Richard Holden MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  There is no passenger growth commitment in the Railways Bill, just the expectation of inflation-busting fare rises in the Budget. Holidaymakers are being used like a piñata, with a 13% rise in air passenger duty already in prospect, and airport business rates will be passed on to them too. Ports have been throttled by delayed decisions on connectivity with the rail infrastructure. Motorists are facing potential fuel duty rises, with insurance premium tax rises and pay-per-mile hanging over them. Which of the above measures is supporting, rather than hammering, economic growth?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Cabinet Office guide to parliamentary work is very clear that “Every question should be approached with a predisposition to give relevant information fully. There should be no inconsistencies between the provision of information in answers to written questions and information given” under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If “information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to” a written parliamentary question. This position was confirmed by the then Leader of the House in October last year when she stated that if information would be released under freedom of information legislation, it would also be released in response to a written parliamentary question. This guidance appears to have been breached in relation to questions about representations on the Government’s plans to hike up parking fines. On 10 July, in answer to parliamentary question 64511, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), refused to publish the material. On 19 August, the Department released the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, explicitly referencing the unanswered parliamentary question. When asked again to publish the released material, on 16 October, in answer to parliamentary question 77651, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), once again refused to do so. We now have a situation where Parliament is being treated with contempt and information is being provided to members of the public under FOI but withheld from Members of this House. This is a direct breach of the Government’s own guidance and of the principle of accountability to this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, will you consider communicating to the Leader of the House and to the Departments that such inconsistencies are wholly unacceptable and that information that would be released under FOI must also be released to Parliament? Should the two Ministers not now correct this affront and place the information in the Library of the House?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Heathrow: National Airports Review · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. The statement should have been brought to the House months ago. The Secretary of State surely recognises that today marks a delay and an acknowledgment of that, rather than a decisive move forward. The truth is that this whole process has come about the wrong way round. Recent announcements on Gatwick and Heathrow, rather than being any clear plan for the future of British aviation, are not driven by planned and prepared work but by a clear attempt to divert attention from the Government’s growing list of crises, scandals and cover-ups. However, we on these Benches welcome the fact that this statement has finally been brought forward to the House, because both the aviation sector and passengers deserve clarity, as do the local people who will be affected, and we hope that they will see sensible mitigations to these proposals. Can the Secretary of State confirm what assessment the Government have undertaken so far of the total cost of Heathrow expansion, given that one of the central estimates now stands at almost £50 billion, excluding an extra £10 billion for further surface access works? Those figures would quadruple Heathrow’s current asset base, which is already responsible for some of the highest passenger charges in the world. If Britain is to remain competitive on the global stage, those costs must be kept down, not driven up. Crucially, how will the Government ensure that the costs are minimised, not maximised? I am sure that, like me, the Secretary of State does not want those costs directly passed on to airlines and then to their passengers in higher fares, because affordability must be at the heart of any credible aviation strategy. Maintaining affordable flights is crucial for passengers, so can she assure the House that the Heathrow expansion will not result in significant pass-through costs, especially with the Government’s rises in air passenger duty, the jobs tax and now real concerns over how business rates will affect the aviation sector? I understand that the Chancellor has claimed a third runway will be operational by 2035—something the Secretary of State has reflected today—and that she wants to see spades in the ground during this Parliament. Of course, we welcome the reforms that will enable this to happen. Those reforms will not have any teeth, however, unless the Government commit to backing our plan to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008. Otherwise, Heathrow expansion will face judicial review after judicial review, bogging down the process, driving up costs and delivering further delay. Even Labour’s Mayor of London has said that he “wouldn’t hesitate” to launch legal challenges against a third runway. Can the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that her own Labour colleagues—including those she worked for previously—and allies will not be the ones who prevent this important project from ever seeing the light of day? Can the Secretary of State also commit to ensuring that the associated road and rail links not just into London but to the south are included, so that the expansion delivers genuine economic growth and connectivity for the whole of the United Kingdom? The Conservatives would end the constant threat of judicial review and eco-lawfare to ensure that infrastructure across the country could finally be delivered on time, on budget and in Britain’s national interests. It was great to hear the Secretary of State’s words on this from the Dispatch Box, but will those reforms relating to the judiciary come into force before the decisions on Heathrow and the development consent order are made, or will they be subject to the current situation we are facing? We on these Benches recognise that greater competition is the most effective way to deliver value for money and reduce costs to consumers, and I am grateful that the Secretary of State acknowledged in her statement that Heathrow expansion must minimise costs, but the only way to achieve that is through real and genuine competition. Heathrow’s current structure has the potential to create perverse incentives that reward higher spending rather than efficiency, pushing up charges for passengers and airlines. I note the commitment that the CAA’s review into economic regulation will begin in November, but that review must look seriously and fundamentally at how to embed competition and reverse perverse incentives. How do the Secretary of State and the CAA intend to bring competition to the heart of delivering this project? She said that the review would be delivered in the summer of next year. Will it be before the summer recess so that the House will have time to scrutinise it? While this Government continue to splurge cash, hike up taxes and debt and tie Britain up in eco-lawfare with their Green allies, only the Conservatives would restore confidence, break that cycle and deliver a stronger economy with world-class aviation at its heart. Sadly, under this Government, taxes have risen to historic highs. They have imposed a punishing jobs tax, and borrowing has soared to the highest levels since 2010 outside the pandemic, with £100 billion in annual debt interest payments. A third runway alone will not shield the country from the consequences of Labour’s economic mismanagement, but it is a project that must be delivered correctly and responsibly and put passengers at its heart.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  When we next have transport questions, the Budget will be just days away, so can the Transport Secretary rule out any of the following—increased duty on fuel or flights, VAT on private hire, increasing the insurance premium tax or raising rail fares above inflation? If she will not, has she at least spoken against any of these measures in Cabinet or to the Chancellor since she took up her role?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Transport: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker. I also thank the Secretary of State for her welcome last night, and welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) to his new role. I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk yesterday. He was a champion of freedom of speech and open debate, and I know hon. Friends and Members from across the House all want to see politicians disagreeing well. On the subject of disagreeing well, I will come to my questions. Fundamental to economic growth is a functioning transport system, but faced with tax hikes and inflation-busting fare rises people will find the Secretary of State’s comments difficult to believe—ASLEF strikes on CrossCountry, our capital city hammered with tube strikes and bus drivers striking tomorrow. Next weekend, Manchester will see the biggest strikes in years, followed closely by strikes in Luton, Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead, Preston and even, Mr Speaker, Chorley. Sir Sadiq Khan says that strikes in London are nothing to do with him. The Department for Transport, Downing Street and the whole Labour Government say that they are nothing to do with them, despite many of the unions on strike being Labour’s multimillion pound funders. So I ask the Transport Secretary, will anyone, anywhere in the Labour Government stand up for passengers facing an autumn of discontent?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Transport: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  I have obviously followed the Secretary of State’s lead; I believe she had a constituency once upon a time in south London, but now represents Swindon. It is great to have that leadership there. Growth requires investment, which Labour is cutting as it gives billions in no-strings-attached pay rises to train drivers. We have already seen a 50% increase in the bus fare cap, and just last week we saw the draft road programme published, with investment down 13% in real terms on the past five years. Labour is delaying schemes and cancelling vital upgrades like the A303 entirely, with hundreds of millions of pounds wasted. As ever, 90% of journeys take place on roads. Can the Secretary of State name one thing this Government have done for the millions of motorists who drive petrol or diesel cars?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister should see how committed we were in office, because I gave more than a billion pounds to Manchester for that scheme and for setting it up. Indeed, the National Audit Office recently praised our £2 bus fare scheme, saying it “achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage.”

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  What bus passengers really want is reliable, affordable and cheap bus travel on a growing network. That is what was guaranteed under the last Conservative Government’s £2 fare cap. It was a commitment in our manifesto, and one that worked. [ Interruption. ] Opposition Members may jeer, but the National Audit Office said—they might want to listen—in praise of the DFT that the “DFT’s £2 bus fare cap achieved its aims to make bus journeys more affordable for lower-income households and to increase bus usage”. That is a policy abandoned by Labour but stood up for by the Conservatives. This Labour Government scrapped it, and they keep on pretending that a 50% increase to £3 is actually beneficial to taxpayers. There is zero indication of how the Bill will improve passenger numbers or ensure rural coverage. Indeed, the Bill creates an even more fragmented and inconsistent service across the country. Labour has scrapped a national fare cap and failed to replace it properly, and now it expects local councils to pick up the bill without any extra funding. The last Conservative Government delivered real investment for passengers, backing bus services and improvements in the west midlands, and Greater Manchester with £1 billion. I was there with Mayor Burnham, and anyone would think it was all down to him. I am sure Ministers are finding dealing with Andy as interesting as I did. We also did so in West Yorkshire, delivering bus service improvement plans, and working with local authorities to get real results. The Bill is the opposite of that. It will drown councils in process, drive up costs and threaten rural connectivity while ignoring what passengers really need. Without significant subsidies, councils will naturally prioritise cities and towns over villages, leaving our rural communities even further behind. Just as we have seen in our courts and our prisons, the Government risk creating yet another two-tier system—this time for buses—where city regions are supported and everyone else is simply forgotten. How else to explain forcing operators towards zero emission bus registration without any plans to help make that transition for them? After hammering rural communities with attacks on family farms, the Government will do exactly the same all over again with reduced services because they are not providing extra funding. To make matters worse, they are undermining the very infrastructure that buses rely on by cutting roads funding in road investment strategy 3 by 13% in real terms and delaying or cancelling critical projects. The Government cannot promise better bus services while cutting the very roads that they and all other users depend on. In tearing up the safeguards around the Secretary of State’s oversight, Ministers are giving councils free rein to set up municipal bus companies without ministerial sign-off or competitive tendering. Let me be absolutely clear: if those companies fail, the responsibility lies squarely with the Secretary of State, with taxpayers left to pick up the Bill. Moreover, the Bill has completely ignored the shortage of bus and coach drivers across our country. We have called time and again for 18, 19 and 20-year-olds to be allowed to drive buses beyond 50 km a day. Fifteen months ago, the consultation ended. This Government have had 14 months, yet last week, in answer to a written parliamentary question, they said that they are still considering their response to the consultation. It is a straightforward and common-sense change that would help tackle driver shortages, boost businesses and tourism, and get more buses back on our roads. The Prime Minister and his Chancellor have told this House repeatedly that they will pursue growth by any means necessary, yet when an opportunity clearly presents itself, as this has done, they do not seem to want to move at all. In this week of hugely damaging and disruptive strikes in our nation’s capital—we will see further bus strikes across the country next week—the Government are putting ideology ahead of delivery and siding with the unions over passengers, with a Bill that fails bus users, fails rural communities and fails to guarantee value for taxpayers. That is why we on the Conservative Benches will vote against the Bill tonight, and I urge all hon. Members to do the same.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I rise to speak to the statutory instrument before us, which concerns hovercraft and the invaluable role they play in supporting the local economy, particularly on the Isle of Wight, and our wider transport network. We welcome the Government’s step to modernise outdated references and ensure that hovercraft fall under the same rules as other vessels on safety, accident investigations and pollution prevention. Simplifying the legislative structure under which hovercraft operate seems to be the right way to go. The Opposition have no objection to these measures in principle, but we have some small questions for the Minister. As he said, the UK hovercraft sector is small, with a single significant operator. It is therefore vital that this order does not create hidden costs for operators or passengers. I would be grateful if he confirmed that this is a purely administrative simplification and that there are no plans for fee increases or additional burdens that could risk the future of this unique and iconic part of our transport system. There are already concerns about the cost of crossing the Solent, particularly from residents of the Isle of Wight, who rightly and understandably wish to be sure that this change is purely administrative. I hope that the Government have gone about consultation with industry in the proper manner and engaged with Hovertravel—I am sure they have. I also hope that a genuine assessment has been made of any potential disproportionate impact that this instrument may have on this small but vital sector. Can the Minister confirm that that consultation has taken place? Finally, while the introduction of the ambulatory references may streamline regulation, the automatic application of future treaty changes always poses potential risks. As the Minister said, international maritime treaties are generally drafted with conventional ships in mind. Our hovercraft sector is somewhat unique, and requirements designed for vessels of that scale may not always be suitable for hovercraft operations. I would therefore be grateful if the Government set out what assessments have been made to ensure that this approach will remain appropriate, and what safeguards exist if future international standards prove ill-suited to the unique character of our hovercraft sector. I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to provide ample answers to clarify those points and prevent us from having to divide on these measures.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Chancellor is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the danger is that if Governments do not have a prudent financial position, they end up in the situation that we are now seeing, with the interest on Government debt going up and up? We are now paying around £10 billion a year more than we were at the time of the general election.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Labour Members pretend that 2010 was year zero. In truth, in 2010 there was an annual deficit of 10% of GDP in Government spending, which meant that the Government were borrowing £1 for every £4 they were spending. Does the hon. Member not acknowledge, or understand, that that was a far worse economic inheritance than any Government have been offered since the second world war?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I give way to the hon. Gentleman on raising taxes on hospices.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman says that the last Labour Government left the country in a fantastic state. As I have mentioned before, they left behind a massive deficit and unemployment higher than when they took office. Does he not understand that a deficit of over 10% of GDP was an horrific legacy to leave in peacetime? Also, unemployment being higher was a betrayal of the people the Labour party is meant to stand up for.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he should look at the statistics. Schools in my constituency and his will cut support staff and teaching assistants as a result of the black hole that his Government have created for their workers. It is particularly pernicious that the Government are raising taxes on hospices. I visited St Luke’s hospice in my constituency at the weekend. It is having to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds a year more—money that would be going towards care for the most vulnerable at the end of their life—to pay for a tax rise that Labour Members will today vote to maintain, while Conservative Members say that it should be removed. My hon. Friends and I will always raise these issues, as we have the issues for farmers and our food security, or the mind-boggling plans to drive away wealth creators to fill up the Treasury’s coffers, and we will continue to do that in opposition. We are asking the Government to listen to us, because we want the Government to change course and do the right thing. Bizarrely, we do not actually want the Government to drive the country off the edge of a cliff.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The damage that this Labour Government have dealt to our economy is a real kick in the teeth for all those who voted for them last year—and for those who did not vote for them, but who wished them well and believed their words at the general election. Time and again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and many others on this side of the House, warned that the new Labour Government’s priorities and promises on tax were not to be trusted, and that members of the public should take their words with a bucket of salt. The Labour party cried foul, diving to the ground like a premiership footballer screaming blue murder, but what has come to pass is far worse than many on this side of the House imagined it would be. For all the Government’s talk of fixing the foundations, I have been pained to watch the suffering, distress and anxiety that they have wilfully chosen to inflict on the British people. They have hammered the small businesses on which people rely for their jobs, through changes to business property relief, agricultural property relief, VAT and dual cab taxes, and through the business rate rises and the national insurance tax rise. I cannot think of a policy as woefully constructed and as disastrously executed as the national insurance tax rise. This Government claim to have been elected on a platform of promoting growth, but they are choosing to boost growth by blowing up businesses. That is so inexplicable that it calls into question the Government’s ability to govern. The people hit hardest by the tax rises are those starting out in their first job, who will be hit by the thresholds, and part-time workers—often women—trying to get back into the labour market. It is among those groups that we see the highest rises in unemployment since the Budget. It is because of the Government’s choice to raise taxes that businesses are cutting back on hiring staff. They are also making staff redundant, shelving expansion plans and closing their doors. I see that in my constituency, where unemployment is up by about a sixth in the 12 months since the general election. It is also because of that choice that inflation is up and growth is down, and because of choices made by the Labour party that this country will continue to miss out on investment opportunities and economic security. That brings me to the people who will feel the impact most acutely. During the pandemic, we celebrated key workers—the care home workers, teachers and hospice workers who went out every day in horrendous conditions to do their job in a spirit of service. What kind of Labour Government would willingly choose to punish those who represent the heartbeat of the nation? Only recently, I heard from a woman in my constituency who runs a small childcare business, which she kept going during the pandemic. She wrote to tell me that because of the tax rise, she has had to cut back her assistants’ hours and turn away parents. On the one side, the Government pretend that wages are increasing, but on the other, employers are being forced to cut hours, so people are no better off. It is happening in every constituency up and down the country, and that is the real cost of this Government’s choice. The national insurance tax rise means less money for schools and teachers, for hospices and their staff, and for the healthcare workers who were applauded during covid—those operating in the most difficult circumstances. It is a fundamental disgrace that the Labour Government, who are always so keen to paint themselves as the kinder, more cuddly, and more friendly party, have made the catastrophic choice to balance the books and fix their failures on the back of essential workers and volunteers. The Government are raising taxes on hospices, which they are supposed to stand up for.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman will know, that rise is not fully funded by the Budget, because the national insurance costs for schools have not been fully covered by the Budget.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The Chagos deal comes to mind, which the Government seem so keen on: handing over British taxpayers’ money for something we already own. We would not have made the same decisions that this Government have made. We made it very clear in government that we would not have handed out pay rises to train drivers without the need for reform, or to the junior doctors, who have come back yet again with another double-digit pay demand. The hon. Gentleman needs to think about those things. He can say, “What would you have done?” but we actually said that we would not do those things before they happened, so actually we are the ones who have been financially responsible. He is the one handing money away to Mauritius, so that it can cut its income tax, while the Government Front Benchers seem a bit wary of answering the question of whether they will have to raise taxes later this year. We Opposition Members can guarantee that they will. I call on the Government to do what is right and look again to their manifesto. The Government should choose to back enterprise, reward work, not punish those who help out in hospices, create growth and opportunity in every corner of our country, and back others who do so, instead of taxing everyone and everything they possibly can. Otherwise, I fear that this Labour Government will face the same fate as all other majority Labour Governments that have ever existed, and leave unemployment higher than when they entered office. That is not exactly the Labour party that people voted for in my constituency or across the country.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Clean Power: Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  People across Basildon and Billericay, and indeed across the country, want to see more jobs in energy production and to see cheaper energy. What they do not understand is why the Government are backing some but not all forms of energy. Why are the Government insisting on shipping jobs in oil and gas abroad, rather than keeping them here while investing in green energy at the same time?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Financial Assistance to Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I should declare that Ford’s UK headquarters is in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend also reflect that there is a real issue here for not just cars, but commercial vehicles? I am thinking particularly of the Transit, Ford’s best-selling international medium-sized van, which is known the world over and is a real staple of the UK. Is it not the case that we need to look at this issue in the round and that, when it is down to tradesmen what they want to buy, they need to be confident and comfortable in purchasing the product? At the moment, that is the only element providing significant profitability for Ford in the UK; removing that and essentially replacing it with a subsidy seems the wrong way around.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Civil Service Relocation · Hansard source

  More

  Heads of Departments have said that 60% attendance in the office is the best balance for civil servants working in Government Departments, but in an answer to a recent written parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the Cabinet Office said that no data exists for attendance outside London HQs—it is certainly not collected centrally. However, the Office for National Statistics has produced data about its own workforce, which, via the UK Statistics Authority, comes under the Cabinet Office. That shows a daily attendance rate of as little as 3% in some of the ONS’s regional offices. Does the Minister think that an attendance rate of 3% will help career progression and thereby help relocate civil servants outside London? Does he think that 3% is acceptable? Is this not just part of a wider pattern of non-attendance in offices outside London, and is it not time his Department published the data on attendance levels?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Leader of the House agree that it is wholly unacceptable for a senior official at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to refuse to respond to repeated reasonable requests from me on behalf of my constituents? We have correspondence going back to early March. Will she meet me to discuss how we can ensure proper accountability for some of these arm’s length bodies and that we get timely responses from executive agencies in all cases?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions · Hansard source

  More

  The jury system is essential to protect us against oppressive judges, malicious individuals—sometimes malicious police officers—or even Governments. The Minister speaks of the most serious cases. Is it not a fact that the most serious impact on individuals may result not necessarily from what she may regard as the most serious cases, but from any case that goes to court? The impact on the individual can totally change the course of that person’s life, even if the charge is not as serious as the Minister might consider it to be. It can be devastating to the person’s family life, career, or any other aspect of his or her future.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Crown Court Backlog · Hansard source

  More

  One of the most important things we can do, as the Lord Chancellor seems to indicate, is reduce the number of cases going into the system by reducing reoffending where possible, including intergenerational reoffending. Given that 65% of boys with a parent in prison will go on to offend, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the children of prisoners are properly identified and supported, so that they do not become the next generation of people in prison?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Government Performance against Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  Who does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury think is most responsible for the extra 276,000 people unemployed since the time of the Budget? Is it the national insurance jobs tax, is it the business rates increases, or is it the attacks that the Government have made on long-term investment, whether through agricultural property relief or business property relief?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Shoplifting · Hansard source

  More

  Whether at Asda in Basildon or Waitrose in Billericay, there have been real issues with shop thefts, particularly by organised gangs, which often come from outside the local area. They come in, ransack stores and then drive away. What is the Minister doing to address the issues that go beyond local theft and are actually a nationwide gang issue?