Highways (Financing) Bill

Greg Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

How we pay for infrastructure is a matter that the House needs to take extraordinarily seriously. When the Government announced that they would bring forward measures set out in the King’s Speech on using private finance to build new roads, Labour Members should not have been surprised. After all, the Prime Minister was one of the most effective defenders of PFI schemes in the NHS during his previous time in government, and as Mayor of Greater Manchester his effusive praise of the investment from Manchester City shows his willingness to back private finance. It should therefore come as little surprise that the Government are interested in how we can leverage private funding for our roads. The Minister set out in his opening remarks that this is the biggest change in this area since the 18th century. Well, the Bill does indeed once more open the back door to highway robbery.

Having reflected on the debate and listened to the contributions of hon. Members from across the House, I think that most hon. Members recognise the importance of finding innovative methods to build infrastructure. Members from across the House can look at examples of cost overruns on infrastructure—particularly on the lower Thames crossing—that has used private money and incentives to increase road capacity and improve the experience for drivers. As the Government’s own slightly outdated figures in their impact assessment set out, the vast majority of miles travelled across our country are travelled in our cars, and over two thirds of freight is transported on the strategic road network. That point shone through in many of the contributions.

We started with the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and his public service safety announcement. He was followed quickly by the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who, in true third-party style, could not muster up a speech without a European comparison. He was followed quickly by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who brought us his memories of 1991 and Her late Majesty, focused on a case of private enterprise at its very best: the QEII bridge. He then shared ideas with the House, based on his ministerial experience. His points on London’s bridges were particularly well made.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The issue with London’s bridges is highlighted by Hammersmith bridge, which has been closed since 2019. Is it not time for the Government to get a grip on Labour-run Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Labour Mayor of London, and get that bridge reopened?

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Many moons ago, he and I were Conservative councillors in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. I remember in 2014, when I was leader of the opposition on that council—we had a small electoral mishap, and the Labour party had taken control of the council once more—trying to call out the Labour-run council for failing to take the steps necessary to put a plan in place to fix Hammersmith bridge. Today, it remains closed to traffic. That is a bridge owned by the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham—it is Labour-run, and it is a Labour failure to get that bridge open again.

[Daniel Francis]

We were all very interested to hear the view of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that charging should be spread across London river crossings. What is the shadow Minister’s analysis of the proposal that the cost of river crossings be spread more widely among taxpayers in London?

[Greg Smith]

I think I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch put some ideas in front of the House that are not necessarily shared by the Conservative Front Benchers. However, his fundamental point—that we have London bridges closed to traffic, and Labour councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham are failing to fix them—desperately needs to be addressed in the interests of motorists in London, and in particular the residents of the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, and of Richmond.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

On the point of charging Londoners for driving, over the past two years, we have seen the Mayor of London introduce the Silvertown tunnel charge, and for the first time, there is a Blackwall tunnel charge. The price for drivers has already risen. The Government have even increased the Dartford crossing charge by around 40%.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. We will come on to those charges later. One thing that has shone through in this debate is that no one can tell us—unless the Minister pulls a rabbit from a hat in his wind-up and gives us a figure—what the charge will be to use the lower Thames crossing once it is built.

[Daniel Francis]

I am aware that my neighbour the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) has not been here for the debate. We have discussed the fact that the charges at Blackwall and Silvertown were introduced, as a result of the 2018 order, under the Conservative Government. The increases were made under that order, introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Can the shadow Minister confirm that all those measures were introduced not by this Government, but his?

[Greg Smith]

The hon. Gentleman wants me to get on to road charging, but I do not think that the Labour party wants me to go through the record of the Labour Mayor of London; he introduced the ULEZ and hiked the congestion charge to unaffordable levels.

To move on to another London Member of Parliament, the Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) said that she wanted more powers for the ORR on sustainability, as if banning diesel and HVO in the construction of the lower Thames crossing was not bonkers enough. However, I agree with her about HGV driver facilities. I remember in the last Parliament serving alongside her on the Transport Committee when we did an important report on that and visited Thurrock services. The lorry driver was not what I would classically call delighted when the whole Select Committee was shown the shower facilities that he was using at the time to see that the tiles were falling off and everything was not fully in order.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) injected some common sense into the debate, asking serious questions steeped in the history of the project that affects his constituents. He mentioned their scepticism about the cost and the opening date of the lower Thames crossing. We also heard thoughtful contributions from the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson).

The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), raised a fundamental question during his opening remarks: is this the right type of legislation? Why on earth have the Government drafted the Bill in a way that could feasibly allow charges be to be imposed simply for using roads beyond the tolls? Why is that a concern? Well, to quote clause 3 of the Bill:

“A licensing authority may grant a licence to a person authorising the person to charge tolls in respect of the use or keeping of road vehicles on a highway specified in the licence, in return for the person securing works involving…the maintenance, operation or improvement of a highway specified in the licence which has been…constructed in pursuance of the licence or another licence under this section”.

I fear we risk smuggling in charges on drivers through the back door, and are opening the door to the tolling of the M25 and beyond.

At a time when drivers are getting squeezed at the pump and the Government are cancelling multiple schemes, we must be completely clear that the Bill as it stands is not acceptable. That is why my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State tabled our sensible reasoned amendment. We cannot pass a Bill that could impose costs on drivers without a requirement to deliver significantly increased capacity and new schemes.

The Government say that only new big roads will be included, but they have failed to explain why the Bill allows new infrastructure to fall within the scope of tolling. The use of the term “infrastructure” may paint a picture of an entirely new road scheme, but what is there to stop it being something as small as a new set of smart motorway cameras? The Government may protest that that is unfeasible. If so, why will they not amend the Bill to make that abundantly clear? They should put it on the face of the Bill.

By going well beyond the scope of the lower Thames crossing, the legislation puts in place a scheme that is not fit for purpose. If we do not limit its scope, I fear that the words of the president of the AA will be ringing in the ears of drivers. He has said that drivers already pay for roads through £34 billion in fuel duty and road taxes, so extra charges across the road network would be a “toll too far”. As I said earlier, no one can tell us what the tolls for private motorists and HGV drivers will be.

We want the Government to bear down on the costs of building, which make such projects so expensive. That is why we announced at the Conservative party conference that we would leave the Aarhus convention and tackle the rules that allow costly and protracted legal challenges. If we want to achieve low toll prices for drivers and incentivise private investment to build the project at a lower cost, we must reduce the regulatory burden on those involved, as opposed to imposing burdens such as banning diesel machinery. We should use equipment that is cost-effective to get the best deal for motorists, rather than trying to achieve ideological purity.

It is not merely the costs that we have to consider; there is also the structure of the scheme. As has been noted, the RAB model used by the Government will be dependent on the work of the Office of Rail and Road. At a time when the Government are trying to restrict the powers available to the ORR to uphold competition in rail, the organisation that will regulate the scheme will have to have regard to matters including efficiency and economy, the ability of licence holders to finance their licensed activities, safety, impacts on the wider strategic road network, sustainable development, competition and regulatory best practice. It is one rule for road and another for rail, with no consistency from this Government. That really matters.

As the Government’s own impact assessment sets out, using the RAB model for the strategic road network would be a new application of the model. In the literature about the scheme, one of the central principles is the need for a regulator that can control costs and serve drivers. The ORR may be able to achieve that, but we are going in blind. We need complete clarity from the Government about how the scheme will actually work, in addition to answers to the fair questions that have been raised by Members from across the House about the tolling regime. We cannot treat drivers like a piggy bank.

At the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister told the country that people “need breathing space now”, and that he was “determined to provide it.” If Labour MPs want to follow the Prime Minister’s words, they must send a clear message back: unless this Bill clearly prohibits charging drivers for using existing roads, it cannot be allowed to pass through this House.

Draft Railways (Interoperability in Northern Ireland) (Convention on International Carriage by Rail) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 General Committees

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and also to be across the Floor from the Minister for the second time today. This morning we discussed the coach industry in Westminster Hall, while this afternoon we are discussing an issue that goes to the very nub of our constitutional settlement as a union of nations.

As the Government reference in the documents published alongside these regulations, the operation of the railways in Northern Ireland has always been slightly different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, the 1843 compromise with the Board of Trade on a 5 feet 3 inches gauge and the subsequent Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act 1846 set the railways of Northern Ireland on a different technical path.

However, despite acknowledging that long history, I wholly recognise the concerns that have been raised, and that I expect will equally be raised today, specifically those relating to how the new regime alters the 2011 regulations that cover the whole of the United Kingdom.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim has already set out in detail, as I am sure he will again later, his concerns about the impact that this could have on Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to divergence within the United Kingdom. In their impact assessment of the proposals, the Government comment that, outside of the Windsor framework, the main advantage of these proposals is that they will

“provide more certainty to businesses as to which technical standards and processes apply to rail projects being undertaken in Northern Ireland.”

However, what is not clear is why clarity could not be offered under the regulations set out in 2011, even if that must be under a slightly altered regime. Merely because clarity is offered, it does not necessarily mean that the situation is better.

I recognise that in response to concerns about the impact, it has been said that the Department for Transport and the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland have agreed a common framework establishing mechanisms for officials to monitor and avoid regulatory divergence impacting the UK internal market. Even though this is the only risk noted, it is not an insubstantial one. Divergence between the two markets could easily put parts of Northern Ireland’s supply chain at risk. While there is a role for European elements, the requirement for UK goods to have an EU declaration of conformity is a further burden which should not be necessary.

There is also the broader point that, moving forward, we need to ensure that technology and progress in the rail sector in Northern Ireland is able to work within the framework of its relationships with the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom more widely. I fear that removing so much power without even consulting those affected could begin to create significant discrepancies that will have a significant impact.

I appreciate the status of these measures within the framework, but ultimately, we need to ensure that our legislation serves all the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am afraid that these measures simply will not achieve that.

UK Coach Industry

Greg Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) on securing the debate, and I agree with her that coaches are unique and vital.

The debate has shown that not much divides the House on this topic. The challenge, as ever, is what the Government do with the asks from Members on both sides of the Chamber and how they support the UK coach sector and secure its future.

As we have heard, coaches play a critical role in getting people to school, supporting tourism and helping businesses transport people around the country and internationally. The sector has said that just one additional coach every day can deliver £1 million in economic value annually to a destination. On the face of it, that may sound like a rather surprising amount, but when we consider the capacity of a coach and the number of people it can transport, it immediately becomes less surprising.

Although the precise number is unclear, we know that there are about 2,500 coach operators in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that 88% are family owned or individually owned, and they employ tens of thousands of people across the country. To give just one example of their contribution, they transport 600,000 children—including one of my own—to school every day. On that note, with the indulgence of the House, I want to briefly thank a wonderful man called Rob, who drove coaches on multiple home-to-school transport routes in Buckinghamshire until the end of last academic year, when he moved on to a local taxi firm. His bright outlook gave real joy to the children he transported each and every day. He would hand-write each of them a Christmas card, and he became famous for the songs that he put on between the bus stops, the pick-up points and school. The children very much miss him as their home-to-school coach driver. We thank him for what he did, and hopefully one day he might return to those routes in Buckinghamshire.

As with much of the transport sector, we would be foolish not to recognise the challenges facing the industry, particularly for operators that have not received Government support. With diesel hitting all-time highs, the challenges facing the coach industry are more pronounced than ever. A recent survey by the newly established Coach UK warned that 41% of operators would withdraw from home-to-school contracts and 18% would consider closing down altogether if high prices persist beyond December.

Although hope may be a suitable remedy for the Labour party, it does not help with the financial reality faced by businesses across the county. Given the particular challenges for the industry, there is a need to take steps to reduce costs for business, but what message would operators have taken from what the Government said at Labour party conference? The Transport Secretary did not mention the word “fuel” once in her speech, but operators face an increase in fuel duty scheduled to take effect at the start of next year, and another hike in March. The deadline is fast approaching, which is why the Conservatives have called for the Government to provide clarity immediately and freeze fuel duty further.

Although Labour Members may think that everything is going right simply because they have a new leader, the reality for coach drivers and operators is different. Given these circumstances, I recognise the coach industry’s call for targeted financial relief this year. I can clearly understand why operators are asking for it, and it should serve as a reminder that the Government’s focus should not be on extracting ever-greater revenues to fund its profligate spending. I recognise the challenge in committing to specific financial support, but ultimately we need to ensure that fuel prices remain affordable and that businesses can continue to operate sustainably. That involves ensuring that fuel duty does not increase and doing what we can as a country to increase the supply of fuel—fossil fuel, advanced sustainable fuels and, in the future, synthetic fuels.

Additionally, we must acknowledge the broader energy-related issues that are relevant to this discussion. The consultation outcome on ending the sale of new non-zero emission buses and on the decarbonisation of coaches and minibuses showed that respondents emphasised that coaches have significantly different operating cycles from those of buses used in regular services. For example, coaches may not return to their depots as often as service buses. They may also need to find refuelling locations wherever they operate, and the vehicles may need a range of hundreds of miles. If such measures were introduced, they would place obvious strains on efforts to procure vehicles that meet the standards the Government will ultimately require. The practicalities of operating the vehicles underline the importance of technological neutrality, allowing businesses to buy the vehicles that will enable them to provide the services they know how to deliver effectively.

Returning to the example of transporting children to school, we have heard from a variety of operators about the increasing costs resulting from the Government’s increase in national insurance contributions, originally estimated at £800 per driver per year. Those costs create challenges for the provision of transport for disabled people, who may require more bespoke arrangements. Overall, when considering the financial pressures facing the sector, it appears to be another example of treating those on the roads as a means of simply extracting revenue.

Although costs such as fuel remain an important consideration, we must also consider the regulations in place. One issue raised by operators in the coach sector, as well as the wider transport industry, is the difficulty of recruiting and training staff, which has come through in this debate. Such skill shortages can rapidly affect the industry if left unchecked, as in the HGV sector a few years ago. That means that we need to ensure that the regulations in place enable people—particularly young people entering the workforce—to develop the skills they need.

Providing young people with opportunities to learn and develop at an earlier age would be advantageous. For example, one element that Conservatives have sought to address in our recently released skills package is the removal of the 50-kilometre restriction for fully qualified bus and coach drivers aged 18 to 20. Finding ways to make regulations work better for business while creating opportunities for young people is essential. Furthermore, Conservative plans for a reduction in national insurance contributions for employers of 21 to 24-year-olds could provide opportunities for SMEs to invest in skills and encourage more young people to join the sector at the start of their careers. We do not mind if the Government pick up and run with those proposals.

I appreciate that that alone would not be sufficient to solve all the issues facing the industry, but it should inform the approach. The Government have said they acknowledge the role of the coach industry and are committed to supporting it. They could go further, however, by adopting the right approach and asking a simple question: what can Government do to enable those small businesses to operate and grow? Ultimately, the coach industry needs to be able to operate despite the significant costs it faces. It is an industry that typically receives no public funding, relying heavily on small operators working exceptionally hard to run their businesses.

We must not forget the people behind those businesses. Any steps that can be taken to make it easier for them to run their businesses should be welcomed. Ideas have been put from all sides of the House this morning. The challenge I put to the Minister is to take them back to the Department and make them a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

The right hon. Gentleman points to an important fact: the coach sector is used by those who may not otherwise be able to book public transport to get where they need to. Although those people can also benefit from the package of measures brought forward by this Government to give them much needed breathing space, including the £2 bus cap, he is right to encourage me to always go further to improve on that. Unfortunately, he will be momentarily disappointed as I cannot provide him with advance notice of what may or may not be in the Budget. However, his general point—that support is important—is well made. That is why the fuel duty freeze is currently in place.

The figures that I raised underline the sector’s importance to tourism, high streets and destinations throughout Great Britain. However, the industry is also rooted in local communities. Many of those operators are small and family-run businesses that have served their areas for generations, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) pointed out from his own personal experience. We want those businesses to grow, invest and continue providing the flexible services on which passengers, schools and businesses depend.

I turn first to driver recruitment. We must continue to have an open dialogue with the coach sector about its challenges to doing business and what the Government can do to help. Driver recruitment is central. I recognise the sector’s concerns about recruiting and retaining drivers, in particular about the restrictions affecting younger drivers, which multiple hon. Members have raised today.

At present, 18 and 19-year-olds may drive buses and coaches only on regular services of up to 50 km. That can severely limit the work available in a sector where journeys are often of longer distance or not part of regular services. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) also raised the issue of when young drivers can begin their qualifications and theory tests. I will certainly take that away and raise it within the Department.

The Department has been engaging with the bus and coach industry, alongside road safety groups, to understand the potential impacts of amending the restrictions that apply to young drivers. However, I want hon. Members to be assured that we are working hard and at pace to get the next generation of drivers into the coach sector. We are considering the evidence carefully and will set out our next steps in due course. However, I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), the Minister with direct responsibility for this matter, to set out more detail on the timings in writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard.

I turn now to cost pressures, which have been a consistent theme of this debate; they were particularly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I recognise that operators face pressures at the pump. That is why the Government have extended the 5p fuel duty cut until the end of the year, which provides important support to businesses, including coach operators. We will continue to work closely with the sector, listening to its concerns and ensuring that the challenges facing coach operators are understood across Government.

There is also a continued role for international advocacy, which sits within my role at the Department for Transport: working with colleagues both across Government and with the UK delegations at the International Energy Agency, to ensure that we continue to maintain a robust supply of diesel into the United Kingdom.

[Greg Smith]

I want to raise an issue that I appreciate sits more with the Treasury than with the Department for Transport. Since fuel costs increased earlier this year, the Government have taken in over £1 billion in extra unexpected income to the Treasury from VAT on those higher fuel prices. The money is there to support the coach sector, the logistics sector and other sectors that so desperately need it, is it not?

[Keir Mather]

Later in my speech, I will reflect more on the steps that we are taking to support the coach sector, especially in building the longer-term resilience that we believe can be achieved through the benefits that can be accrued from decarbonisation. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of rising fuel prices, which concerns the Government and on which we work on in close collaboration with the sector. He will, of course, understand that ahead of the Budget I cannot say much more about the exact issue that he raised.

I turn next to the issue of transport connectivity and the indispensable role of coaches as part of an integrated transport network. Earlier this year, the Department published “Better Connected”, the Government’s strategy for integrated transport in England. It sets out a clear national vision for all partners across the transport system to create integrated networks that work well for people and are safe, reliable, affordable and accessible, so that people can make their journeys easily. Its principles of putting people first, creating well-connected places and working in partnership apply across all forms of transport, but perhaps no more than in relation to coaches, which have a critical role to play as part of an integrated picture, particularly in connecting people to education and visitor destinations, but also in connecting rural communities and supporting elderly residents, as was raised by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). Better information, well-designed interchanges and closer co-ordination with rail, bus and local transport can make journeys easier, and we will continue working with local leaders to ensure that coach travel is properly considered in local transport plans.

I will also just touch briefly on an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) about working more closely with local authorities to break through planning challenges. Currently, there are obligations for local authorities to have regard to land use and land need for myriad factors that do not pertain to driver welfare stops as they relate to critical national infrastructure on the strategic road network. There is more work for the Department of Transport to do in order to work more closely with local authorities to make them more aware of just how critical it is to have proper freight and coach connectivity to every part of the United Kingdom.

I turn next to zero emission coaches. Coaches already provide an efficient form of mass transport, but we recognise the need to support the sector to go further in a way that makes good business sense. The transition to zero emission coaches presents particular challenges that I am very cognisant of: journeys can be long and variable, vehicles may spend extended periods away from their depot and operators need confidence that suitable charging will be available. The Government’s £170 million multi-year depot charging scheme supports zero emission HGVs, vans and coaches by part-funding charging infrastructure at fleet depots. Its first 2026 funding window offered support for up to 70% of eligible charge points and civil engineering costs of up to £1 million per organisation.

Air Traffic Control Disruption

Greg Smith Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on the failure of the United Kingdom’s air traffic control system and the resulting disruption to flights and passengers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

Good morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will ensure that your comments are relayed.

May I begin by again apologising to passengers across the United Kingdom who faced significant disruption as a result of the issues that impacted NATS’s operation on 8 September, resulting in delays and cancellations for hundreds of thousands of passengers, as well as the disruption that it has caused for industry? Let me be clear that disruption of this kind is absolutely unacceptable.

To provide some context to the House, at around lunch time on 8 September NATS experienced an issue with its flight processing system at its Swanwick centre affecting the data that was available to controllers. The disruption had a significant impact across the UK aviation network resulting in widespread delays, cancellations and diversions. NATS worked hard to fix the issue, but that took time as the systems needed to be tested to ensure that they had fully recovered and operations could safely return to normal. My officials were in regular contact with NATS, airlines and airports during the incident to understand the issues impacting them and to offer Government support, such as granting night flight alleviations to support recovery at regulated airports including Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

NATS has confirmed that it was a technical issue and it does not believe it to be cyber-related. The Secretary of State and I met Martin Rolfe yesterday, and we have agreed that he will send a report to us by Wednesday 16 September setting out the cause of the incident and the actions being taken to ensure that this cannot happen again. The Secretary of State has also asked the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct an independent review to establish cause and to ensure that our air traffic control systems can get passengers to where they need to be, with an update to be provided to me within six months. We will work closely with both organisations as well as airlines and airports to ensure that lessons are learned and that any necessary improvements are implemented.

This morning, I met representatives from Unite the union to hear directly about the impact of the incident on airport and airline staff and to discuss broader issues with them relating to the abuse of frontline transport workers. I express my and the Secretary of State’s gratitude to all those staff at our airports and airlines who provided support to passengers whose journeys were disrupted over the past few days. Our sympathies remain with all those passengers who have experienced delays to their travel plans or cancellations.

[Greg Smith]

Over 2,000 flights cancelled, with more than 150,000 passengers affected; delays, disruption and pain; embarrassment for Britain—what an absolute mess! As you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, there was no offer of a statement from the Government, hence this urgent question from the Conservative Benches.

Nothing sums up the situation facing real people this week better than Martin Brundle’s scathing post on Tuesday:

“Nine hours and counting sitting on a plane which has travelled nowhere. At a remote parking bay, no food throughout, and mother/baby and a person with a medical condition desperate to get off. As is everyone else. Toilets no longer available as blocked. No sign of steps or buses. And that’s before the wait for luggage. Pathetic and dangerous lack of corporate contingency and responsibility.”

Is the Minister not embarrassed? A report by 16 September, which takes us into recess, and six months then to fully diagnose the problem—that is not good enough. A third failure deserves immediate action, not delaying tactics.

The Government have a considerable say in how NATS operates. Ministers cannot suddenly discover the virtues of arm’s length government when something goes wrong in an organisation of which the taxpayer owns 49%. Passengers have heard before that lessons will be learned, reviews commissioned and improvements made; they do not want another sorry story of apologies and assurances while everyone waits for the next failure.

A cyber-attack has been ruled out, so exactly what did happen? Was it a software failure? Were sufficient engineers available on site? Were previous recommendations actually implemented? If they were, why on earth are we back here again? Why are airlines and airports lacking suitable contingency plans for when NATS fails—when Government fails—and there is no Government support on the ground? The Secretary of State needs to take responsibility, get a grip of this mess and ensure that this time lessons are not simply learned but acted upon.

[Keir Mather]

I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. He asks me for more detail about what exactly happened, given that a cyber-attack has now been ruled out. The disruption was caused by a technical issue in NATS’s Swanwick flight processing system, which affected the processing of flight plans used by data controllers. NATS advises that the problem was affecting the flight processing system and the data that was being fed into controller radar displays. A fix was implemented later in the day, but recovery took time, as NATS needed to test that the system was safe.

The shadow Minister is right to raise the experience of Martin and the other hundreds of thousands of passengers across the United Kingdom who were adversely affected. That raises serious questions about contingency and resilience planning at our airports, and I am determined to have conversations about that with the CAA, NATS, airlines and airports in the coming days.

The shadow Minister criticises the fact that it will take around a week to get the report back. It is incredibly important that we take the time to figure out exactly what happened, because ultimately this is about aviation safety. It is about making sure that the UK can retain its reputation for getting passengers to where they need to go while protecting their safety. He asked about the report coming back over recess; I am happy to return after recess to answer any questions that hon. Members may have about the issue.

There is a broader question about the CAA being asked to conduct an urgent review and report back within six months, and whether that is the right timeline. I remind hon. Members that after the largest recent outage, in 2023, it took two and a half years for the CAA to fully assess the implications and all the technical improvements and requirements that were needed as a result of that incident. It provided 34 recommendations, all of which have been implemented. A six-month timeframe to get to the bottom of what is a highly technical matter and an incident of disruption is proportionate and timely, and will allow us to react quickly, with stringent ministerial oversight.

The shadow Minister asks Ministers to take control of the situation and exercise effective oversight on behalf of passengers—that is exactly what we are doing.

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.