Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

What a weekend, Mr Speaker! Ministers will be hovering by the phone on Monday or Tuesday. What a visual display of success or failure there will be, as the number of holidaymakers heading to the continent ramps up for the summer season. The Government have had two years on this. Multiple Select Committees in the previous Parliament warned that the technology would not be ready, and that the introduction of the system would be a disaster. How on earth have we got to a situation where the Secretary of State is making last-minute dashes to the European Commission and the French Government to try to get a few extra kiosks—for which the technology does not even work—as holidaymakers face chaos this weekend?

[Keir Mather]

That is a very theatrical question from the shadow Minister on the scale of the challenge that we face. I can confirm that the meetings that we are having on EES, both in Government and with our counterparts, are to ensure that we get this right, ahead of the peak period. We have supported the port of Dover and Eurotunnel with £3.5 million each in preparation for EES, and earlier this week, we announced £20 million in funding, subject to the completion of relevant checks, to further support border infrastructure at the port of Dover. We are taking a sober, sensible and non-theatrical approach to getting this right.

[Greg Smith]

I have always enjoyed my exchanges with the Minister. As the nation learned devastatingly last night, trying to defend a single position for a prolonged period does not always have a happy ending. If we get the chaos that is predicted for holidaymakers and freight operators this weekend, will the Government go to the European Union and the French Government and demand that the system be shut down and paused until the technology can be got right?

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I can confirm that I have been clear with Ministers in Government, and that Ministers have been clear with French and EU counterparts, that they should do all they can to avoid disruption, including using the existing flexibilities in EES regulations. We are not being complacent and asking for things retrospectively; we are taking the right steps now to ensure that our juxtaposed controls are prepared. There is £3.5 million to prepare for EES operations, both for the port of Dover, and for Eurotunnel and St Pancras.

Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this urgent question, and Mr Speaker on granting it. There is deep concern across the whole country about the Government’s decision, which particularly affects our coastal communities. That was demonstrated clearly by all Members in the Westminster Hall debate last week, during which the Minister said that he would reflect on what he had heard. He has repeated that today, but from the answers he has given so far, I suggest that he reflects a little harder and with more urgency.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for his tireless work in highlighting these issues. The problem is not speculative; the data revealed by The Times from the MCA survey is clear: this change will decimate the coastguard. The survey showed that across all regions, between 25% and 58% of those who responded said a volunteer model would lead them to quit or reduce their hours, including 56% in the south-east and southern England regions, which cover the busiest stretches of coastline in the UK. A decrease in the number of coastguard officers of this scale would put people’s lives at risk. It is that simple.

Despite knowing that this decision was coming for months, there appears to have been a complete failure by the Department to appreciate and anticipate its impact. Why is that? Why was the impression given that even though it was a tough decision, the coastguard would be able to carry on as normal and there was sufficient support for the changes? Can the Minister explain who within the Department and the MCA knew about the revelations in The Times this week? Why was the MCA allowed to share information with Members in what can only be described as a questionable manner? The data is the data; it is not part of some sort of package.

The first responsibility of Government is to protect the public, but in this matter I fear that they have failed. As we look ahead and approach the height of summer, protecting our waterways is critical, so will the Minister answer a simple question: what will he do urgently and immediately to solve the problem?

[Keir Mather]

On what I am doing personally to solve the problem, the reason that those consultation sessions are not going ahead this week is that I am honouring the commitment I made to the House last week in the Westminster Hall debate in responding to the number of concerns expressed by Members of Parliament about the operational implications of the decision that was taken. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised serious concerns and questions were asked about parliamentary engagement with CROs. Allegations were made that MPs were not granted proper access to engage with CROs prior to the decision being taken. Those things are all of serious concern to me, and that is why this pause has gone ahead.

I question what the shadow Minister says about the data standing alone in the operational judgment that was made. I reiterate that a package of measures enables us to make a decision. It is based on impact assessments, operational evidence and the surveys that he references. The surveys only form a constituent part of that process. The salient point remains that it is right to reflect on the concerns that have been raised across this House and to consider long-term options that will ensure that CROs feel valued and that operational capacity is retained in every part of the United Kingdom, including our rural areas. That is what I am committed to doing.

Coastguard Volunteers: Remuneration and HMRC Guidance

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing today’s debate—quite a feat, given that the Department for Transport was not meant to be answering Westminster Hall debates this week. He managed to secure a debate on an issue that has caused serious concerns not just for our coastal areas across the United Kingdom, but for all of us; I speak as a Member of Parliament representing a seat about as far away from the sea as it is possible to get within England.

The changes to the renumeration of coastguard volunteers have raised fundamental questions about the future of the service, as we have heard clearly from across the House today. I thank my colleagues who have attended the debate to set out those concerns and the scale of the challenges facing the coastguard. Those colleagues included my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who has had to go to run the drop-in event. I welcome his informative comments on the process in the main Chamber, given his constituent’s role in the legal case and the need to get the response to the legal decision right.

The question of how the coastguard operates truly matters. Protecting our coastlines from harm is essential, and the coastguard has played a central role in that over centuries. We must preserve the lives of those who are in danger and support our coastal towns and cities, where upholding safety is a priority. That brings us to the issue underpinning the debate: what happens if we no longer have those volunteers? We know that the 3,000 volunteer staff play a considerable role in protecting the public; it is integral that they remain part of the service.

For as long as the coastguard has existed, there have been questions of remuneration. For example, in 1831, the Admiralty published new regulations as part of a plan for the coastguard to become a reserve for the Royal Navy. It included payments and allowances—a salary of £10 for a chief boatman and £5 for a commissioned boatman. As volunteer servicemen entered the system, the Government provided support to the coastguard and to volunteer lifesaving organisations across the UK. More recently, the 1990s saw the Department conduct internal reviews of the role that auxiliaries should play in the service compared with those working full time.

The relationship between the state and the coastguard has changed throughout the years along with the evolution of its structure, but there has been a principle of ensuring that people can volunteer, while maintaining incentives so that the coastguard is able to operate effectively. Worryingly, the decision that was accepted by the Government, stemming from the court case, completely alters the relationship that has been put in place.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)]

Order. I am about to suspend the sitting due to Divisions in the House. I will aim to come back earlier than 10 minutes after the last Division starts. If the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the shadow Minister, the Minister and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland are here, we will start as quickly as we can, but it will be no later than 10 minutes after the last Division. I remind Members that if they have spoken, they need to come back to the Chamber. If I start slightly earlier, I will give some leeway, but I expect everybody who has spoken to be back in the Chamber 10 minutes after the start of the last Division.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Greg Smith]

Back from the Division break, we can think about the possible impact of the court judgment and the Government’s decision. I put it to the House that it is crazy that the Government have made this decision affecting our brave coastguard rescue officers. We face the prospect later this year of huge numbers of our coastguard personnel leaving because the Government have failed them.

I appreciate that the Minister has reiterated in multiple written answers that this was not a decision that the Government wanted to take. It was taken after a recommendation from the MCA; after engagement through the MCA with the coastguard rescue service—although on the basis of speeches earlier in the debate we can question the veracity of that—over previous months on the implications for the service; and after further conversations with area management teams, senior leadership visits and national representative forums, as well as two all-member surveys, which played a direct part in understanding the impact of the models upon the service.

It is important to reflect on those remarks, because while they show on the face of it that steps were taken, I am unsure of the level of consideration they demonstrate. The Government seem to have sought to understand the models but reverted to the simplest option. There needs to be a comprehensive explanation of the thought processes within the Department. Let us consider the action stemming from the legal decision. What steps were taken to establish a path forward? Can the Minister explain how much time the Government took to analyse the legal decision and whether other bespoke approaches would have been more appropriate?

I acknowledge that the Minister has said that the suggestion came from the MCA and the Government accepted it. However, the MCA’s annual report for 2024-25 highlighted a lack of legal resources within the organisation. To quote one of the priority concerns listed in the annual report, the MCA said that there is a

“lack of lawyer resources to implement legislative change – the ability to bring about legislative change hinges on the availability of scarce lawyer resource. The Agency continues to work with the Department for Transport Legal Team to ensure that it can access necessary resource. Progress is being made but the risk remains current.”

I hope that the Minister can clarify whether that remains the case, because the issue of remuneration and volunteer status is clearly a legal matter that could have consequences for legislation. If the MCA was considering the issue with the Department for Transport legal team, is it right to frame this as a decision merely stemming from the MCA? What legal resources were provided by the Department, and what work did its officials undertake to consider alternative options? I hope that the proposal did not merely stem from the Department’s own legal team.

Furthermore, the Minister’s previous responses referenced the discussions he has had with senior leadership and the surveys that were conducted. But for such a consequential decision, unless I have missed something, the Government have failed to publish significant analysis of the decision’s impact on volunteer numbers. From the outside, the Government seem to have chosen not to fully explain the scope of the options available to them and their full reasoning. That exacerbates worries among hard-working volunteers across the country who know about their loss of pay but get the sense that there is a lack of explanation. That is reflected in the comments of the anonymous volunteer who told the BBC that they thought the choice would

“damage morale and weaken the service”.

I say all this recognising that there is no simple option for the Government, but we cannot ignore the fact that they have taken a decision with possibly serious consequences for an institution with over 200 years of history. Given the reports about the impact of the change, I ask the Minister whether there is anything that can be done to delay it while the Government sort out the mess that many volunteers have identified.

Meanwhile, the Government have known the outcome of the case since January. The judgment on this area of law consisted of just 14 pages; since then, we have not seen anything as detailed from the Government. They should have anticipated the decision from the court, and we believe that they need to put together a solution that does not cause droves of people to leave our coastguard service. The current allowances should not be abolished before that is resolved.

Across the House, it feels like it has been lost on the Government that they have significant powers available to them and they should use those powers to achieve the best outcome for the British people. In this case, that should mean maintaining the existing system until they are confident that they have found a positive way forward that actually works for the safety of our coastlines and the future of our coastguard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It has been announced to great fanfare that East West Rail will be the main transport connection from Cambridgeshire to Bedfordshire, as well as in the other direction to get to the new Universal park. However. if the Government cannot get the bit of East West Rail that has been built operational—we know that that is all down to a row with the unions—what hope does anyone in Cambridgeshire or Bedfordshire, or anyone wanting to go to Universal, have of being able to travel there by rail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

More than two thirds of driving test centres have a maximum 24-week waiting time, and the average waiting time for a test is 22.3 weeks—a month longer than in July ’24. For all the Government’s talk of recruiting new examiners, the instructor recruitment conversion rate is just 4%. When will the Government stop talking about taking action and actually get a grip of the driving test wait time crisis?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is continuing driving examiner recruitment, with 1,577 full-time driving examiners in May 2026—an increase of 147 compared with May 2025, when there were 1,430 full-time equivalents.

Draft Clean Air Zones Central Services (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Wishart.

Across the country, drivers, particularly of older, often less expensive vehicles, have been hurt by the fees imposed by low emission zones and so-called clean air zones. Between ultra low emission zones and clean air zones, it is estimated that over £1 billion has been extracted from the public who are just trying to get about and live their lives: travelling to work, taking the kids to school, completing the family shop, getting to medical appointments or visiting relatives. Despite clear guidance that clean air zones are not to be used to raise revenue, in practice they are used for precisely that, generating significant money for the authorities that will be impacted by today’s regulations.

If we consider two of the largest authorities impacted by the changes, Bristol’s clean air zone brought in over £22 million in 2024-25 from daily charges and penalty notices. That brought a transfer to Bristol’s reserves of over £16 million, which contributed to the spending of £14 million on other transport projects.

Meanwhile, a 2026 report by Birmingham city council showed that the authority had spent over £92 million from net surplus revenue since its scheme was put in place. Of that £92 million, over £73 million was spent on active travel and transforming the city centre. While these can be worthy goals, it reflects a complete disregard for the motorist, with only £10 million being spent on issues such as road safety. That is indicative of the fact that authorities have repeatedly used clean air zones as a mechanism for funding other projects. The Minister will no doubt recognise that is not the purpose of the system but a by-product of it, and one that these regulations will impact.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s speech, in which he extolled the virtues of clean air. Getting clean air is a worthy goal, but it is not the stick that works on this occasion; it is the carrot. It is using technology as our friend—even modern diesel cars are cleaner than their predecessors. It is the evolution of technology and leaning on future technologies, from battery electric to synthetic fuels and more, that will deliver clean air, not just punishing people for what they happen to be able to afford today.

The draft regulations will impose a fee on authorities that use the central services function operated by the Government. On the face of it, there should be nothing to be worried about. According to the Government, there will be no impact on motorists. However, it would be naive in the extreme to believe that further costs will not be imposed on drivers—in other words, that these increased charges will not just be passed on to drivers who are already struggling with the cost of fuel, road duty, insurance costs and so much more.

The Minister had the audacity to reference fuel duty, which is one of the weakest of the Government’s U-turns. They tried to pretend that they were keeping it low, but then they U-turned and said, “It won’t be September that we put it up; it will be a few months later.” The Government are still going to put fuel duty up and impose this additional burden on motorists. Are we really to believe that local authorities, which have revelled in using drivers as a cash cow, will allow the multiple millions that will be transferred to the Government on the basis of this increased fee to simply vanish overnight?

Let me be absolutely clear: the Conservatives oppose this instrument. Our opposition to the proposal is because we are concerned that the effect will not merely be about cost recovery for the central services but will encourage further action from local authorities to raise yet more money from drivers. That is a consequence of these changes that I fear the Government have not properly considered.

Furthermore, clean air zones are meant to be transitory, to improve air quality—although I question whether they do—and then find alternative solutions. That is why local authorities were strongly encouraged to find other mechanisms to control air quality, without resorting to clean air zones. Allowing these services to be used until 2031 suggests that there is no clear path for moving away from the existing rules, which cost motorists so dearly.

Driving is not a luxury. For millions, driving a car is necessary for daily life. It is freedom and a right that all of our constituents should be able to enjoy unencumbered by the state, whether national or local. Driving is practical. A weekly shop for a family of five cannot be carried on the back of a bike. The measures that Labour is introducing walk all over the realities of life for millions for whom the car is essential. This is Labour’s war on the motorist, and it is unjust. This instrument fans the flames of that war on the motorist, and we will oppose it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

I have heard that a couple of drops of olive oil is quite good for temporary hearing loss, so let me reiterate once again that this is not a tax on motorists. We do not expect local authorities to raise their charges to motorists on account of it, and we have expressly asked them not to do so.

[Greg Smith]

If local authorities pass on the fee, what will be the Government’s response?

[Simon Lightwood]

We have said, very clearly, that if this results in a shortfall, we will top it up through the new burdens assessment.

This is about good governance. The previous Government said they would review the costs when the data became clear. Good governance means that the Government provide a service that aligns with managing public money to ensure full cost recovery. We are doing this now because the last Government failed to increase the central services fee, which is designed to cover the cost of administering the services since they introduced clean air zones in 2020.

Most motorists entering a clean air zone will pay no charge at all because their vehicle is compliant, and the proportion is likely to continue to increase. The Government’s £2 billion electric car grant has helped 120,000 UK drivers move to zero emission vehicles since July 2025.

Clean air zones are designed to clean up air and should not be used as a revenue raiser for any organisation. I can assure hon. Members that clean air zones are not a revenue raiser for the DFT. By moving the fee to £4, we are still subsidising central services to the tune of 10%. Under the new burdens doctrine, the Department will pay for local authority deficits that arise in their CAZ operations.

The Government have worked closely with local authorities to prepare them for the fee increase and to understand the impacts. Local authorities that currently generate a surplus from their clean air zone will see some reduction in revenue following the fee increase, but no local authority will be left in deficit.

To answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, any move to scrap a clean air zone before there is clear and sustained evidence of improved air quality would be both premature and reckless. Clean air zones were introduced to deliver compliance with legally binding air quality limits. Authorities are required to retain them until compliance has been achieved and maintained.

I hope I have reassured Members that these regulations will ensure that clean air zones continue to operate effectively and fairly. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

Small Towns: Transport Links

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The importance of connecting our small towns, villages and wider urban areas is evident from the number of Members who have taken part in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing it.

What unites the vast majority of travel needs across our small towns and villages is the importance of personal vehicles and—not instead of—affordable, reliable and useful public transport. Those two elements are critical to connecting small towns. The 2024 national travel survey showed the dominance of the car and other private vehicles, particularly in rural areas. That was alongside buses, which are paramount to supporting local travel. However, I am afraid that under the current Government, there is a mentality that, despite some worthy funding promises and powers to local authorities, risks damaging links to our small towns.

The 2024 travel survey showed that car trips made up 76% of distance travelled. The 2022 survey paints an even stronger picture for those in small towns. Those in rural towns and fringes used their car to travel twice the distance of those in urban conurbations. People in even more isolated areas used their car to travel nearly three times the distance of those in most urban areas. It is critical that the Government’s policies reflect this fact and support drivers in going about their everyday lives. Any other approach would impose self-inflicted damage on our small towns by disrupting the mode of transport most widely used, which in turn contributes to economic growth.

Although I recognise that the classifications are different, as it uses the more traditional rural urban classification system, some of the proposals in the Government’s integrated transport plan, published this April, highlight a complete misunderstanding of the public’s transport needs. The plan says:

“we will consider how we set clear expectations that local authorities and developers should maximise sustainable transport interventions before considering any increase in road capacity.”

That is accompanied by comments in the section on rural and suburban areas that give the impression that cars should only be used as a last resort—a statement devoid of real life. It is the state telling people what it thinks they should want, not listening to what they actually want. Talking about them being relied on in this way completely misses why many people choose to use vehicles—they are making a choice.

Supporting public transport and improving it to enhance links between our small towns is clearly also important—no argument there. In my constituency, I am a supporter of delivering the Haddenham to Thame greenway. However, we cannot do so by sacrificing or denigrating motor vehicle usage. That is indicative of why the Government struggle so much with economic growth. Rather than considering what they can do to improve one form of transport, their integrated transport strategy appears more comfortable trying to encumber drivers either by not increasing capacity or by putting in place policies such as bus priority routes, which in larger areas have done a great deal to restrict the ability to enter towns and some cities.

It is easy to talk about this issue broadly and for it to sound like hyperbole, but we can all reference local examples of our failure to take a balanced and practical approach to transport spending. In Buckinghamshire, the Aylesbury spur of the East West Rail project was originally viewed as an integral part of the scheme. It was removed from the plans during a major cost-cutting exercise about eight or nine years ago, yet the case for restoring it remains as strong as ever. It would vastly improve connectivity between Winslow and Aylesbury, both of which are expected to grow significantly in the coming years, while strengthening onward links to London and the north. Importantly, it would do so in a way that supports economic growth, which the Government repeatedly tell us is their overriding priority. Better connectivity means greater access to jobs and opportunity.

That example, along with the excellent examples from my right hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), demonstrates the wider point. The challenge facing small towns is not that people have too many transport options; it is that in too many places they do not have enough. The answer is not to make driving harder in the hope that people will choose another mode of transport; it is to improve all forms of connectivity, whether road, bus or rail.

[Andrew Cooper]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on the fact that what makes road transport more difficult is the massive pothole backlog that built up under his Government through the systematic underfunding of local government? Does he accept that this Government have put significant resources into fixing that?

[Greg Smith]

I agree with the fundamental point that the state of the roads in this country is getting worse and worse. The Government crow about the amount of money they have given to Buckinghamshire, my local authority, for pothole repairs, but it is absolutely and completely inadequate to fix the problems. Conservative-run Buckinghamshire council is spending £120 million—tenfold what the Government have given in a grant—to get the roads fixed. Anyway, let me get back to my point—it was a good try.

We need to allow people to make the choices that best suit their circumstances. Indeed, the condition of our roads is why the Conservatives have proposed targeted measures to repair potholes and limit damaging policies such as 20 mph by default, which have cropped up in authorities both in urban areas and where small towns are situated.

Furthermore, the bus fare increases that we have seen under this Government pose significant challenges to increasing demand. Although the Government have been reticent to admit it, the fare cap increased on their watch by 50%, and in many areas there have been further increases in the price of buses. That is simply factual. Those decisions impact bus users in our small towns, and it is this Labour Government who are putting the price of buses up. It is inevitable that increasing costs disincentivises travel between these areas. Some authorities are taking on the cost of bus services, and it remains to be seen whether a balance can be struck and services can be improved in a way that persuades people to use bus routes.

This is occurring at the same time that the Government are taking on their project of rail nationalisation, after a period of significant passenger growth over the past three decades. We can debate the challenges around rail and whether the solution could ever be nationalisation, but that increase in numbers is irrefutably beneficial when we consider connections between small towns. I therefore hope the Government consider the measures put forward by the shadow Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), which highlight the importance of passenger growth in the Government’s proposals.

Small towns do not need transport policies that pit one mode of travel against another. They need practical solutions that improve mobility across the board.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. In what has been a week of chaos, psychodrama and endless plotting, it must be a welcome break for the Minister to debate legislation that, as the explanatory memorandum sets out, results in

“no changes to this policy and the regulatory regime associated with port State control is retained.”

As I understand it, the draft regulations do not implement any new obligations, and it is therefore expected that there will be no direct costs to UK businesses or familiarisation costs for existing inspectors. As such, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not object to this statutory instrument given the support at consultation and the alterations that were made in response to comments.

However, I encourage the Government to explore wider measures that do not merely impose further direct costs but, rather, remove regulatory costs in a proportionate manner. I hope the Government ensure that they keep existing legislation up to date to ensure that port state control can operate effectively.

Of course, one of the factors that makes these regulations necessary is a shipping sector that is able to operate effectively. I understand that our maritime sector is concerned that the Iran war is squeezing bunker fuel supply. We have heard a lot about the impact of jet fuel shortages, but as the Minister is here, I hope the Government have the same focus on the shipping industry’s fuel supplies as they have on the aviation industry’s fuel supplies. One analyst from Aon noted that bunker fuel shortages tend to feed through to shipping costs more quickly than many other cost pressures. I therefore hope that the Minister can outline in more detail, either today or at another time, what the Government are doing to ensure a sufficient supply of fuel at port.

High Speed 2 Reset

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend has been a great advocate for his constituents, and I totally agree that the focus now, as it should have been all along, is on delivering more seats, and more trains that run on time. We will conduct a further feasibility study on connectivity north of Birmingham. That will consider all options and the impact of each option on economic growth, housing, capacity on the rail network, journey times and resilience, as well as looking at how we might design, consent and fund any future specified scheme. I am willing to continue a dialogue with him about those issues.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

In her statement, the Secretary of State said that she was angry, and I can assure her that I have been consistently angry about this unaffordable, unwanted railway ever since it was green lit—angry on behalf of my constituents, who have to live in hellish conditions while it is constructed. Landowners are still waiting for payment for land taken, and our roads are churned up by construction traffic, and still unfixed. There is still not the money to deliver mitigation projects that were promised a decade ago. I heard nothing about any of those challenges in her statement.

May I ask the Secretary of State specifically about noise modelling? Modelling has found that in Wendover—where trains were already going to come through at 320 kph—hundreds of homes will face noise that is above the permitted decibel limit set down by the World Health Organisation. Will she commit to the Government fully remodelling the noise impacts on real people—certainly in Buckinghamshire—of the new speed that she has set for HS2, and come back to the House with a commitment that the noise level will not be above the level set out in WHO guidance?

[Heidi Alexander]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman’s Buckinghamshire constituents will have experienced considerable disruption to their lives as a result of this construction project, and I know that those who live nearest to infrastructure schemes tend to take more of the pain before the gain from the new service is delivered. I will look into the matter of the noise impacts of a lower-speed railway. My instinct is that the noise is likely to be less, but if what I learn is any different from that, I will write to him and let him know.

Hammersmith Bridge

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

For the second time this afternoon, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) has suggested, it is a bit of a blast from the past for me, having previously served on Hammersmith and Fulham council both as deputy leader and then latterly as leader of the opposition. If only my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) or the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) were here, we could go some way to recreating the Hammersmith town hall council chamber in Westminster Hall this afternoon. Back in 2014, when I was leader of the opposition on Hammersmith and Fulham council, the bridge had restricted access but was not yet fully closed; I think one bus at a time was allowed on at that point, which raised significant concerns. It is very disappointing that, across multiple Governments, we have not been able to resolve the challenges on Hammersmith bridge since then.

I note that the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick was quick to boast about Hammersmith and Fulham having the third lowest council tax in the country—if only I knew how it got to that point! It could possibly have been the period between 2006 and 2014 when, under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, we cut council tax by 20%, taking Hammersmith and Fulham from mid-pack to third lowest in the country, rivalled only by Wandsworth and Westminster at that time. However, since then, Hammersmith and Fulham council has increased council tax on their residents by hundreds of pounds.

More gallingly, under Sadiq Khan, the amount claimed by the Mayor of London has increased by over 70%, and what do the residents of Hammersmith and Fulham get for all those increases? A bridge that cars and buses cannot cross. Under a Labour council, a Labour mayor and a Labour Government, the speed of action is slower than a cyclist with a punctured tyre. Ironically, that cyclist would be one of the few people who could actually make use of the bridge in its current state.

In January, the Minister stated in a written answer that the taskforce would meet soon. We now understand that it is waiting for submissions to the structures fund. The primary mechanism to bring all the stakeholders together and unblock the problem has not met for a year. Of course, as we have heard eloquently from the hon. Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), this failure extends beyond Hammersmith and Fulham. It affects the boroughs of Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Hounslow, and it has displaced traffic to areas such as Ealing. Given the Labour party’s control over various forms of Government, it needs to give pause for thought as to what it is actually doing.

Of course, Hammersmith and Fulham council—there is no getting around this point—holds the statutory duty to maintain the highway, which makes it even more important that it demonstrates visible leadership and urgency in advancing a funded, deliverable plan for the strengthening phase and full reopening. However, that has not been forthcoming, and the 2026 business plan from TfL makes no mention of Hammersmith bridge.

Over the past decade, the costs imposed on motorists in our capital city have grown significantly, with those both inside and outside London facing costs because of decisions made by the Mayor of London: expansions of the ultra low emission zone, increases in the cash cow known as the congestion charge and innovations to find new methods of fining drivers. The least those motorists could expect is infrastructure that works. In addition, when they are unable to use their cars, they should be able to use public transport. However, the closure of the bridge has had a massive impact, curtailing many bus routes, notwithstanding the tube strikes we are enduring today.

I would like to be charitable, but I am afraid that it is hardly surprising that the Government have been so slow to act when their recent strategy for integrated transport has little to say about cars in urban areas beyond commenting that

“Promoting car and lift sharing should be used to manage congestion”,

and that those cars should be electric vehicles, which few people actually want to buy. That attitude does little to help people in Hammersmith and Fulham or those other London boroughs south of the river who need their vehicles in the capital.

In contrast to that inaction, Conservative councillors in Hammersmith and Fulham have put forward a temporary solution to the problem. The Secretary of State was the previous deputy Mayor of London for transport, and it is preposterous that a team led by someone with such a background has not convened people to get a plan in place. It must be either that Labour authorities do not want to fix it, or negligence.

This problem is not abstract; it is impacting people’s lives. The centre director of Castlenau community centre in Barnes recently told the Evening Standard that

“There are lots of people who need to go to Charing Cross Hospital, who are having to undergo stressful journeys and potentially risk not making their appointment in time”,

and earlier in the debate, we heard a similar example of people struggling to reach St George’s hospital. We need the Government to bring together those in their party who are responsible to put forward a plan. Sadly, I am afraid that, without the will of the local authority and Transport for London, the bridge will remain closed off for most people.

Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. As the Minister invoked a couple of events in his speech, I will go for a different safety first approach by drawing the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to Silverstone Circuits Ltd and Ascot racecourse, and to my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Formula 1 and motorsport. I do not believe that our debate is materially to do with those events, but as the Minister invoked them, I thought it best to draw the Committee’s attention to those points.

Aviation safety underpins the whole of our aviation sector, and the necessity of getting it right is of the utmost importance to those in the industry and the public. It is therefore welcome that we have seen continual improvements over the last few decades in the United Kingdom’s overall aviation safety. However, as noted in the CAA’s most recent annual report, the accidents we have seen must serve as a sobering reminder that safety must never be taken for granted. I reference that because the measures we are debating appear to broadly strike a sensible balance between upholding safety and allowing some loosening of existing restrictions.

Considering the regulations as one, the fundamental question is about the CAA’s capacity and ability to deal with the changes. Can we be confident that it will maintain the strong standards associated with these rule changes? The alterations proposed to article 71 of the basic regulation appear to promote proportionate deregulatory change, including by opening the possibility of extending exemptions for testing new technologies and for several one-off events. Critically, those changes received support from stakeholders when consulted on by the CAA, and that was followed up in a subsequent consultation to address any concerns.

If safety can be maintained, it is clearly welcome to have measures in place that encourage innovation and that could allow air navigation service providers to offer radio assistance for events, which appears to be an upgrade on existing rules. As the Government’s impact assessment notes, that should reduce barriers to entry for businesses in some circumstances, which should be welcomed. However, given the comment that those circumstances must be exceptional for an exemption to be granted, is the Minister able to answer the concerns set out by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that, as these exemptions would be used for day-to-day activities, they are not in fact exceptional? I am not contesting the principle of the regulations, but is the Minister content that the terminology “exceptional” will support the day-to-day activities the CAA believes are safe? Also, has the Department for Transport engaged with the CAA about its capacity to process these applications? Is it comfortable that there is the capacity to do this work?

The second element of the regulations, regarding the removal of the criminal sanctions, also deserves consideration. Although the sanctions have never been used, can I get an assurance from the Minister that the CAA believes they would never be used in the future and that the existing rules relating to threshold distances are sufficient to stop unsafe behaviour? We recognise the need for the regulations to be altered, given other changes the CAA is considering, but is there a clear assurance that there will be no reduction in safety because of this change?

It is right to support measures that uphold safety, while also allowing the sector greater freedom to participate in activities the CAA believes to be safe. What is paramount, though, is that the regulator continues to ensure that all such activities are safe, so that we can maintain confidence in the British aviation sector, of which I am sure all Members of this House are already rightly proud.