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 5 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.
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government want us to believe that they are at least trying to help, but it is clear that this is a Janus-faced Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said, the costs have not come off people’s bills, because the Government are just moving those costs to their tax bills. That is true, is it not? We are told to be grateful that energy bills—which are already up—are being shifted to our tax bills. The electric car grant that is coming in is not actually helping anyone. It is not a result of energy prices having gone down; it is being paid for with pay per mile, despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) at Transport questions that that would not happen.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Despite the election pledges, tax rises are hitting working people up and down the country. Under this Government, taxes are up by £66 billion a year, and alongside that, debt has risen by tens of billions of pounds. The real issue for the cost of living is Labour’s doom loop—higher taxes, higher prices, lower growth and more unemployment, followed by higher taxes, higher prices, lower growth and more unemployment—but this Government simply do not get it. They have apparently tried educating their Back Benchers, but their Back Benchers have made their position clear. Regarding welfare, one was quoted as saying, “I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds”. Imagine how that is going down with those who have to lend us billions of pounds every year.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Part-time jobs are being hammered, and as my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), have mentioned, taxes on employment are really hurting people. Growth is down, particularly in the North sea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said in her fantastic speech. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) said, energy prices are through the roof. That is hitting our ability to deliver growth for businesses, particularly our manufacturing sector. Right across the piece, this Government are hammering businesses; as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said, business rates for high-street firms are up by at least 40% since the general election, despite what we are constantly told by Ministers.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The real issue here is hiding in plain sight. It is on the annunciator. This is all about bearing down on inflation, because this Government have already catastrophically failed to keep it at 2%, where the Conservative party left it at the time of the general election. That is having an impact on the cost of living up and down the country. From every single business I visit, and every single person I meet on the street in Basildon and Billericay, I hear, “Since Labour got in, things have got worse.” Unemployment is up, as is inflation—it is now double what it was at the general election. It is the highest inflation in the G7, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said. Rents are up, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) said.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. These taxes are hitting across the board, and they are hitting the employment of his constituents. That is on top of the tax rises that we saw last year: the changes in business property relief, business rates and agricultural property relief, and the national insurance tax rises. It is hammering working families up and down the country, while the Government pretend that it is not. How on earth can the Secretary of State claim that this Budget will keep inflation down? Every policy choice that the Government make fires costs straight back into the system. It is happening with policy after policy, as if some giant socialist Gatling gun were spraying costs on to businesses, passengers, taxpayers and, indeed, the entire country.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They think that small businesses will not notice business rates going up, or national insurance taxes going up. But people have noticed. They have noticed the broken promises on tax, on working people and on bills. They have noticed the smoke and mirrors. The Government are robbing Peter, but not to pay Paul; they are robbing Paul too. People were worried ahead of the Budget this year, and now they are worried about what the third Labour Budget next year will deliver, because they know that this failing Government will be coming back for more.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is the Labour party really going to tax people for driving on foreign roads? We shall have to see. The hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) made a very sensible point when he said that fiscal prudence was a means to an end. It is a means to the end of getting debt interest down, and keeping borrowing rates for businesses and families down. That is exactly right, but we did not see it from this Government. They think that people will not notice, but the Chancellor determinedly obfuscated about the figures. She talked of a black hole imposed on her, but in truth, taxes on working people are rising to pay for more welfare. The Government think that people will not notice that they are being bribed with their own money, taken from them via the tax on electric vehicles and energy.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) all made the same point; they are not normally on the same page, but they were today. They pointed out that it would be working people paying the price for those extra tax rises, because of thresholds that are frozen year after year owing to decisions made by this Labour Government. The Government are not on the side of motor manufacturing either. Real concerns have been expressed by that sector, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). How on earth, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) asked earlier, will a pay-per-mile scheme work when people are crossing the border?”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, it is not just small businesses that are being affected. We hear today that Zipcar, which is important to a great many people in London, will be closing its operations from the end of the year. That will have a huge impact, and it is happening because of the taxes on the company and the congestion charge imposed by the Mayor of London. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) made a good point earlier when he said that, once upon a time, Labour talked of being the party of a hand up, not a handout. Well, Labour is now, quite clearly, the party with its hand in the pocket of working Britain. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my hon.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We thought it would be capital flight—in fact, that is what the Treasury was briefing out: real worries about capital flight—but it is not just capital flight; it is entrepreneurial flight. It is labour fleeing the country as well. People are leaving. The only thing left is land, and the Government are taxing that as well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury made a very good point in his speech. He said that he had never seen such speculation ahead of a Budget that had worried family businesses—family businesses in his constituency and in mine. I have never known a Budget to be talked about as much as this Budget was in advance of its production. It is quite incredible. The economy is being harmed just by the briefing put out by the Government. They were doing it on the Prime Minister’s own plane. It is unbelievable.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am afraid that I have no time to give way further. Do the Government not understand that every time they hike up taxes, the cost of food goes up? Do they not understand that an indiscriminate tax hike means that the cost to the producer rises, the cost of getting the food to the shops rises, and the cost to the supermarket selling the food rises? It is a conveyor belt of wholly avoidable costs. That brings me to the core of my argument. What are this Government actually for? Disposable incomes have been revised down, along with growth, while taxes, inflation and business rates are all up. What else is up? The number of entrepreneurs leaving the country.”
House of Commons1 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), that any important policy announcements would be made to this House. Can you therefore advise me how the Transport Secretary may be invited to return to clarify the Government’s true position?”
House of Commons25 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At Transport questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) asked the Transport Secretary whether a pay-per-mile charge would be introduced, as had been reported in the Financial Times . In response, the Transport Secretary said: “There are no proposals to introduce a national pay-per-mile scheme.” —[ Official Report , 20 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 834.] However, the Government then briefed the Daily Express , claiming that the Transport Secretary had misspoken in the Chamber. That directly contradicts what this House was told. I have checked Hansard and no correction has been made. This is especially concerning, given the guarantee made yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, the hon.”
House of Commons25 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There is no passenger growth commitment in the Railways Bill, just the expectation of inflation-busting fare rises in the Budget. Holidaymakers are being used like a piñata, with a 13% rise in air passenger duty already in prospect, and airport business rates will be passed on to them too. Ports have been throttled by delayed decisions on connectivity with the rail infrastructure. Motorists are facing potential fuel duty rises, with insurance premium tax rises and pay-per-mile hanging over them. Which of the above measures is supporting, rather than hammering, economic growth?”
House of Commons20 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Everyone I have spoken to in the UK automotive sector knows that the Government’s 2030 targets for electric vehicles are unachievable, will cost good UK jobs and are a boon to China as we see BYD sales up by 350% year on year, to 3,500 in the latest October figures. In fact, although the Government said that these targets would deliver certainty, the head of one major car manufacturer told me that the only certainty is a “terminal diagnosis” for the automotive sector in this country. When will the Government abandon these damaging targets, which are hammering UK jobs and UK economic growth?”
House of Commons20 November 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We now have a situation where Parliament is being treated with contempt and information is being provided to members of the public under FOI but withheld from Members of this House. This is a direct breach of the Government’s own guidance and of the principle of accountability to this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, will you consider communicating to the Leader of the House and to the Departments that such inconsistencies are wholly unacceptable and that information that would be released under FOI must also be released to Parliament? Should the two Ministers not now correct this affront and place the information in the Library of the House?”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This guidance appears to have been breached in relation to questions about representations on the Government’s plans to hike up parking fines. On 10 July, in answer to parliamentary question 64511, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), refused to publish the material. On 19 August, the Department released the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, explicitly referencing the unanswered parliamentary question. When asked again to publish the released material, on 16 October, in answer to parliamentary question 77651, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), once again refused to do so.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Cabinet Office guide to parliamentary work is very clear that “Every question should be approached with a predisposition to give relevant information fully. There should be no inconsistencies between the provision of information in answers to written questions and information given” under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. If “information would be released under FOI, it would also be released in response to” a written parliamentary question. This position was confirmed by the then Leader of the House in October last year when she stated that if information would be released under freedom of information legislation, it would also be released in response to a written parliamentary question.”
House of Commons29 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A third runway alone will not shield the country from the consequences of Labour’s economic mismanagement, but it is a project that must be delivered correctly and responsibly and put passengers at its heart.”
House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She said that the review would be delivered in the summer of next year. Will it be before the summer recess so that the House will have time to scrutinise it? While this Government continue to splurge cash, hike up taxes and debt and tie Britain up in eco-lawfare with their Green allies, only the Conservatives would restore confidence, break that cycle and deliver a stronger economy with world-class aviation at its heart. Sadly, under this Government, taxes have risen to historic highs. They have imposed a punishing jobs tax, and borrowing has soared to the highest levels since 2010 outside the pandemic, with £100 billion in annual debt interest payments.”
House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We on these Benches recognise that greater competition is the most effective way to deliver value for money and reduce costs to consumers, and I am grateful that the Secretary of State acknowledged in her statement that Heathrow expansion must minimise costs, but the only way to achieve that is through real and genuine competition. Heathrow’s current structure has the potential to create perverse incentives that reward higher spending rather than efficiency, pushing up charges for passengers and airlines. I note the commitment that the CAA’s review into economic regulation will begin in November, but that review must look seriously and fundamentally at how to embed competition and reverse perverse incentives. How do the Secretary of State and the CAA intend to bring competition to the heart of delivering this project?”
House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can the Secretary of State also commit to ensuring that the associated road and rail links not just into London but to the south are included, so that the expansion delivers genuine economic growth and connectivity for the whole of the United Kingdom? The Conservatives would end the constant threat of judicial review and eco-lawfare to ensure that infrastructure across the country could finally be delivered on time, on budget and in Britain’s national interests. It was great to hear the Secretary of State’s words on this from the Dispatch Box, but will those reforms relating to the judiciary come into force before the decisions on Heathrow and the development consent order are made, or will they be subject to the current situation we are facing?”
House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, we welcome the reforms that will enable this to happen. Those reforms will not have any teeth, however, unless the Government commit to backing our plan to scrap the Climate Change Act 2008. Otherwise, Heathrow expansion will face judicial review after judicial review, bogging down the process, driving up costs and delivering further delay. Even Labour’s Mayor of London has said that he “wouldn’t hesitate” to launch legal challenges against a third runway. Can the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that her own Labour colleagues—including those she worked for previously—and allies will not be the ones who prevent this important project from ever seeing the light of day?”
House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Crucially, how will the Government ensure that the costs are minimised, not maximised? I am sure that, like me, the Secretary of State does not want those costs directly passed on to airlines and then to their passengers in higher fares, because affordability must be at the heart of any credible aviation strategy. Maintaining affordable flights is crucial for passengers, so can she assure the House that the Heathrow expansion will not result in significant pass-through costs, especially with the Government’s rises in air passenger duty, the jobs tax and now real concerns over how business rates will affect the aviation sector? I understand that the Chancellor has claimed a third runway will be operational by 2035—something the Secretary of State has reflected today—and that she wants to see spades in the ground during this Parliament.”
House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, we on these Benches welcome the fact that this statement has finally been brought forward to the House, because both the aviation sector and passengers deserve clarity, as do the local people who will be affected, and we hope that they will see sensible mitigations to these proposals. Can the Secretary of State confirm what assessment the Government have undertaken so far of the total cost of Heathrow expansion, given that one of the central estimates now stands at almost £50 billion, excluding an extra £10 billion for further surface access works? Those figures would quadruple Heathrow’s current asset base, which is already responsible for some of the highest passenger charges in the world. If Britain is to remain competitive on the global stage, those costs must be kept down, not driven up.”
House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. The statement should have been brought to the House months ago. The Secretary of State surely recognises that today marks a delay and an acknowledgment of that, rather than a decisive move forward. The truth is that this whole process has come about the wrong way round. Recent announcements on Gatwick and Heathrow, rather than being any clear plan for the future of British aviation, are not driven by planned and prepared work but by a clear attempt to divert attention from the Government’s growing list of crises, scandals and cover-ups.”
House of Commons22 October 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“So I ask the Transport Secretary, will anyone, anywhere in the Labour Government stand up for passengers facing an autumn of discontent?”
House of Commons11 September 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗