Richard Holden MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · Ports and Port Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Jardine, and I thank you for allowing male Members to remove their jackets—although that was before you saw the shirt the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) is wearing. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for proposing the debate, which is particularly relevant for those of us who represent coastal communities across the country or are near coastal communities. Tilbury and London Gateway are both within very short driving distance for many of my constituents in Basildon and Billericay, and both employ hundreds of them. Across the country, we all rely on ports such as Immingham, which I visited recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), and Felixstowe, which I have also visited in recent months. It was great to hear the hon. Members for East Thanet (Ms Billington) and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) refer to the port of Southampton, one of our larger ports, which supports tens of thousands of jobs, provides around £2.5 billion a year to the national economy and is a major hub for British cruise ships. Ports can be important economic indicators, as we saw in the recent Office for National Statistics statistical bulletin, which showed a concerning decrease in ships visiting major UK ports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham mentioned, total freight tonnage was down 3% in the three months at the start of the year compared with the year before. It is concerning, and rather illustrative of the Government’s struggles to grow the economy, to see tonnage falling in that fashion. It is not tonnage alone; last October, the Port of Aberdeen chief executive officer said that oil and gas activity at the port was down 10% at that point in 2025, and a staggering 25% on the previous summer, despite offshore activity typically peaking due to projects and maintenance work. Sadly, the economic vandalism of the Energy Secretary is destroying our oil industry and has had a knock-on effect. That demonstrates why we need to think about this issue more broadly than just in relation to ports. Ports do not merely play a critical role in their local economies, although they do that; they are indicators of our broader economy. They are of national and indeed international importance. This debate illuminates how ports are connected to other parts of the economy. What we can do to help them prosper, for both freight and passengers, is of utmost importance. As an island nation with 95% of our physical imports and exports passing through them, our ports have always been fundamental to our everyday lives and to our global success. As the 2018 review of port connectivity noted, port connectivity at its most basic level is about the equality of access to and from ports via predominantly land-based transport networks. Yet in everyday terms, that could encompass a range of issues that have significant consequences, as hon. Members in all parts of the Chamber have mentioned, including issues around specific road and rail schemes, with impacts extending from electricity generation all the way to the food on our shelves. That very interconnectedness with our economy and the everyday lives of our people shows why, in Britain’s past, present and future, ports have and will play such a key role in improving the flow of goods and people through our country. Our national history highlights a country that has always understood the need to improve its infrastructure and make it easier to connect our ports with the rest of the country. Much more remains to be done. In considering what that means, the first port of call must be ensuring the effective use of our roads. As the UK Major Ports group has said, our major ports see more than 60% of the freight they handle moved in and out via road haulage. Similarly, the BPA noted that in 2019, road haulage was around 70% of the major throughput of ports. These substantial figures demonstrate the need to reduce bottlenecks and to maintain road quality around our ports. That is why the conversation about ports and port communities is inextricably tied to our national resilience. Where the Government are making improvements, such as those at the lower Thames crossing, or the A666 and M27 upgrades started under the last Government, they should obviously be welcomed. They will directly enhance the ability of passengers and hauliers to access our port network. However, I also issue a challenge to the Government to do more to improve the experience and reduce the costs, wherever possible, for those who seek to connect to our ports, as hon. Members have already mentioned today. We must also ensure that we work closely with our international partners. There are real concerns about the upcoming school holidays. Clearly there is a need for discussions with the French about the entry and exit system. We are in the preposterous position where a facility in Dover has been built, but it cannot be activated until the technology is working for the kiosks there—which are specifically the responsibility, as the Minister knows, of the French police. I hope that the Government will be clear that more accountability is needed. The president of Airports Council International Europe has said that politicians should “stop pretending...that EES is working just fine. It is not.” That is true at both our airports and our ports. Furthermore, the Government can improve the connectedness of ports as much as they like—but when they introduce policies such as the emissions trading scheme, which saddles people in areas like the Isle of Wight with greater costs, it is inevitable that connectivity will be hurt as well. That is why we will always judge the Government by what they are doing to help or hinder our ports and port connectivity, not merely by their rhetoric. However, as Members across the Chamber have already noted, roads and the impact of the costs imposed are not the only factors affecting the connectivity of our ports. Several, including the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), were right to note the significance of rail. Take Felixstowe, near my constituency, where 58 trains arrive or depart each day across three dedicated rail terminals, serving 15 international destinations and moving more containers by rail than at any other port in Britain. That enormous logistical exercise demonstrates the importance of supporting our rail freight sector. I will not relitigate the substantial debate in Committee on the Railways Bill, given that there were 509 separate mentions of rail freight in Committee alone. Nevertheless, it is worth acknowledging that many Conservative Members, and indeed many Members from parties across the House, are concerned about the protections in that legislation. My colleagues and I are concerned that Great British Railways retains too much power to run roughshod over private business, particularly given the concerns about rail freight, which rightly has a target to grow. To see improved connectivity at ports, we need the Government to support those private companies in growing their services. In addition, the Government must be open to projects that increase rail freight capacity, such as those at Ely and Horley junctions. I also agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage about London Gateway. Ultimately, it is crucial to remember that our ports have repeatedly been hubs of innovation. The containerisation of the 20th century transformed our ability to transfer goods across the world, and ports have often been a driving force behind increased road and rail capacity in other parts of the country as well. However, improving port connectivity can only be achieved with an absolute focus on increasing economic growth—a phrase the current Government often use, but do not as often practise. We are seeing changes in the Government; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned a possible move for the Minister here today, although I hope that that is not the case, particularly for the Minister himself. Regardless, I hope that the Government will consider how they can achieve growth in our ports and support them in helping to grow the UK economy.

• 22 Jun 2026 · East Midlands Railway Collision · Hansard source

  More

  First and foremost, I offer my condolences to the family of Shaun Burton. In addition, our thoughts are with all those injured, some of whom are still in hospital with very serious injuries. I and all my colleagues on the Conservative Benches wish them all well. I agree with the Secretary of State, and wish to put on record the grateful thanks of Conservative Members to those first responders—the emergency crews, including those from the British Transport Police—who attended the scene. I also thank the Rail Minister in the House of Lords for his call with hon. Members, including Conservative Members, over the weekend, and I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and for coming to the House at this turbulent time. Given the seriousness of this accident near Bedford, it is welcome that, despite all that is going on, we have this statement. From the accounts and video footage released in the aftermath of the incident, we can clearly see that this was a serious collision. The images from within the train and the reports from passengers depict the scale of the incident. At this time, it appears that there are few confirmed details about the reasons for the crash. There has obviously been considerable online commentary trying to explain what may have happened, with remarks about various different systems that are in place. However, given our lack of knowledge, it would be deeply irresponsible to speculate about the causes of the incident. Historically, as the Secretary of State has said, our railways have a very strong safety record. However, that safety is predicated on learning from incidents and ensuring that they do not happen in future, so I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could give some further clarity about the investigation to date, if at all possible. Although initial investigations by the rail accident investigation branch take place within a few days, full reports can often take about a year to complete. Given the substantial questions raised by this incident, will the Transport Secretary work to ensure that the investigation delivers answers swiftly and clarifies whether any more fundamental issues are at stake? Furthermore, are the Government ready to ensure that any findings can be acted upon quickly by Network Rail or the rail operators, so that any issues can be very quickly addressed? The Secretary of State is obviously absolutely right that the rail accident investigation branch needs time and space to establish what happened. Confidence in our railways depends on both avoiding incidents and, where they do occur, learning from them as quickly as possible. What has occurred in this case is clearly a tragedy, but the best way to pay tribute to those injured and to Shaun’s tragic death is to ensure that the lessons are learned.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Mass Transit Systems · Hansard source

  More

  Since coming to power, the Labour party has increased the bus fare cap by 50% from £2 to £3. But one area that has not seen that rise is Greater Manchester where the last Conservative Government gave over £1 billion to support its mass transit system, expressly including keeping a £2 bus fare cap. In The Telegraph this week, we read that Andy Burnham is now openly briefing—no doubt with the right hon. Lady’s support, when he becomes Prime Minister after kicking out her current boss—that he would restore a national £2 bus fare cap. Does she agree with the current Prime Minister or the man she is trying to make the next Prime Minister on the Conservatives’ £2 cap?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Mass Transit Systems · Hansard source

  More

  Given the right hon. Lady’s clearly close working relationship with the Greater Manchester Mayor, does she agree with the decision of the Prime Minister—sorry, Mayor Burnham—reported in The Sun to spend £35,000 of taxpayers’ money repainting a train because he literally had nothing to announce and needed “something”? How closely does this expensive paint job with nothing behind it resemble Labour’s ideas for mass transit?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an important point. If the Government truly believe in putting passengers first, why are they making life harder for the very operators that have delivered some of the lowest fares and highest levels of passenger satisfaction on the entire network? Why are they squeezing open access operators off the tracks? Why are they creating a system in which GBR will be both player and referee at the same time? It is just ridiculous. We were told that Great British Railways would be accountable, but accountable to whom? The regulator loses powers, competitors lose protections and the Secretary of State gains more control. Labour came to power promising to change the railways for good; it has accomplished a Bill that will reduce passenger rights and, at the same time, lead to fewer services. By gutting the ORR and letting GBR be judge, jury and executioner, the Secretary of State is ensuring that on her watch, everyone but the unions will be worse off. We tried to rectify this blatant power grab with our amendments, supported by the Liberal Democrats, to make it easier for others to appeal against the GBR overlords after removing the bizarre judicial review benchmark. To no one’s surprise, Labour Members—all of them—voted against every single one of the very sensible Opposition amendments. That is the problem that Labour MPs have: they were forced to sign up to an ideological experiment, and it is going against everything that their constituents and the country desire. When the complaints start arriving, when the cheaper rail fares disappear, as they are doing already, when services are cut to make the statistics look better and when passengers discover that Great British Railways is more like “Little Britain Railways”, I hope the Secretary of State will appreciate that this is no way to run a railway. The Opposition are voting against the Bill because state control is not the same thing as improvement, because bureaucracy is not the same thing as accountability and because putting major decisions in the hands of one giant state body is a retrograde step, not a positive move. When all is said and done—when the fares rise, the services shrink and the complaints pile up—the Secretary of State and the Labour party will have nobody but themselves to blame. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) are going to do when they are not spending so much time together, week in, week out. We are gathered here to witness this slowly-collapsing Government put passengers and taxpayers on the hook for, over time, more expensive fares and more subsidy—or both—for fewer trains, and for a service run in the best interests not of passengers but of the Labour party’s union paymasters. Opposition Members all know, as perhaps do some on the Government Benches—perhaps even the Secretary of State, who has reportedly had some doubts about total state control—that the Bill is not the answer. If Labour really cared about passengers, wallets and purses, Labour Members would have backed our amendments on railcards to protect young people and our brave veterans. We know that “no plans” does not mean no: just ask farmers and small businesses up and down the country about the promises from this Labour Government. That is the bigger story about the Government’s plan for state control. The Bill is not about bringing track and train together—something I think we can all agree on. This Labour Government have no qualms about concentrating power, no concern about removing independent challenge, and no thought for the taxpayers who will be asked to foot the bill if and when their experiment goes wrong. Under the Bill, the organisation that runs the trains will also decide who else gets to run the trains. The organisation that sets the fares will also dominate selling the tickets. When something goes wrong, the Secretary of State will have nowhere to hide.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on two matters relating to the completeness of ministerial answers to this House. On 24 April, in answer to a written parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), referred to an attached spreadsheet that was not provided. This is the third time in recent months that this has happened. In addition, I wrote to the same Minister on 2 March, seeking clarification of an earlier written answer in the light of remarks he made in Westminster Hall on 27 January, and I have yet to receive a reply. Could you advise me on how Members can secure timely and complete information when matters referred for answers are—

• 20 Apr 2026 · Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Today, the Minister will be pleased to know that the Opposition are fully and wholly supportive of his measures to deregulate this sector. Bringing young people into any industry is essential if we are to adapt to the modern world and deliver the services customers deserve into the future. The industry deserves the fresh impetus that is often brought by young people looking to establish themselves. The National Skills Academy data used by the Government for their proposals show that fewer than 3% of train drivers are currently aged under 30 and, with countries across the continent having an age limit lower than our own and operating safely, these measures are welcome. The last Government wisely brought forward the consultation on this issue, which this Government are building upon, engaging with industry and finding widespread support among key stakeholders. In principle, there are clearly compelling reasons to back these regulations. Bringing them forward represents confidence in the next generation; bringing people into the workforce is essential if we are to have the skills necessary to operate the railways well into the future. I am glad for the explanations the Minister has provided on how this will work in practice, and some of the things he mentioned relating to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place. There are still some concerns around the gap between the actual licensing regime and whether this policy will, in fact, lead to some of the numbers needed to meet the challenges the Minister has outlined. I ask him to address a couple of points. The Government have said that the industry is working with Skills England to reduce the apprenticeship age of entry from 18 to 17 and a half, but there appears to remain a slight lack of detail regarding support for those aged 16 and 17 looking to establish themselves in the sector in future, given that by that age many may have already chosen different educational paths. Can the Minister update us on that, or perhaps write to me about it to say what the Government aim to do to ensure that the widest number of young people, from whatever background, are able to get into the sector? That would be very much appreciated. At the same time, it is very good to hear about the foundation apprenticeships for some of those earlier age groups. However, it has been pointed out that if the Government truly want to ensure the widest possible profile of a workforce, they may need to consider other working practices that need changing in future, such as Sunday working and other restrictive measures regarding the use and training of drivers. I also ask the Minister to reflect on why this is limited to trains. I absolutely agree with him that the 20 years of age threshold is an arbitrary barrier. That is the same for other parts of the transport sector, which we should also be looking to encourage young people into, particularly where there are skills shortages. The last Government also published a consultation, started when I was a junior Minister in the Department for Transport—it seems to have gathered dust somewhat—on allowing bus and coach drivers to undertake longer journeys starting at an earlier age, to provide them with better career prospects and enable them to get into their desired profession. I fail to see why a younger person might be allowed to enter a cab and learn to prepare to drive a five-car class 802 train that could weigh well over 250 tonnes and travel at speeds of more than 100 miles an hour, but not get comparable freedoms to drive buses over slightly longer distances. This question is particularly important given the comparable challenge of the demographics of both parts of the transport sector. The average age of a bus or coach driver is currently around 52. Why is reducing the age limit for train drivers going full steam ahead, yet we do not seem to get the full zip from the Department when it comes to bus and coach? The Government talk about the importance of the interconnectedness of transport, but they do not seem to have extended that in this sector at the moment. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that, but overall I very much welcome these proposals and hope they are implemented effectively so that young people can access these schemes. However, this is just one of many steps that we must take to open up opportunities to young people across transport. We need this attitude across the entirety of the DFT, ensuring that those who can contribute and help our sector are not curtailed by long-standing and unhelpful working practices.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In September last year, the Secretary of State told the House: “I know the importance of the fuel duty freeze”. —[ Official Report , 11 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1031.] That was when diesel and petrol were significantly cheaper than they are today. Why is Labour hiking fuel duty by 5p a litre this September?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  Over the past few decades there has been a consensus in politics that disability should not prevent people from living fulfilling and successful lives. However, I recognise that, despite strong standards and the implementation of new measures by Governments of all stripes over previous decades, the aims set out by Governments of both main parties in order to improve accessibility for disabled people have not always met the standards that disabled people understandably expect. Governments should always strive to ensure that our transport system works for disabled people. As the Transport Committee report on accessibility recognised last year, this is not a simple issue. Disabled people use very different methods of transport. The report rightly points out that: “The support that people need to make journeys successfully and confidently varies greatly”. It has been great to hear from Members from across the House, particularly those with personal experience. In recent years I lived with one of my grandmothers for quite a long time, and I remember taking her around when she was much less mobile in later years. Hearing from hon. Members about the variety of challenges is important, because those experiences can inform our debate. It was particularly great to hear from the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) about changing places facilities. I have been campaigning for some in Basildon, and they have just been put in. They are important because they give people the confidence to get out and about and access our town centres, which benefits high streets as well as disabled people themselves. It was fantastic to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) about how looking at design issues from the start can make an important difference. It was also good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) about floating bus stops—an issue that I shall return to. The variation in types of transport used by disabled people shows that we need to view the issue of accessibility in the wider sense. Accessibility for disabled people is not as simple as ensuring that technical specifications are up to standard and that there are enough staff. Although those things are obviously critical to the experience of disabled people travelling, we must consider the broader question of how Government policies can impact them as well. That is why I want to focus on one thing that is critical to travel for disabled people but is often overlooked in discussions on accessibility: the importance of cars. We know that cars are integral to the lives of disabled people. In 2024, the national travel survey showed that 78% of the miles travelled by disabled people were travelled in private cars, either as a passenger or as the driver. That is higher than the figure for non-disabled people. As the Select Committee noted, people with disabilities also travel in taxis far more often than non-disabled people. It is also important to recognise that, among disabled people, a far greater proportion of journeys are made for shopping, personal business and visiting friends. Those journeys are a clear indicator that accessible transport is not some abstract quality, but integral to people’s lives. Without them, people would be cut off, yes, from work, but importantly also from the essential activities and social engagements that are the indicators of a fulfilling life for anyone.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will add, though, that disabled people often choose to use a car, if one is available, because it is the most convenient means of getting around; it means that they can travel at times that suit them. I totally agree that we want to ensure that all our public transport is as accessible as possible, but I do not want a system that restricts the ability of disabled people to move around by car. As such, I implore the Minister and his colleagues to speak to the Treasury about the fuel duty issue. With 78% of the miles travelled by disabled people travelled by car, increases in the price at the pump will inevitably deter people from making journeys and harm both the personal and professional lives of those who rely on cars more than anybody else. We all know that it is a tax on transport at a time when people across the country are worried about the cost of getting around. It is a further tax imposed by this Government, who I feel often treat drivers and passengers as a cash cow to fund their other decisions. I hope that this debate sharpens the Minister’s focus and reminds Treasury Ministers, who rather shamefully dismissed our concerns on this issue last week, that vehicles are not merely a means to extract money and taxation from the public, but a lifeline for everyone—particularly those with mobility issues, given that they are so much more dependent on vehicles than the population as a whole.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Transport Accessibility for Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Member should reflect on the fact that he voted last week for a policy that hammers those rural transport users more than anyone else, not at some theoretical time in the future but from September this year, increasing in December and again in March next year. These are not policies that may or may not happen in the future, but policies he has voted for that are hurting disabled people from this year. He should reflect on the impacts that policy will have and speak to Ministers about how those impacts will play out right across the system. Unfortunately, the ability of disabled people to travel is constrained not only by the cost of driving but by prohibitive motoring policies. We acknowledge that the Government have made some progress—for example, by creating a more accessible railway network, including through the railway road map—and I welcome some of the announcements made by Ministers in recent months, which have rightly focused on policies that Members across the House support. It is also great to see that some Access for All projects are being progressed. However, it is disappointing that many disabled people will remain worried about their ability to access stations, given that some of the projects set out by the last Government have been paused and have a question mark over them, or are not being pursued. I do not doubt that the Minister believes strongly in improving access for disabled people. My concern is that the Government are comfortable using the language of accessibility but, when faced with decisions that directly impact disabled people—whether that is making stations more accessible or making driving a car more expensive—they are not on the right side. Time and again, Ministers have been made aware of the physical impediments to disabled people in our towns and cities, in particular floating bus stops. During the passage of the Bus Services Act 2025, the Government said that they intended that the guidance for floating bus stops “will support authorities to provide infrastructure that people are genuinely enabled and encouraged to use.” –– [ Official Report, Bus Services Public Bill Committee, 3 July 2025; c. 183.] The acceptance of Lord Blunkett’s amendments in the House of peers gave the impression that we might see real improvements to floating bus stops that would allow blind people to access bus stops without fear of being struck by bikes while crossing bike paths. It has been great to see floating bus stops removed from scheme designs in some parts of the country; I had an exchange recently with my county council in Essex, which is removing floating bus stops from a large new property development. However, despite the promises to this House and to those representing blind and partially sighted people, the Government’s proposals in January were pitiful. You do not need to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker: a spokesperson for the Royal National Institute of Blind People said that the new guidance simply does not address the problem. Meanwhile, the street access campaign co-ordinator at the National Federation of the Blind of the UK said: “It does not address the concerns that blind and visually impaired people have and it’s totally insulting to think that we’ll accept this.” Those concerns are clearly reflected in the data. According to the RNIB, nearly 40% of blind and partially sighted people avoid using these bus stop bypasses and instead go to other bus stops, increasing their journey time, or do not make the journey at all. The Mayor of London has supported the floating bus stop policy using all sorts of strange figures, which he has had to row back on. I was recently down on Chiswick High Road in Hounslow with Councillors Joanna Biddolph and Gabriella Giles, looking at some of the most egregious examples of floating bus stops. The next decade will offer opportunities for advances in accessibility. New technologies such as autonomous vehicles could transform opportunities for disabled people. Demand-responsive transport could also provide additional services that are not currently available. If the Government use the powers available to them, such as those in the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 passed by the last Government, we could see really significant improvements in accessibility options for disabled people. As I noted at the start of my speech, there are no simple solutions to the challenges faced by the disabled. This is a multimodal problem crossing both public and private forms of transport, with disabled people facing specific challenges in addition to those faced by everyone else. Where people are unable to travel by train or plane, they understandably feel ostracised from the travelling experience of non-disabled people. This cannot be solved overnight. As Members have suggested, it requires an approach that is applied to all forms of transport. To achieve that, we need to listen to the experiences of disabled people, and when we do promise change, as the Government have done on floating bus stops, we have to deliver it. Excluding disabled people by increasing their costs is also not acceptable. Transport should be there to improve people’s lives, not to raise revenue or increase the cost of living.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Passenger Rail Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that the Minister is not prepared to agree with the Secretary of State, so I ask him whether he agrees with himself. In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) on 23 March, he said that “public ownership is expected to save taxpayers up to...£110-150 million every year...This is several orders of magnitude less than the costs of scaling up DfTO staffing in anticipation of establishing GBR”.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Passenger Rail Services · Hansard source

  More

  We still do not know how or what the Government want to achieve with state control of the railways. They say that there will be simpler fares, but the public are seeing simply more expensive fares. They say that passenger growth is necessary, but there is no target for that growth in the Railways Bill. They say they want to reduce the taxpayer subsidy, but in written answer after written answer, the Minister refuses to say how they hope to achieve that. Is this lack of a plan why the Secretary of State has been reduced to trying to claim credit for the work of others? She has been left red-faced and community noted after posting on X about the phasing out of the old class 455 trains on South Western Railway. She said it was down to the “progress...on your publicly owned railway”, when it was actually delivered under a Conservative Government and by a private company.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The Government are forgoing tax revenue that is going into the coffers of other Treasuries right across Europe and across the world, but why? To what end? We will see whether Ministers will answer why they are willing to forgo hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of pounds every year. [ Interruption. ] They could spend that on anything they wanted to, and they are not even going to do it.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is entirely right. She is also a real champion for the North sea oil and gas sector, which is largely based in her constituency. What are we seeing on top of those taxes on railcards, ferries and airlines—through increased airline business rates—and, obviously, the 50% hike in bus fares? What else is Labour up to? Well, the Government have been talking quite a lot about something called “simpler fares.” What they are actually doing is cutting out the cheaper fares preferred by passengers and replacing them with more expensive ones. That has been confirmed, in a letter to me, by none other than the Secretary of State for Transport, who I note is not present today. She says: “Some passengers may pay more under this new structure but will gain” —perhaps— “more flexibility for their return journey”. Well, my constituent Mr Nottage, of Ramsden Bellhouse near Billericay, has been quite perturbed about having to pay an extra 10%, and he is having to pay an extra fiver a year for his senior railcard as well. That hardly suggests that rail prices have been frozen under Labour. In fact, rail prices are going up for working people across the country.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes the really important point that this is about choices. She is also right that many people do not have such a choice about their cars, and nobody has a choice about going to a shop to buy food, which will be delivered by some form of road transport at some point. So everybody will be paying for Labour’s road tax or fuel duty increases, and that is what we are opposing today. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) makes a broader point on the choices that this Government are making about on whose backs they are balancing the books. They are choosing to balance the books on the backs of working Britain. Businesses up and down the country are facing tax after tax and new bill after new bill, in the Government’s relentless pursuit to do our country down and throttle anything that seems to give a half chance of delivering growth, all to pay for a ballooning welfare bill. They would put Dumbo to shame, because they do not have the guts to reduce welfare—heaven forbid—and they do not even have the guts to try to slow the pace of the increase in welfare. We voted against tax hikes in the Budget because they are the wrong thing to do for growth in our country and for families in our country. We are voting against a tax hike today because of the circumstances now. Especially with an international environment of soaring prices, to saddle motorists with an extra hike in the cost of getting around is the wrong thing to do. That is why the Leader of the Opposition tabled our motion, and why we are urging right hon. and hon. Members across this House to say no to Labour’s hikes on fuel duty.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Of course not, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) should always be given his proper title. This is very similar to the Government’s pathetic intransigence when it comes to the zero emission vehicle mandate. They remain entirely aloof, soldiering on, whatever the cost is to British companies, British workers and British taxpayers. This is just like the electric car mandate, with its impact on industry. The unions—Labour’s own paymasters, for crying out loud—the Financial Times , and even the renewables sector: everyone knows that we must have a change in the electric vehicle mandate. Everyone on the Opposition side of the House also backs driving ahead with North sea oil and gas exploration, but what do the Labour Government do? They just bury their heads in the sand and turn to taxation instead in order to pay for their policies.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right, and some of those tax rises are hitting many of the companies that will also be hit by these fuel duty rises. I have spoken to hauliers, in my constituency and across the country, who already face increasing business rates and increasing national insurance costs and are now being hit with a fuel duty rise as well.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  No, I have already given way to the hon. Member. We in the Opposition are all praying for a U-turn on the fuel duty policy, which would be very welcome. We would rather that they had never come up with the policy in the first place because, just as with the previous 16 U-turns, we argued against each policy before the Government did it, and they then had to U-turn on them. Just as on the family farms tax, on which they have partially U-turned, the grooming gangs, on which they have U-turned, and winter fuel, on which they have had to U-turn, after sticking the boot in, we really hope they will think again about this, but I am not holding much store by that. What is really worrying me and families and up and down the country, as well as Opposition Members as they go back to their constituents, is that people are facing cost of living pressures right across the board. Those running businesses are really having to make decisions about whether they hire another person or in many cases, sadly, let people go because of the taxes already imposed by this Government. This is just another tax—another tax on businesses, pensioners and families up and down the country.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. It is not just those who have a car who will be paying for this policy—although they will be paying the most—and it is not just those who rely on a van for their business or work to get around who will be paying; everyone will be paying, whether they use the bus or are just going to the shops. The truth is that everything has to be transported by road in this country. This tax rise will have huge inflationary pressures right across the board, not just for fuel, whether for heating or for road transport, but, as he is right to say, for so many other areas—areas that have not even been considered by the Treasury.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  That is another important point, which has also been raised with me by companies such as electric vehicle charge point manufacturers here in the UK. Some of them are on the verge of collapse because of that high cost of electricity. Although the Government say that they are pursuing a green agenda, what they are actually doing is making electricity so expensive that no one can operate a business in this country without paying such high energy prices that it becomes uneconomical to do so.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry, but I need to make a little more progress, but I will happily come back to my hon. Friend later. However we travel, Labour is after us. Is it a boat? Is it a train? Is it a plane? No, it is Labour’s taxman coming for us. And where will this money be spent—all the extra money from Labour’s taxes on the public? It will not be spent on hard-working families or to create jobs and boost opportunities; it will be frittered away on more welfare, because this Prime Minister and this Government Front Bench are too weak to stand up to their own Back Benchers and ensure that welfare is kept under control. They are picking the pockets of hard-working people to pay for those who choose not to work. When it comes to paying at the pump, Rachel Reeves has been happy to try to lay the blame at the feet of the petrol stations, but what makes up most of the cost of a litre of petrol? Her fuel duty is by far the biggest chunk. In fact, taxes make up 55% of the cost of fuel, and it is going up under Labour. When the Energy Secretary was presented with these sickening statistics, he claimed: “That’s why we’ve frozen fuel duty.” Why on earth do the Government not do what we did by freezing it all the way through? They could do it today, but they are not going to do it because they are too afraid of their own Back Benchers when it comes to welfare. I am surprised that Members are aligning themselves with the spluttering spinelessness of Mr Miliband—I am sorry; I mean the right hon. Member for Doncaster North. We know that for her and Ed, when the facts change, when countries all around the world change, Labour just digs in.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  That is an extremely important point. This is not just about the Labour Government; it is also about Labour mayors and Labour councils and their war on motorists up and down the country, whether it is the Dart charge or the ULEZ charge. We have even seen Zipcar having to cease operations in the UK because of the Mayor of London’s extension of that congestion charge to electric vehicles every day. We are actually seeing a reduction in shared transport options under this Labour Government and this Labour Mayor, here in our capital city, and it is an absolute disgrace.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will be aware that when the fuel price goes up, the Government’s VAT revenues from fuel go up at the same time. They are already seeing hundreds of millions of pounds a year extra in VAT, purely from the fact that the underlying price has gone up. My hon. Friend makes another important point, which is that this is a moment for the Government to reconsider. We on the Opposition Benches opposed this measure at the Budget, because we thought hitting working families was the wrong thing to do, but it is doubly the wrong thing to do when prices are also going up internationally.