Gareth Bacon
MP for Orpington · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Since the Minister has asked me so nicely, and as it is his birthday, I will agree to withdraw it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I said a moment ago, the point of the new clauses is prioritisation: how we prioritise the use of British taxpayers’ funding. We believe that making Britain your home should be earned by working, paying tax and integrating.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Not remotely. By the Government’s own analysis and admission, they would oversee a housing system in which 4,000 fewer new social homes would be funded every year. How does that help with the social housing waiting list, which all Committee members would like to be lower? How does building fewer new social homes remotely help?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government response to a written parliamentary question revealed that every year around 33,000 new social tenancies go to households in which the lead tenant is not a UK national.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would allow the Secretary of State to issue guidance on such applications, including on disclosure requirements, the verification of overseas assets and the position of anyone subject to UK sanctions. Local authorities would be required to have regard to it, and Parliament would see it laid before it takes effect.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to speak to my new clause 53. Many people in social housing have come into their new home after a past marred by hardship and a lack of safety. When tenants finally have a roof over their head and a place to call home, they must not be left to face unsanitary or unsafe living conditions because of their property owner or manager.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,123 held · 712 searchable for Gareth Bacon. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for updating the House on the initial findings of the HS2 reviews. I also thank her for advance notice and a copy of her statement. On the substance of the Secretary of State’s statement, I believe there is a broad consensus in this House on the central point that mistakes were made in the delivery of HS2. As she noted, costs more than doubled, the project has been repeatedly delayed, and the pandemic completely changed travel patterns. It undercut the assumptions that guided the original plans and caused construction costs to rise sharply across the world—by up to 40% in some cases—as a result of supply chain shortages as the world emerged from the crisis. It has long been apparent that HS2 was not going according to plan.”
House of Commons18 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What criteria will be used to set the strike price? Will the methodology be published, and will there be regular reviews? Finally, will the Government commit to regular reporting to Parliament on industry take-up, production capacity and cost trajectory, to ensure that they remain accountable for the Bill over time? The importance of this Bill is clear. Backing UK production of sustainable aviation fuel is necessary if we are to meet our net zero goals without undermining the competitiveness of the aviation sector. However, let me be clear: as the Bill moves through the House, we will continue to look closely at the detail and press for changes where necessary, where improvements can be made to ensure that the scheme delivers on its promise.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The plants in which the Government are seeking to encourage investment will be large, and—as the Minister no doubt knows—large developments tend to attract a lot of local opposition, often leading to planning inquiries, judicial reviews, vast expense and years of delay before any construction work begins. If this does not change, the revenue certainty mechanism may not be sufficient to attract investors, so what will the Government do to minimise delays in the planning process? I turn now to timescales. When will the first contracts be awarded under the RCM? Will there be a timetable for reaching full mandate compliance? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis)—who is no longer in his place—touched on, the issue of the strike price is critical to the success of the proposal.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Relatedly, the HEFA cap comes into force incrementally from 2027, despite there currently being no domestic production of second generation SAF in the UK and low levels of second generation SAF produced globally, removing the opportunity to source mandated volumes through imports. This risks making the costs of hitting SAF mandate targets very high indeed, because suppliers will soon be forced to buy out of their mandate obligations—a significant cost that will be passed on to the airlines and, ultimately, to passengers without delivering any decarbonisation benefit at all. Will the Government consider revising the timelines for phasing out HEFA SAF to bring them more in line with the timescales for domestic second generation SAF production, in order to minimise the costs for passengers? The next area of interest is planning.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While the SAF mandate permits the production and use of hydroprocessed esters and fatty acids SAF in the early years of the mandate, and also contains a small but increasing requirement for power-to-liquid SAF in later years, the bulk of the SAF to be developed and used under the terms of the mandate is second generation SAF, which is to be made from municipal waste, non-edible crops and woody biomass. The UK is a small island, with insufficient spare land to enjoy self-sufficient food security or to grow new forests at scale. Does the Minister think we will be self-sufficient? If not, what proportion of the ingredients necessary for making second generation SAF does the Minister think we will need to import?”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me be clear: while we will not oppose the legislation this evening, we will carefully scrutinise it as it progresses through the House. In that spirit, I will put some questions to the Minister, which I hope he will address in his summing up. The first is about passengers. In the press release announcing the Bill, the Government said that the revenue certainty mechanism would keep ticket price changes minimal: “Keeping fluctuations to £1.50 a year on average.” The Secretary of State said the same in her speech. Perhaps in his speech the Minister could outline what this figure is based on. Do the Government stand by it? Is it a commitment, or a rough estimate? The second question is about what type of SAF the Government favour and how it will be produced.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A cost-benefit analysis produced by the Department for Transport before the general election suggested that the SAF industry could add more than £1.8 billion to the economy and create more than 10,000 jobs in the country, but, more fundamentally, SAF is a product of what we know to work. As the Secretary of State said in her speech, it can be blended with conventional Jet A-1, used in existing aircraft and refuelled at existing airports. The capability exists. The challenge is not scientific; it is economic. That is why the concept of a revenue certainty mechanism was one of the six pillars in the previous Government’s jet zero strategy, and, as the Secretary of State outlined, the introduction of a revenue certainty mechanism has wide support in the aviation industry.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In 2023, it was the last Government who committed to an industry-funded revenue certainty mechanism to support UK-based SAF production. In early 2024 we published the detail, with plans for a guaranteed strike price model to give price certainty to SAF producers. I hear the Minister say, “You didn’t do it!” He is completely correct, because unfortunately there was something called a general election that followed shortly after. As the Secretary of State has outlined, under this model, producers will be topped up when the market price falls below a guaranteed strike price; when the market price rises above, they will pay it back. The system mirrors the successful contracts for difference model in offshore wind, and the economic benefits could be considerable.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This Bill is a logical follow-on from the statutory instrument passed in September last year that established the SAF mandate, the first stage of which came into effect in January. Having mandated that airlines will be required to use a specified percentage of SAF—2% this year, rising to 10% in 2030 and 22% in 2040—it is logical to take steps to ensure adequate levels of locally produced fuel. While the mandate requires the consumption of SAF, it is a new technology, and its production carries a high risk for investors. Encouraging the development of the plants required to produce this fuel is the purpose of this Bill and, to a very large degree, it is a continuation of the policy of the previous Government.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Chancellor has promised that the latter proposal will be operational by 2035, with spades in the ground in this Parliament, but that ambition looks very far-fetched, and there are substantial logistical and financial barriers to its construction. So far, the Government have provided no solutions on those points, so we will watch developments in the next few weeks with considerable interest. It is against that backdrop that we come to the Bill before us. When we entered opposition, we made it clear that we would not oppose the Government just for the sake of it. We made it clear that where the Government’s choices would benefit the country or the economy, we would welcome them. That is why we will not seek to divide the House on this legislation on Second Reading.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Office for Budget Responsibility confirms that rises planned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will raise an extra £555 million in taxes over five years, pushing up the costs for businesses and passengers alike. In a speech that will have a lot of common ground with the Secretary of State’s speech, I regret to say that Labour’s handling of its professed desire to expand aviation raises more questions than answers. The decision to approve a second terminal at Luton airport, which we support, will be judicially reviewed. The proposal for a second runway at Gatwick has been kicked down the road for surprising reasons, to say the least, and the supposed support for a third runway at Heathrow is no more credible.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some 197 million passengers and 2 million tonnes of freight move through our airports each year. The economic case is therefore unanswerable. In short, we must all support this thriving industry with clear benefits to the country. The Conservative party has always recognised the strategic importance of aviation, but, unlike the current Government, we understand the damage that can be done with poor policy choices—I regret to say that we have seen plenty of that from the Labour Government over the past year. Alongside their national insurance jobs tax, which is putting pressure on businesses and threatens to leave working people £3,500 a year worse off, Labour’s decision to hike air passenger duty threatens the vitality of this thriving industry.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me begin by setting out an unambiguous truth: aviation is vital to the British economy. It is a cornerstone of our national infrastructure, our competitiveness and our connectivity. When it comes to the impact of aviation on our economy, the figures speak for themselves. Aviation contributes £52 billion to UK GDP, supporting over 960,000 jobs across the country. That includes 341,000 people working directly in aviation—from air traffic controllers to aerospace engineers—350,000 jobs in the supply chain, and another 269,000 supported through consumer spending. Aviation also delivers nearly £8.7 billion in tax revenues, and aerospace manufacturing adds a further £9 billion directly to GDP, plus over £10 billion more when including its supply chains.”
House of Commons11 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Buses are the most popular form of public transport in the country, carrying passengers on twice as many journeys as trains and serving thousands more stops nationwide. As the Secretary of State said in her opening remarks, from the centre of London to the remotest areas, they can get teenagers to school, allow pensioners to visit friends and connect people to jobs that they would not otherwise be able to take. They keep town centres alive, connect our communities and ensure that those with mobility issues, as well as the most vulnerable, can get around.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is because there is no Division later. It is not because nobody cares, but because there is not going to be a Division. The previous Conservative Government recognised just how vital local bus services are to keeping communities connected. From 2020 to when we left office last summer, the previous Government committed £4.5 billion to support and enhance bus services, including more than £2 billion to help local authorities implement their bus service improvement plans. Perhaps most importantly, we also introduced the £2 bus fare cap.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, indeed. We are very interested in doing that, which is why we inserted a purpose clause in the other place to ensure that the key focus of this Bill is solely on passengers. By maintaining the £2 bus fare cap, we ensured that bus travel remained affordable and accessible to as many people as possible, while helping families manage the cost of living. We have voiced deep concerns in both this Chamber and the other place about the impact, particularly on the most vulnerable, of Labour’s decision to scrap the £2 cap and raise it to £3. Make no mistake: this is bad for those in work, who will be £3,500 worse off because of this Government’s jobs tax, and bad for pensioners, who have seen their winter fuel payments cut and their energy bills rise, despite repeated promises from Labour to cut their energy costs by £300.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As always, my right hon. Friend gets to the heart of the matter, and I have to say that I agree with him. I would like to make one thing abundantly clear from the outset: we do not oppose franchising in principle. When implemented properly, franchising can be a powerful mechanism for improving services, addressing local transport challenges and delivering the quality services that passengers rightly demand and expect.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make a bit of progress. However, the Bill in its original form does not do that. The Secretary of State has acknowledged, and I agree, that the Bill does not mandate franchising everywhere, and that is a sensible step, but the Bill does not prioritise passengers, and nothing in it guarantees an improvement in service standards. The truth is that this Bill appears to be driven by political nostalgia. It is in many ways a thinly veiled attempt to recreate the municipal model of the pre-1986 era, without fully considering the financial and operational realities of today.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, my hon. Friend is completely correct, and I will come to that a bit later in my speech. While we do not oppose the franchising of bus services, we do oppose a particular assumption that underlines this legislation, which is that the public sector is the solution to everything. Some local authorities may have the expertise and resources to successfully franchise passenger bus services, but let us be clear that many do not. The very central premise of the Bill—giving every local authority the unchecked power to implement franchising, regardless of its resources or capacity—is not an act of empowerment; it is irresponsible. By removing the need for the Secretary of State to consent to franchising, as required under the previous Conservative Government, this Government are eliminating crucial safeguards.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The removal of that requirement by this Bill is concerning, and it betrays the view held by those on the Government side of the House that the public sector is inherently infallible. Members will not be shocked that I do not share that view, but they do not need to take my word for it.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With respect to my right hon. Friend, I will not, because I am conscious that lots of Members want to speak. Those safeguards are designed to ensure that franchising serves the passengers who rely on our bus services and the taxpayers who pay for them. The expertise required to design, manage and operate franchised networks is not readily available in most councils. That is why the Bus Services Act 2017 limited franchising powers to mayoral combined authorities, which are bodies with the scale, resources and democratic mandate to take on such responsibilities. Crucially, the legislation we enacted to pave the way for mayoral combined authorities to issue franchising models also required those authorities to demonstrate that franchising would deliver genuine benefits for passengers.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That figure has since ballooned, with ongoing operational costs now forecast to exceed £226 million per year by 2025-26, which is a 68% increase in one year. Over four years, the scheme could cost up to £1 billion—far, far more than anticipated. Moreover, the House will know that the annual level of bus subsidy in London last year amounted to £646 million. Greater London is the most heavily populated and most economically active area in the entire country. It also has the highest level of bus use. Yet even with all those advantages, it requires that level of annual subsidy just to keep the network running.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make some progress and then give way. Members should take the word of Centre for Cities, which has made it clear that expanding franchising could expose councils to serious financial risks, because after decades of deregulated services, many transport authorities simply lack the skills and capacity to manage a comprehensive bus network, yet would be financially responsible if an undertaking goes wrong. These are not just hypothetical concerns. The experience in Greater Manchester illustrates just how easily costs can spiral, leaving the taxpayer out of pocket. The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware that initial projections published in Greater Manchester combined authority’s transport revenue budget put the cost of transitioning to a franchised system at £134.5 million for 2024-25.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The risk of the Bill is that it does not come with substantial funding attached. That is the problem. It is mismanaging the public’s expectations. I expect we will hear from a parade of Labour MPs talking about how it will transform services in their local area. Without the required level of funding, it simply will not.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is because the Bill does not prioritise those who matter most: the people who rely on buses every single day to get to work, attend school, reach appointments and stay connected with their communities. While we welcome the positive changes made by peers in the other place and we will not divide the House on Second Reading, we cannot vote for a Bill that lacks basic safeguards, ignores the risks and prioritises ideology over impact. We will therefore seek to improve the Bill as it proceeds through the House. I urge the House to consider not just the political implications of this legislation, but its real-world consequences for the millions who depend on these services every day.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Secretary of State really believe that passengers should be left stranded simply because a local authority is unable to deliver? I do not believe that to be the case and I look forward to her amending the Bill as it proceeds through the House. Why did Labour peers vote against those measures? Once again, it would appear that ideology took precedence over passengers. That is why we will push to reinstate these prudent amendments as the Bill proceeds through the House. The Liberal Democrats supported many of the measures in the other place and I sincerely hope they will do the same in this House, for the benefit of passengers. In conclusion, franchising may well play an important role in improving the bus networks of the future, but the Bill alone will not get us there.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Opposition were also disappointed that Labour peers voted against introducing a safeguard against repeated franchising assessments for the same geographical area, which risks wasting public resources and creating instability for operators and passengers alike. Similarly, it was disappointing to see Labour peers not support plans to ensure that floating bus stops do not threaten the safety of those who are blind and partially sighted. Likewise, if improving passenger services is at the heart of the Bill, I fail to understand why Labour peers were whipped to vote against the amendment that would give the Secretary of State the power to intervene when franchised services fail due to poor local management.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“1756.] Leaving aside the breathtaking arrogance of that statement, it is directly contradicted by the very providers tasked with delivering these vital services. The chairman of the 24x7 Group, one of the largest operators of SEND transport in the country, has warned that changes to national insurance contributions could significantly raise employment costs, making some contracts unviable. That has the potential to leave thousands of children without access to the transport they rely on to attend school. To oppose even a review of such consequences is not just shortsighted; it speaks to a worrying indifference about the impact of this legislation on vulnerable passengers.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A further successful Conservative amendment was passed, mandating a review of the national insurance burden on special educational needs transport, following the increases announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I must say that it is deeply regrettable that Labour peers were whipped to vote against a measure designed solely to protect some of the most vulnerable in our society. In opposing the special educational needs transport amendment in the other place, the Government asserted: “The Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant effect on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment that this amendment suggests.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2025; Vol. 844, c.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Successful amendments requiring the Secretary of State to review bus services to villages in England, to develop a programme to eliminate serious injury during bus operations, and to require bus operators to record all data regarding assaults and violent behaviour, were all tabled by peers from other political parties to His Majesty’s Opposition and, collectively, they improve the Bill. The latter amendment was tabled by the noble Lord Woodley, a Labour peer and former joint general secretary of the Unite trade union. It was, bizarrely, opposed by Labour peers, but it succeeded with the support of Conservative peers and those of other parties.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Despite my various concerns about this legislation, I would like to recognise that the Bill we see before us was greatly improved during its passage through the other place—improvements driven notably but not exclusively by Conservative peers. The purpose clause, which obligates the Secretary of State to consider service performance, quality and accessibility, was a much-needed addition, as was the amendment requiring an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 fare cap.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If these challenges can emerge in Greater Manchester and Greater London despite all their resources, planning and political leadership, what should we expect elsewhere? The truth is that we do not know, and that highlights the danger at the heart of the Bill. On a connected vein, through franchising, we may end up extinguishing a number of highly successful private sector businesses, reducing them to operating for a fee and doing what the state instructs them to do in terms of routes, services and fares. Quite aside from losing the expertise that the private sector brings to the network, the Government risk removing any incentive for the private sector to invest in our bus networks, potentially leaving the taxpayer with ever greater burdens.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which is that without substantial extra levels of funding from the Government, that simply will not happen. Local authorities may have the powers to do it, but they simply will not have the ability. The Government have talked about the amount of money they are putting into the Bill and the Secretary of State referred to it in her speech, but it is a mere £1 billion, of which £700 million has been earmarked for bus planning documents, not actual services. Less than 30% is being directed toward the delivery of bus services themselves, which will not touch the sides. Giving local authorities the legal power to do something without the money is mere window dressing.”
House of Commons2 June 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Minister agree that the Government should maintain the 14-day notice period in aviation, putting the interests of passengers ahead of those of their union friends?”
House of Commons15 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we approach the summer holidays, we know that many families are looking forward to the opportunity to get away. However, in what may come as concerning news, Labour’s Employment Rights Bill could threaten passengers’ ability to travel without disruption or additional costs. This is because in existing passenger rights legislation, under article 5(1)(c)(i) of Regulation 261, passengers are entitled to compensation if they are informed of cancellations less than two weeks before their flight. The Employment Rights Bill reduces the required notice period for strike action in any industry from 14 days to 10 days, increasing the risk of last-minute cancellations. That could in theory cost airlines tens of millions of pounds, which could in turn lead to higher costs for passengers as airlines pass the expenses on to the travelling public.”
House of Commons15 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the last transport questions, on 27 March, in the context of the Secretary of State saying on television that some strikes are “necessary”, I pointed out that the trade unions have welcomed her rail reform plans and said that “a just transition to nationalisation would mean the levelling up of pay and conditions for rail workers.” The cost of that to the taxpayer would be considerable. When I asked the Secretary of State whether she would “consider a strike over harmonising pay and conditions to be a necessary strike”, —[ Official Report , 27 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 1099.] she avoided answering the question, which was uncharacteristic of her. I will give her another chance now: would that be a necessary strike?”
House of Commons15 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will she commit to reversing the hike in the hybrid company car tax? Does she really think that reducing the fine for each car that fails to comply with EV quotas will be enough to mitigate the impact of tariffs? Does she not believe that, rather than chasing an arbitrary timeline, now is the time for a more gradual transition to electric vehicles, one that would allow the sector to mitigate many of the challenges it is currently facing? Finally, does she recognise that the combined impact of the ZEV mandate, the jobs tax and external tariffs is a perfect storm for the automotive sector, which is facing significant and exacerbated challenges because of the choices her party has made over the past nine months?”
House of Commons7 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“More recently, uncertainty has surrounded Plant Oxford, the home of the Mini since 1959. Last year, excluding fleet sales, the fact is that only 10% of private purchases of new vehicles were electric. Far from doing retailers a favour, the Government’s offer to fine them a small amount less for failing to sell a product that consumers demonstrably do not want is a kick in the teeth to the automotive industry. I must therefore ask the Secretary of State the following questions. With just one in 10 private buyers purchasing an electric vehicle in 2024, why are the Government still trying to force people to buy something for which there is limited consumer demand at present? Is she really pretending that any of the measures announced today were not already in train before the tariffs were announced?”
House of Commons7 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government are still proposing to increase the level of tax liability on the value of hybrid company cars by as much as 16%, which could potentially cost individual drivers thousands of pounds each. The reduction in fines for missing EV sales targets from £15,000 to £12,000 per vehicle is nothing to be celebrated—it is like drowning at the depth of 100 metres instead of 120 metres. Over the past few months, we have heard from numerous businesses that they simply cannot cope with the ZEV mandate. In October, the chief executive officer of Jaguar Land Rover warned that the mandate was causing severe disruption to the new car market. Not long after, Vauxhall announced the closure of its Luton factory, citing the ZEV mandate as a key factor in making that plant economically unviable.”
House of Commons7 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In its words: “ZEV Mandate targets are incredibly challenging, especially with a paucity of consumer demand and geopolitical upheaval. Growing EV demand to the levels needed still requires equally bold fiscal incentives…to give motorists full confidence to switch”, but that is not what the Government are offering. Instead of the “bold changes” that the Prime Minister boasted of at the weekend, what we have is mere tinkering at the edges. Allowing producers of luxury vehicles, such as Aston Martin and McLaren, to be exempt from the 2030 ban on the sale on new internal combustion engine vehicles is welcome, as is the news that all forms of hybrid cars will be available until 2035. However, this does not go anything like far enough.”
House of Commons7 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Their introduction of a £25 billion national insurance jobs tax in their first Budget was a major blow to businesses; we have warned for months that this tax will harm industries, and the automotive sector is no exception. The Secretary of State will know that US tariffs on UK car exports are set to cost the automotive sector £1.9 billion. Combined with the Government’s jobs tax—which is predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility to put 50,000 jobs at risk, and is likely to cost the automotive sector an additional £200 million—that double whammy is going to be very difficult for the sector to absorb. Indeed, despite today’s announcements, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has stated that zero emission vehicle mandate targets remain “incredibly challenging”.”
House of Commons7 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This morning, the Secretary of State criticised the previous Government for chopping and changing, and a consultation put out by Labour claimed that our policies caused “great harm” to the UK’s reputation as a leading nation in the EV transition by moving the goalposts. However, that is precisely what Labour did upon taking office by ideologically reversing the 2035 deadline. The plans announced over the weekend do not place the automotive sector in a better position than it was when we left office, despite some minor adjustments to the zero emission vehicle mandate. What is more, this announcement will not undo the damage that this Labour Government have already caused.”
House of Commons7 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In that vein, I am glad that the Government have recommitted to negotiating a better deal with our closest ally and largest single-country trading partner, and I sincerely hope that they are successful in their negotiations. However, on the substance of the right hon. Lady’s statement, I cannot share her enthusiasm for the rest of Labour’s plans. The reality is that today, Labour is simply trying to clear up the uncertainty that it has contributed to. When the previous Conservative Government reacted to sluggish automotive trade figures by making the pragmatic decision to delay the ban on new diesel and petrol cars from 2030 to 2035, aligning the UK with major global economies such as France, Germany, Sweden and Canada, Labour accused us of undermining the automotive industry.”
House of Commons7 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State— [ Interruption. ] That was a very helpful intervention by the hon. Gentleman; he is completely right. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for advance sight of it. The announcement by the United States of America that 25% tariffs will be imposed on UK automotive exports has understandably caused significant concern in the automotive sector. Automotive manufacturers now face tariffs of 25% on around £8 billion-worth of car and auto parts exports—a potentially devastating blow for the automotive industry. I assure the Secretary of State that we will support the Government when they do sensible things to reverse the impact on our already fragile economy.”
House of Commons7 April 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When the Government handed the ASLEF trade union an eye-watering £9 billion pay agreement in the summer, they promised that it would “protect passengers from further national strikes”. Yet recently the Secretary of State said on national television that “there will be occasions on which strikes will be necessary”. Will she provide the House with an example of a necessary strike?”
House of Commons27 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State will be aware that in response to her Department’s recent rail consultation, the trade unions welcomed her plan and said that a just transition to nationalisation would mean the levelling up of pay and conditions for rail workers. The cost of that to the taxpayer could be considerable. Would she consider a strike over harmonising pay and conditions to be a necessary strike?”
House of Commons27 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the light of that, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero about ensuring that the energy supply to major airports remains secure? What is the timeline for the Kelly review, and will its findings be made publicly available? Will the Secretary of State engage with colleagues across Government Departments to assess and mitigate the risks posed by malicious actors who will undoubtedly have taken note of this weekend’s events? Finally, what specific steps will she take to strengthen the resilience of our critical national infrastructure?”
House of Commons24 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members will recall that when President Putin launched his illegal invasion of Ukraine, global energy markets faced immense disruption, which posed the most significant threat to European energy security since the 1970s. Despite that upheaval, Britain’s energy prices remained broadly stable, but only because the Government of the day took decisive action to protect businesses and households from price spikes as far as possible. That came at a significant financial cost. The event at Heathrow reminds us that true energy security depends not only on price stability but on the physical safety of our energy infrastructure. Given the crucial role of airports in our economy, we must remain vigilant.”
House of Commons24 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand from media reports and from the Secretary of State’s statement that although two additional substations are capable of powering the airport, doing so would require reconfiguring the power supply structure for all terminals. Does the Secretary of State believe that that set-up is appropriate for the country’s largest airport? Additionally, what assessment has she made of the power supply resilience of other major UK airports? With regard to the resilience of our critical national infrastructure, the episode underlines the urgent need to ensure that our critical infrastructure is safeguarded against both accidental incidents and deliberate acts of sabotage by malign actors. Hon.”
House of Commons24 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I ask the Government to keep the House informed as that investigation develops. I also note that the Secretary of State for Transport will closely monitor Heathrow’s internal investigation into the incident. She is right to do so. Although I trust that she will share any conclusions drawn from the report with the House, may I ask that she provides specific assurance today that she will indeed do so? Let me focus on the details of the incident, which evidently raises significant concerns about the resilience of Heathrow airport and critical infrastructure in general. On Heathrow’s resilience, important questions arise about why the airport was dependent on a single electrical substation, which proved so vulnerable to such an incident.”
House of Commons24 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗