Richard Holden MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Railways Bill because it prioritises putting the rail system under state control, rather than prioritising passengers and taxpayers, and the effective and efficient running of the railway; because it significantly reduces the role of the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, whose duties it transfers in large part to Great British Railways, with limited rights of appeal against Great British Railways’ decisions, so there will be no proper accountability for the state controlled operator, and this, along with the duty for Great British Railways to prioritise its own services for access to track, will squeeze out popular and well-regarded open access operators, who run services without taxpayer subsidy; because it allows ministers to interfere at will in the running of the railways, for example by setting fares, which will not create a stable environment for private sector investment, with the result that reliance on taxpayer subsidy will increase; and because it will do nothing to grow passenger numbers, or modernise or improve the rail network, and does not include provisions to grow rail freight, which means that the chance to create a thriving railway which delivers economic growth and relies less on taxpayer support will be lost. Once again, just as with the “Unemployment Bill”, we are gathering to witness a throwback to the 1970s. Despite what the Secretary of State has said, ideology is clearly core to the legislation that she is presenting today, because otherwise she would not be ruling out concessionary schemes like those operated by Transport for London and Merseyrail. This time it is our railways that are about to become the latest victim of the Government’s desire not for Government oversight, but for state control. So down the rabbit hole we go. Despite the warm words of the Secretary of State, there is nothing in the Bill that guarantees growth in our rail network or cheaper fares—in fact, only this morning the Secretary of State refused to say that rail prices would continue to come down—and nothing to guarantee safer, more comfortable journeys on our railways. There are no plans for greater electrification, which is hardly surprising given that the last Conservative Government delivered 20 times as much electrification in our 14 years as Labour achieved in its 13 years. This Government have chosen to betray North Wales again, and have abandoned the midlands main line upgrade as well. Both were important electrification projects. There is nothing in the Bill that promises better and more consistent internet connections on our trains. Instead, like the card soldiers in “Alice in Wonderland”, the Secretary of State is busy covering up her blunders by painting the roses red. She claims that the new branding is “not just a paint job”. Well, what on earth is it? We on these Benches know the answer to that. The Secretary of State is trying to paint over the cracks in a rusting hulk of a Bill that picks the pockets of every other DfT budget, whether it involves our roads or bus users, air passengers and air travel. All of them will be hit with cuts, and also with higher taxes so that the Secretary of State and her civil servants can play trains in the Department of Transport.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was interesting to hear Government Members saying, “Yes, yes,” while he spoke, because that is exactly what they did: they threw money at the transport unions. It is particularly interesting that the Secretary of State said today that the railways will face a £2 billion-a-year subsidy for the foreseeable future, because that is not what the Government have said in answers to written questions submitted by me or Opposition colleagues. Let me be absolutely clear that when it comes to Britain’s railways, we are not against the idea of uniting track and train. We would back a model that brings coherence to the system, but not one that weakens scrutiny and clamps down on competition. That is why we have supported a concessionary model, which the Secretary of State will no doubt recall from her time at Transport for London, as will Members from Merseyside and Greater Manchester, where such a model is being proposed. I do not think anybody has ever considered them to be on the far right.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The previous Government did a huge amount to improve access to stations throughout the country. I would like to see more of that.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman, along with some of his colleagues, has not been listening to what I have been saying, because we put forward the Williams-Shapps review to deliver a new concessionary model. Some of the funding he mentioned was delivered through modernisation, and it was delivered under the last Government. Let us be clear about what is happening with SWR: under this Government, his constituents are seeing greater delays right across the network. They are seeing that month after month, despite the promises of the Secretary of State. Despite the right hon. Lady’s flagrant disregard of taxpayers’ money and an “ain’t bovvered” approach to passenger welfare, I had hoped that she would have ensured that this Bill contained the necessary safeguards—guard rails, perhaps—and a strong regulator with the statutory authority to intervene and set things straight. Are we going to have such a regulator? Oh, but we dare to dream! [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) wishes to intervene, why does he not stand up? Today, operators propose and the Office of Rail and Road decides, but under this Bill, GBR will propose and GBR will decide. We find ourselves in the most bizarre position of the Office of Rail and Road handing over its powers on deciding track access and access charges to GBR, which is the very entity that has the most to gain by acting in its own self-interest. In this Bill, that self-interest is unfettered and unperturbed by any genuine oversight. Who, can I ask the Secretary of State, will be in charge of the railways in this new thrilling world of state control? According to the responses I have received to parliamentary questions, we are still not clear. Rail fares, apparently, will be decided by Ministers in the Department for Transport. Automation of train technology will be, according to the answers to written parliamentary questions I have received, the Government’s collective responsibility. Working arrangements with unions will be managed by individual local train operators, and the guiding mind of it all will be GBR. This is not, as the Secretary of State and her Ministers have claimed, how any organisation ought to be run. It is an organisational mishmash—rudderless, directionless. It will not serve passengers, it will not serve freight and it certainly will not serve taxpayers. Certainty, supposedly guaranteed to freight, industry and manufacturing, is entirely absent. In its place, we have the misfortune of funding mechanisms that can be changed and amended at any time, without any oversight whatsoever. We have a duty to freight, which, although clearly an afterthought, is obviously welcome, but once the reality kicks in, GBR’s overlordship of the process of access, pricing and timetabling will leave freight operators permanently in the lurch. We have conflict of interest after conflict of interest permeating the Bill, with about as much credibility as the Secretary of State’s promise a couple of weeks ago that the Government had no plans to introduce pay-per-mile on our roads. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady has corrected Hansard yet. We desperately need an indication of purpose. What is this for? Who is this all for? It is pretty clear that we want to passengers to be put first with reliable, safe and accessible journeys that provide value for money, and open access routes protected, including those serving Hull, championed by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), and those serving Doncaster, which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) know their constituents really depend on. Oversight must be accompanied by actual enforcement, and passengers and taxpayers must be at the forefront of the Bill. Currently, they are not.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We can all see the ideology at play today. I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is in Greater Manchester, where the mayor is calling for a concessionary model—a partnership between the state and the private sector that is directly opposed in the Bill that he will support this evening. The hon. Gentleman is quite far off the mark. The number of passengers on our railways doubled in the 25 years after services were returned to the private sector after half a century of decline. We support the vital role of open access operators, which always give passengers brand-new routes with cheap, affordable fares, and often run direct services to London. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) called for direct services recently, but I do not think that option will be available under the new system. Neither will a direct line from Cleethorpes to London, long campaigned for by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers)—I visited his constituency a week ago—be on offer. We back a joined-up approach that places passengers and taxpayers at the heart of our railway. We recognise that fragmentation held our railway back, and have long championed partnership with private sector involvement to drive innovation and growth. That is why we conducted the Williams-Shapps review. What the Secretary of State has brought forward is not a coherent model at all; it is something altogether different, and ought to trouble Members throughout the House. Her Bill ignores the evidence, the experts, and the fervent cries of freight that growth has to be at the forefront of any rail reform. Instead, in keeping with the worst traditions of the 1970s, a return to state control runs throughout her Bill. It is not about the growth in passenger numbers that would reduce taxpayer subsidy; otherwise, why is that not on the front of the Bill? It is not about the growth in competition that would bring down prices for passengers, the growth of freight that would take more lorries off our roads, or the growth of new routes to serve the length and breadth of the country. Nowhere on the face of her Bill is there a target for passenger growth. The Bill actively works against open access, which, if the Secretary of State gets her way, will be left wholly, and deliberately, vulnerable.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that when it comes to modernisation, access and new trains, that is exactly what we want to see delivered, and there is no mention of that in the Bill. We have tabled our reasoned amendment today because a Bill with no independent regulator, no protection for competition or taxpayers’ money, no passenger growth duty and no credible enforcement, cannot command our support. Throughout this murky and blinkered process, the Secretary of State has shown that she does not have the will to make sensible changes. Like the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), she does not have the guts to face down her Back Benchers, who call for greater state control right across the system. She will not strengthen the Bill. She will not restore independence. She will not protect open access, embed growth or put passengers first. Instead, she presses on, convinced that centralising power will somehow solve the very problems that centralisation always creates. Let there be no shadow of a doubt: when, as is inevitable, things go wrong, leaving passengers without recourse or redress, she and she alone will face the consequences. She will own the cancellations, the overcrowding, the endless complaints about no internet signal, the strikes, the rising taxpayer subsidy and the fateful day when passengers learn she can no longer afford to use taxpayers’ money to prop up her much-vaunted fare freeze. We on the Opposition Benches will fight to deliver a railway that works for passengers, taxpayers, freight and the future. We will not sit idly by and allow the Government to turn GBR into judge, jury and executioner on the network it alone controls. I hope that Members from other parties will support our calls here and in the other place over the coming weeks and months.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with my right hon. Friend on that issue. Earlier, he made the important point that people want to see through-trains running, because there is nothing that benefits disabled passengers more than the through-train services such as from his constituency, which would be available with open access. I believe that the Department for Transport has opposed that for the service he mentioned. The Transport Secretary can correct me if she wishes, but it comes to something when this Government are actively working against new routes across the country. This Bill actively works against open access, which, if she gets her way, will be left wholly and, I suspect, deliberately vulnerable. GBR is mimicking some statist salami-style tactic that will cut it slice by slice until open access is dead. Above all, this Bill does not put passengers or taxpayers first. Having been watered down beyond recognition, the passengers’ council is a far cry from what the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) envisaged. What remains is no watchdog at all, but a dog with no teeth or, as it has no enforcement powers, a dog that can barely bite. Even in the Government’s own factsheet, this so-called watchdog is confined to advising and reporting. GBR must “listen”, but nowhere does it have to comply. This is not accountability; it is blatant window dressing behind triple glazing. If the council is not to be toothless, there have to be standards that GBR is expected to adhere to, so I ask the Secretary of State: where are the rigorous performance standards and the key performance indicators for the network that, in answer to parliamentary question after parliamentary question, she and her Ministers have promised will be released? She has taken operators into state control, but refuses to set out by which standards they should be judged. Does she have no standards—or perhaps she would rather let performance slip and then claim credit for any tiny improvements she can spin down the line? We must contend instead with insufficient protections for ticket retailers, so passengers who use apps such as Trainline, which is incredibly popular, TrainPal or Uber will no doubt have to pay more for a shoddier service, as the Government push these growing businesses to the brink, as they are doing. From these depths, one inescapable conclusion emerges: the people who will benefit from this Bill are not passengers or taxpayers. The only ones who will benefit are the Secretary of State’s union paymasters, who stand to cash in, with no commitments to modernisation, to increasing efficiency or to abolishing outdated working practices. Every possible incentive for increasing efficiency has been ignored or abandoned on the altar of ideology.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. These taxes are hitting across the board, and they are hitting the employment of his constituents. That is on top of the tax rises that we saw last year: the changes in business property relief, business rates and agricultural property relief, and the national insurance tax rises. It is hammering working families up and down the country, while the Government pretend that it is not. How on earth can the Secretary of State claim that this Budget will keep inflation down? Every policy choice that the Government make fires costs straight back into the system. It is happening with policy after policy, as if some giant socialist Gatling gun were spraying costs on to businesses, passengers, taxpayers and, indeed, the entire country.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that I have no time to give way further. Do the Government not understand that every time they hike up taxes, the cost of food goes up? Do they not understand that an indiscriminate tax hike means that the cost to the producer rises, the cost of getting the food to the shops rises, and the cost to the supermarket selling the food rises? It is a conveyor belt of wholly avoidable costs. That brings me to the core of my argument. What are this Government actually for? Disposable incomes have been revised down, along with growth, while taxes, inflation and business rates are all up. What else is up? The number of entrepreneurs leaving the country. We thought it would be capital flight—in fact, that is what the Treasury was briefing out: real worries about capital flight—but it is not just capital flight; it is entrepreneurial flight. It is labour fleeing the country as well. People are leaving. The only thing left is land, and the Government are taxing that as well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury made a very good point in his speech. He said that he had never seen such speculation ahead of a Budget that had worried family businesses—family businesses in his constituency and in mine. I have never known a Budget to be talked about as much as this Budget was in advance of its production. It is quite incredible. The economy is being harmed just by the briefing put out by the Government. They were doing it on the Prime Minister’s own plane. It is unbelievable. However, it is not just small businesses that are being affected. We hear today that Zipcar, which is important to a great many people in London, will be closing its operations from the end of the year. That will have a huge impact, and it is happening because of the taxes on the company and the congestion charge imposed by the Mayor of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) made a good point earlier when he said that, once upon a time, Labour talked of being the party of a hand up, not a handout. Well, Labour is now, quite clearly, the party with its hand in the pocket of working Britain. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) all made the same point; they are not normally on the same page, but they were today. They pointed out that it would be working people paying the price for those extra tax rises, because of thresholds that are frozen year after year owing to decisions made by this Labour Government. The Government are not on the side of motor manufacturing either. Real concerns have been expressed by that sector, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). How on earth, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) asked earlier, will a pay-per-mile scheme work when people are crossing the border? Is the Labour party really going to tax people for driving on foreign roads? We shall have to see. The hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) made a very sensible point when he said that fiscal prudence was a means to an end. It is a means to the end of getting debt interest down, and keeping borrowing rates for businesses and families down. That is exactly right, but we did not see it from this Government. They think that people will not notice, but the Chancellor determinedly obfuscated about the figures. She talked of a black hole imposed on her, but in truth, taxes on working people are rising to pay for more welfare. The Government think that people will not notice that they are being bribed with their own money, taken from them via the tax on electric vehicles and energy. They think that small businesses will not notice business rates going up, or national insurance taxes going up. But people have noticed. They have noticed the broken promises on tax, on working people and on bills. They have noticed the smoke and mirrors. The Government are robbing Peter, but not to pay Paul; they are robbing Paul too. People were worried ahead of the Budget this year, and now they are worried about what the third Labour Budget next year will deliver, because they know that this failing Government will be coming back for more.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The real issue here is hiding in plain sight. It is on the annunciator. This is all about bearing down on inflation, because this Government have already catastrophically failed to keep it at 2%, where the Conservative party left it at the time of the general election. That is having an impact on the cost of living up and down the country. From every single business I visit, and every single person I meet on the street in Basildon and Billericay, I hear, “Since Labour got in, things have got worse.” Unemployment is up, as is inflation—it is now double what it was at the general election. It is the highest inflation in the G7, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said. Rents are up, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) said. Part-time jobs are being hammered, and as my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), have mentioned, taxes on employment are really hurting people. Growth is down, particularly in the North sea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said in her fantastic speech. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) said, energy prices are through the roof. That is hitting our ability to deliver growth for businesses, particularly our manufacturing sector. Right across the piece, this Government are hammering businesses; as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said, business rates for high-street firms are up by at least 40% since the general election, despite what we are constantly told by Ministers. Despite the election pledges, tax rises are hitting working people up and down the country. Under this Government, taxes are up by £66 billion a year, and alongside that, debt has risen by tens of billions of pounds. The real issue for the cost of living is Labour’s doom loop—higher taxes, higher prices, lower growth and more unemployment, followed by higher taxes, higher prices, lower growth and more unemployment—but this Government simply do not get it. They have apparently tried educating their Back Benchers, but their Back Benchers have made their position clear. Regarding welfare, one was quoted as saying, “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds”. Imagine how that is going down with those who have to lend us billions of pounds every year. The Government want us to believe that they are at least trying to help, but it is clear that this is a Janus-faced Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said, the costs have not come off people’s bills, because the Government are just moving those costs to their tax bills. That is true, is it not? We are told to be grateful that energy bills—which are already up—are being shifted to our tax bills. The electric car grant that is coming in is not actually helping anyone. It is not a result of energy prices having gone down; it is being paid for with pay per mile, despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) at Transport questions that that would not happen. There have been more questions today from Members right across the House about how on earth one could implement such a scheme. Let us have a look at the freeze on train fares. That is not being paid for through more efficient trains or more productivity; it is being paid for by tax rises. Fuel duty will rise by 5p next year, and bus fares are already up by 50%. That measure is fully funded—by taxpayers. It is funded by bus users and motorists up and down the country. That is the cost of this Government. When I saw the numbers in the Budget, I was quite astonished, because they totally contradict the figures that the Department for Transport has put out. The Department has said that the cost of this policy is £600 million, but the Budget says £150 million. When the Transport Secretary speaks, can we have some honesty and transparency about the cost? The issue does not stop there—it goes even further. Taxes on flights are up to £400 for a family holiday, and those taxes are going up next year, and the year after. The taxi tax is coming in, hammering our night-time economy and leaving women with a choice between paying 20% more for a private hire vehicle, and being vulnerable late at night when trying to get home. The Government are raising business rates again on the high street, but also snuck out on the same day as the Budget were multiple-times increases resulting from the revaluation of airports and a 10-times rise for the channel tunnel rail link, from £10 million to £100 million.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Transport questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) asked the Transport Secretary whether a pay-per-mile charge would be introduced, as had been reported in the Financial Times . In response, the Transport Secretary said: “There are no proposals to introduce a national pay-per-mile scheme.” —[ Official Report , 20 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 834.] However, the Government then briefed the Daily Express , claiming that the Transport Secretary had misspoken in the Chamber. That directly contradicts what this House was told. I have checked Hansard and no correction has been made. This is especially concerning, given the guarantee made yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), that any important policy announcements would be made to this House. Can you therefore advise me how the Transport Secretary may be invited to return to clarify the Government’s true position?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Transport System: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Everyone I have spoken to in the UK automotive sector knows that the Government’s 2030 targets for electric vehicles are unachievable, will cost good UK jobs and are a boon to China as we see BYD sales up by 350% year on year, to 3,500 in the latest October figures. In fact, although the Government said that these targets would deliver certainty, the head of one major car manufacturer told me that the only certainty is a “terminal diagnosis” for the automotive sector in this country. When will the Government abandon these damaging targets, which are hammering UK jobs and UK economic growth?