Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) not just on securing this important debate, but on the powerful way in which she opened it. It can be described only as a sobering debate that requires the Government’s full attention, and that must come not just from the Department for Transport but, as others said, from other Departments, too.

I thank the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) and for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) for sharing their personal experiences. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should have to face what they described on the streets of this country.

I equally agree with the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) that so-called low-level offences should be stamped down on incredibly forcibly. He is right—I have long argued along similar lines—that it is essential because so-called low-level crimes lead to more serious and potentially fatal crimes in the future. It is therefore absolutely essential that they are clamped down upon incredibly hard.

The method by which anyone, and particularly women, chooses to travel should not be dictated by how safe they feel. Everyone should feel safe walking, running, cycling, wheeling, driving or riding a horse—we had a good debate about horse riding last week, and it should have been added to the title of this debate, because it is incredibly important in rural communities such as mine.

It is clear that the challenges of securing women’s safety are an obstacle to an array of activities that women might want to do, but feel unable to do so. It is incredibly concerning that, according to Cycling UK, 23% of women cite harassment or intimidation as a reason not to cycle. The data on running is even starker. Research published in 2023 found that almost three quarters of women in the United Kingdom change their outdoor activity routines during winter, with many doing so because they feel unsafe.

Separately, survey data from SportsShoes.com, which is not a website I was particularly familiar with until I began my research for this debate, found that 48% of women had felt unsafe while running, compared with 36% of men. Similarly, 70% of women had experienced an intimidating incident while running, including 22% saying that they had been followed and 21% reporting that they had been beeped at by someone in a car. Such behaviour on the streets of this country is deeply unacceptable.

Even though it is challenging to point to a single source, data from a variety of organisations highlight that a considerable number of women experience behaviour that is not acceptable—indeed, it is clearly despicable—in our society. The idea that someone who is merely trying to run or cycle should be followed or harassed is clearly wrong and must be stopped.

Therefore, to address both the safety of women while cycling, wheeling, walking or running, and concerns about harassment, we must make sure that we embed enforcement as the underlying principle of safety strategies. That must involve having sufficient numbers of police officers located in the areas where women feel most unsafe. That is a challenge, given that we are currently seeing a reduction in the number of police officers on our streets. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) gave a particularly stark example. The thought that a park such as Richmond Park, which is so suited for walking, running, cycling and all sorts of activities, is no longer to be policed should horrify all of us in this House, no matter what political party we belong to.

Improving the safety of women should also involve following up on incidents properly. For example, a small minority of drivers demonstrate truly unsafe behaviour and put women at risk. We have strong rules about what constitutes dangerous driving, and those rules must be enforced where people have broken the law. However, the rules for dangerous driving must apply equally to those who behave in an unacceptable way by verbally abusing people, beeping their horn or whatever it might be.

To do that, we need effective funding for our police forces, which is why my party has specifically said that we would provide £800 million to deploy 10,000 new police officers in hotspot areas where crime is most likely to occur. I appreciate that hotspot policing might be less impactful for groups such as cyclists, who travel much greater distances than other people, but in urban environments or in places such as Richmond Park, which we have already heard about, there are often particular locations and areas that dissuade people from running and walking. The more we can do to target those locations—where crime, particularly crime against women, is more likely—the more we can instil trust and a sense that such activities are safe.

Therefore, can the Minister say what cross-Government work has been conducted by her Department to prioritise the safety of women and girls when they are engaged in active travel and to feed into the Government’s strategy on preventing violence against women and girls? Also, can she make a commitment that her Department will engage with local police forces to ensure that they are monitoring areas where women feel most unsafe?

Also, I understand that the consultation for the third cycling and walking investment strategy says that

“Investment in well-lit, safe, high-quality walking, wheeling and cycling routes increases feelings of personal safety, as well as improving road safety”.

I think we can all agree with the sentiment and the principle that we want particular areas to have improved lighting, in order to improve safety. As with many aspects of road safety, targeted measures that focus on the most dangerous areas will rightly have support from Members across this House.

I am aware that issues such as improved lighting form part of the much broader calls for clear targets on what organisations such as Cycling UK describe as high-quality cycling infrastructure, which are made alongside calls for appropriate levels of spending. That is all important. And from our time together on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament, I know the Minister is a long-standing supporter of active travel in general and of cycling in particular.

There is always a difficult balance to be drawn between making our roads safe for cyclists and making them too difficult for other modes of transport to use, or even prohibiting other modes of transport. Nevertheless, I hope the Government can find the appropriate balance by making cycling safer for women without making it more difficult for those same women to use their cars for other journeys.

One request from Cycling UK and a range of other road safety organisations is to improve understanding of the 2022 changes to the highway code. These organisations have been clear about welcoming the changes as an important step in improving the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, but the knowledge gap remains in the public’s awareness of these changes.

All in all, as I said at the start of my remarks, this needs a whole-Government approach. The safety of women cannot be put on the back-burner or into a footnote; it must take centre stage across multiple Government Departments. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s commitments this afternoon on how she will be leading that in the Department for Transport and across the whole of Government.

Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Greg Smith Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

This morning I met Roly May, the landlord of the Russell Arms pub in Butlers Cross. Government Members might recognise it: it is the closest pub to Chequers, where they can drown their sorrows after an audience with the Prime Minister. The pub has seen as £17,500 business rate increase. I have heard similar horror stories from pubs such as the Cock and Rabbit in The Lee, the Dinton Hermit in Ford and many others. Will the Minister at least accept that there is no more money to squeeze out of pubs that are absolutely on the brink of financial catastrophe under this Government?

[Dan Tomlinson]

This Government understand the pressures that hospitality businesses, and pubs in particular, are facing. One of the pressures, which I have heard about very clearly, relates to the fact that the previous Government did not invest in our energy security, which would have ensured that businesses and families had lower energy bills and certainty about future bills, and as a result those businesses and families have seen their energy bills surge. In 2022, under the previous Government, we saw inflation hit 11%, and it is things like that that have made it difficult for small businesses up and down the country.

Horse and Rider Road Safety

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Too often when we talk about rural activities, too many dismiss them as relics of a bygone age. Those of us who represent rural constituencies know that nothing could be further from the truth. Horse riding remains a vital living part of rural life, deeply embedded in the culture, economy and daily rhythms of our communities. That reality makes it all the more important that we take seriously the safety of the horses and riders on our roads.

My constituency is overwhelmingly rural—home to many stud farms, riding schools and equestrian centres that rely on local road networks as part of their everyday operation. Riders frequently use narrow country lanes, often with no pavements, limited passing places and little room for error. Such roads were not designed for modern traffic speeds or volumes, yet they are shared by horses, cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. For less experienced riders, these interactions can be especially intimidating. Horses can be easily startled by sudden movement or noise, and situations can escalate quickly if drivers approach at speed or pass too closely.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In Buckinghamshire there are many single-lane country roads, which is where many of the accidents occur. It would be wonderful to highlight that and how to address that moving forward.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. She is absolutely right and I wish her a speedy recovery from her own horse-related incident. What might seem a minor lapse in judgment from behind the wheel has serious and sometimes devastating consequences for riders and horses, given that the rider has limited ability to control a frightened horse.

A further recurring challenge in rural areas is poor visibility. Constituents have contacted me about near misses on lanes with high grass verges and dense hedgerows, especially during the spring and summer. Such conditions can severely restrict sight lines, meaning that horses and vehicles may appear suddenly, giving drivers little opportunity to reduce speed or pass with the care that safety demands. I was pleased to see that Buckinghamshire council, a council I know the Government are keen to learn from, has worked constructively with the British Horse Society to introduce simple and effective measures in partnership.

Horse riding is far from a niche pursuit. The British Equestrian Trade Association estimates that more than 1.8 million people ride regularly, with around 3 million participating overall. For many rural communities, riding is a source of wellbeing, fitness, employment and social connection. Yet all that is undermined when riders and their horses feel unsafe simply travelling on the road. One death is always one too many, and although departmental data records a relatively small number of fatalities in recent years, there remain far too many serious incidents. The British Horse Society’s “Horse i” app recorded that 58 horses were killed in equine road-related incidents, with more than 3,100 incidents in 2024 alone. Many of those involved drivers passing too closely, with devastating consequences.

It has been said in this debate that changes to the highway code under the previous Government significantly strengthened protections for horses and riders. The introduction of the hierarchy of road users was important, but the reforms went further, including clearer guidance on passing distances and how drivers should behave when encountering horses at junctions. Although the current Government have published their road safety strategy, it is difficult to see horse riding as a clear priority within it. Despite describing the strategy as being “for everyone”, horses receive only limited mention and there were no references at all in the consultation to proposed changes to motoring-offence penalties. That raises fair questions about how the Government intend to strengthen protections for riders in practice. I would welcome greater clarity from the Minister on that point, as well as an explanation about why the THINK! road safety campaign budget was cut by £1.2 million last year.

Could the Minister set out what specific campaigns the Government intend to introduce to make sure that drivers are aware of their responsibilities when encountering horses—particularly in rural areas, where these interactions are most common? Ultimately, rules are meaningful only if they are understood and enforced. Dangerous driving that intimidates or endangers horses and riders must be taken seriously, and penalties should properly reflect the risk posed by such behaviour.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The NHS will remain free at the point of use for as long as there is a Labour Government. That is not something that Reform is able to promise. As usual, Reform does one thing and says another. In Kent, the party said that it would find efficiencies to keep down council tax, but it has not found a single one and that is why the 2 million people who live in Reform council areas will get a council tax rise next year.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

T9. With reports that the Chancellor is eyeing up doubling council tax for bands G and H, can she tell me whether she really considers the family who wrote to me yesterday—both have mid-range salaries, are fully eligible for child benefit and bought a home for just shy of £500,000 in 2013—rich enough to see their council tax double to £800 a month?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Under the last Government, time and again, council tax went up and up and the funding for local councils went down and down. We have left councils on their knees, struggling when it comes to special educational needs, temporary accommodation and funding for homelessness and adult social care. This Government will make the right decisions when it comes to funding our councils and having a fair property taxation system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will know that this Government have already invested through the National Wealth Fund in the tin mine in his constituency, bringing good-quality jobs paying decent wages to the people of Cornwall, as advocated by Cornish MPs. However, there is more we can do through the National Wealth Fund, including investing in our ports, which is absolutely vital for clean, cheap energy and for creating good jobs in this country, including in Cornwall.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

A recent freedom of information request has revealed that, for a number of schemes, HMRC has settled with large corporations for just 15% of what was owed. With the loan charge review ongoing, does the Chancellor agree with me that individuals should be treated no differently from the large corporations for which this precedent has been set?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he has engaged with me about the loan charge previously. As he knows, there is an independent review of the loan charge at the moment, and I think it is important that I as a Minister do not comment on that. Let the independent reviewer complete his work and report back to us as a Government.

Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

My ask will be a bit stronger than that. I might get my backside kicked, but hey, it will not be the first time. I will ask the Government to insist on legislation that changes the structures to what we are all crying out for. It will not cost the Government a ha’penny to provide services to the people who actually need them.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The number of banks that have left my constituency has driven me mad: in the 336 square miles of Mid Buckinghamshire, only one high street bank is left standing. One of the most absurd things that I have heard multiple banks say over the years is: “Oh, but there’s a bank just a few miles away.” That might be technically true on Google Maps, but to pick somewhere close to my constituency entirely at random—I see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in her place—in High Wycombe it takes an enormous amount of time compared with how it looks on Google Maps to get into the town centre and back again. If one bit of the criteria needs to change, it is that banks should not be able just to say, “Oh, there’s a bank a few miles away.” They need to look at the time it takes in real life to get from a village to a nearby town.

[Ian Lavery]

It feels really strange to agree with so many Conservative Members—it does not make me terribly comfortable, but it shows the power of the argument and, importantly, the support that it has across the House, which is relatively rare. The number of interventions that I have taken has meant that lots of the points in my speech have already been made. I will try to be as quick as possible.

Link does a decent job under the criteria that have been set, which really need to be changed. Link can pause a bank closure but cannot stop one, or set its own timetable for the establishment of banking hubs. Moreover, there is no provision for the FCA to initiate retrospective assessments of the need for banking hubs in areas where banks have left the high street, resulting in banking deserts, many years ago, prior to the 2023 Act.

The Government simply must take a fresh look at this issue and bring forward the necessary legislation to force the banking industry to fulfil its social responsibilities. The customers and communities from whom they have extracted so much profit over the years deserve nothing less. We should not forget that these are the very same banks and financial institutions that we had to bail out in 2008-09 because of their reckless pursuit of ever-increasing profits. They then made fortunes through the quantitative easing that the Bank of England initiated to save the economy after the crash that they caused. They are now abandoning the very taxpayers who bailed them out.

As I mentioned, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of banks on our high streets. In 1986 there were 21,643 bank and building society branches in the UK; by 2024, around 6,800 were left. Clearly, the switch to online banking has had an impact, but even those of us who use online banking sometimes need the certainty that a branch offers. The House of Lords April 2025 report “Closure of bank branches: Impact on rural communities” quotes Sarah Coles, a senior personal finance analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown:

“The closure of bank branches is a vicious circle. The more that close, the more people move online, so there are fewer people relying on high street branches, so more of them close. The pandemic picked up the pace around this ever-decreasing circle, closing more branches temporarily and causing online banking to spike.”

The banks say that fewer people are using branches. If a high street branch closes, people cannot use it, as it is not there any more. Does that not result in an automatic reduction in usage? This is not rocket science. It is a vicious circle, which is why we need change from the Government.

Northumberland, my home county, has lost more than half of its bank branches since 2015. In my constituency of Blyth and Ashington, the large villages have been left without high street banks for more than a quarter of a decade. Blyth, Northumberland’s largest town, will be left without a high street bank in a few months’ time, though a building society will remain—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford).

Growing the UK Economy

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. These projects have to benefit local communities, local workers and local businesses, as well as others. There can be no greater advocate of that approach than the Mayor of Greater Manchester. Between his work and good offices and the Government’s approach to social value and procurement, I am sure that will be able to deliver that outcome.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Given that construction of the Oxford to Milton Keynes section of East West Rail was completed when Hugh Merriman, the last Conservative rail Minister, pulled the last rail clip into place, it is a bit rich of the Chief Secretary to try to claim credit for it. In one breath he said that he wanted to work in partnership with local leaders, and in the next he reheated the idea of a top-down, Government-knows-best Ox-Cam arc, rebranding it the Oxford to Cambridge growth commission. Local leaders in Buckinghamshire have consistently said no to that top-down spatial strategy, choosing instead to grow jobs locally, including at Westcott space cluster. Does he really want to work with local leaders in Buckinghamshire, or does he just want to tell them what to do?

[Darren Jones]

The hon. Member is what we call a blocker. That is not in the nature of this Government. We will get on and deliver.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

At Treasury questions yesterday, I raised with the hon. Gentleman the case of Upper Peppershill farm in Long Crendon, a small 380-acre arable farm in my constituency, which the shadow Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition visited a few weeks ago. The family have calculated that if they borrow the money to pay this new tax, it will take them 40 years to pay it back. What does the Minister say to the Seed family in Long Crendon about the tax bill they face?

[James Murray]

It is not appropriate for me, as a Minister, to give specific tax advice to one family, but I will talk about the general principles behind our reform. In fact, I was about to begin setting out some of the detail of our policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is my utter privilege to speak on behalf of my party and 1,500 farmers in Westmorland and Lonsdale. I represent people all the way from the Yorkshire dales and the North Pennines to the Lake District and the Cartmel peninsula.

We are proud of our farmers not just because they feed us and care for our environment, but because they are the stewards of our heritage. When UNESCO awarded the Lake District world heritage site status, it gave as much credit to the farmers as it did to the glaciers that formed the landscape in which we live, which drives a tourism economy with more than 20 million visitors a year. We seriously value our farmers, and they need to hear that, because the tone of the debate—not just today, but over the last few months—has suggested that politicians do not value farmers. However, words are cheap.

[Greg Smith]

I have no doubt about the hon. Gentleman’s personal commitment, but do not the Liberal Democrats have a credibility problem? For all the rhetoric in this Chamber and outside, when they actually get their hands on power in local government, such as in Oxfordshire, they brutally attack their farmers by banning all meat and dairy?

[Tim Farron]

That is nonsense. Wherever Liberal Democrats are in control, we back and support our farmers and are proud to do so.

Talk is cheap, and most people in this House will at some time quite rightly have uttered the sentiment that British farmers are the best in the world, without actually understanding why. It is true that they really are the best in the world, and that is because the way in which our farming economy is structured is based on the family farm. Family farming makes a difference because it has close husbandry, higher environmental standards, higher welfare standards and better quality produce. It is not an accident that British farming is the best in the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Farming is a lonely existence at times, and farmers have traditionally suffered from mental health difficulties. This policy is making things far worse, and for small family farms it really is devastating.

As others in the House have said, tenants have not been taken into account in any of this. The impact of business property relief is far greater than any of us have discussed so far, because it does not just relate to farms. It relates to any unquoted business, which could be a local haulier, an abattoir or a feed merchant. All of these—the tapestry of our agricultural economy—are impacted by these measures. It really is a devastating attack on our way of life.

If we take the Treasury’s figures, which show that £500 million will be taken each year by these taxes, that is £500 million that will no longer be spent in the rural economy. For example, a farmer who wants to expand his livestock herd needs to build a new shed, and that means paying a planning consultant, a construction firm, a mechanic and an electrician. It means a greater feed bill for his new livestock, and he has to buy the livestock. All of those things are part of the wider economy. It is not just the farmers who will be hit by this policy; it is everyone in rural communities.

The Secretary of State told us at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that it will all be fine because farms, under his tutelage, will become more profitable. The only way to make farms profitable that quickly is by greatly increasing food prices. If we are to go down the route of food inflation and of inflation more widely, then fine, but the Government are going to have to explain that to consumers in the supermarket.

[Greg Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as part of Labour Members’ total failure to understand the countryside, they probably do not get that farmers are one of the very few sectors that have to buy retail but sell wholesale?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Farmers are of course price takers, not price setters, and they have always been under great pressure from the retail chain to keep their prices to a minimum, so that we can all enjoy cheaper food. That is a fact of life, and a very difficult challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Callum Anderson]

I would be happy to were there not too little time. These investments are about more than money. They represent a vision for a resilient and sustainable future. On the inheritance tax point, the Government’s approach is balanced and fair.

[Greg Smith]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Callum Anderson]

I will not on this occasion. Just last night, the former Conservative Chancellor Lord Clarke agreed with our approach, saying that he was team Chancellor. He said it was

“a strange exemption…which is why so many rich people buy agricultural land”.

He is not wrong. As others have said, in 2021-22, the top 7% of wealthiest claimants accounted for 40% of the total value of APR, at a cost of £219 million to the taxpayer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said. The majority of claimants will not be affected. Couples inheriting farms can still pass up to £3 million tax-free, and any additional assets will be taxed at half the standard rate, with payments spread over 10 years.

This Government are delivering a new deal—a square deal—for farmers, including measures to ensure that British produce is prioritised in Government procurement, that farmers are not undercut by low-welfare imports and that energy costs are reduced through innovative solutions. Our farmers deserve a Government who listen, support and invest in them, and this Government are committed to doing just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Morris]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She and I must have a slightly different view of a very long time. A few weeks ago is not a very long time for me. I am talking about years in which local farming communities were ignored.

The botched Brexit deal that the Conservative party secured did not do any farmer any favours. Labour is the only party that is genuinely serious about countryside renewal. We cannot pack communities across Northumberland in aspic and pretend that they do not need houses or services. That is why the Conservatives lost. That is why I am here.

[Greg Smith]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Joe Morris]

I have taken plenty of interventions in a short time.

Ultimately, the Government will be judged on the success of our record and whether we can get the farming budget into the pockets of farmers. I have every faith that the Government and DEFRA will do that. I do not believe that the Conservative party could honestly say that it ever trusted its DEFRA Ministers to do the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

I will not take any interventions, but only because other colleagues want to get in.

There are concerns, but I must say that when I met farmers in my constituency recently, they agreed with me that a bigger concern for them, as many colleagues have said, is profitability. The motion could have talked about economic stability for lower inflation and interest rates, and it could have talked about cutting rural crime, which would also cut insurance premiums. If I may say so, I welcome the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 from the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), but there needs to be secondary legislation.

[Greg Smith]

I agree.

[Sam Rushworth]

Thank you. Let us work together.

I am pleased that the Government are defending against floods and disease. I am pleased that we are committed to protecting standards in trade deals. I am pleased that we are committed to getting a veterinary agreement with the EU to cut red tape. I am pleased with the public sector procurement targets. However, we need to do something on rules about food labelling in order to prevent “farmwashing.” We also need to do more to strengthen farmers’ bargaining power with supermarkets. I am pleased with the changes to planning laws that will allow a lot of farmers to invest.

I would just say to my own party and to the Government that we need to bring these forward faster. Farming in my constituency is on life support. There is, in fact, good will towards this Government and what we are trying to do, but we cannot afford to wait another 18 months, particularly for the basic payment scheme transition. We need upland farmers to be able to access the sustainable farming incentives. I know the SFIs are in the pipeline, but they cannot wait 18 months to receive them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] No, we are going to have a little talk now, because this is not fair; I have to get all these other Members in. I understand that these are set questions, but questions and answers should be short—it works both ways—otherwise I cannot get Members in and it makes my job impossible. Please work with me.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The owners of a 380-acre farm in my constituency have worked out that they would have to spend 40 years paying back the money that they would have to borrow because of the changes to agricultural property relief. When will the Chancellor start listening to farmers rather than hiding behind Treasury figures?

[James Murray]

We are taking an approach that balances significant tax relief for family farms with the need to fix the public finances in as fair a way as possible. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the data that the Treasury has put out, based on claims data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It shows how few farms will in fact be affected. The measures are a fair and balanced way to fix the public finances, which we desperately needed to do given our inheritance from the Conservative Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

The Chancellor launched the landmark pensions review in July, which I am leading and which is looking at measures to drive more UK pension investment into the UK economy, boosting growth but also improving pension savers’ outcomes. I know that there is interest in this agenda across the House.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Countryside Alliance research shows that rural households spend up to £800 a year more on fuel than urban households, so further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), will the Chancellor protect rural communities in the Budget tomorrow?

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman is urging me to comment on the Budget, but he will have to wait until tomorrow.