Richard Holden MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, and he makes it clearly. He is in agreement with the Climate Change Committee, which says that we will have to be using oil and gas well in to the second half of this century. Why on earth should we not drill our own at lower cost and bring in those jobs and taxation, while getting the environmental benefits of doing it on our own doorstep under British regulations? It would not be extracted in other countries with lower regulations and lower environmental standards. The best environmental standards in the world exist in our North sea.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House believes that it is wrong to increase the main fuel duty rates on 1 September, then again on 1 December 2026, with a further increase on 1 March 2027, by a total of five pence per litre, as global oil prices are rising; notes that these increases will affect drivers, farmers, businesses and other hard-working people already struggling with higher taxes and higher cost of living as a result of the Government’s economic policies; and calls on the Government to maintain the five pence per litre cut to the main fuel duty rates introduced by the previous Government beyond September 2026. Once again, this House has come together to hear of yet another egregious tax on transport, pushed out by this Labour Government at a time when people across the country are worried about the cost of getting around. On this occasion, in their infinite wisdom, the Government have decided that this is the opportune time to cancel the fuel duty freeze that the last Conservative Government kept for 13 years, which protected hard-working people from paying extra to get to work, attend appointments and visit friends and family. The Conservatives cut fuel duty by 5p per litre in 2022—the biggest ever cut in fuel duty—which really helped when the economy was facing headwinds from Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Under this Government, though, on top of the countless tax rises that they have already shafted us with, we cannot even get through two years before they decide that the British people need yet another tax rise. It is a tax rise that is being introduced in a sneaky and stealthy way. Labour is deploying its salami tactics—1p in September, the back to school tax; 2p in December, the Christmas shopper tax; and 2p in March, springtime for taxes. We should not forget that a 5p per litre increase in duty is actually a 6p per litre increase, because VAT is added on top of that tax. In September last year in this Chamber, the Transport Secretary trumpeted that Labour had “frozen fuel duty—that is what we have done” —[ Official Report , 11 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1021.] Yet we know that is simply not the case. It reminds me of my childhood, watching Chris Tarrant on “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?” saying, “But we don’t want to give you that.” The Transport Secretary has said that tax rises are now coming, not once or twice, but three times: in September, in December, and in March next year. With economic growth at a dismal 0%, the British people deserve better than underhand tactics swindling them out of the pounds in their pockets to pay for more welfare. It is a tax on every car, every van, every motorbike and every bus, and it is also a tax on hauliers, businesses and families—it is a tax on the country as a whole. Thanks to the Transport Secretary’s Government, those families will be forking out an extra £156 a year.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  It is not often that I agree with an SNP spokesperson, but I very much do so today. The hon. Member makes an incredibly important point. The Labour party came to office talking about how growth was its No. 1 priority. Has anybody heard Ministers, or heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), say that on the telly recently? I certainly have not. Their talking point has, sadly, been put to one side, and we can all see why. On their watch, growth has totally collapsed, inflation has gone up and unemployment has gone up. Growth has collapsed on his watch. For all of his high-falutin’ ideas, he is a member of a Government who have collapsed growth in this country, and he cannot even accept it.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an interesting point at this juncture. It is clear that the Government are trying to undo the damage they have done with their new tax. They are having to put more money into the electric car grant than they will get out from these pay per mile schemes, which they had previously said they would not introduce. The Government are costing themselves more money by imposing a tax. Whether it is the North sea or taxation policy, what they are up to is incredible. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has said that, after this tax hike, the average driver will pay almost £40,000 in fuel taxes over their lifetime, and it will be a higher proportion of someone’s income if they are in a lower paid job and need a car to get about.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with the hon. Member. We need to get back to drilling in the North sea. Norway is drilling on one side of the same basin and getting the benefit of those jobs and the tax revenue. It bemuses me why we are not doing that here. The shadow Energy Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has consistently said from these Benches that that is exactly what we should get on and do.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady raises an important point. As she suggests, the tax revenues from reopening the North sea for oil and gas could be spent in a number of ways, but we have to open the North sea—a cost-free and environmentally positive alternative—to obtain those revenues, and then we can consider all the different ways in which Members across the House would want to spend the money. Since the Labour Government came to office, we have seen just how much they have hit transport across the country. The fuel duty rise of 5p a litre is just the latest example. First they abolished the much-loved £2 bus fare cap, which the Conservatives had pledged at the general election to continue for the entirety of this Parliament: they have put bus fares up by 50%. They have also jacked up airport business rates, by a staggering average of 295%. Who is benefiting from that? Certainly not passengers, certainly not the airlines, and certainly not British business. They have also raised air passenger duty, with passengers facing a 15% jump in one year alone, followed by permanent increases, year after year after year, of between 3% and 4%, just to get on to a plane. In the last few weeks the Government have raised the price of railcards for the first time since— [Interruption.] Perhaps they would like to chunter about this one. Do you remember this one, guys? We hear nothing from them on this. They have raised those prices for the first time since 2013—the first time for more than 10 years. They have increased the price of senior railcards, veterans’ railcards, young people’s railcards. New taxes on people throughout the country are being raised by this Government. We are seeing a 16% rise for the first time since 2013, and they did not even know about it, because they do not care about young people, about old people, about those who are being affected by the tax rises that will be hitting people all over the country from September onwards. Labour has also just introduced a new policy that will leave ferry passengers on the Isle of Wight facing bigger crossing charges: £30 more per crossing. That will hit family holidays in the UK, and it will hit people from the Isle of Wight who are just trying to go about their daily lives. Labour is stealthily—

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. On the hon. Member’s second point, inflation would have been higher overall if fuel inflation had been higher overall. He makes an important point about potholes and road maintenance. It is interesting that he stood on a manifesto at the last general election that promised to fill an extra million potholes a year. We saw the figures just a few weeks ago showing that exactly the same number of potholes were filled last year as were filled in the last year of the previous Government. I look forward to seeing his Government starting to deliver on any of their pledges. Perhaps they could do so a bit more easily if they had that tax revenue coming in from the North sea, as those on the Opposition Benches would like to see. This is Labour’s regressive tax raid. Do we expect those on the Government Benches to understand just how punitive this tax measure will be? Of course not. How could they understand, when it is rural communities that will be hit hardest, as it always is with transport? The truth is that the Department for Transport and the Treasury working together is more like watching an episode of “Hustle”. The con is on, and it is being perpetuated by this Labour Government.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you, Mr Speaker, for reminding the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) of his role.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The tourist tax is hammering working Britain. And those are just the taxes that Labour is imposing on transport. There are plenty of others, and I am happy to take interventions if any hon. Members want to mention them.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I have already given way to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, but I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Upper Bann.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Passengers want safe and reliable journeys, and those who work on our public transport system deserve to be safe at work, especially when they do the right thing in difficult circumstances. However, bus driver Mark Hehir, who was praised by the police for stopping a thief, was sacked. I have met Mark and the lady he saved from a robbery, but has the Secretary of State or anyone from the Department met him? Indeed, has anybody from the Department made representations on his behalf? More broadly, passengers deserve to feel safe on our railways. What are the most recent British Transport police figures?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Nobody from the Department for Transport has reached out to a heroic bus driver, and the Secretary of State is clearly not really paying attention to officer numbers either, because they are down by 112. Ironically, that is the same number of unpaid tickets racked up by fare dodger Charles Brohiri, stealing £48,000 from passengers and taxpayers. He did not even receive a custodial sentence. I ask the Secretary of State again whether her Department has made any representations about the leniency of that sentence, or whether she is comfortable with a two-tier justice system in which bus drivers who defend their passengers lose their jobs and fare dodgers walk free.

• 27 Jan 2026 · UK Bus Manufacturing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The debate comes at an apposite time. I was particularly glad to have heard from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), who both made excellent speeches. Whether someone is in Ballymena, Aldershot, Falkirk, Scarborough or indeed anywhere that bus manufacturing is based in Britain, we want to see a thriving and successful UK bus manufacturing sector, because it is critical to local communities. I was glad to have visited Alexander Dennis when I was the buses Minister. However, at the very top level across the country, we are seeing real damage being caused by the Government’s complete mismanagement of the economy, with rising national insurance, increases in business rates and self-created economic uncertainty. Those problems have been doubled down on when it comes to our bus manufacturing sector, but it is important to set out the fundamental issues affecting businesses right across the country. As hon. Members have mentioned, the UK bus manufacturing sector directly employs about 4,200 people, with about 13,000 more in the supply chain. It is vital that we retain and grow that workforce. My fear is that the bus sector, and what is happening to it, is the canary in the mineshaft for manufacturing generally, and particularly vehicle manufacturing, in the UK. As the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) noted, in the past year, just 17% of buses with new registrations were made in the UK. There has been a significant and rapid reduction over the past couple of years. Buses are the most popular form of public transport, so we know that we will continue to need new buses in the UK well into the future, but many companies in the sector are facing huge challenges from increased overseas competition alongside technological change, so we must take the opportunity to ensure that we have companies that are able to compete in an increasingly challenging marketplace. It is not always a competitive marketplace—that point was made clearly by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Falkirk—but it is a challenging one for many bus manufacturers. We also need to ensure that UK companies continue to innovate, so that they are at the forefront of technological change. We must examine the hard work of many companies, but especially Wrightbus and Alexander Dennis, the two companies mentioned by the proposers of today’s debate. Those companies have been through challenging times, but they have taken enormous steps to become technological leaders in the sector. Wrightbus in particular has announced enormous growth over the past few years. In 2019, it had fewer than 50 employees and went into administration, with 1,200 jobs being lost. It now provides more than 2,000 jobs in County Antrim, which shows the opportunities for UK manufacturing when there is growth. At the same time, I recognise the issues noted by the hon. Member for Falkirk, which AD and Wrightbus both referred to in their respective financial announcements. The UK bus industry is facing huge financial challenges. It is vital that we understand the challenges those companies face and ensure that the business environment for them and other companies in the sector is as friendly, financially viable, pro-British business and pro-British worker as it can feasibly be. That means creating a sector that has the opportunity to grow, with technology that can rival that of any company around the world. During my time as buses Minister, there was exceptionally strong growth in the bus sector, with a 44.6% increase in new registrations. That was driven most strongly by British-built double-decker buses, registrations of which increased by 173.6% during that time. We also became the largest market in Europe for electric and hydrogen-powered buses, under a scheme that was Government supported but local-authority led. None the less, councils have sometimes chosen foreign manufacturers over UK ones. Councils in Leicester, Nottingham, West Yorkshire, the north-east of England and Newport, and now, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned, the Mayor of London have chosen to buy foreign-made buses. That issue was raised today by Members on all sides, and it is one that I battled with when I was Minister. We want to ensure that existing companies in the UK can prosper. Creating the conditions for that is vital. We must consider not only the work of UK companies but the challenges they face in the international context. Bus manufacturing is a global industry with manufacturers around the world, which is why the Minister is probably facing some of the issues that I faced when I was Minister. Clearly, one of those is social value, which we must do much more about. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Falkirk mentioned the figure of 10%, and I am sure that he is right. We must reflect on that, especially in the international context, and consider how to increase it. That is in the context of something that has only emerged in the past few years: increasing and broader concerns about cyber-security, technology and kill switches. When we put those two things side by side—social value and the security of our bus network, which provides the most popular form of public transport—we see that we have to ensure that we end up in the right place. I ask the Government to commit to reviewing their policies so that matters such as the regulation of equipment, the evaluation of security risk, and trade policy do not enhance the prospects of manufacturers from other countries to the detriment of British manufacturers, especially when taxpayers’ money is being used. Chinese manufacturers are becoming a dominant force in multiple forms of transport. In 2025, BYD overtook Tesla to become the largest seller of electric vehicles, and Chinese electric bus manufacturing has been significant for some time. The International Energy Agency noted that in 2024, just under 50,000 of the 72,000 electric buses sold globally were sold in China, and that Chinese manufacturers have increasingly looked at exports to exploit the available overcapacity in domestic manufacturing. In 2024, more than 15,000 electric buses were exported from China—a 25% increase on 2023 alone. Yutong, a Chinese company that is the largest bus manufacturer in the world, grew to take an 8.4% UK market share by the third quarter of 2025. It is clear that, while Chinese providers are present, we must ensure that all relevant trade practices are fair and that the technology being used does not create security risks. I am aware of the worrying reports before Christmas that, following an investigation in Norway, the Department for Transport was working with the National Cyber Security Centre to assess whether Yutong’s remote access to vehicle control systems, for software updates and diagnostics, was a security concern. I would be grateful if the Minister provided details on whether that issue has been looked into and, if so, what the results were. We need to confront such difficult questions as we do not want to be in the position of enabling bus manufacturers from abroad to take advantage of our policies while making our own manufacturers uncompetitive. There is a risk of the situation worsening, given the Government’s enthusiasm for raising taxes on domestic businesses and particularly on domestic employment. Will the Minister also consider other Government schemes that send money for manufacturing abroad? I am thinking particularly of the electric car grant: 90% of the vehicles covered by that scheme, and 100% of motorcycles, are built in other countries. This is British taxpayers’ money going abroad to subsidise manufacturing in other countries. We are talking about billions of pounds, so it is really important that we look at the issue. Earlier, it was good to hear Labour Back Benchers make strong points about British taxpayers’ money being sent abroad. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that “where things are made, and who makes them, matters.” —[ Official Report , 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 979.] The Government as a whole need to consider that; they would certainly have Opposition support if they wanted to address the matter more forcefully. Overall, we know that the British public want comfortable buses that serve the public well. I am not going to dwell on the 50% bus fare increase, from £2 to £3, under this Government, as this debate is about UK bus manufacturing, but that manufacturing is driven by consistent growth and by what the people want: comfortable, clean buses, with people feeling safe on public transport that has a reliable and affordable model. I am confident that British manufacturers on both sides of the Irish sea can rise to the challenge of delivering what people want in our bus sectors. As technology improves, we want to ensure that our manufacturers are not just protected as the best in the world but encouraged to compete right across the board, offering the jobs critical to local economies up and down the country. To do so, we must support businesses and their workers and ensure that our regulations and taxes do not place a burden that drags businesses down. I believe that that is the best way to ensure that British bus manufacturing remains competitive in the modern world. I really hope that the Minister reflects on some of the issues raised today, particularly the security concerns that have emerged forcefully over the last year, so that he sees what more can be done to support British bus manufacturing.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Animal Rescue Centres · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alec. It is also a pleasure to hear from the Petitions Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for outlining the petitioners views. There were almost 110,000 of them across the country. Some of them are here today in the Public Gallery. Led by Paul and the other campaigners, they have driven so hard to get us to where we are today—not just this debate in Parliament or with the private Member’s Bill that I introduced, but in actually seeing that consultation brought forward by the Government, which is very much to be welcomed. I begin by thanking hon. Members from across the Chamber: the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock); the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones); the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba); the chair of the APPG on cats, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), and the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) contributed in a really valuable way to this debate. It is without doubt that the breadth and strength of those contributions have demonstrated why this issue of licensed animal shelters and rescue centres matters so deeply to communities right across the country. Now, it might be highly unusual to have the shadow Transport Secretary speaking in a debate on a subject for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I requested this one personally, given the fact that an incident that has been referred to, and that sparked off this position, happened in my own constituency at Crays Hill. Many Members will be aware of that and have made a reference to that horrible and tragic case—the appalling discovery of dozens of animals found dead at a property which was presenting itself as a rehoming centre. Some animals were taken back alive. Yet even when they were taken alive some had to have the most horrendous operations done to them, including one having to have its eyes removed because it was so badly maltreated. I was inundated with correspondence from my own constituents and people across the country who are determined to see high standards brought in for this sector and proper, meaningful oversight delivered. I thank those 2,600 of my constituents who responded to this petition—more than any other constituency in the country. They are the reason that we are where we are today and the reason I brought forward my private Member’s Bill for establishing a licensing regime for animal shelters. Only by setting clear standards, and, crucially, as Members have said, by having them properly enforced, can we actually protect animals. That is why I am determined that, hopefully, with the Government’s consultation coming forward soon, we arrive at a licensing regime that puts animal welfare at its heart—and I look forward to hearing a few more details from the Minister in her response and very much welcome the proposal’s inclusion in the animal welfare strategy. That licensing regime must be one that clamps down on malpractice and bad actors while protecting and supporting the many kind-hearted individuals and organisations—from small individuals right through to some of our largest national charities—which provide safe, caring and responsible environments for animals and often animals in real need. We have heard passionate speeches from right across the House in support of those small, often individual institutions in Member’s constituencies. I am heartened by the depth of experience and expertise that exists in the sector to help us get this licensing regime right as well. I place on record my thanks to the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, Farplace Animal Rescue and so many others for their outstanding work and leadership in this area. I obviously also have to pay tribute to Paul Watkinson. His dogged determination to protect animal welfare and ensure that high standards are there across the board also deserves recognition in this House, as do local campaigners in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford said, the problem, as has become painfully clear, is that anyone, regardless of their experience or their intention, can put up a sign and declare that they have an animal rescue shelter or rehoming centre. They will not face routine inspection, be subject to monitoring or be required to apply for any form of licence. That gap in oversight has led to consequences that are as clear as they are troubling: it has undermined public confidence in the integrity of the sector; placed intolerable pressure on reputable charities that are trying to get on with their meaningful work and that already face additional costs; and most importantly, it has resulted in animals suffering—not only dogs and cats but horses and the other animals that have been mentioned. We know that it does not have to be this way. As we have heard, in Scotland, a licensing regime provided a clear bulwark against malpractice and has been in place since 2021. As was mentioned, in Wales, the Government have made plain their intention to move in the same direction. It is therefore vital that England, which is currently an outlier, moves in the same direction. To continue as we are at the moment is clearly not sustainable, and there is a clear advantage to addressing this issue now. As we set about fixing the problem, we are not starting from scratch. As hon. Members have mentioned, we can draw directly from the experiences of those who have gone before us to get it right. I have spoken to many animal welfare charities based in Scotland that are adapting to the legislation and want to see updates. We can help get it right. We can get it even better here than those charities have managed. That is why it is so important that we act now. It is important to recognise that many rescue and rehoming centres already operate to the highest of standards. A significant number are subscribed to the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes voluntary code. That framework is the gold standard and was developed over many years with considerable care, expertise and sector-wide input. I am sure that the Minister will look closely at the voluntary code and work constructively with the association and the wider sector to ensure that the policy is delivered properly. At its best, the sector shows us what good looks like. The task before us is to ensure that those standards are applied fairly and right across the board, so that wherever they are, animals get gold-standard treatment. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned the fact that, for licensing to succeed, it must be proportionate and, crucially, properly enforced. One message I have heard repeatedly from across the sector is that regulation without enforcement is no regulation at all. Clear standards must be matched by trained inspectors, adequate local authority resourcing and a system that allows concerns to be acted on before situations deteriorate into crisis, as clearly happened in my constituency. Any effective system must reflect the realities of modern rescue and rehoming, including foster-based rescues and online rehoming operations, as well as reflecting the work of organisations facilitating rehoming more broadly. The ADCH standards are excellent and many responsible rescue centres have rightly adopted them, but a voluntary system alone will always leave gaps, as rogue operators can simply opt out. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on a licensing regime for rehoming organisations, but that consultation must be followed by real clarity. The sector has been has been ready to engage for many years. What it needs now is a timetable and a clear scope, and there must also be reassurance that wildlife rescue centres will not be left outside of any framework and that there will be support for smaller organisations during any transition. What happened in my constituency last year is not just deeply disturbing; it is a crime, and the man who was arrested for it has recently pleaded guilty and is now awaiting sentencing. I am glad that he will be brought to justice. The situation has galvanised campaigners, charities and Members from across the House to work together to ensure that this issue receives the attention it deserves. There is a clearly a broad consensus across Parliament, the sector and the devolved Administrations. The case for licensing is well made, but what is now required is genuine action. Animals entering rescue and rehoming centres are, by definition, already the most vulnerable. Many have been abandoned, neglected or mistreated before. The very least we owe them is a system that keeps them safe and properly cared for, and we must hold those whose care they are put into to clear and enforceable standards. I urge the Government to ensure that England embarks on a structured roll-out of a licensing regime that is proportionate, inclusive and centred on animal welfare, regardless of the size of the organisation involved, at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the dogs at Crays Hill did not die in vain and we can prevent other tragedies in future.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In written parliamentary question 99967, I asked the Department of Health and Social Care to publish training modules and guidance related to first cousin marriage and genetic risk. The Minister replied that these materials existed, but would not be published to this House or more widely. In written parliamentary question 102870, I asked the Minister if he would place those training modules in the Library of the House of Commons, and the Minister said there were no plans to do so. This is astonishing since that answer came after a freedom of information request to NHS England, which had already placed those very documents in the public domain. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how a Minister might come to this House and explain why, yet again, Parliament has been denied information that was in fact releasable, as you have warned against on many occasions?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 13 Jan 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  Always, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Cabinet Office guide to parliamentary work is clear: “There should be no inconsistencies between the provision of information in answers to written questions and information given under the FOI Act”. It also states that material disclosable under the Freedom of Information Act should also be disclosed to Parliament. On 2 December and 4 December in written parliamentary questions, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency holds about third-party intermediary organisations acting on behalf of Oxford city council and Oxfordshire county council in accessing vehicle keeper data. In both cases, the Minister for Local Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), told me that this information was not “appropriate to disclose” because of commercial sensitivities. However, shortly afterwards, the DVLA released under FOI the code of contract with Oxfordshire county council, confirming contractual arrangements involving intermediaries and third-party access, with only personal data redacted. I would be grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this apparent inconsistency. Might you raise it with the Leader of the House or the Departments concerned?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Economic Growth: Transport System · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Secretary of State enlighten the House as to how reversing the last Conservative Government’s 5p a litre fuel duty cut will help the transport system to support economic growth? Is it not the truth that, come September, this will be known as Labour’s back to school tax?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, although obviously some of it was reported in The Times earlier this week. I welcome the fact that the Government have published the road safety strategy, and I welcome the broad ambition, shared right across the House, to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. As a former Roads Minister and as a local MP, I too have met many grieving families torn apart by deaths on our roads. The fact that we have seen a 10% to 15% reduction since 2010 does not mean that we do not need to go further. In that spirit, I welcome the comprehensive look at motorcycle training that the Minister has announced, as well as the expansion of Project PRIME from Scotland on motorcycle safety. That will be a major improvement to our road safety. I also welcome stiffer fines and enforcement against bad faith drivers, particularly those on ghost plates, as has been mentioned, and against those trying to evade justice via the use of dodgy number plates and other things to conceal their identity. I also welcome the road safety investigation branch and the better use and collation of data and data sharing—those are incredibly important. I also welcome the inclusion of Sharlotte’s law, which will help to prevent people trying to evade justice by ensuring that timely blood testing can take place in the most serious of cases. It is clear that there will be concern about some of the new moves announced and whether they are wholly related to road safety, and I would like to look at a couple of those. In oral questions, the Minister appeared to suggest that part of the reason for the six-month delay after getting a theory test was to ensure that more driving tests are available. In reality, it will mean an even larger group of people waiting to book driving tests, so I fear that the Government have not fully thought through the consequences of that. I remember meeting a woman aged 60 who had just lost her husband of 40 years. She lived in a small village with no bus service. She had always relied on him to drive. Are we really telling her that she will have to take a theory test and then wait six months after passing it to take a driving test? I can think of women in similar circumstances—men take more driving tests than women at an earlier stage in life—who maybe only take a test when they move for jobs or after having children. We need to properly think through the consequences of some of what the Government are proposing. It is important that we look at this broadly to ensure that we are not restricting freedoms via legislation to fix problems that are the result of not sorting out driving tests. No one in this House disputes that drink-driving is totally unacceptable, but I hope that Ministers and the Secretary of State will reflect on the experiences in Scotland, where changes in this space have already been made, and on the concerns right across the hospitality sector that there is no clear evidence of improved road safety outcomes following those changes. In fact, it is extraordinary that the Department—to quote an answer to one of my written questions— “has not made an assessment of the impact on the economic viability of pubs in Scotland” as a result of the changes that have already happened up there. Changing the legal limit alone will not change behaviour, and any reform must be based on a thorough examination of the evidence and impacts, not on attempts to look tough. Alongside alcohol, the House must not lose sight of drug-driving, and I welcome some of the measures announced today. However, the commitments to testing seem rather vague. It would be great to hear more from the Minister on that because the police are pushing for more roadside drug testing. Governments of all stripes have pushed for an emphasis on education and behavioural change. However, that sits uneasily with this Government cutting the budget for the THINK! road safety campaign by £1.2 million last year, particularly when lifelong learning and changes are so critical to many of the plans that the Government have announced today. That brings me to my final major point, which is around enforcement. This place can pass all the laws it wishes, but if they are not enforced, all that does is undermine faith in our democratic institutions. The House will be aware that police numbers under this Government are down by around 1,300 in the latest figures. Enforcement sits at the heart of any credible road safety policy, so are there are plans to ensure additional roads policing to ensure that enforcement happens? Finally, there are some omissions. Why still exclude vulnerable road users and motorcyclists from bus lanes in many areas? There is a real missed opportunity to improve safety and survival for those people. There is also a glaring absence when it comes to tackling the scourge of unlicensed and uninsured criminals driving with impunity. Measures such as requiring proof of identity to register a vehicle could have been included, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) might mention that in her remarks, too. Road safety is not delivered by strategies and consultations alone; it is delivered when the law is clear and evidence-based, enforcement is consistent and the Government are willing to confront difficult issues, rather than relying on process and pre-briefed headlines. While we welcome many of the measures, there are still many questions to be answered, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  At oral questions in September, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) asked the Minister to apologise for failing to bring down the driving test backlog, which Labour had promised to do. The Minister told the House then that there were “early signs of improvement”. Can he tell the House now whether driving test times have increased or decreased since Labour came to power 18 months ago?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  And they’ve gone up!

• 8 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has still not properly answered the question and, frankly, should be embarrassed by that answer. Labour promised to reduce average waiting times to seven weeks— [ Interruption. ] Wait for it. Instead, we are now seeing waits of up to 22 weeks—almost a month longer for a driving test than at the general election. The desperate headline-grabbing announcements about calling in the Army, which in reality will increase capacity by less than half of 1%, and for one year only, will simply not cut the mustard for the hundreds of thousands of people waiting for driving tests up and down the country. Can the Minister tell the House when he expects average test waiting times to fall below the levels that Labour inherited at the general election?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Local Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Government. Yesterday, the Minister for nature, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), told the House that there was no national bus fare cap under the last Conservative Government. That is not surprising, as the Prime Minister keeps gaslighting the public by saying exactly the same thing. Does the Minister accept that he must ensure that his colleagues correct the record, since there was a national £2 bus fare cap under the last Conservative Government? The Conservative manifesto committed to a £2 fare cap for the duration of this Parliament. This Government are taking the public for fools, as they increased the fare cap by 50%, which is hammering hard-working people up and down the country, costing them hundreds of pounds every single year.