Greg Smith
MP for Mid Buckinghamshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“As was mentioned earlier, the UK Sepsis Trust had a big bang in 2016 with the famous orange and red posters saying, “Just ask ‘Could it be sepsis?’”, which can be seen in many GP surgeries, hospital waiting rooms and so forth.”
“I am sure that many of my constituents considering a UK break will look to Cambridgeshire, where the always fiscally sound Conservative mayor Paul Bristow has made it clear that now is not the time for such a tax.”
“Ministry of Justice contractors are acting in a deeply inconsiderate manner, affecting my constituents in Edgcott, Grendon Underwood and the Springhill Road estate in the construction of a new mega-prison adjacent to HMP Grendon. I asked the Minister in writing over the summer if she would come and see with her own eyes those problems.”
“Over 2,000 flights cancelled, with more than 150,000 passengers affected; delays, disruption and pain; embarrassment for Britain—what an absolute mess! As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was no offer of a statement from the Government, hence this urgent question from the Conservative Benches.”
“A report by 16 September, which takes us into recess, and six months then to fully diagnose the problem—that is not good enough. A third failure deserves immediate action, not delaying tactics. The Government have a considerable say in how NATS operates.”
“If they were, why on earth are we back here again? Why are airlines and airports lacking suitable contingency plans for when NATS fails—when Government fails—and there is no Government support on the ground?”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Greg Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“The concept of paying someone who has come here illegally £40,000 to leave will stick in the throats of all taxpayers in this country. Notwithstanding the arguments that the Minister has put forward, what assessment has he made that making an offer of 40 grand will not act as a huge pull factor and cause more people to come here to collect our cash?”
“For all the Chancellor’s words about forecasts, reality bites when the real unemployment figures are examined. The figure today is 5.2%, the highest since the pandemic, and youth unemployment is at a considerable high. Instead of relying on forecasts that are never, ever right, should we not be asking how many more people need to lose their jobs, and how many more young people need to go without one, before the Chancellor accepts that it is her policies that are not working?”
“We have companies demonstrating 100% synthetic flight, developed right here in the United Kingdom. We have world-class engineers and researchers. We have the technical expertise to lead. What we should not have are British passengers ultimately bearing the costs while overseas producers capture the opportunity. Now is not the time to relitigate the plus or minus £1.50 on fares argument we had in previous stages, but for the record I say that the Opposition are watching closely. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are assured that the non-HEFA—non-hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids—requirements contained in the mandate will be met by industry at no more than the same cost to the passenger?”
“It followed sustained pressure from those of us on the Conservative Benches here and in the other place. It was Conservatives who identified the gap, made the case and tabled the original amendments. I am grateful that the Government have now listened and moved. Of course, the detail matters. The definition of “UK-produced” refers to any part of the process of converting feedstock into fuel taking place in the United Kingdom. That must not become a loophole wide enough to taxi an A380 through. The intention is clear: real production, real value added and real jobs here. We will ensure that the practical application reflects that intention. There is also a broader point to the amendments, which speaks to capability. The United Kingdom has genuine strengths in synthetic fuel and e-SAF.”
“His amendment made the principle explicit: if sustainable aviation fuel is to receive support under a revenue certainty contract, it must genuinely be British. He made the point clearly: we cannot design a system that can be gamed. We cannot allow mostly complete fuel to be shipped here, polished up a bit, and then presented as a domestic product. That would not be an industrial strategy; it would be box-ticking with a Union Jack on it. What has happened since? The Government tabled Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4, restricting revenue certainty contracts to UK-produced sustainable aviation fuel. That principle was not explicit in the Bill, as introduced. It is explicit now and I genuinely welcome that. That change, however, did not appear out of thin air.”
“If the British public are underwriting a revenue certainty mechanism, whether directly or through levies that will inevitably feed into ticket prices, the economic benefit must remain here in the United Kingdom. That was not an afterthought. It was not something we discovered halfway through the Bill’s passage; it was one of the central arguments we advanced from day one. Throughout Committee and on Report, I pressed Ministers on how the contracts would work in practice. How would domestic production be prioritised? How would we prevent a scenario where fuel was largely produced overseas, given minimal processing here and then rebadged as British simply to qualify for support? Without clarity, that risk was real. My noble Friend Lord Grayling brought that concern into sharp focus in the other place.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I could not have asked for a better birthday treat than to debate this issue with the Minister and with everyone else who has shown such a huge interest in the Bill this afternoon. When the Bill first came before the House, the Conservatives were clear that we support the innovation that underpins sustainable aviation fuel. Aviation matters enormously to this country: for families, for trade, for connectivity and for our standing as a global hub. The challenge has never been whether to decarbonise aviation, but how we do so without damaging competitiveness or pricing ordinary passengers out of flying. From the very beginning, we set a clear test.”
“We will continue to scrutinise the framework carefully as it develops, but on the fundamental point that British passengers’ money should back British production, the Government have adopted the Conservative position. Perhaps if they listen to us a little more often, they might find the turbulence a great deal lighter.”
“The wider point, to return to the Lords amendments we are debating, is to ensure that the economic value of decarbonisation, which the British state is mandating through the legislation we pass in this Parliament, actually benefits British producers, British researchers, British engineers, and the incredible array of innovators and talent we have here in this country. With these amendments, the Bill is closer to meeting the test we established at the beginning of the first debate: that the sustainable aviation fuel policy the Government are pushing should reduce emissions while reinforcing the UK’s industrial base, safeguarding competitiveness and supporting high-skilled employment across the country. Indeed, our position remains clear: environmental responsibility, along with economic realism. That will be what protects competitiveness.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his kind birthday wishes. We do support the SAF mandate. We do support the decarbonisation of air travel, as well as other means of travel, but it has to be done in a way that is economically viable not just to the industry but to all of us who ultimately pay to fly—or to go on a train or a ship, or whatever it might be—through the fares we pay. That is why the Opposition have been so laser-focused on the direct impacts on fare payers, as well as on the wider industry.”
“I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is correct that we did not pass the legislation during our time in government. No Government can do everything during their time in power. As we are having a fair debate here, will he at least accept that an enormous amount of work was done by the previous Government, which led to this Government being able to bring forward this Bill so quickly in the first Session of this Parliament?”
“The Iranian regime ignored the joint comprehensive plan of action, which completely failed. The Iranian regime’s terror activities have reached these shores, and while we meet here this afternoon, the Iranian regime’s rockets rain down on our allies across the middle east. That includes Hezbollah’s rockets into Israel. Will the Prime Minister clearly set out the evidence underpinning his view that the Iranian regime is in any way, shape or form interested in coming to the negotiating table?”
“Has the potential long-term impact on light dues been assessed? Avoiding increases business costs is critical, and I am sure we want to avoid imposing a greater financial burden on shipping businesses. The general lighthouse authorities have centuries of history, illustrating—some might say illuminating—their effectiveness in upholding the safety of mariners. It is essential that the Government act as the steward of this history and ensure that they remain operationally and financial viable.”
“As the former maritime Minister said in the debate on the 2024 Order, “This…does not expose the Treasury or the Department, because these are effectively loans to be paid back.” —[ Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 30 October 2024; c. 6.] Although I am sure that the Minister is confident in the GLAs’ ability to manage their finances, in increasing the borrowing limits through 10 statutory instruments, has any assessment been made of the financial security of the organisations? For example, I understand that the minimum general lighthouse fund cash reserves are set at £20 million to cover costs. While the current level is greater than that sum, will the Treasury need to make any changes? Has the Department for Transport engaged with the lighthouse authorities to ascertain their confidence in paying back the borrowing?”
“It is a tremendous legacy of British maritime history, and given the importance of the maritime sector, it is right that the GLAs have the resources they need to ensure safe passage for vessels. In this case, I am aware that the draft order relates to a programme of vessel replacement needed due to many of them reaching the end of their service life. Having working vessels is of course an expense it is necessary to meet if the GLAs are to operate effectively, but can the Minister assure us that the types of vessel procured will be cost effective and that there will be no onerous procurement criteria that could increase costs? I understand that there is no direct provision for UK Government funding, but that the Department for Transport covers the financial risk of the GLAs defaulting on their repayments.”
“It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am generally cautious about borrowing beyond our means, but on every organisation significant costs are sometimes imposed that require capital spending. The general lighthouse authorities have been looking after our seafarers for hundreds of years and do critical work to maintain their safety and welfare. Even though they may no longer have the same number of almshouses to maintain, or responsibilities for mariners’ widows and children to fulfil, they still play an enormous role in maintaining the operational network of aids to navigation around the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.”
“Estimates out there suggest that this change from section 2 to section 1 would lead to a similar reduction in the number of people wishing to put themselves through the process of renewing their firearms licence.”
“They do sell not just shotguns, rifles, cartridges and ammunition, but the clothing ranges, boots, glasses, ear defenders and everything else that goes into shooting at large. That would be at risk if the change that is being consulted on by the Government, and that this petition is about, goes ahead. As others have said, this change could lead to a huge number of people saying, “It’s just not worth it any more.” They would not put themselves through the process of renewing a shotgun certificate or even getting one in the first place. After the last significant reform of the licensing regime—back in 1988—there was a decline of about a third in the number of participants in shooting.”
“It is about things like deer management, and if we did not have deer management and people willing to get a firearms licence to stop our countryside being overrun—people who often get called out by the police themselves to deal with a deer that might have been knocked over in the road and need humanely dispatching—we would be in great difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) concluded by saying that the wider economic impact is not just on those who hold a shotgun certificate or a firearms licence; it is also on people such as David and Nicky Florent in my constituency, who run—despite its name, it is in Buckinghamshire—the Oxford Gun Company in the village of Oakley, which is a gun shop and shooting ground.”
“Some 477 constituents signed the petition, and I have had many emails from fellow shooters in the constituency, as well as from those considering taking up shooting, having their first go at a clay ground and applying for a shotgun certificate. Indeed, I cannot exemplify the importance of shooting to my constituency better than my constituent Stuart, who said that you only need to spot the game feeders in the fields from any train passing through Buckinghamshire to see how important shooting sports are in the constituency. Of course, it is not just shooting sports that would be affected by the changes in the petition. As others have said eloquently throughout the debate, yes, it is about shooting sports; yes, it is about the clay grounds; yes, it is about game shooting; but it is also about farmers, pest control and predator control.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to the deer management course that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) also attended last December, which was hosted by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. For transparency, I should also say that I am a member of the Countryside Alliance and of BASC, and both those memberships predate my election to this place. I myself shoot, and I am a shotgun certificate holder. However, I have come to this debate to talk not about my own passion for shooting—even though I am my own MP—but about the importance that shooting has for my constituency.”
“This matters to people who shoot, no matter where they live. They might go to a game shoot or a clay ground in the countryside but live in our cities. This is far bigger than just a rural issue.”
“The Minister should look at the bigger picture—where we have significant change to the policing landscape—and pause, look at the evidence, and understand the potential for significant damage to both safety and the economic survival of this sport and of wider conservation activity. Finally, a lot has been said about this being an urban versus rural matter, but I do not believe that it is. My constituency is entirely rural. Yes, there are many shotgun certificate holders and firearms licence holders in my constituency, and there are clay grounds, many shoots and lots of farms. But if we look at the number of certificates issued across the country, this is just as important to many people who live in our cities. Every year, 21,000 certificates are issued by the Metropolitan police to London residents.”
“I urge the Minister to stop and reflect on what she has heard this afternoon and what the shooting community in my—and I dare say in everybody’s—constituency is saying on this matter. As she goes through the process of reforming police forces, per se, she should perhaps pause any conversation on the changes until we know what those police forces will actually look like. I have heard arguments on the other side of the debate about a national firearms licensing scheme, and particularly that the existing system has local officers who, although they cannot know every certificate holder or licence holder in their constituency, are closer to the people they are licensing.”
“But as others have said, some forces have been found considerably wanting when it comes to new grants and renewal lead times. On the other side of the coin is the enormous financial cost to our economy: shooting is worth £3.3 billion each year in its own right and generates £9.3 billion of wider benefits. My constituent Scott believes that merging sections 1 and 2 could cost £1 billion a year and 20,000 jobs, and evidence from the Countryside Alliance looking specifically at alignment between sections 2 and 1 shows that it would reduce the total value by £2.38 billion in the first year, with a loss of between 13,600 and 17,400 full-time jobs. This debate is looking at a live consultation.”
“The significance of that, which I do not think anyone else has mentioned in the debate, is that that falls far below the Health and Safety Executive’s intervention threshold of one in a million. That is not to say that there cannot be proportionate, evidence-based reforms to the licensing system. In many respects, there probably should be, to tweak it and make it safer. But what I do not see—I do not think anybody in the debate has advocated this—is that merging section 2 into section 1 will solve any problems or make anybody in our great country safer. It would, however, bring considerable cost and bureaucracy. I am lucky, with Thames Valley, to have one of the better-performing police force firearms licensing departments in the country.”
“We all want a safe system; for those of us who have the privilege of owning a shotgun or a rifle—I do not have a firearms licence, and I have never applied for one—it is imperative that there is a safe system underpinning that, because it protects those who own them as well as those who do not. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) went through the statistics in considerable detail, so I will not repeat them. It is worth acknowledging that our hearts go out to anyone who is affected by or a victim of a tragedy at the hands of someone wielding a firearm illegitimately—whether they somehow cheated the system and got a certificate or not. However, fatalities involving legally held firearms are extraordinarily rare: around one in 15 million annually, as other Members have said.”
“I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman; he puts it very well. Someone said earlier that holding a shotgun or a rifle is a privilege. Yes, it is a massive privilege, but it also comes with an absolutely ginormous responsibility, and I believe that everybody who legally holds a shotgun certificate or firearms licence takes that responsibility very seriously. They have often been taught from a young age the proper safety protocols around handling a firearm, and the importance of keeping it locked away and of cleaning it, which is important for one’s own safety when handling a firearm—if it is not clean, that can lead to significant problems. We should acknowledge just how seriously legitimate, legal, properly licensed shotgun and rifle owners in this country take their responsibilities.”
“The latest Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders data reveals that EVs are losing market share. The president of Hyundai’s European arm has been quoted in The Telegraph as arguing that the ZEV mandate no longer makes sense and needs to be rethought. Without change, he said, the policy could cause manufacturers to become loss-making and prompt some to stop selling both internal combustion engine and electric cars in the United Kingdom. When will the Government understand that people just do not want EVs, and no amount of taxpayer-funded bribes to try to make them do so are going to work?”
“Ministers do not want to listen to Hyundai, so let us try Stellantis. It has announced €22.2 billion of charges as it scales back its electric vehicle production, and its CEO has stated: “What we are announcing…is an important strategic reset of our business model...to put our customer preferences back at the centre of what we do”. We are all sent here to represent our constituents, so why will the Government not listen to consumers, set the car market free and adopt the Conservative plan to scrap the ZEV mandate?”
“Pharmacy First was undoubtedly game changing. When I visit pharmacies around my constituency, many of them are keen to expand Pharmacy First and to offer more lines. However, I can give an example similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) gave. The people at Wendover Pharmacy took me through their books, and on many of the services that they offer, they either barely make any money or make a loss. The Minister said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) that pricing was set with the sector, so clearly something is going wrong, because the experience of Wendover Pharmacy is quite different.”
“I do not think the Minister fully appreciates just how much communities threatened by large-scale solar up and down the country feel that they are having things done to them and not with them. The No. 1 complaint that I have heard from campaign groups represented by Stop Oversized Solar up and down the land, including some in my constituency, concerns the threat to food security. When they try to engage, they keep being given this bogus figure of 1%, but if we carry on in the direction the Government are going in, by 2035 an area the size of Greater London will be covered in solar. That is equivalent to nearly 2,000 farms capable of producing 2 billion loaves of bread. When are we going to get the truth about the threat to food security from solar?”
“Our cheap power plan focuses on bringing down the underlying cost of electricity, saving the public sector and everyone else vastly more in the process, and doing so without costing taxpayers a penny. This Government are more focused on their own internal politics than on delivering the one thing people need: energy that is reliable, abundant and, above all, affordable for all our constituents.”
“Labour promised to cut energy bills by £300; instead, bills have risen by £190 since Labour came to power. That is the reality behind its rhetoric, and that is the reality every family up and down the land understands as they open their energy bills. At the centre of all this sits Great British Energy, an £8 billion taxpayer-funded quango that was meant to lower bills for everyone. So far, all we have is the promise of a highly paid chief executive, a new board and more bureaucracy. Why do we need another expensive state body to do what the market and existing institutions should already be delivering? That is the fundamental difference in approach.”
“The extension of contracts for difference from 15 years to 20 years means that households will be tied into paying these costs for even longer, regardless of whether circumstances change. At the same time, the Government have relaxed planning requirements so some offshore wind projects can bid before planning consent has even been secured. All of this points to the root problem, which is that electricity prices are already too high, and the policies pursued by this Government are only pushing them higher. Doubling down on carbon taxes and loading more expensive wind and solar on to a system that is not ready risks driving up costs for both households and industry, making British business less competitive and leaving families to pick up the bill. Families are being asked to pay more, not less.”
“Alongside the local power plan, the results of allocation round 7 this morning raise serious questions that the Secretary of State has yet to answer. In the Government’s own press release, they rely on “internal analysis” to claim that additional solar and onshore wind procured through AR7 could lower bills in the early 2030s, but that analysis has not been published. It looks only at a narrow scenario, excludes wider system costs and does not give a full picture of future bill levels. If Ministers are so confident of their figures, why will they not release the full impact assessment? What exactly is the Secretary of State hiding? AR7 also underlines the direction of travel under this Government: longer contracts, higher strike prices and greater risk locked in for bill payers.”
“Instead, the Government are asking taxpayers to fund small-scale projects which, optimistically, will provide minor reductions in costs for a few local buildings while leaving families and businesses across this country still paying higher prices. There are no guarantees that the £1 billion committed through the Great British Energy scheme will deliver lower bills, no clear test of value for money and no convincing explanation of why subsidising small, piecemeal projects offers a better return for taxpayers than backing affordable, large-scale nuclear generation that would genuinely move the dial. Spread thinly across the country over several years and funnelled through yet another Whitehall-controlled body, this is not a serious intervention, but a press release masquerading as an energy strategy.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether the Secretary of State is at the Dispatch Box as the Energy Secretary or rehearsing for a future move to perhaps No. 11. Once again, he is more distracted by personal ambition than concerned about the bleak reality families are facing across the country with crippling energy bills. Today’s announcement is being sold as a bold shift of power to local communities, but cutting through the fluff, this plan does not make electricity cheaper and it does not offer value for the taxpayer. This plan does nothing to reduce wholesale prices, nothing to fix the grid connection backlog and nothing to tackle the structural costs.”
“The Foreign Secretary rightly spoke of the need to halt arms flows, and I listened very carefully to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). May I focus on one specific country? There is significant evidence of the use of Chinese-manufactured arms, such as the FH-95 strategic drone, in Sudan. How much time was dedicated to raising that matter with the Chinese during the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China? Has the Foreign Secretary spoken to her Chinese counterparts about it? What reassurance can she give the House that it has not become an inconvenient truth in the Government’s attempt to reset the relationship with China?”
“I very much welcome the plan. I see the Minister’s commitment to it, and in the interests of all our constituents, I absolutely hope that it works and comes through. In the last Parliament, I did a lot of work on the all-party parliamentary group on minimally invasive cancer therapies—the group no longer exists—which, notwithstanding the commitment to innovation and technology that the Minister has outlined, is one area I have not heard much about. Could she outline to the House how this plan will bring through faster, and on a less of a postcode lottery basis, the new minimally invasive therapies?”
“The right hon. Gentleman, with his Committee, has given a thoughtful series of recommendations. On his specific point about trade remedies and countries that are over-subsidising, such as China, and the electric vehicles flooding our and European markets, how much of that is being led, in terms of joined-up Government, by a foreign policy that just does not recognise economic security and which prioritised, as in the Prime Minister’s recent trip to China, trying to reset relations with some countries while regarding economic security as an inconvenient truth?”
“To conclude, for road safety measures, I believe that the Government must bring drivers with them in any changes and measures that they take. Where drivers do not feel that those road safety measures actually help them—such as with 20 mph limits—they will not take them seriously. This is a strategy that must be delivered, and delivered well, but with drivers, not just against them.”
“Among the youngest cohort of drivers—those most likely to get into terrible accidents—the vast majority of cases involved illegal drugs only. While there are sensible proposals within this strategy about testing and looking at further fines, the Minister must work with the police to ensure they are doing more to target drug driving and not relying on tests after the fact. In addition, I hope the Government strongly consider any further measures that stop those committing these terrible crimes on our roads from being able to avoid punishment, whether that be due to testing or statutory limits, which, in particular cases, have enabled those who have committed the worst crimes on our roads to avoid the full weight of the law.”
“Also, I understand that the Government’s police performance framework says that there is a target to “decrease” the number of “People killed or seriously injured in road traffic collision”, but does not actually say what that target will be. To improve enforcement, we must have a targeted response to problem drivers, who put everyone on the road at risk. One issue that demands an even greater focus is drug driving. The Government’s consultation acknowledges that some police forces are arresting more drug drivers than drink drivers, and that there has been a steady increase in the number of people convicted. Although that represents some progress, I would call on the Government to go further. Data shows that, in 2023, 22% of deceased drivers tested positive for impairment drugs, an increase from 11% in 2014.”
“Unfortunately, since the Government released the strategy, we have seen further decreases in police officer numbers, with a decrease of more than 1,300 officers between September 2024 and September 2025 and further decreases occurring before that date. How can we expect the Government to enforce our wide range of existing road laws, let alone new ones, if there are insufficient police officers? It would be useful to know what discussions the Department has had with the Home Office to ensure that sufficient officers will be allocated to police our existing road laws and any additional ones the Government might bring forward.”
“In considering the Government’s road safety announcements, the Opposition support and welcome some elements of the strategy, while the effectiveness of other measures remains in question. We strongly support measures such as stronger fines for those who commit egregious offences and action to combat ghost number plates. However, the overwhelming sentiment, which I hope the Minister adopts when putting into practice the policies set out in the strategy, is about enforcement. One of the worst things to hear when there has been an accident is that it involved people breaking existing laws, putting themselves and others in danger.”
“First and foremost, I thank Members from across the House for taking part in this debate, and I particularly pay tribute to all those mentioned who tragically lost their lives or faced life changing injuries in road accidents. It is right that we do all we can to stop such terrible incidents occurring again in the future. The ability to travel in our cars and on the roads is integral to the vast majority of people’s everyday lives. Not only is it the most popular form of transport, but it is a lifeline for many people, so all motorists and every other road user, whether they are lorry drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders or others, deserve safe journeys.”
“Industrial electricity prices here are around four times higher than in the United States, and roughly 50% more than in France and Germany. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) has rightly said in other debates, Government policy risks accelerating the deindustrialisation of this country, from Stoke in the Potteries to the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire.”
“The changes are made using powers under the Energy Act 2023 and are intended to strengthen the British industry supercharger package. The stated aim is to lower electricity costs for the most energy-intensive sectors, reduce the risk of carbon leakage, and help retain manufacturing investment and jobs in the United Kingdom. The Opposition will always welcome measures that provide greater clarity and modest additional support for industries under pressure. However, it is impossible to consider this instrument in isolation from the wider context. Britain’s industrial electricity prices are among the highest in the world. On a per-kilowatt-hour basis, our electricity costs are the most expensive in the G7 and the European Union—around 46% higher than the median.”
“As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Energy-intensive industries have long been the backbone of our industrial economy. From steel and chemicals to ceramics and refining, these sectors provide skilled jobs, anchor local communities and guarantee our economic security, yet they are operating in an increasingly hostile environment driven largely by the cost of energy. The draft regulations will make limited but important amendments to the energy-intensive industry electricity support payments regime. Specifically, as the Minister says, they will increase the compensation available under the network charging compensation scheme from 60% to 90% from April 2026 and will extend the application window from one month to two.”