used to describe the Brexit deal that the hon. Gentleman voted for. Why did he vote for that deal?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to relitigate the past again. The deal that the last Government did would have seen us able to take back full control of our waters in a year’s time. Instead, we have a 12-year deal that gives the EU rights to our fishing waters. That is the point to be angry and dismayed about, not a deal that could have returned total control of our waters next year.

This is not a good deal for the United Kingdom and it is not a deal that honours the referendum result. I invite the new Government to reflect, reverse course—they have managed it on winter fuel and they can manage it on this—and think again. If they cannot do that, at the very least they should reintroduce proper scrutiny of EU law having direct effect in this country through a full-time Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s candour, and I share his views on the previous Conservative Government. I would say, however, that to have a grown-up negotiation, we have to put something on the table to get something in return. Clearly, the previous Conservative Government felt that putting that on the table was a price worth paying for some greater benefit. The new deal puts nothing extra on the table.

[Greg Smith]

It has been reported in the media that a very senior president of one of the biggest regional fisheries committees in France said:

“We couldn’t have hoped for better…We are very satisfied and relieved. This changes a lot of things. If we no longer had access to British waters, we would have suffered a significant loss of revenue.”

In whose interest does the hon. Gentleman think the deal was actually struck?

[Sam Rushworth]

Those people are clearly delighted that the situation that the hon. Gentleman previously voted for has continued. That is how international trade works: we buy things and we sell things. Supermarkets such as Asda, Morrisons, Marks and Spencer; producers such as Salmon Scotland, the British Meat Processors Association and Dairy UK; the defence sector such BAE Systems; British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry are all lining up to say this is a good deal for the economy, so I think many people are confused by Opposition Members, who have nobody backing their side of the argument. Deep down, I think they know that this is a good deal for their constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would not disagree at all when it comes to Joseph Chamberlain’s record in Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of his belief in the national interest, but I am sure that he respects the sincerity of my belief as well. We take a different view as to what actually constitutes the national interest.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) talked about the huge benefits of the deal for the farming community. I am sure that the reduction in trade barriers will be welcomed.

I have been passed a note written by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place. I will make two quick observations. First, the SPS agreement will be of great benefit in reducing the level of checks across the Irish sea. Secondly, I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman on the other method issues he raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) raised the issue of fish. First, we have stability; and secondly, 70% of our catch is exported to the EU market, and that will be able to be done far more easily. To make sure that our fishers have the opportunity to take advantage of that greater market access, £360 million will be made available to upgrade the fishing fleet.

I give credit to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) for his candid assessment of the previous Government as having made a lot of mistakes. On that, he and I agree 100%. But as I said to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, the red lines—not rejoining the single market or customs union, and on freedom of movement—have very much been observed.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) that this should not be about nostalgia. It is about making a forward-looking, hard-headed and ruthlessly pragmatic assessment of what is in our national interest now.

[Greg Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will, but as we are running out of time it will be the last time.

[Greg Smith]

As the Minister is talking about pragmatism and the national interest, perhaps I can set him a very brief maths test. On dynamic alignment on carbon trading, the EU’s carbon price today is £58.84 per metric tonne, while the UK’s price is £38.13. Does that increase or decrease costs on British business?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

If we are not part of the emissions trading system, we will not be able to get an exemption from the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which would cost British business £800 million. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants British businesses to pay those taxes, he should be honest with the electorate about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) spoke about bringing down costs. Things such as the export health certificate—£200 per consignment —were meaning that we were talking about thousands of pounds to get some lorries to move. Those are the kinds of things that we can sweep away.

It must be said that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, provided a measure of balance to what was said by those sitting to her right. Nevertheless, I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset that if the Conservatives and Reform are in one position, and the Liberal Democrats are in another, it suggests that we have got the balance absolutely right.

I will conclude because I am conscious of the time. I know that we have gone over the allotted time, Mr Vickers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow needs to sum up the debate. We have made our choice—a ruthlessly pragmatic choice in negotiation. Our choice is that we are going to lower bills and have a situation that is great for jobs. We are getting more tools and information to secure our borders. If Opposition Members wish to be against that, good luck to them.

UK-EU Summit

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Dynamic alignment undermines sovereignty, and to undermine sovereignty does not just undermine the central principle that 17.4 million people voted for; it also undermines everybody who respects the democratic outcome of that referendum. Therefore, if the Prime Minister will not think again about this Brexit betrayal, will he, at the very least, reinstate the European Scrutiny Committee of this House, so that this House can scrutinise every single rule that we now have to take rather than make?

[The Prime Minister]

I have set out the position in relation to how the rules will be applied. We are already aligned, but we do not get the benefit. This deal allows us to get the benefit, which is why businesses are so in favour of it. Every trade deal requires agreement on both sides as to the way forward, and this agreement is no different.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. More than 60,000 Scots have been stuck waiting for tests or treatment for over a year. That is a 46% rise in one year. I had to check that figure because it is so staggering. Despite the backlog, nearly 50,000 fewer operations are being performed than were performed before the pandemic. Let us compare that with the situation in England, where we have driven down waiting lists with more than 2 million extra appointments, and have scrapped NHS England to cut bureaucracy. Scotland’s NHS is in desperate need of reform, but the Scottish National party has no strategy, no plans and no ideas.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Earlier, the Prime Minister seemed reluctant to answer a direct question about his jobs tax. Next time he visits my constituency to enjoy the beautiful Buckinghamshire surroundings of Chequers, will he go five minutes up the road to Wendover, and explain to Kate Rumsey of Rumsey’s Handmade Chocolates why his choices and those of his Chancellor have led to a 15% increase in costs for that business? As a result, it has already had to lay people off, and has had to reduce the hours of those whom it still employs. Is that what he meant by growth?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to tell anyone why: the Conservatives left a £22 billion black hole. They crashed the economy, they ruined our public services and, as we mend and rebuild the country, they carp from the sidelines. Even now, they cannot bring themselves to say that they do not want the investment, or that they will reverse the decisions we have made. They actually agree with the decisions we have made, because we are clearing up the mess that they left.

High Street Businesses

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) on securing this important debate. He is right: high streets are the beating heart of communities and local economies across the whole of the United Kingdom. I see that in my own constituency, with the wonderful mix of retail, hospitality and services on high streets such as Wendover, Princes Risborough and Great Missenden, as well as those important smaller retail parades in villages such as Prestwood and Haddenham. They really are, as others have said, the beating heart of our local economies and communities.

Unlike Labour, the Conservatives want businesses to keep more of their hard-earned money to grow and invest. In Government, we delivered the biggest long-term business tax cut in modern British history, to the tune of £11 billion per year. We froze the small business multiplier, saving an average shop £1,650 a year, and extended the retail hospitality and leisure relief for a year, which directly supports high street businesses. We took a third of properties out of business rates completely through small business rate relief and froze the tax rate for the last three years. We introduced a 75% business rate relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, meaning that the business rates of the average pub in England were £6,650 lower than they would have been.

Meanwhile, breaking their manifesto promise not to increase the amount of cash raised by the levy, this Labour Government are delivering a stealth tax rise of £900 million this year and £2.7 billion next year through higher business rates. Rates paid by thousands of high street businesses will more than double next year as a result. Unlike Labour, we in Government cut national insurance contributions for businesses. We abolished an entire class of NICs and cut the NIC top rate from 9% to 6%. Labour’s first Budget launched a £25 billion tax raid on British business, breaking its manifesto promise and imposing a jobs tax. It has increased employer national insurance contributions, clearly breaking commitments made throughout its general election campaign. That jobs tax will increase the cost of employment to our high street employers and everyone else by £900 for the average worker.

Labour’s Budget nearly halved business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, more than doubling the business rates of eligible businesses. Atlas Group estimates that the reduction from 1 April of the business rate discount for retail, hospitality and leisure firms in England from 75% to 40% in the ’25-’26 financial year will mean an average 140% rise in business rate bills for more than 250,000 high street premises in England. The average shop will now see its business rates bill spiral from £3,589 to £8,613 next April for the ’25-’26 year. The average business rate bill for pubs will increase from £3,938 to £9,451. Restaurants will see their average bill rising from £5,051 to £12,122.

In short, this Labour Government have

“complete disregard for the thousands of hard-working shop owners who form the backbone of our high streets”;

not my words, but those of the commercial director at the British Independent Retailers Association. Labour looked business owners in the eye and told them it would be on their side, and at the first opportunity it imposed a slam dunk of measures to make it impossible to grow, to invest or even, in some cases, to survive. The Labour Government have zero credibility on this issue now. They are not the champions of our high streets that they want to proclaim themselves. The nation took them at their word, and their word has proven to be a gross misrepresentation.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point that it is through a cessation of hostilities that the space can be created for the release of hostages. Yes, of course we talk to leaders, including in Israel, the whole time about how that can be brought about. It is the central focus of all our discussions with Israel and with our allies.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is vital that today and every day we remember every life lost at the hands of Hamas a year ago and every life lost in captivity since, and that we renew our calls for the release of every hostage. While I totally agree with the Prime Minister when he says that Israel must have that right to defend herself, some of the decisions he has taken have led to a feeling that the Government have stepped back their support for Israel, not least in the restoration of funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Does the Prime Minister regret that, and will he revisit that decision, so that actions marry up with words?

[The Prime Minister]

No, there has been no stepping back of support for Israel. We have been absolutely robust in that support. I have expressed it many times in different places, including to the Prime Minister of Israel. We will continue to support Israel and we will continue to support Israel’s right to defend herself. The House is at its best when it speaks with once voice.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes I can, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. The North Atlantic Council committed itself to an irreversible path to membership of NATO. That is a material step forward from a year ago and is among the reasons President Zelensky said that the council was a success in relation to membership of NATO. That is why I said what I said in my statement. That path is now irreversible, and that is a good thing, welcomed across the NATO allies.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The level of infiltration by Hamas of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency is well documented—from UNRWA staff taking part in the pure evil that was the 7 October attack, to UNRWA-funded schools being used to store weapons and harbour terrorists, and to terror infrastructure being found under UNRWA’s headquarters in Gaza City. Before the Prime Minister took the decision to re-commit UK taxpayers’ money to UNRWA, what advice did he receive on that infiltration, and what steps has he demanded be taken, so that UK taxpayers’ money can never be used to fund terror or preach hate?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Member would expect, we took the most careful advice and subjected it to the most careful consideration, because we were concerned, as anyone in this House would be, by the suggestions and allegations in relation to 7 October. We looked at that really carefully, took it very seriously, and gave it the utmost consideration. There has, of course, been an independent review and steps put in place, but there is a vital role for UNRWA. Many other countries have restored funding for UNRWA—it is the right thing to do—but I can give an assurance that the most careful consideration was given before that step was taken, as the hon. Member would expect.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the case. As she knows, the Department for Education has provided extensive support and funding to all those schools that have RAAC, which in the end was less than 1% of all schools that could have been affected. More generally, there is the very significant amount we are investing in school rebuilding and maintenance. I am sure the Education Secretary will have heard her concerns and will write to her in due course.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

Q14. The clear message from yesterday’s Farm to Fork summit is that food security matters. As we await today’s written statement on ground-mounted solar, can my right hon. Friend assure me that proposed solar installations in my constituency, which would cover thousands of acres of agricultural land—from a 2,100 acre installation in the Claydons, called Rosefield, to smaller but equally destructive ones, such as the one proposed for an area near the village of Kimblewick—now have less chance of getting approved?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. Particularly at a time of increasing geopolitical risk, we must protect this nation’s food security and our most valuable agricultural land. We can achieve our solar deployment targets by using brownfield sites and rooftops away from our best farmland. I know he looks forward to the Energy Secretary’s statement later today, which will ensure we avoid using our best agricultural land. Like him, I agree that we should be backing British farmers to produce more food. That is good for our country, our economy and our food security.

Iran-Israel Update

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I join others in thanking the Prime Minister for his leadership in ensuring that the United Kingdom Government stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally, Israel, in the face of yet another attack. Does he agree that, in order to live in safety and security, the first and most pressing mission for Israel continues to be the necessity of defeating Hamas? The harsh reality is that that will require an operation in Rafah, in which every step is taken to protect civilian life. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the path to peace in the middle east?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the threat that Hamas pose to the security and safety of the people of Israel. The Foreign Secretary set out in detail our view on the right approach to Rafah from this point forward just a couple of weeks ago.

Cyber-security and UK Democracy

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I, or another Minister, will be happy to meet him. That is precisely why we set up the National Cyber Security Centre, which uses GCHQ expertise to inform our approach to cyber, and engages with businesses and individuals. That approach is renowned and admired around the world, because we can give high-quality advice through the National Cyber Security Centre. Week after week, I receive delegations from around the world who want to see what we have done with the National Cyber Security Centre.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

The £2.6 billion in additional money to counter cyber threats is very welcome. This field is constantly evolving, and those who wish us harm are innovating further. I accept that my right hon. Friend will not comment on the exact detail, but will he at least assure the House that the £2.6 billion outguns what those who wish us harm spend on new threats?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The amount of spending compares extremely favourably with that spent in similar G7 countries around the world. I am confident that we have world-leading expertise, and we are constantly evolving our capabilities in this space.

Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

She is right: it is the Houthis who are doing that, and it is right that we call that out as being wrong, as the Government of Yemen themselves have done. It is absolutely right that we take necessary and proportionate action in self-defence against risk to British lives and interests. That is what we did last week and what we have done this week, and we will always reserve the right to do so. In parallel and separately, we are also doing everything we can to bring about more aid into Gaza and a sustainable ceasefire there that involves a release of hostages and the end of Hamas’s hostilities.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and actions of self-defence against the Houthis as the right thing to do. Over the past 24 hours, the BBC has carried reports that senior IRGC generals have made extremist speeches to United Kingdom students that are riddled with antisemitism and the promotion of violence. This radicalisation simply must stop. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to end IRGC infiltration in the United Kingdom? While I fully acknowledge that he will not comment on proscription at the Dispatch Box, will he at least acknowledge the strength of feeling on both sides of the House and across the political divide for the proscription of the IRGC, which is behind so much of the violence in the region, including the barbaric attacks of 7 October and the continuing attacks in the Red sea?

[The Prime Minister]

I first stress that it is an absolute priority to protect the UK against foreign interference, and we will use all available levers to do that. On the particular matter my hon. Friend raises about those reports, I know the Charity Commission has opened an ongoing compliance case into trusts linked to the Kanoon Islamic centre, so it is right that that investigation happens properly. More broadly, universities have a duty to prevent people being drawn into terrorism, and where there is evidence that universities are failing in that duty, I am happy to reassure him that the Government will not hesitate to intervene to ensure that the right steps are taken.