Mr Richard Holden
MP for Basildon and Billericay · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Having spoken to Mr Speaker earlier today, it was my understanding that urgent questions requested by my party and by the Liberal Democrats were not accepted because the Government gave assurances that a statement will be made in the House tomorrow.”
“I also agree with the Secretary of State’s observation in her letter to colleagues on 1 September, in which she said that the contributions of the Lords have helped strengthen the legislation before the House today. At its core, this is broadly an administrative Bill.”
“If the Minister would like to speak, he can stand at the Dispatch Box. No, he does not want to do that—fine. We will have him here tomorrow, then, as we were told today that our urgent question would not be accepted because the Minister would be making a statement. We will have to see whether that actually happens.”
“I know that the Secretary of State is incredibly busy selling out taxpayers in her latest meetings with union barons who have her over a barrel; she was apparently too busy to join me and many of the shadow ministerial team at the Farnborough air show.”
“I genuinely find it difficult to believe that the Secretary of State does not herself believe that there is a simple link between Gatwick having a minimum target of more than half of passengers getting to and from the airport by public transport and the soaring drop-off charges.”
“The Government have talked a lot about growth, yet have refused to set tangible targets to deliver it—whether in this aviation Bill, or indeed for passenger growth in the Railways Bill.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Mr Richard Holden, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 12.
“One message I have heard repeatedly from across the sector is that regulation without enforcement is no regulation at all. Clear standards must be matched by trained inspectors, adequate local authority resourcing and a system that allows concerns to be acted on before situations deteriorate into crisis, as clearly happened in my constituency. Any effective system must reflect the realities of modern rescue and rehoming, including foster-based rescues and online rehoming operations, as well as reflecting the work of organisations facilitating rehoming more broadly. The ADCH standards are excellent and many responsible rescue centres have rightly adopted them, but a voluntary system alone will always leave gaps, as rogue operators can simply opt out.”
“A significant number are subscribed to the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes voluntary code. That framework is the gold standard and was developed over many years with considerable care, expertise and sector-wide input. I am sure that the Minister will look closely at the voluntary code and work constructively with the association and the wider sector to ensure that the policy is delivered properly. At its best, the sector shows us what good looks like. The task before us is to ensure that those standards are applied fairly and right across the board, so that wherever they are, animals get gold-standard treatment. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned the fact that, for licensing to succeed, it must be proportionate and, crucially, properly enforced.”
“It is therefore vital that England, which is currently an outlier, moves in the same direction. To continue as we are at the moment is clearly not sustainable, and there is a clear advantage to addressing this issue now. As we set about fixing the problem, we are not starting from scratch. As hon. Members have mentioned, we can draw directly from the experiences of those who have gone before us to get it right. I have spoken to many animal welfare charities based in Scotland that are adapting to the legislation and want to see updates. We can help get it right. We can get it even better here than those charities have managed. That is why it is so important that we act now. It is important to recognise that many rescue and rehoming centres already operate to the highest of standards.”
“They will not face routine inspection, be subject to monitoring or be required to apply for any form of licence. That gap in oversight has led to consequences that are as clear as they are troubling: it has undermined public confidence in the integrity of the sector; placed intolerable pressure on reputable charities that are trying to get on with their meaningful work and that already face additional costs; and most importantly, it has resulted in animals suffering—not only dogs and cats but horses and the other animals that have been mentioned. We know that it does not have to be this way. As we have heard, in Scotland, a licensing regime provided a clear bulwark against malpractice and has been in place since 2021. As was mentioned, in Wales, the Government have made plain their intention to move in the same direction.”
“I place on record my thanks to the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes, Farplace Animal Rescue and so many others for their outstanding work and leadership in this area. I obviously also have to pay tribute to Paul Watkinson. His dogged determination to protect animal welfare and ensure that high standards are there across the board also deserves recognition in this House, as do local campaigners in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford said, the problem, as has become painfully clear, is that anyone, regardless of their experience or their intention, can put up a sign and declare that they have an animal rescue shelter or rehoming centre.”
“That licensing regime must be one that clamps down on malpractice and bad actors while protecting and supporting the many kind-hearted individuals and organisations—from small individuals right through to some of our largest national charities—which provide safe, caring and responsible environments for animals and often animals in real need. We have heard passionate speeches from right across the House in support of those small, often individual institutions in Member’s constituencies. I am heartened by the depth of experience and expertise that exists in the sector to help us get this licensing regime right as well.”
“They are the reason that we are where we are today and the reason I brought forward my private Member’s Bill for establishing a licensing regime for animal shelters. Only by setting clear standards, and, crucially, as Members have said, by having them properly enforced, can we actually protect animals. That is why I am determined that, hopefully, with the Government’s consultation coming forward soon, we arrive at a licensing regime that puts animal welfare at its heart—and I look forward to hearing a few more details from the Minister in her response and very much welcome the proposal’s inclusion in the animal welfare strategy.”
“Many Members will be aware of that and have made a reference to that horrible and tragic case—the appalling discovery of dozens of animals found dead at a property which was presenting itself as a rehoming centre. Some animals were taken back alive. Yet even when they were taken alive some had to have the most horrendous operations done to them, including one having to have its eyes removed because it was so badly maltreated. I was inundated with correspondence from my own constituents and people across the country who are determined to see high standards brought in for this sector and proper, meaningful oversight delivered. I thank those 2,600 of my constituents who responded to this petition—more than any other constituency in the country.”
“Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba); the chair of the APPG on cats, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), and the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) contributed in a really valuable way to this debate. It is without doubt that the breadth and strength of those contributions have demonstrated why this issue of licensed animal shelters and rescue centres matters so deeply to communities right across the country. Now, it might be highly unusual to have the shadow Transport Secretary speaking in a debate on a subject for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I requested this one personally, given the fact that an incident that has been referred to, and that sparked off this position, happened in my own constituency at Crays Hill.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alec. It is also a pleasure to hear from the Petitions Committee, and I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for outlining the petitioners views. There were almost 110,000 of them across the country. Some of them are here today in the Public Gallery. Led by Paul and the other campaigners, they have driven so hard to get us to where we are today—not just this debate in Parliament or with the private Member’s Bill that I introduced, but in actually seeing that consultation brought forward by the Government, which is very much to be welcomed. I begin by thanking hon. Members from across the Chamber: the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock); the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones); the hon.”
“Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how a Minister might come to this House and explain why, yet again, Parliament has been denied information that was in fact releasable, as you have warned against on many occasions?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In written parliamentary question 99967, I asked the Department of Health and Social Care to publish training modules and guidance related to first cousin marriage and genetic risk. The Minister replied that these materials existed, but would not be published to this House or more widely. In written parliamentary question 102870, I asked the Minister if he would place those training modules in the Library of the House of Commons, and the Minister said there were no plans to do so. This is astonishing since that answer came after a freedom of information request to NHS England, which had already placed those very documents in the public domain.”
“Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), told me that this information was not “appropriate to disclose” because of commercial sensitivities. However, shortly afterwards, the DVLA released under FOI the code of contract with Oxfordshire county council, confirming contractual arrangements involving intermediaries and third-party access, with only personal data redacted. I would be grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this apparent inconsistency. Might you raise it with the Leader of the House or the Departments concerned?”
“Always, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Cabinet Office guide to parliamentary work is clear: “There should be no inconsistencies between the provision of information in answers to written questions and information given under the FOI Act”. It also states that material disclosable under the Freedom of Information Act should also be disclosed to Parliament. On 2 December and 4 December in written parliamentary questions, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport what information the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency holds about third-party intermediary organisations acting on behalf of Oxford city council and Oxfordshire county council in accessing vehicle keeper data. In both cases, the Minister for Local Transport, the hon.”
“Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Government. Yesterday, the Minister for nature, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), told the House that there was no national bus fare cap under the last Conservative Government. That is not surprising, as the Prime Minister keeps gaslighting the public by saying exactly the same thing. Does the Minister accept that he must ensure that his colleagues correct the record, since there was a national £2 bus fare cap under the last Conservative Government? The Conservative manifesto committed to a £2 fare cap for the duration of this Parliament. This Government are taking the public for fools, as they increased the fare cap by 50%, which is hammering hard-working people up and down the country, costing them hundreds of pounds every single year.”
“Could the Secretary of State enlighten the House as to how reversing the last Conservative Government’s 5p a litre fuel duty cut will help the transport system to support economic growth? Is it not the truth that, come September, this will be known as Labour’s back to school tax?”
“At oral questions in September, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) asked the Minister to apologise for failing to bring down the driving test backlog, which Labour had promised to do. The Minister told the House then that there were “early signs of improvement”. Can he tell the House now whether driving test times have increased or decreased since Labour came to power 18 months ago?”
“The Minister has still not properly answered the question and, frankly, should be embarrassed by that answer. Labour promised to reduce average waiting times to seven weeks— [ Interruption. ] Wait for it. Instead, we are now seeing waits of up to 22 weeks—almost a month longer for a driving test than at the general election. The desperate headline-grabbing announcements about calling in the Army, which in reality will increase capacity by less than half of 1%, and for one year only, will simply not cut the mustard for the hundreds of thousands of people waiting for driving tests up and down the country. Can the Minister tell the House when he expects average test waiting times to fall below the levels that Labour inherited at the general election?”
“While we welcome many of the measures, there are still many questions to be answered, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.”
“Why still exclude vulnerable road users and motorcyclists from bus lanes in many areas? There is a real missed opportunity to improve safety and survival for those people. There is also a glaring absence when it comes to tackling the scourge of unlicensed and uninsured criminals driving with impunity. Measures such as requiring proof of identity to register a vehicle could have been included, as recommended by the all-party parliamentary group for transport safety. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) might mention that in her remarks, too. Road safety is not delivered by strategies and consultations alone; it is delivered when the law is clear and evidence-based, enforcement is consistent and the Government are willing to confront difficult issues, rather than relying on process and pre-briefed headlines.”
“However, that sits uneasily with this Government cutting the budget for the THINK! road safety campaign by £1.2 million last year, particularly when lifelong learning and changes are so critical to many of the plans that the Government have announced today. That brings me to my final major point, which is around enforcement. This place can pass all the laws it wishes, but if they are not enforced, all that does is undermine faith in our democratic institutions. The House will be aware that police numbers under this Government are down by around 1,300 in the latest figures. Enforcement sits at the heart of any credible road safety policy, so are there are plans to ensure additional roads policing to ensure that enforcement happens? Finally, there are some omissions.”
“In fact, it is extraordinary that the Department—to quote an answer to one of my written questions— “has not made an assessment of the impact on the economic viability of pubs in Scotland” as a result of the changes that have already happened up there. Changing the legal limit alone will not change behaviour, and any reform must be based on a thorough examination of the evidence and impacts, not on attempts to look tough. Alongside alcohol, the House must not lose sight of drug-driving, and I welcome some of the measures announced today. However, the commitments to testing seem rather vague. It would be great to hear more from the Minister on that because the police are pushing for more roadside drug testing. Governments of all stripes have pushed for an emphasis on education and behavioural change.”
“We need to properly think through the consequences of some of what the Government are proposing. It is important that we look at this broadly to ensure that we are not restricting freedoms via legislation to fix problems that are the result of not sorting out driving tests. No one in this House disputes that drink-driving is totally unacceptable, but I hope that Ministers and the Secretary of State will reflect on the experiences in Scotland, where changes in this space have already been made, and on the concerns right across the hospitality sector that there is no clear evidence of improved road safety outcomes following those changes.”
“In oral questions, the Minister appeared to suggest that part of the reason for the six-month delay after getting a theory test was to ensure that more driving tests are available. In reality, it will mean an even larger group of people waiting to book driving tests, so I fear that the Government have not fully thought through the consequences of that. I remember meeting a woman aged 60 who had just lost her husband of 40 years. She lived in a small village with no bus service. She had always relied on him to drive. Are we really telling her that she will have to take a theory test and then wait six months after passing it to take a driving test? I can think of women in similar circumstances—men take more driving tests than women at an earlier stage in life—who maybe only take a test when they move for jobs or after having children.”
“I also welcome stiffer fines and enforcement against bad faith drivers, particularly those on ghost plates, as has been mentioned, and against those trying to evade justice via the use of dodgy number plates and other things to conceal their identity. I also welcome the road safety investigation branch and the better use and collation of data and data sharing—those are incredibly important. I also welcome the inclusion of Sharlotte’s law, which will help to prevent people trying to evade justice by ensuring that timely blood testing can take place in the most serious of cases. It is clear that there will be concern about some of the new moves announced and whether they are wholly related to road safety, and I would like to look at a couple of those.”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, although obviously some of it was reported in The Times earlier this week. I welcome the fact that the Government have published the road safety strategy, and I welcome the broad ambition, shared right across the House, to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads. As a former Roads Minister and as a local MP, I too have met many grieving families torn apart by deaths on our roads. The fact that we have seen a 10% to 15% reduction since 2010 does not mean that we do not need to go further. In that spirit, I welcome the comprehensive look at motorcycle training that the Minister has announced, as well as the expansion of Project PRIME from Scotland on motorcycle safety. That will be a major improvement to our road safety.”
“Instead, like the card soldiers in “Alice in Wonderland”, the Secretary of State is busy covering up her blunders by painting the roses red. She claims that the new branding is “not just a paint job”. Well, what on earth is it? We on these Benches know the answer to that. The Secretary of State is trying to paint over the cracks in a rusting hulk of a Bill that picks the pockets of every other DfT budget, whether it involves our roads or bus users, air passengers and air travel. All of them will be hit with cuts, and also with higher taxes so that the Secretary of State and her civil servants can play trains in the Department of Transport.”
“Despite the warm words of the Secretary of State, there is nothing in the Bill that guarantees growth in our rail network or cheaper fares—in fact, only this morning the Secretary of State refused to say that rail prices would continue to come down—and nothing to guarantee safer, more comfortable journeys on our railways. There are no plans for greater electrification, which is hardly surprising given that the last Conservative Government delivered 20 times as much electrification in our 14 years as Labour achieved in its 13 years. This Government have chosen to betray North Wales again, and have abandoned the midlands main line upgrade as well. Both were important electrification projects. There is nothing in the Bill that promises better and more consistent internet connections on our trains.”
“Once again, just as with the “Unemployment Bill”, we are gathering to witness a throwback to the 1970s. Despite what the Secretary of State has said, ideology is clearly core to the legislation that she is presenting today, because otherwise she would not be ruling out concessionary schemes like those operated by Transport for London and Merseyrail. This time it is our railways that are about to become the latest victim of the Government’s desire not for Government oversight, but for state control. So down the rabbit hole we go.”
“I beg to move, That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Railways Bill because it prioritises putting the rail system under state control, rather than prioritising passengers and taxpayers, and the effective and efficient running of the railway; because it significantly reduces the role of the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, whose duties it transfers in large part to Great British Railways, with limited rights of appeal against Great British Railways’ decisions, so there will be no proper accountability for the state controlled operator, and this, along with the duty for Great British Railways to prioritise its own services for access to track, will squeeze out popular and well-regarded open access operators, who run services without taxpayer subsidy; because it allows ministers to interfere at will in the running of the railways, for example by setting fares, which will not create a stable environment for private sector investment, with the result that reliance on taxpayer subsidy will increase; and because it will do nothing to grow passenger numbers, or modernise or improve the rail network, and does not include provisions to grow rail freight, which means that the chance to create a thriving railway which delivers economic growth and relies less on taxpayer support will be lost.”
“That is why we have supported a concessionary model, which the Secretary of State will no doubt recall from her time at Transport for London, as will Members from Merseyside and Greater Manchester, where such a model is being proposed. I do not think anybody has ever considered them to be on the far right.”
“My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was interesting to hear Government Members saying, “Yes, yes,” while he spoke, because that is exactly what they did: they threw money at the transport unions. It is particularly interesting that the Secretary of State said today that the railways will face a £2 billion-a-year subsidy for the foreseeable future, because that is not what the Government have said in answers to written questions submitted by me or Opposition colleagues. Let me be absolutely clear that when it comes to Britain’s railways, we are not against the idea of uniting track and train. We would back a model that brings coherence to the system, but not one that weakens scrutiny and clamps down on competition.”
“Instead, in keeping with the worst traditions of the 1970s, a return to state control runs throughout her Bill. It is not about the growth in passenger numbers that would reduce taxpayer subsidy; otherwise, why is that not on the front of the Bill? It is not about the growth in competition that would bring down prices for passengers, the growth of freight that would take more lorries off our roads, or the growth of new routes to serve the length and breadth of the country. Nowhere on the face of her Bill is there a target for passenger growth. The Bill actively works against open access, which, if the Secretary of State gets her way, will be left wholly, and deliberately, vulnerable.”
“Neither will a direct line from Cleethorpes to London, long campaigned for by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers)—I visited his constituency a week ago—be on offer. We back a joined-up approach that places passengers and taxpayers at the heart of our railway. We recognise that fragmentation held our railway back, and have long championed partnership with private sector involvement to drive innovation and growth. That is why we conducted the Williams-Shapps review. What the Secretary of State has brought forward is not a coherent model at all; it is something altogether different, and ought to trouble Members throughout the House. Her Bill ignores the evidence, the experts, and the fervent cries of freight that growth has to be at the forefront of any rail reform.”
“We can all see the ideology at play today. I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is in Greater Manchester, where the mayor is calling for a concessionary model—a partnership between the state and the private sector that is directly opposed in the Bill that he will support this evening. The hon. Gentleman is quite far off the mark. The number of passengers on our railways doubled in the 25 years after services were returned to the private sector after half a century of decline. We support the vital role of open access operators, which always give passengers brand-new routes with cheap, affordable fares, and often run direct services to London. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) called for direct services recently, but I do not think that option will be available under the new system.”
“We must contend instead with insufficient protections for ticket retailers, so passengers who use apps such as Trainline, which is incredibly popular, TrainPal or Uber will no doubt have to pay more for a shoddier service, as the Government push these growing businesses to the brink, as they are doing. From these depths, one inescapable conclusion emerges: the people who will benefit from this Bill are not passengers or taxpayers. The only ones who will benefit are the Secretary of State’s union paymasters, who stand to cash in, with no commitments to modernisation, to increasing efficiency or to abolishing outdated working practices. Every possible incentive for increasing efficiency has been ignored or abandoned on the altar of ideology.”
“If the council is not to be toothless, there have to be standards that GBR is expected to adhere to, so I ask the Secretary of State: where are the rigorous performance standards and the key performance indicators for the network that, in answer to parliamentary question after parliamentary question, she and her Ministers have promised will be released? She has taken operators into state control, but refuses to set out by which standards they should be judged. Does she have no standards—or perhaps she would rather let performance slip and then claim credit for any tiny improvements she can spin down the line?”
“Above all, this Bill does not put passengers or taxpayers first. Having been watered down beyond recognition, the passengers’ council is a far cry from what the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) envisaged. What remains is no watchdog at all, but a dog with no teeth or, as it has no enforcement powers, a dog that can barely bite. Even in the Government’s own factsheet, this so-called watchdog is confined to advising and reporting. GBR must “listen”, but nowhere does it have to comply. This is not accountability; it is blatant window dressing behind triple glazing.”
“I totally agree with my right hon. Friend on that issue. Earlier, he made the important point that people want to see through-trains running, because there is nothing that benefits disabled passengers more than the through-train services such as from his constituency, which would be available with open access. I believe that the Department for Transport has opposed that for the service he mentioned. The Transport Secretary can correct me if she wishes, but it comes to something when this Government are actively working against new routes across the country. This Bill actively works against open access, which, if she gets her way, will be left wholly and, I suspect, deliberately vulnerable. GBR is mimicking some statist salami-style tactic that will cut it slice by slice until open access is dead.”
“It is pretty clear that we want to passengers to be put first with reliable, safe and accessible journeys that provide value for money, and open access routes protected, including those serving Hull, championed by the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), and those serving Doncaster, which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) know their constituents really depend on. Oversight must be accompanied by actual enforcement, and passengers and taxpayers must be at the forefront of the Bill. Currently, they are not.”
“We have a duty to freight, which, although clearly an afterthought, is obviously welcome, but once the reality kicks in, GBR’s overlordship of the process of access, pricing and timetabling will leave freight operators permanently in the lurch. We have conflict of interest after conflict of interest permeating the Bill, with about as much credibility as the Secretary of State’s promise a couple of weeks ago that the Government had no plans to introduce pay-per-mile on our roads. I wonder whether the right hon. Lady has corrected Hansard yet. We desperately need an indication of purpose. What is this for? Who is this all for?”
“Working arrangements with unions will be managed by individual local train operators, and the guiding mind of it all will be GBR. This is not, as the Secretary of State and her Ministers have claimed, how any organisation ought to be run. It is an organisational mishmash—rudderless, directionless. It will not serve passengers, it will not serve freight and it certainly will not serve taxpayers. Certainty, supposedly guaranteed to freight, industry and manufacturing, is entirely absent. In its place, we have the misfortune of funding mechanisms that can be changed and amended at any time, without any oversight whatsoever.”
“We find ourselves in the most bizarre position of the Office of Rail and Road handing over its powers on deciding track access and access charges to GBR, which is the very entity that has the most to gain by acting in its own self-interest. In this Bill, that self-interest is unfettered and unperturbed by any genuine oversight. Who, can I ask the Secretary of State, will be in charge of the railways in this new thrilling world of state control? According to the responses I have received to parliamentary questions, we are still not clear. Rail fares, apparently, will be decided by Ministers in the Department for Transport. Automation of train technology will be, according to the answers to written parliamentary questions I have received, the Government’s collective responsibility.”
“Lady’s flagrant disregard of taxpayers’ money and an “ain’t bovvered” approach to passenger welfare, I had hoped that she would have ensured that this Bill contained the necessary safeguards—guard rails, perhaps—and a strong regulator with the statutory authority to intervene and set things straight. Are we going to have such a regulator? Oh, but we dare to dream! [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) wishes to intervene, why does he not stand up? Today, operators propose and the Office of Rail and Road decides, but under this Bill, GBR will propose and GBR will decide.”
“The hon. Gentleman, along with some of his colleagues, has not been listening to what I have been saying, because we put forward the Williams-Shapps review to deliver a new concessionary model. Some of the funding he mentioned was delivered through modernisation, and it was delivered under the last Government. Let us be clear about what is happening with SWR: under this Government, his constituents are seeing greater delays right across the network. They are seeing that month after month, despite the promises of the Secretary of State. Despite the right hon.”
“We will not sit idly by and allow the Government to turn GBR into judge, jury and executioner on the network it alone controls. I hope that Members from other parties will support our calls here and in the other place over the coming weeks and months.”
“She will not protect open access, embed growth or put passengers first. Instead, she presses on, convinced that centralising power will somehow solve the very problems that centralisation always creates. Let there be no shadow of a doubt: when, as is inevitable, things go wrong, leaving passengers without recourse or redress, she and she alone will face the consequences. She will own the cancellations, the overcrowding, the endless complaints about no internet signal, the strikes, the rising taxpayer subsidy and the fateful day when passengers learn she can no longer afford to use taxpayers’ money to prop up her much-vaunted fare freeze. We on the Opposition Benches will fight to deliver a railway that works for passengers, taxpayers, freight and the future.”
“I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is clear that when it comes to modernisation, access and new trains, that is exactly what we want to see delivered, and there is no mention of that in the Bill. We have tabled our reasoned amendment today because a Bill with no independent regulator, no protection for competition or taxpayers’ money, no passenger growth duty and no credible enforcement, cannot command our support. Throughout this murky and blinkered process, the Secretary of State has shown that she does not have the will to make sensible changes. Like the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), she does not have the guts to face down her Back Benchers, who call for greater state control right across the system. She will not strengthen the Bill. She will not restore independence.”
“When the Transport Secretary speaks, can we have some honesty and transparency about the cost? The issue does not stop there—it goes even further. Taxes on flights are up to £400 for a family holiday, and those taxes are going up next year, and the year after. The taxi tax is coming in, hammering our night-time economy and leaving women with a choice between paying 20% more for a private hire vehicle, and being vulnerable late at night when trying to get home. The Government are raising business rates again on the high street, but also snuck out on the same day as the Budget were multiple-times increases resulting from the revaluation of airports and a 10-times rise for the channel tunnel rail link, from £10 million to £100 million.”
“There have been more questions today from Members right across the House about how on earth one could implement such a scheme. Let us have a look at the freeze on train fares. That is not being paid for through more efficient trains or more productivity; it is being paid for by tax rises. Fuel duty will rise by 5p next year, and bus fares are already up by 50%. That measure is fully funded—by taxpayers. It is funded by bus users and motorists up and down the country. That is the cost of this Government. When I saw the numbers in the Budget, I was quite astonished, because they totally contradict the figures that the Department for Transport has put out. The Department has said that the cost of this policy is £600 million, but the Budget says £150 million.”