Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am afraid that is just not true. Compared with 2024, EV sales increased by nearly a quarter in 2025, and nine in 10 drivers who switch would recommend an EV thanks to ease of use and a quieter, smoother driving experience. All the evidence suggests that once people get an electric vehicle, they never look back.

[Greg Smith]

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?

[Heidi Alexander]

To drive investment in car manufacturing, this Government must provide some certainty about the direction of travel, and there is no doubt that the future is zero emission. We are working with the industry to deliver a successful transition, which is why we made the adjustments—the new flexibilities —that I announced last April. It is also why, in conjunction with the devolved Governments, we have announced that a review of the ZEV mandate will start later this year.

Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate. It is not the first time that I have heard her make the case for Aldridge station, which she does with considerable force. She has been not just consistent but consistently impressive and determined in her campaigns for that station, and on wider transport issues, particularly in the west midlands.

Much has been said about the daily reality facing passengers, businesses and communities across the midlands and north Wales region, where ambition has too often outpaced delivery. Transport is not an end in itself; it is the wiring that allows our economy to function and when that wiring is faulty, growth stalls, opportunity narrows and communities are left behind. That is nowhere clearer than in the midlands. A recent report by the Centre for Cities put it starkly, stating that

“Transport is the wiring that allows urban economies to function”

but that in large UK cities outside of London that wiring is simply not working as it should. Today, with a fragmented network, only around 600,000 people, just 20% of the city region, can reach Birmingham city centre efficiently. But with properly integrated transport, increased bus frequency and reduced journey times, that figure could rise by over 250,000 people—a 44% increase—and take connectivity to nearly 30% of the city region. That is not a marginal gain; it is the difference between a city region that functions as a single labour market and one that does not.

Buses, of course, remain the backbone of local transport, particularly for young people and those without easy access to a private car or to rail. Targeted youth fares, such as those introduced in Tees Valley and Wales have shown what can be achieved, but fares alone are not enough if services are unreliable, infrequent or poorly connected to rail and tram networks. Integration is the missing piece. Joining up existing networks so that they function as one system is the fastest and most cost-effective way to improve public transport in England’s major cities outside London. With greater devolved powers, metro mayors can increase frequency, reduce journey times and better connect buses with commuter rail and tram networks, but only if national Government provide clarity, consistency and backing.

The consequences of poor co-ordination are most visible on rail. The midlands rail hub, about which we have heard a lot in this debate, is critical to unlocking capacity, improving frequency and enabling stations and services that would better connect communities across the region, but instead of certainty, we have partial funding, endless reviews and projects left “subject to future decisions”—a phrase worthy of whatever sequel comes to “Yes Minister”.

This matters not just for the midlands but for north Wales too, particularly when it comes to open access rail, which has the potential to deliver connectivity more quickly and introduce genuine competition. Proposals from Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway to operate direct services between Wrexham and London would significantly strengthen links among north Wales, the midlands and our capital. That is exactly the kind of market-led connectivity that can expand access to jobs, education and private investment.

But open access services can succeed only if the supporting infrastructure is in place. Capacity constraints, missing stations and poor integration with local transport risk meaning trains pass through communities, rather than serve them. If the Government are serious about improving connectivity across the midlands and north Wales, they must ensure that decisions on infrastructure enable new services, such as the WSMR, rather than frustrate them.

The wider connectivity challenge is felt acutely around Wrexham industrial estate—one of the largest in Europe. Major employers there, including JCB, Platts Agriculture, Kellogg’s and Net World Sports, have highlighted persistent difficulties for workers travelling from the surrounding villages due to poor public transport links into the estate. There was a welcome announcement of a new bus network designed to link communities with industrial estates in the Flintshire and Wrexham investment zone, but business and residents alike are still waiting for the detail: routes, frequency, timelines and how the services will integrate with existing rail and bus networks.

Connectivity is about not just long-distance rail, but whether someone can reliably get from their village or town to work on time and at a reasonable cost. Without last-mile integration, growth zones risk becoming isolated islands of investment. Those challenges are mirrored elsewhere in north Wales: the A55, the north Wales main line and the Menai crossings are strategic routes not just for Wales but for the entirety of our United Kingdom, yet road projects have been frozen, rail electrification funding has been withdrawn, and a blanket 20 mph policy has been imposed without regard for the economic impact—or any regard for common sense. Labour’s explanatory memorandum acknowledges that default 20 mph limits could cost the Welsh economy up to £9 billion, yet the policy was forced through, despite a record-breaking Senedd petition opposing it.

Only yesterday, it was confirmed that repairs to the Menai suspension bridge, one of just two crossings linking Anglesey to the mainland, will be delayed yet again, and that it will now stretch into 2027. That grade I listed structure, approaching its 200th anniversary, remains subject to weight limits and traffic lights, and there is still no long-term plan for resilience. That is not a minor inconvenience; it affects emergency response times, supply chains, tourism and livelihoods. That is why the Conservatives have consistently argued for a third Menai crossing, working constructively to deliver the infrastructure that north Wales needs.

In the midlands and north Wales, the pattern is the same: ambition without delivery, promises without integration and growth plans without the connectivity to support them. If the Government are serious about growth and levelling up, they must focus on delivering better transport connectivity now, joining up existing networks, backing proven projects, supporting new rail services and ensuring people can get to work, education and opportunity. The Government’s call for evidence on an integrated national transport strategy closed in February 2025, but we are still waiting for the outcome. I therefore ask the Minister when the results of that consultation will be published, and how they will support better connectivity across regions such as the midlands and north Wales, rather than adding further uncertainty.

As Jonathan Spruce, a trustee of the Institution of Civil Engineers, told the Transport Committee, planning transport without an overarching framework is

“like trying to solve a jigsaw without the picture on the box”.

The Government must help put that picture in place so that regions can plan, spend and connect with confidence.

Network Rail Timetable Changes: Rural Communities

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for securing this debate on an issue that matters greatly: ensuring that transport, in this case on the railways, effectively serves rural communities. It is particularly important to me, as a rural MP representing 336 square miles of rural Buckinghamshire, that these timetable changes work in the interests of rural communities in Buckinghamshire and across the whole of our precious United Kingdom.

The mindset of Government must always be passenger-focused. Whatever form of transport someone is using, we should ensure that the priority is providing the service that best helps most people. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the proactive steps that he is taking, and arguing for, to ensure that people in the borders are effectively served by the timetable and that communities like his are not cut off because of timetabling changes that have resulted in the removal of services.

Unfortunately, in our communities we have too often seen transport policies from the Government and from Labour councils that are more focused on helping them to raise revenue or penalise drivers, for example, as opposed to serving local residents. Those concerns have only hardened as rural areas across the country have been squeezed and treated like a cash cow by the Government. As the Government continue to expand their ever growing control over the railways, it is essential that the changes they implement consider rural areas at their very heart.

Although I acknowledge that the Government had a wide array of elements to examine, it is interesting to note the absence of any mention of rural areas in their response to the consultation on the Railways Bill, which is having its Second Reading debate in the main Chamber right now. There was only one reference in the impact assessment, which noted

“fewer services in rural areas”.

The Government’s lack of consideration as to how their reforms may impact particular areas does not instil confidence about how the new organisation will treat rural communities.

The Government claim that Great British Railways will play the critical role in establishing timetables as we move to the new system. I stress that I have no contention with the idea that a unified body can play an important role in setting timetables. The Williams-Shapps plan for rail was born out of chaotic timetabling in 2018 and specifically recommended that its version of GBR should set the timetables. However, much remains to be answered about how effective the new body will be in serving rural areas and setting the timetables that serve rural areas. There is nothing that means intrinsically that it will inherently help those locations. In fact, other policy decisions, such as those on the bus fare cap, have seen the Government make travelling more expensive for rural communities rather than cheaper. There are real risks that nationalisation may result in timetabling that serves the organisation itself rather than the passengers who use the network.

[David Smith]

I have a simple question for the hon. Gentleman, on this auspicious day of the Second Reading of the Railways Bill: would he characterise the fracturing of rail services in this country over the past 20 years, specifically in relation to timetabling, as a success for rural areas?

[Greg Smith]

Chiltern Railways serves my constituency and Buckinghamshire more widely, on both the Chiltern main line and the Aylesbury branch. The Aylesbury branch in particular is a very rural service; it stops at a number of very small stations, often village stations, between Aylesbury and Marylebone. For a very long time, it was the gold standard of railways: the reliability was high, the fares were not too bad, and lots of my constituents praised it. Only in the post-pandemic era, when services have not been put back on as most of us would have expected, have standards slipped on the branch line.

When we debate the timetabling of rural services on the rail network, it is important that we do not lose sight of where the real challenges have come from. Am I going to stand here and say that everything about the way the railways were privatised was absolutely bang-on perfect? No, but I will defend the principle of having private sector risk to drive up standards and to improve competition, rather than the one-size-fits-all nationalisation model that the Government are proposing—the delivery model of which is being debated in the main Chamber right now, although I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to spend his afternoon in this debate and not that one.

The Minister may well say that nationalisation will not lead to timetabling that serves Great British Railways more than it serves passengers. However, without sufficient safeguards in the system, it remains a possibility that the timetabling proposed will not match the needs of commuters and other passengers. The example of Berwick-upon-Tweed station that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk mentioned demonstrates the role that services play in connecting our communities to locations across the country. A reduction in service hurts not just Berwick, but the surrounding areas on both sides of the England-Scotland border.

I hope that the Minister will consider what more the Government can do to ensure that rural locations are served better by transport links. Rural areas of the United Kingdom absolutely depend on those links, and it is essential that the Government prioritise them.

Seafarers’ Welfare

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As an island nation, Britain has always been reliant on our sailors, as other Members have said. For centuries, we have depended on them to protect our nation, to transport goods around the world and to deliver the products of our national endeavours across the seas to other countries.

The continued significance of maritime trade to our economy cannot be overstated. Of all international freight traded with the United Kingdom, around 85% by weight and 55% by value is moved by sea. Our seafarers also play a vital role in connecting communities across the United Kingdom, whether that is in our Scottish islands or the Isle of Wight, where my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) has introduced proposals around fares on ferries, demonstrating that those services remain essential to our national fabric.

Even for those of us representing constituencies that could not be further away from the sea—Mid Buckinghamshire proudly holds the title of the second-most landlocked constituency in the country—the importance of the maritime sector to the UK’s past, present and future prosperity is abundantly clear. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. It is right that we recognise the work of the estimated 23,700 UK seafarers active at sea, according to data from 2024, whose skill and dedication power this indispensable industry.

Understandably, the debate has referenced the actions of P&O Ferries in 2022. For all who observed that situation, the conclusion was unmistakeable: P&O’s decision was wrong. That is why the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, condemned it in the strongest possible terms. Indeed, during my time on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament, we heard very detailed evidence—often difficult to listen to—about the scandalous and wholly inappropriate behaviour of P&O. As the Minister will know from his briefings, the last Government acted swiftly in response. It is worth briefly reflecting on those steps, as they represented meaningful progress in protecting seafarers’ rights and, therefore, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, their welfare.

First, the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 ensures that those working on ships that provide a regular international service from the United Kingdom are paid at least the equivalent of the national minimum wage while operating in UK waters. This reduces the incentive for operators to employ overseas labour on worse terms and conditions—although I heard the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and the discrimination that he highlighted, which is still a wrong to be righted.

[John McDonnell]

I was elated at first to attend a Statutory Instrument Committee dealing with these matters, until I discovered that the Government had redefined the nature of British waters. Restricting the measure to UK waters was even less effective.

[Greg Smith]

The point of my comments on the actions of the previous Government is not to say that they were wholly conclusive and the end of the matter. But I believe the steps that were taken by the previous Government did demonstrate a step forward, as I think the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged in the debate—perhaps not the entire length of step that he would have preferred.

[John McDonnell]

It was like pulling teeth.

[Greg Smith]

I heard the reference that the right hon. Gentleman just made.

Secondly, the last Government introduced a statutory code of practice on fire and rehire that was intended to ensure that employees are properly consulted and treated fairly. Importantly, it included powers for employment tribunals to increase compensation by 25% where an employer unreasonably fails to comply. Thirdly, the start of the seafarers’ charter was launched, with operators including Brittany Ferries, Condor Ferries, DFDS, Stena Line and, at the time, even P&O was committing to work towards meeting the requirements of that charter. The charter placed seafarers at its heart, from ensuring they are paid equivalent to the national minimum wage throughout their engagement, to establishing two weeks on, two weeks off tour of duty baselines on high-intensity routes, and providing appropriate training and development opportunities.

Crucially, the charter also committed to providing social security benefits, such as sickness benefits, family benefits and medical care, and adopting roster patterns that properly account for fatigue, mental health and safety. That demonstrated a clear commitment to ensuring that seafarers’ welfare is not an afterthought but a priority. The framework further made it clear that, where provisions differed from those mandated in the maritime labour convention 2006 or any other standard, the higher standard would apply. I acknowledge that progress. Many Members rightly believe that more remains to be done. It is therefore appropriate to turn to the measures set out in the Employment Rights Bill that returns to the House of Commons next Monday.

Some hon. Members will know that I had the good fortune to sit through the 21 Committee sittings on that Bill as a shadow Business and Trade Minister, speaking for the Opposition on its many and varied proposals. During that process, we saw the ever-expanding scope of Government intervention illustrated vividly, with the Bill growing from an initial 149 pages when first introduced to 320 pages the last time it left the House of Lords.

Some Members may ask why that matters. As I said on Report, although the Bill contains many good and well-intentioned measures, the Government have struggled to get the balance right between the rights of employees and the needs of the employers who create the jobs in the first place. When it came to provisions relating specifically to seafarers, such as changing collective redundancy notification requirements for ship crews, the Opposition did not oppose them. Indeed, I explicitly recognised their relevance in preventing the sort of unacceptable conduct we have seen in the past. However, we also flagged concerns. For example, the Bill grants the Secretary of State broad powers to detain a ship without clearly defining how long the detention could last. That is a perfect illustration of the need for balance. We must uphold the highest standards of seafarer protection while avoiding measures that may deter responsible businesses from operating in the United Kingdom.

That links to a broader point recently emphasised by my party. One of the most important ways to protect workers’ rights is to ensure that people remain in work. We can and should tackle fire-and-rehire practices, but if we overburden the economy with excessive taxation and growth-suppressing regulation, the outcome will be the worst of all worlds—fewer jobs and weaker protections.

With UK unemployment having risen by 0.9 percentage points since the election and reached an estimated 5% by September 2025, we cannot ignore the reality that the welfare of workers, including seafarers, depends on the Government restoring economic stability. We owe it to seafarers to create an economy in which their livelihoods are secure and not vulnerable to the Chancellor’s mismanagement. Ultimately, I welcome all sensible and proportionate measures that prevent scandalous behaviour and advance the welfare of seafarers, because our maritime workers deserve nothing less.

Driving Test Availability: South-east

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) on securing this debate on an issue affecting families, young people and local businesses across the south-east, including in my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, and indeed across the whole of our United Kingdom.

The backdrop to this debate is a driving test system that is under unprecedented strain. Data obtained through a freedom of information request submitted by the AA Driving School shows a staggering deterioration since the start of this calendar year. There has been a 60% increase in the number of driving test centres with average waits of 24 weeks. In January 2025, 161 centres were at the maximum wait time of 24 weeks. By 5 May 2025, that figure had risen to 258 centres. Shockingly, more than 80% of all test centres are now operating with the longest possible delay. Those are astonishing figures that illustrate a system not merely struggling but spiralling. It is not a regional anomaly. It is a systemic failure and responsibility sits squarely with this Government.

When the Conservatives left government in July 2024 the average wait time was 17.1 weeks. That was unprecedentedly high as we were recovering from the backlog created by the pandemic. If anyone still doubts that this crisis has worsened after the election, the Government’s own data sets it out plainly. In the first two quarters of 2024, just over 1 million driving tests were conducted. In the same period this year, under this Government, that number fell to 914,000. At a time when the backlog should have been the priority, capacity has gone backwards. Learners, parents and instructors feel the consequences every single day.

Driving, particularly for young people, is not a luxury; it is essential. It is often the difference between securing an apprenticeship, a job or a place at college and missing out, or between being able to take an opportunity or left without options. It provides access to education, healthcare, caring responsibilities, family life and independence. Nearly 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. Youth unemployment is now at 15.3%, the highest level since before the pandemic. At a moment when we should be opening doors for young people, the Government have instead allowed driving test delays to become yet another barrier in their way.

A genuinely pro-motorist Government would have grasped the urgency sooner. A genuinely pro-opportunity Government would recognise driving as a lifeline, particularly in areas where public transport is limited and where a licence is the gateway to employment. A Government serious about growth would not tolerate a system in which a young person must wait the best part of half a year or even longer simply to sit a driving test. The Government’s approach has not only failed learners. It has alienated the professionals who keep the system safe and functioning—our driving instructors.

In my constituency, I have heard directly from two established driving schools: Chiltern Learners and Alltime Driving. Both have always been able to book tests on behalf of their pupils responsibly and professionally. They have told me how disruptive, damaging and ill-considered the Government’s new measures are, introduced without genuine consultation with industry and without any understanding of how the booking system is used in practice. They feel as though they are being treated as the problem, as if they were the bots—we all want to see the bots stopped—rather than the driving instructors recognised as part of the solution. Their experiences are echoed by instructors across the country.

A colleague has shared similar correspondence from an instructor who described the shock felt across the profession when the reforms were announced without notice, transparency or any meaningful engagement. Instructors consistently say that preventing them booking tests or managing test slots sensibly will make the system less efficient, not more. They warn that stopping instructors swapping tests will result in more wasted appointments and unused examiner time. They are concerned about the future of intensive driving schools, many of which are already struggling due to a shortage of the availability of tests. And they highlight, rightly, that little thought has been given to vulnerable or neurodiverse pupils who might not be able to navigate the system alone. What they all say in different ways is the same thing: the Government have pushed ahead with a sledgehammer approach that punishes the wrong people, ignores expert advice and risks making a bad situation worse. We all welcome the action to stop the bots, but that needs rapid action with rapid, real enforcement, while at the same time leaning on those, like the instructors I have just mentioned, who can make a real difference.

We also see the Government grasping for headlines and distractions rather than solutions. The decision to bring in Ministry of Defence driving examiners has been presented as a major intervention. In reality, that means 36 military examiners will conduct public tests one day a week for a year, just 6,500 extra tests when hundreds of thousands are needed. As one instructor put it, that is little more than moving the deckchairs around. It is no substitute for a serious plan to recruit and retain examiners and fix the underlying issues.

The result is a system in chaos: record delays, shrinking capacity, frustrated instructors, disadvantaged pupils, and young people being held back at the very moment they need opportunity and support. Instead of leadership, we see press releases, gimmicks and a refusal to confront the scale of the problem. Driving should be a route to opportunity, not another obstacle created by Government. Learners deserve better, instructors deserve better and motorists across the south-east and the whole of our United Kingdom deserve far better than the declining service they face today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Snuck out on a Government website, we learn that narrower roads are coming to make driving more miserable. Is it not the case that such a move will cause even more friction between motorists and cyclists, and slow our roads down so much that it costs the economy billions?

[Heidi Alexander]

Claims that Government guidance mandates a certain road width are false and misrepresent guidance from Active Travel England. There have never been legally binding standards for road widths, and that remains the case. It is obviously right that each road should be designed to meet the needs of local use, and that includes road width. Those decisions are for local traffic engineers. If the hon. Member is saying that we should not design roads to help avoid fatalities, I suggest that he is out of step with most people across the country.

[Greg Smith]

Mr Speaker, it is on their own website. But I will turn to another Government blunder: taxpayer-funded schemes to bribe the public into buying something that they do not want, which, we now learn, will financially hammer people for doing what the Government told them to do in the first place. Is it not time to let people choose what they want to drive, before electric becomes the new diesel?

[Heidi Alexander]

If the electric car grant scheme is so unpopular, why have 30,000 people availed themselves of it since its launch in the summer? I am clear that the transition to electric vehicles is a key plank of this Government’s agenda, because of the good jobs it can create and the need to clean up the way we travel.

Draft Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. As the Minister acknowledges, the regulations are contingent on the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which have been laid before Parliament under the negative procedure. I can offer His Majesty’s Opposition’s broad support for the instrument before us today.

If we are to implement changes to regulations on unmanned aircraft use, we must ensure that there are appropriate penalties for their misuse. The fact that the penalties outlined here are largely comparable to those already established under the Air Navigation Order 2016 highlights the fact that they are in line with the modern, proportionate enforcement regime that already governs this sector. More broadly, we must acknowledge that the principle of altering our regulation to ensure that hobbyists can go about their business while maintaining the safety of others is important. As the CAA recognised in its consultation, finding the balance between cutting red tape and implementing key safety measures is essential.

Recent European discussions on the risks that unmanned aircraft pose to the aviation sector remind us that those dangers are significant. It is in the direct interests of public protection and national security to ensure that they are properly mitigated. In my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, innovation in this sector is not theoretical; it is happening now. Companies such as Flare Bright and Skyports at Westcott Venture Park are at the forefront of cutting-edge unmanned systems, developing technologies that support our industrial strategy, national security posture and wider aerospace capabilities. That is why clarity, stability and practicality in the regulatory regime, such as the instrument before us today, matter. Real jobs, real investment and real technological leadership depend on it.

Regarding some of the specific changes that underpin the draft regulations, it appears sensible to improve the protection of restricted airspace using new technologies available to us. My understanding is that the proposals put the UK ahead of the European Union in areas such as geofencing—an example of where safety is being prioritised while enabling innovation. The Government’s analysis, including their de minimis assessments of geo-protections and remote ID, makes it clear that these steps can be taken in a proportionate manner that minimises unnecessary burdens.

I recognise the strong feelings about the shift from defining aircraft on the basis of weight to the new approach around toys, for example, about limits on legacy UASs and about the shortened transition period for remote ID. I appreciate that the Government have extended the transition period to mitigate the costs that could otherwise have fallen on low-risk users, in particular model aircraft flyers. The British Model Flying Association acknowledged recently that none of the new requirements will take effect for model aircraft until 2028 and that it is optimistic about a minimal impact on its members. That is an important reassurance, but does the Minister think the problem will persist after the transition period? Does he feel comfortable that the period provided is sufficient to address these concerns, and that we will not simply return to the same issue once the period expires?

I would like to raise the ongoing question of divergence from and conformity with European Union regulations. I understand that the new UK class marks will use different prefixes to ensure clear differentiation as standards evolve while maintaining broad alignment with the existing European class marking structure. Has the Minister engaged with the CAA on ensuring that lessons from other jurisdictions, particularly the United States of America, which has taken a markedly different regulatory path in several areas, are being fully considered? Alignment for its own sake cannot be the goal. Rather, we must ensure that our regulatory framework is the most effective for the United Kingdom’s safety, security and technological leadership.

I appreciate that this instrument is, by its nature, focused on offences and enforcement, and that the underpinning policy is found in the parallel amendment regulations. However, we must consider the whole framework together. Ultimately, enforcement must be effective and proportionate, but the regulations that sit beneath it must also be practical and allow the full spectrum of legitimate users, from companies pioneering advanced autonomous systems to long-standing model aircraft clubs, to continue benefiting from the extraordinary advances that we have seen in unmanned aircraft technology.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulation 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western.

Maritime regulations are critical to maintaining high standards at sea and ensuring our compatibility with the many international maritime treaties to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. The safety, integrity and reputation of our maritime sector depend on a clear, consistent and modernised regulatory framework. It is therefore essential that our regulatory regime is updated periodically, in line with international standards, not only to ensure compliance but to make certain that it remains workable and effective for those across the industry who rely on it. The shipping and maritime equipment sectors are vital to the UK’s trade and economy, and they deserve a regime that helps them to prosper, innovate and compete on a global scale.

Broadly, as I understand it, the Government’s proposals are technical in nature and introduce only limited changes to the existing regulations. One of the more consequential proposals appears to be the approval regime for ballast water management systems. It may not be a great surprise to the Committee that my expertise does not extend to the finer points of ballast water management, so I defer to the judgment of the industry which, when consulted, indicated its support for the proposed changes, with only minimal comment. Given the lack of concern from those most directly affected, it seems reasonable to conclude that the changes are sensible and proportionate.

I wish to press the Minister on the equivalents provision in the regulations. The provisions allow for the installation of non-UK-approved equipment in certain circumstances. Will the Minister outline whether discussions have taken place with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency regarding the expected frequency and scale of such requests? Will he also provide assurances that the mechanism will not be used as a back-door route to circumvent post-Brexit approval requirements, but will instead apply only to genuine case-specific situations, thereby maintaining both the integrity and the safety of our regulatory regime?

I note from the consultation that the MCA has said that the UK’s membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership is expected to provide an additional supply of UK-approved maritime equipment, while offering British manufacturers greater opportunities to export to CPTPP member states. That in itself is a positive development. However, although steps have been taken to maintain co-operation with EU-notified bodies, will the Minister confirm whether there are plans to engage proactively with partners across the Pacific region to ensure that any streamlining or mutual recognition of standards is carried out on a genuinely global basis? Doing so could help to reduce regulatory burdens while strengthening the United Kingdom’s position as a world leader in maritime excellence.

I hope the Minister can provide clarity on those few points so that we can continue to ensure that the UK’s maritime regulations are clear, effective and internationally aligned, and that our maritime industry remains as competitive and innovative as possible in the years ahead.

Vehicle Headlight Glare Standards

Greg Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for securing this debate.

We have all heard from constituents who say that they now avoid driving at night altogether because of dazzling headlights. The BBC recently reported on this issue, highlighting the frustration of drivers who say that modern lights, while being brighter and more energy-efficient, are simply too intense for oncoming road-users. Drivers have spoken of being momentarily blinded by glare or of feeling unable to judge distances, and consequently of losing confidence behind the wheel. For many, that means avoiding night-time journeys altogether.

However, this issue is not just about comfort; it is also about access and safety. When people tell us that they no longer drive at night because the glare from other vehicles hurts their eyes or makes them anxious, that represents lost freedom and independence, particularly for older drivers or drivers in rural areas, such as my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire.

The data supports those stories. According to the RAC’s headlight glare study, which was published in February, a quarter of drivers who have been dazzled by the headlights of oncoming vehicles now stay off the roads more at night; 61% of drivers said the problem is worse than it was a year ago; and three quarters of those who are driving less say that it is because others cars’ headlights make the experience uncomfortable or more difficult.

The issue matters because glare does not just cause discomfort; as I have already said, it interferes with people’s ability to process visual information quickly. Older drivers are particularly affected. The evidence shows that a 70-year-old’s eyes can take nine seconds to recover from glare, compared with about one second for a teenager. Nine seconds is a very long time to be effectively blinded while driving at any speed, let alone at national speed limits on a country lane.

However, we should also be guided by the data on collisions. The Department for Transport’s records show that the number of road traffic accidents in which dazzling headlights were recorded as a contributory factor has not risen sharply in recent years; the figures fluctuate from year to year, but they do not indicate a dramatic upward trend. However, although the statistical picture does not suggest that glare is causing more crashes, it does confirm what drivers have been telling all of us: that glare is making people feel less safe, which in itself is a serious issue.

We know that several factors contribute to glare. Misalignment of headlights is one of the most common. Of the 32.4 million MOT tests carried out in 2022 on cars and light vehicles, 1.6 million vehicles—1.6 million!—failed because their headlights were misaligned. Even a small upward tilt can make a big difference to the intensity of glare experienced by other road users.

Newer lighting technologies also play a role. LED headlamps, which are now fitted to most modern vehicles, produce a whiter and more focused beam than traditional halogen bulbs. The human eye reacts differently to such light and although LEDs improve visibility for the driver using them, they can cause real discomfort for oncoming traffic.

I also want to raise a related concern about the glare from powerful bicycle and personal lights. Many drivers and pedestrians now report being dazzled by high-intensity LED lights that are poorly aligned or excessively bright. Some of these lights are designed for off-road use, yet they are now being used on busy streets and in shared spaces, creating unnecessary discomfort and danger for everyone else on the road. Some cyclists and runners even wear head-mounted lamps, which can shine directly into the eyes of other road-users.

The issue is not about stopping people being seen; clearly, visibility is vital. However, it is about balance and consideration. It might be time for the Government and the British Standards Institute to consider introducing clear standards for all lights used on the public highway, whether on a car, a bike or a person, to ensure that they are properly focused, safe and considerate to others.

Of course, we also have the problem of illegal retrofitting—drivers replacing their halogen bulbs with cheap LED kits that are not compatible with their vehicle’s design. These conversions are not road-legal; they fail the MOT test and make glare far worse. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has increased surveillance to tackle this, but more needs to be done to stop the sale of unsafe aftermarket products online. The Government have said that research into that is under way, but it was first announced by the previous Conservative Administration in May 2024.

The research, commissioned by the Department for Transport and undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, was meant to include real-world testing to examine how different lighting technologies, vehicle designs and driver characteristics affect glare. However, here we are more than a year later and the findings have still not been published. I ask the Minister directly: when will the research be released and will the full findings be made public? Until that happens, drivers will rightly question whether the issue is being taken seriously enough.

It is also worth recognising the international progress made under the previous Government. They raised the issue of dazzling headlights with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which oversees global vehicle standards. In April 2023, that body agreed to tighten rules on headlamps, aiming to make automatic headlight levelling mandatory for new vehicles. That technology ensures that when a car is heavily loaded with passengers or luggage, the headlights automatically adjust downwards to avoid dazzling oncoming drivers.

Those rules with tighter tolerances come into force in September 2027, which is welcome progress. But it only applies to new vehicles; millions of older cars will remain on our roads for years and decades to come. We should be asking what more can be done to mitigate glare in the existing fleet of vehicles—whether that is tougher and better MOT checks, awareness campaigns, proper headlight alignment or encouraging wider adoption of adaptive headlight systems that dip automatically when other vehicles approach.

A lot of evidence has been put out and it has been a good debate. The issue is about balance: making sure that headlights are bright enough to see, but not so bright that they blind. It is also about fairness—ensuring that drivers of all ages in all types of vehicles can travel confidently and safely, whether it is noon or night.

Draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the importance of ensuring that genuine parking violations are fairly and consistently enforced. Effective enforcement maintains order and encourages compliance, but it should never become a source of excessive revenue or allow over-zealous practices to flourish. Unfortunately, motorists’ experience with some private parking operators has too often been poor. We have heard of cases involving unclear signage, punitive charges and threatening correspondence from debt collectors. That background means the Government must take care before extending their powers any further.

The draft order extends existing keeper liability provisions under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to railway property—land that has until now been subject to railway byelaws rather than civil enforcement. On paper it may look like a technical change, but in practice it could give private parking firms greater ability to pursue motorists for payment on railway land. Before agreeing to such an extension, we should be confident that the wider regulatory framework is robust, transparent and fair.

That is why the timing of this proposal is somewhat problematic. The Government’s consultation on the private parking code of practice closed only on 26 September. Those responses from motorists, consumer groups and the parking industry itself have not yet been published or analysed. It is therefore premature to legislate before that evidence has been properly considered. The responsible approach would be to review the consultation findings first, finalise the new code to ensure that it genuinely curbs poor practice, and only then revisit any question of expanding enforcement powers.

Our concern is not about legitimate enforcement. Where parking rules are clear and proportionate, they help to keep stations accessible and traffic flowing, but enforcement must always be fair, transparent and accountable to the travelling public. At present, key safeguards are clearly missing. The Government have not released a Treasury estimate of the potential enforcement revenue, so the financial impact on motorists is equally unknown. Nor have we seen confirmation that the forthcoming code will provide effective oversight and meaningful appeal rights. Without that assurance, it would be wrong to widen private operators’ powers on railway land.

Although we will not divide the Committee this afternoon, I would like the Minister to reflect on those points, pause, and hear our call for proper process and proportionate changes. Motorists deserve confidence that parking rules are enforced in the public interest, not driven by other motives. The Government should publish the consultation outcomes, set clear limits on private enforcement practices, and demonstrate that passenger and driver interests come first. Once that framework is in place, any further legislative changes can be judged on their merits and with full transparency.