Travel in our area is not cheap.

Many people rely on cars while fuel costs continue to rise, rail commuters face ever-higher fares, and those who use the bus were hit with a 50 percent increase in ticket prices just months after the last general election.

But the new Prime Minister appears to have got confused about which election manifesto he is so proudly following, having now announced he will reintroduce the national £2 bus fare cap – a Conservative policy that featured in our own manifesto.

His decision to reverse Starmer’s fare rise is therefore welcome, particularly for rural communities like ours.Improving local bus services is something I have consistently campaigned for because they are vital to quality of life, economic growth and community cohesion.

That is why I was pleased to help secure improvements including more frequent and Sunday services on the Number 18 between Farnham and Bordon, new Sunday services on the 13 to Alton and the 19 between Farnham and Haslemere, and greater coverage on the Number 23 serving Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook.

Through that work, however, the importance of an affordable fare cap has become increasingly clear.

When Labour's fare increase came into force, operators reported a significant fall in passenger numbers. That not only threatened the viability of local routes but also meant fewer people travelling to work, visiting the shops or simply staying connected with their communities.

As I wrote last week, rural areas require different solutions because everything costs more. The economies of scale enjoyed by London or Manchester simply do not exist here.

Without a fare cap, a single journey from Bordon to Farnham could cost as much as £8. That is the reality of providing transport in rural Britain – a cost worth supporting if we want our villages and market towns to continue thriving.

While I welcome the return of the Conservatives' fare cap, I remain concerned about how the Prime Minister intends to fund it. He now leads a parliamentary party whose stated position is to tax more people in order to spend more on benefits. It is obvious that a targeted policy to support rural transport does not naturally fit that approach.

Burnham says the cap will be funded by redirecting money from international climate projects – much like the savings he plans from rolling back other Starmer-era policies to fund his “new path”.

But with Britain's welfare bill continuing to grow, difficult decisions cannot be put off forever.

My concern is that, sooner rather than later, our area's priorities could once again become casualties of those pressures.

Affordable, reliable buses are not a luxury in rural Surrey and Hampshire. They are an essential part of everyday life, and I will continue making the case for the investment our communities deserve.