Greg Smith

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 1,075

1. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{916422EC-6EE9-4808-9561-BA7D13EA9492}"> </QNum></strong> It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Good morning, gentlemen. On one level the Bill, particularly on Second Reading and in other narratives that have come out since it was first published, seems to be presented as answering the question: how do you solve a problem like the lower Thames crossing? But it equally has a lot of other provisions—perhaps it is due to badly drafted clauses or perhaps it is deliberate—that seem to allow tolling and road pricing to extend further than the lower Thames crossing. Is that something your organisations are concerned about, and do you feel enough focus has been given to parts of Bill related to everything other than the lower Thames crossing—to the general motorists in this country? <em><strong>Edmund King:</strong></em> Obviously if you look at the need for the lower Thames crossing—the congestion and the environmental issues currently at Dartford—it is easy to see that some alternative solution is needed. But, as you rightly say, this Bill is not just about the lower Thames <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>crossing; it could allow that finance model with other schemes. It might have been easier if it was concentrated on the lower Thames crossing because then you could have brought in more restrictions and safeguards on tolls for motorists. As the Bill stands, on the one hand you have the Office of Rail and Road as the regulator for it, and then you have drivers who are the consumers, whether they are individual motorists or heavy goods vehicle drivers. To some extent, there might be a conflict between those two. The ORR has to ensure that the licensee makes money from it so it can be viable, but at the same time, it regulates tolls for the drivers. You could argue that there might be a conflict in that at times. When we looked at similar schemes before—I did a paper on road miles with an economist, which looked at the broader issue of road pricing—one thing we called for was an independent body to oversee tolling and ensure it is fair. I certainly think that the responsibility of the ORR when it comes to tolls could be strengthened and given more independence within the Bill. <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> Clearly, the Committee will want to look very closely at clause 3, which I think is the key thing here. Yes, we looked at it and wondered whether this was a way of creating a framework that could then be applied to the existing road network and the existing motorway network. Clearly, the provisions relate to the trunk roads—the National Highways roads. I think the way clause 3 is drafted tightens that down to where capacity is being added, but we want the Committee to look at how much capacity is being added in order to make that a valid use of the powers in the Bill. Is it simply, for example, playing tunes with the speed limits or maybe adding a lane? What is it? In those circumstances, would we really be contemplating transferring sections of the existing national road network over to a private company? I do not think that is the intention, but the intention is not always the actuality.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{E5C7CB7B-C985-4181-868A-379FA3EE0308}"> </QNum></strong> That is very helpful. I want to dig a bit deeper on that because I think the part of clause 3 that you are referring to is where it says: “A licence may also provide for the holder of the licence to secure the maintenance, operation or improvement of any other highway”. Is it the view of your organisation and members that people would expect that to be about an entirely new road or perhaps a dualled road where there is currently a single carriageway, rather than making what many might consider a relatively minor improvement, such as—I do not know whether this is an improvement—adding smart motorway cameras? <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> Our understanding of it, and this is why I think the Committee will want to make sure this is clear, is that the subsections of clause 3 relate back to each other. It is not relatively minor maintenance of itself that would enable the licence to be awarded. In our reading of it, it has to be linked back to enhancement and capacity—but perhaps the Minister will want to make that clearer.

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{CFC51A3E-52B8-4083-B342-FE3B143A2929}"> </QNum></strong> Lastly, where a new scheme is being proposed under the provisions of this Bill, is enough thought being given to other nearby existing roads and to those who rely those nearby roads—businesses, <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>homeowners, people who live there, schools, hospitals and so on—and are they being properly consulted on this? Too often in this world, the new, shiny thing gets all the attention without due regard to existing infrastructure. Do you feel that that has been adequately explored? <em><strong>Edmund King:</strong></em> You can say that in relation to the lower Thames crossing, because in that part you know the two elements—one is the current Dartford crossing; one is the new crossing—and you can look in that area. But if you look at the Bill more generally, it is very difficult to say because we do not know where it will be applied. Clause 3(1)(a) does say “construction of a highway specified in the licence”, but we obviously do not know where that highway is or what the competing interests are with housing, the economy, routes and so on. In terms of this Bill, it is difficult to say unless a concrete scheme is being considered. <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> It is within the duties that are being placed on the Secretary of State to consider where these powers will be used: there are duties in relation to having regard to users of the network, for example. It could be made more explicit. After all, we are talking about a national asset here, and if faced with a toll and an alternative, people might well choose the alternative, with negative traffic impacts in the round. That would have to be taken into account.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{62574D40-EF52-4C01-B2AB-FE069F84BB70}"> </QNum></strong> Good afternoon, gentlemen. Can I start with Ben and Declan from the logistics and haulage sectors? There were a lot of questions during the last panel about the overall cost of the lower Thames crossing and any other schemes that might get a licence through the provisions of this Bill. I know from my role as a shadow Minister doing roundtables with Logistics UK and visiting haulage firms in my own constituency that margins are very tight in the sector right now. Equally I get that the juxtaposition of margins is even worse if you are stuck in traffic and cannot get across the Thames or to wherever it is you want to go. Can you comment on where the breaking point is for the sector? If a toll for an HGV, for example, came out too high, there would be a perverse incentive for haulage operators to use existing other routes to avoid that. Is there a risk that we end up building these things too expensive, the toll is too high, and the haulage sector finds itself in a worse position? <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> It is a tricky question. What we know is that the current situation and reliance on the Dartford crossing costs the logistics sector, as well as other users of the crossing, a lot in terms of the congestion that comes from that. The cost of sitting in traffic is estimated at £200 million a year. That is based on the time sitting doing nothing, but does not take into account the wider cost to the logistics sector and supply chains of goods not arriving on time. It is just based on the wasted time of the driver. We also know that reliability, or lack of it, is a cost borne by the sector that is then passed on. When we speak to our members, they tell us that what they want is a reliable transport system so they can factor in how much a job is going to take—how much <span id="13" class="column-number" data-column-number="13"></span>time, how many drivers and what they should charge for it—and unreliability means it is much harder to do that. As a sector we potentially have more assets than we need to cover the same amount of ground, which is why it is really important for the sector that capacity increases and why we support, therefore, the delivery of the lower Thames crossing. In terms of a breaking point it is quite tricky because the reason that the sector has a low margin—between 1% and 3%—is because it is a highly competitive sector. It is a feature of the sector rather than something we would say we complain about. It is because there are lots of logistics businesses all competing with each other to deliver the best price. When there are cost pressures on the sector over the medium to long term, it generally keeps that margin where it is, but it results in the overall cost being passed on to the public. Unless it is priced ludicrously, the risk is more about the overall cost being passed on to the public rather than it breaking the operators, as it were.

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{10DAD023-6368-46FE-8260-9509BD9D5F6A}"> </QNum></strong> On the inflationary impact of that example, I think on Second Reading there was largely cross-party consensus on the need for the lower Thames crossing. That is not a point on which there is a political divide. Where the Bill opens up wider questions is on the “what else” bit—how many more schemes under this model could come to pass in future? Without wholesale change to other things, such as fuel duty, road fund licence and so on, there will be an inflationary impact if we suddenly end up with lots of schemes used by general motorists as well as the haulage sector. There will be a tipping point, where the inflationary impact—with the pass-on of tolls to customers—becomes high. Do you have any modelling on that? <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> No, we do not. We would say that the inflationary impact is a balance between the direct input costs—paying a toll, fuel duty and taxes—and the indirect costs of congestion. As a sector, we want to keep those two things in balance, but one of the things that we do want is more investment in the transport network—road, rail and beyond—because some real hotspots are causing congestion and therefore passing the cost on. This is one of them, but it is not the only one. We need to make sure that is in balance. We are not disputing building this particular crossing, but not building things in general has a cost in itself. It is about making sure that this is fair, and therefore about considering the different ways of paying for it. Traditionally, such things have been done under general taxation, which we all pay for, but given the fiscal situation, we as a sector are not against a toll approach, a private finance approach, for this particular crossing. This crossing is one heavily used by the logistics sector. For us, it is a key part of the trading route between Scotland, the midlands and the north, and Europe; it is not simply an issue for the east of London, Essex and Kent. We want to see it happen and, as a sector, we are prepared to help pay for it. We just want to make sure that the toll takes into account the different vehicles, and that the different toll rates for different vehicles take the sector into account. The toll should not be based just on the weight of vehicle, and wear and tear; we need to take into account the economic value that the logistics sector provides to the rest of the country. Ultimately, we all pay for that in a way that is slightly different from other road users.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{6184434A-6A5F-46F9-8C59-0947DDA58B5C}"> </QNum></strong> That is a point I fully understand. Declan, will you add your thoughts and your organisation’s perspective? I will add one rider to the question I asked Ben: the previous Government removing tolls from the Severn bridge was pretty well received by general motorists and the haulage sector. That is where I am coming from—to get an understanding of where the tipping point is. <em><strong>Declan Pang:</strong></em> The cost and affordability of toll rates is a significant concern for us. As you all know, the majority of those in the haulage sector are small and medium-sized enterprises. Small businesses, many of them microbusinesses, are the major users of the trunk road network, so their interests need to be front and centre of how toll rates are set. At the moment, we also have quite a fragile situation in the haulage sector—a particular rate of mergers and acquisitions, as well as a high rate of insolvencies—and that difficult climate has certainly been exacerbated by higher input costs and fuel costs. That should certainly be considered when the Bill is looked at. In the Bill itself, we are particularly concerned about the affordability of tolls and the transparency of how those tolls will be set, as well as the wider impact of the financing model. We would very much like MPs to think about and look at how tolls will be calculated, how they might increase over time, and how the ORR, as the regulator, will assess the affordability of tolls, because we do not feel that that is clearly set out, as the Bill stands. Lots of concern is about whether the Government have plans to use the Bill powers to introduce tolls on roads that are currently free. We certainly seek additional assurances on that point from the Minister.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{B0784823-70F8-4D3B-A607-4C8173B84EF1}"> </QNum></strong> That is incredibly helpful. Given that the affordability of tolls is so critical to your members, do you believe that there should be a presumption or something even stronger locked into the Bill that, within the bounds of safety and meeting the correct standards, there should be due regard to ensuring that schemes are built as cheaply as possible? For example, the lower Thames crossing is already being made more expensive by banning the use of diesel plant to build it. Should there be a presumption that things should be built, within safety and other due standards, as cheaply as possible? <em><strong>Declan Pang:</strong></em> Absolutely. The costs of constructing these schemes are essential in terms of reducing the level of tolls. We particularly think that the Bill as drafted is quite open ended in terms of the phrases it uses. As a previous witness said, affordability should be part of it, rather than just “fair and transparent”. We would like to see that included. We are very supportive of Jim Dickson’s amendment on the rates as well. We would like to see more consideration given to affordability for businesses. <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> I agree with everything Declan said. In the assurances space, clause 1 talks about the ORR having regard to economy. That also comes up in other clauses of the Bill. We would like assurances that that includes an understanding that freight and supply chains are a part of “economy”. It is quite a broad term otherwise.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{DB6B53E8-1B62-4ABE-89C1-5212D4E3E996}"> </QNum></strong> That is incredibly helpful. Mr Whelan, you have a niche interest around the M6 toll elements. Do you feel that the Bill delivers for an existing toll road <span id="15" class="column-number" data-column-number="15"></span>operation? Is there anything you feel is missing from the Bill? <em><strong>Michael Whelan:</strong></em> Our specific interest in the Bill is part 7, which will enable us to introduce free-flow tolling. At the moment, on the M6 toll, we have barriers where you need to slow down, stop and pay. Part 7 of the Bill is the first step for us to enable free-flow tolling, which will help my freight and logistics friends sitting to either side of me—they will not have to slow down and stop. That has many benefits, including time savings. The M6 toll is a very reliable route compared with the alternatives, so it further increases that reliability through increased time savings. It will also mean reduced carbon dioxide emissions because of less stopping and starting.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

   Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

   <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{77A4BC7E-CC8E-4F06-8DB2-661164376FC1}"> </QNum></strong> Good afternoon. As you look at the totality of the Bill, including the elements around the lower Thames crossing, do you think the Government are joined up enough in looking at where new schemes, be that the lower Thames crossing or anything else that might come to pass, are delivered in respect of the existing infrastructure, local roads and intersections, and, as we just heard from the haulage sector, things like roadside driver welfare facilities? Does the Bill risk bringing nice new shiny things to the strategic road network without the necessary back-up to the existing intersections and roads that the new schemes will rely on? <em><strong>Ralph </strong></em><em><strong>Smyth</strong></em><em></em><em><strong>:</strong></em> It is a very good question. I point first to the second national infrastructure assessment, which was published three years ago. That said that by the end of 2026—so where we are now—the Government should publish an integrated strategy for road and rail. If you can see how you are going to improve the rail links and the road links, that would join up better and give confidence about where there should or should not be, for example, a change to the roads. The other dimension is the local angle. We have heard recently in the media about how mayors might be given more of a say on water, for example, but the Bill goes in the opposite direction. It actually weakens or removes the mayoral input on transport. Transport has been the totemic issue of devolution and, oddly, the Bill removes that. A special new category of highway is created that is not subject to something called the network management duty, which is about joining things up in long-term planning and in short-term operations, such as where there is disruption. My concern is that for some of the schemes talked about, like the lower Thames crossing, it is going to be difficult to attract the private sector to invest without making it easier—for example, without reducing the risk of mayors getting in the way or trying to promote a railway line that would actually abstract some of the traffic.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Greg Smith

    Highways (Financing) Bill (First sitting)

    <strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{0D85CB98-0C26-4941-A0B7-8E0AEC2E635A}"> </QNum></strong> Are you suggesting that those areas of the country that currently have a mayor should be locked into the Bill as key consultees, in planning speak, before anything can go ahead? <em><strong>Ralph </strong></em><em><strong>Smyth</strong></em><em></em><em><strong>:</strong></em> I would not want to leave out the rural areas where there are perhaps not mayors.

    Hansard source