Mr Richard Holden
MP for Basildon and Billericay · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State about the Spanish rail crash. On 18 June, the Secretary of State said in a statement that the Heathrow expansion is “critical to national growth”. On 27 September the Prime Minister said, however: “Principally, it’s a matter for London and Londoners”.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I really welcome the Government’s U-turn on adopting Conservative policy and deciding to review airport drop-off charges, but in response to my written question, the Minister did not confirm that the Government’s anti-car surface access targets, the more than 100% increase in business rates that many airports have faced, or the crippling…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for that clarification. Last week, Chancellor Merz set out his plans to scrap the ban on petrol and diesel cars across the EU, saying, “We stand by drivers. We stand with our industry.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Whenever the moment arrives to top up a budget or dish out another handout, those Members are there. I hope that the Bill will stir a new feeling in those Members, and that the blinkers will fall from their eyes.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Just after the second world war, in May ’46, the first commercial flights departed Heathrow, marking the beginning of an 80-year journey that has seen over 3 billion passengers move through the airport and take 22 million flights.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Time and again, I meet constituents in Basildon and Billericay who need support, or those on the other side, who are being squeezed more and more by higher taxes—people who work long hours, but who see their bills rise as they try to support their family. Why are my constituents not more deserving of our attention?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
2,334 held · 2,322 searchable for Mr Richard Holden. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 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 really welcome the Government’s U-turn on adopting Conservative policy and deciding to review airport drop-off charges, but in response to my written question, the Minister did not confirm that the Government’s anti-car surface access targets, the more than 100% increase in business rates that many airports have faced, or the crippling increases in employment taxes will form part of that review. Will the Minister ensure that all these important factors form part of the inquiry into what is leading to airport drop-off charges soaring under his Government?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State about the Spanish rail crash. On 18 June, the Secretary of State said in a statement that the Heathrow expansion is “critical to national growth”. On 27 September the Prime Minister said, however: “Principally, it’s a matter for London and Londoners”. And last week, in response to a written parliamentary question, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), said that the Government will consider the Transport Committee’s recommendations before deciding next steps. Does she agree with herself, the Prime Minister or her junior Minister?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for that clarification. Last week, Chancellor Merz set out his plans to scrap the ban on petrol and diesel cars across the EU, saying, “We stand by drivers. We stand with our industry. We stand with open innovation in technology…the internal combustion ban is off the table.” When will this Transport Secretary listen to British business, the unions and British drivers and scrap the zero emission vehicle mandate that is costing British jobs and costing British taxpayers?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If we want businesses in this country to grow and to encourage private investment, we should not stand in the way of development that offers economic benefits. If we do, the demand for flights will not dissipate. Rather, operators will choose to fly and invest elsewhere—particularly given that Heathrow is a hub airport—and most likely at competing European airports that have expanded their facilities, such as Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt. In many cases, they will also build new runways. Alongside that will be the jobs and the other opportunities that go with it.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) make the case against expansion. Her predecessors as MPs did the same, all the way back to Hugh Jenkins, who in 1970 asked the Government to give an undertaking “that no further enlargement of Heathrow Airport will be permitted and that no additional runways of any kind will be allowed.” —[ Official Report , 4 November 1970; Vol. 805, c. 366W.] However, the figure of 84 million passengers makes it clear that Heathrow is at capacity. The lack of further capacity is severely constraining its ability to grow and, as a consequence, Britain’s ability to grow through its hub airport. Data published in March by Airports Council International showed that the growth in passenger numbers at Heathrow of 1.9% falls well behind the European average of 4.6%.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Just after the second world war, in May ’46, the first commercial flights departed Heathrow, marking the beginning of an 80-year journey that has seen over 3 billion passengers move through the airport and take 22 million flights. Between September last year and August this year, 84 million passengers went through Heathrow. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the industrialisation of the past century. Heathrow and our other airports across the country are symbols of the modern industrialised world, where transportation between countries is a major engine of economic development. That leads us to the subject of today’s debate, Heathrow expansion. A long-running and undeniably contentious issue is at stake here. I do not think anyone could be surprised to see the hon.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will come on to those figures because I think we can all agree that there is questioning of them. It surprises me that the former Chancellor of Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and the current Chancellor of Exchequer are so vociferously supportive of the airport expansion if those figures are true.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I remember, as a Transport Minister, visiting Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport. They are so important, and they reinforced to me how important that plug-in from Heathrow, as our international hub, is for not just Northern Ireland but Scotland, Wales and the north of England. None of our other airports have that hub status. That is why Heathrow is under different regulations and a different model. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how that connectivity drives growth right across the UK.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am afraid that the discrepancy between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor gets to the heart of the challenges facing the Government. By giving the public the impression that they are jettisoning the previous Government’s commitment, the Prime Minister is once again demonstrating what has become his trademark skill: evading responsibility and avoiding difficult decisions.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Unfortunately, that good cop, bad cop approach to expansion does little to reassure investors—not just investors in Heathrow, but investors in the UK in general. As Heathrow made clear in evidence to the Transport Committee, investors want clarity about the regulatory framework so that they can assess the project’s business case with confidence. Although there has been much speculation about the timetable for expansion, the lack of clarity over the Government’s position and regulatory framework risks undermining confidence further. If the Prime Minister does not appear to give the project his support, how on earth can investors have confidence in the regulatory process, which is ultimately overseen by the Government he leads?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister is now in the unenviable position of trying to explain whether the Government of which he is a member actually support expansion or not. The situation has become a political version of Schrödinger’s cat. The Prime Minister seems to believe that by refusing to give a clear answer and by deflecting attention towards the concerns about other projects, he can leave some people believing that the runway idea is alive and some believing it is dead, all at the same time. The other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the International Monetary Fund: “The case for a third runway at Heathrow has always been a case for growth”. This created a completely different impression of the Government’s position.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No; I have just given way twice, and I will happily give way again later. Since the announcement was made, the Conservative party’s leadership has been clear: expansion should go ahead provided that sensible and proportionate local mitigation measures form part of that plan. Heathrow and the Government have already set out a number of those measures. However, it is critical that they genuinely serve the interests of local residents and do not impose excessive costs that will ultimately be passed on to passengers. I turn to the challenges posed for the Minister in the debate. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey, as well as the former Prime Minister and the current Chancellor have all backed the project.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although I understand that the Department has produced different figures, I ask the Minister what steps the Department is taking to ensure that its economic analysis captures the full benefits for passengers and trade in full and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, right across the United Kingdom as well. Furthermore, the project will increase investment in UK supply chains, create jobs and provide opportunities for new apprenticeships. The chief executive officer of Heathrow said only last week that of the billions in private sector investment, 95% will go into the UK supply chains, alongside more than 100,000 jobs that Heathrow says the project could support.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Leader of the Opposition stated: “The future of our country’s busiest airport is not a regional matter” That is why I take issue with some of the speeches made by Members today. This is a matter for the country and for the Prime Minister, so, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he needs to “stop faffing about” and “get this runway built.” There has been much discussion today about the level of economic growth that the airport would deliver, to pick up on the intervention made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. However, we should all be able to agree that the project would bring economic benefits. The £17 billion in benefits estimated by Heathrow is a considerable sum.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Whenever there is a large infrastructure project in the country—we are fully aware of this and always have been—there will always be local objections, as we would expect at council and sometimes constituency MP level. I think everybody understands that. The broader point is that Heathrow will be a privately funded project, and we support it on that basis. What is the cost of the failure to make a decision? It is lost growth and forgone private sector investment. This is the same behaviour that we have seen towards vital projects such as more drilling in the North sea. The Prime Minister wants to talk about re-industrialisation without giving British companies or businesses the tools they need to achieve that.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope that the Minister can encourage his more senior colleagues to provide some of that certainty, and maybe he can provide even more today.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you very much, Sir John. I will just say that there are clearly vested interests on all sides. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West does not think that existing airlines with existing slots have vested interests, he is living on a different planet. With the most recent economic figures showing a contraction in construction output, how on earth can we justify failing to provide clarity about such a significant infrastructure project? From the outset, it has felt that the Department for Transport was trying to catch up with announcements made by the Treasury and Prime Minister. Now it appears that progress might be stalled by No. 10 instead. I am afraid that the non-answers we have seen from the Government to date demonstrate a lack of seriousness on their part.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the DCO process for surface access targets, could the Minister address the point about drop-off charges? That is important for the surface access proposals being put forward by the Government.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I believe that Parliament should put the matter beyond doubt. I hope that the House supports the Bill, and that the Government do not back away from it, but instead support it on its Second Reading on Friday 13 November. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Mr Richard Holden, Mrs Kemi Badenoch, Helen Whateley, Claire Coutinho, Laura Trott, Tom Tugendhat, Katie Lam, Dame Rebecca Harris, Joy Morrissey, Andrew Griffith, Nick Timothy and Neil O’Brien present the Bill. Mr Richard Holden accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November , and to be printed (Bill 1 63 ).”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Time and again, I meet constituents in Basildon and Billericay who need support, or those on the other side, who are being squeezed more and more by higher taxes—people who work long hours, but who see their bills rise as they try to support their family. Why are my constituents not more deserving of our attention? Instead, we are bundling cash, first class, to men with multiple wives, and to those who made an uncle-niece marriage overseas. Let us take a sensible step to address the issue in a way that recognises the values behind our benefit system, which is rooted in compassion and the principle of contribution, and in the values of our country. It is not there to pay for cultural practices that are illegal here. Surely it is insane that our welfare rules make special provision for men with many wives.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How did we get here, when such marriages are illegal in our country? How did it come about that we recognise them if they were conducted overseas? The situation developed as a result of common-law rules and decisions made by courts. As in so many other areas, these decisions were probably well meaning, but this situation is completely inimical to a cohesive society and a coherent polity, and anathema to the values of our country. The beautiful thing about our country and Parliament is that we are sovereign; Parliament can legislate to remove uncertainty and revoke common law where it is wrong. Parliament must take responsibility. We decide what our welfare system recognises, and that is the signal that this House should send, clearly and explicitly, through the law of this country.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Marriages within prohibited degrees, including incestuous ones between uncle and niece or aunt and nephew, were made automatically void by the Marriage Act 1835, nearly two centuries ago. Our modern legislation explicitly outlaws incestuous sexual activity between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. When Parliament has rightly drawn those boundaries, surely it is right that our welfare system should uphold them. I have brought to the House this Bill, backed by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), to end recognition of polygamous marriages and put it beyond doubt that overseas incestuous marriages cannot and should not be recognised in our welfare system for social security purposes.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Bill is about polygamy, but it is also about overseas marriages between close relatives. To one of my written parliamentary questions, which I know Ministers appreciate dearly, I received an extraordinary answer. What did a Minister say about overseas marriages between an uncle and his niece, or an aunt and her nephew—marriages that are illegal in the UK—being recognised in our welfare budget? They said it was “unlikely”. Frankly, “unlikely” is not good enough, especially when Ministers cannot give me an answer on how many polygamous or incestuous marriages are being supported by our welfare system. The standards at issue here are hardly novel. Bigamy has been a statutory criminal offence in the UK since 1604, more than four centuries ago.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Whenever the moment arrives to top up a budget or dish out another handout, those Members are there. I hope that the Bill will stir a new feeling in those Members, and that the blinkers will fall from their eyes. I hope that when they see a system that gives special treatment to men with multiple wives, and potentially to incestuous marriages, their inner conservativism will break out. We are talking about provisions that recognise overseas polygamous marriages and make allowance for additional spouses—a second or third wife and onwards. We are talking about a man rinsing the taxpayer for social security benefits under unbelievable provisions in law that recognise polygamous marriages, which are illegal in the UK. We chuck around welfare payments to such people with abandon. Taxpayers are entitled to ask what on earth we are doing.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Alongside that, help is there for those most in need—those who simply cannot or will never be able to look after themselves. That is the essence of a system that Members on all sides of this House could agree to—a system that is contributory and compassionate. How far have we drifted when our rules make special provision for polygamy or incest to be recognised in the benefit system? Can Government Members—or any other Members—point to where in the Beveridge report it is envisaged that a man’s third or fourth wife be supported? Where was any of that when Beveridge laid the foundations of our modern welfare system? Some Members take a different view on Beveridge. They have never seen a benefit of any kind, for anyone, that they did not want preserved at any cost. They are unable or unwilling to say no.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the recognition of polygamous marriages, marriages within prohibited degrees, and certain other marriages between close relatives, in the social security system. I have brought the Bill to the House to correct an extraordinary fault in our welfare system—one so bizarre and indefensible that I can scarcely believe that we need legislation to address it. We do not yet know what the Government wish to do in this area, but I hope that if the Bill passes today, they will not oppose it on Friday 13 November. We should begin with a simple question: what is welfare for? Beveridge understood the principles of making a contribution, of responsibility, and of providing security for hard times. You pay into a system and help sustain it, and it is there for you when you need it.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In fact, motorists all over the country could be forced to stomach another blow to their wallets and to fork out their hard-earned cash, as the Bill’s sweeping powers mean that anything new on the road—a new smart motorway camera, perhaps, to replace one of those that currently does not work on 400 miles of our road network—can be swiftly followed up with a new toll. The Minister said that the Bill applies only to trunk roads, but clause 81 allows the Minister the “power to direct” any road to be made a trunk road, which opens up the entire road network of the country.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will deliver the jobs, growth and economic opportunities that local communities in the region, including my own constituency of Basildon and Billericay, are crying out for. However, I am afraid that that is not all that we are here to debate. Labour could have brought a project-specific piece of legislation to the House that would get this project over the line, but instead we are here partially to challenge this Labour Government as they open the door to a road charging scheme to hammer motorists. The Minister has said that the Bill concerns only existing big toll roads, but we say that that is obviously not the case.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House, while recognising the urgent need to deliver the Lower Thames Crossing, declines to give a Second Reading to the Highways (Financing) Bill, because it has no confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver the project on time and on budget, given its record of cancelling major road schemes across the country; believes that, without withdrawing from the Aarhus Convention, the costs of the Lower Thames Crossing, and therefore potential costs to its users under this Bill, risk spiralling further out of control; further believes the scope of the Bill should be strictly limited to financing the construction of the Lower Thames Crossing, and rejects the sweeping powers the Bill would grant Ministers to impose new road-charging schemes across England through secondary legislation; and also believes that the Government should not be permitted to introduce additional road-charging schemes across England without parliamentary approval and corresponding reductions in fuel duty to offset those charges.” We are here today primarily to debate the measures to deliver the lower Thames crossing, an infrastructure project that, I think it is right to say, has support from Members across the House.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend makes an important point. My understanding is that in relation to other legislation put forward by the Government concerning those projects, the local councils told the Government that the funding that they were putting forward under their own schemes—not including this legislation—was not suitable, particularly for the Hammersmith project. There are lots of options available, and my hon. Friend raises an important one, given the importance of those river crossings to the people of London and the wider country. In truth, we all know that Labour does not care about motorists. If it did, the Secretary of State would be in her place. Where on earth is the Secretary of State? We are discussing legislation that will enable the biggest road infrastructure project that this country has done in decades, but where is she today?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady can look at the road projects that we were putting forward under the last Government and at the projects that have already been cancelled under this Government—I will come on to some of those later.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the hon. Lady would care to allow me to speak, all the planning has already gone through, as the Minister said. That is what the last Government were doing—getting us to exactly to this point.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We do not yet know who will fund the project. Would the Minister like to intervene on me to say if any companies have been lined up and who is looking forward to funding this project under the proposed legislation? He does not want to at the moment, so I do not think my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will be getting an answer to his question today.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I read the other day, to my amazement, that National Highways has banned diesel from construction sites on the lower Thames crossing. Are this Government absolutely mad? Are they trying to keep the costs of this project down?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under this Government, how can we have any confidence that they will deliver the scheme at all? We have just seen the A303, the Blyth relief road, the A31, the A10, the A12, the A17, the A454 and the A127 growth corridor cancelled, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) just mentioned, as well as many more. The Government have cancelled their own growth corridor! The Transport Secretary—although she is not here—expects us to swallow the idea that the Government will suddenly be on the side of motorists and road users with this new scheme, which opens the entire road network to potential road charging. As soon as any new enhancement is put in—it may be a central reservation enhancement—it can be opened up to potential road charging.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who is a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade—are on the side of motorists. However, the Department for Transport has shown absolutely no indication that it is on the side of Britain’s car industry or those who work in it in good jobs, often with trade union representation, up and down the country. It is not on the side of those who go out and drive for work or for leisure day after day. What have this Government done? They have been busy merrily cooking up a story with the Treasury and pressing ahead with plans to put an extra 6p per litre on fuel in the new year. They have been busily slicing out road scheme after road scheme and road upgrade after road upgrade. So much for the road investment strategy that the Minister talks about!”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Labour—its Government, its Back Benchers and its councillors—will never stop trying to fleece motorists. This Bill proves that in spades with its open-ended approach to what could happen. There are new sweeping powers in the Bill for road charging right across England, with next to no future parliamentary approval. It is not even as if the Secretary of State has been out there banging the drum for Britain’s automotive sector; otherwise, we would have seen the changes to the zero emission vehicle mandate that so many in the industry, and some Labour Back Benchers, are demanding. In fact, we have seen Labour turn the screw on this issue even further since it came to power. We know that some Labour Ministers—such as the hon.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have just given way several times, so let me make a little progress before I give way again. The Secretary of State is too busy to bother about motorists until they become useful cash cows for Labour’s ballooning welfare budget, which shows no sign of changing under the new Prime Minister, no matter how many pints he poses with. The Transport Secretary could not even be bothered to mention fuel in her speech at the Labour party conference, even though diesel has just hit £2 a litre for the first time ever. To be fair, she did mention drivers once, but only to tell us that railways are the drivers of change—whatever that means. Make no mistake: Labour does not care about Britain’s motorists, unless it is making a tax, a charge, a new fine or a new yellow box junction.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The Government have devised a new cunning plan. They are not just banning diesel—oh no; they are banning hydrotreated vegetable oil. You heard that right, Madam Deputy Speaker: they are going to wipe out vegetable oils being repurposed as diesel from the sites. The sites will have to be all electric. How much cost will they ram through on to this scheme? In the end, who will pay for that? It will not be the private company that runs the scheme; it will be everybody who crosses the Thames. That is what the Government are doing: driving in costs from day one. This is the biggest road scheme that this country has done in decades, and the Secretary of State is not even here to talk about it.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government say that they want to deliver growth, but instead they spend their days screwing over motorists, cancelling road schemes and calling Heathrow expansion a “hypothetical” or “a matter for London”. Labour is not a serious party intent on delivering growth. They are only fit to whack up the welfare budget and leave the rest of us to pay for it. My party has set out a clear plan to tackle some of the costs of infrastructure, including leaving the Aarhus convention, which we discussed at the Conservative party conference.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The last Government fought tooth and nail through the courts to deliver the scheme and get the planning consents all the way through. I think the hon. Member should take note of that. This is not something that this Government have dreamed up overnight and delivered. They are ramming costs right into the heart of the scheme, and it is his constituents who will pay for it in the years to come, because of the way in which it will be constructed. This is neither the time nor the place for one of Baldrick’s cunning plans. Does the Minister know how much this scheme is going to cost? If not, why not? Why on earth will any private sector company look at investing in the scheme if it has an open-ended cost?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member—my occasional squash partner—for asking that question; he often beats me at squash. We are not opposed to tolls, per se—we have had them on the existing lower Thames crossing at Dartford for years—but we took them away on the Severn bridge, which is important for our connectivity to Wales. We are totally against opening up the entire strategic road network to charging, which is what this piece of legislation does.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is it for this country to be a world leader in greenwashing road building and making roads more expensive than anywhere else in the world? We have a Government run by a man whose only care for transport is whether it is in Manchester or not. I have no doubt that if the LTC was somewhere in Manchester, the Government would fall over themselves to get it built, rather than having no answers to the big questions that we have.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the moment, every man and his dog can challenge the Government on any important piece of road infrastructure being built in the country—or, in Jolyon Maugham’s case, every man and his fox—and use those rules to delay projects and cost the taxpayer. Costs are capped at £5,000 for an individual and at £10,000 for a campaign group, but this situation costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds a year. That is where the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) should look to save money for his constituents when they cross the road in the future, and it is why it took so long for this legislation to come forward—because it took so long for the planning to happen. What plan have the Government set out?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Nowhere in this legislation is there any talk of the exact price that people will have to pay to cross the river. There is no idea of who is going to build the crossing, the cost of it or how much people will have to pay to cross. Huge numbers of open-ended questions are left by this piece of legislation. As I was saying, my party has outlined plans for how we will reduce the cost of infrastructure, including leaving the Aarhus convention, so that we can tackle the rules that allow costly or protracted legal challenges. The Minister smirks, but that is costing his Department hundreds of millions of pounds a year. If his Government pulled out of the convention, they could deliver some of the road projects that they have just cancelled. That is exactly what we should be doing.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I am finishing my speech. What on earth are the Government doing? Where are the safeguards against higher charges for motorists? The Minister does not know.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have read the Bill. Clauses 33 and 81 could lead to road charging schemes right across the country. The Minister seems not to have read his own Bill. What safeguards are there? How much will his plans to ban diesel add to the cost of construction? Does he know? Would he like to tell us? No, he is not going to say. The shadow Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), will take the Government to task on the Bill and go toe-to-toe in Committee, defending motorists against unlimited tolls and endless charges. That is why we have tabled our reasoned amendment that calls on the Government to see sense, keep costs for motorists down, get this project built and deliver the growth that we desperately need in this country.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Would the hon. Member accept that the Bill allows for exactly what we see in France, which is toll roads across the entire strategic road network?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady makes some important points. We share a hospital trust. Many of my constituents in Basildon and Billericay go to Broomfield hospital. Some of them go down to Basildon hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock), as well as the Southend hospital in another neighbouring constituency. I want to pick up on that point around contingency planning, because Basildon hospital, which is part of the trust, is particularly bad for corridor care. It is very clear to me that it is a major issue that is really hammering people. I want to make a very brief point about that care.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Stuart. A constituent came to me who was handed a second-hand book on grief, with somebody else’s notes in it, after he had just lost his wife. It really struck me that, whether it is corridor care or that almost thoughtlessness, care is actually missing in parts of the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗