Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]

Richard Holden Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the impact on people who were caught up in this disruption. I have read reports of people having to sleep overnight in airports and people who have potentially missed weddings, so we cannot say enough about how important it is that we address this problem. I have learned in politics that absolute guarantees when it comes to managing the operation of a vast and complex transport system can be unwise, but what I can say is that I will leave no stone unturned in seeking to understand what has happened here and what can be done to drastically reduce the likelihood of something like this ever happening again. We need to ask tough questions about the resilience of NATS’s systems and progress with planned upgrades, and we need to think about consumer redress issues.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and for recognising the NATS issue. However, given its importance to the House, will she make a statement tomorrow so that questions can be asked then, rather than during a Second Reading debate? Members across House have lots of questions about this serious matter.

[Heidi Alexander]

I am keen to address these significant issues today. The public would rightly expect the Transport Secretary, while standing at the Dispatch Box, to answer questions here and now, so I am happy to take any interventions.

As many colleagues will know, most civil aviation legislation is assimilated EU law, and the Government’s power to update it has now expired. The Bill will restore that power, giving the Government the flexibility to regulate at a pace that will enable us to keep up with the world around us. I should say that I am very grateful to my noble Friend the Minister for Rail for his excellent stewardship of the Bill through the other place.

I will now outline the main elements of the Bill and what we hope it will achieve. Aviation serves millions of us well each year, but when things go wrong, passengers must have confidence that they will be protected. The Bill will allow passenger rights to be bolstered through secondary legislation, helping us to tackle the issues that matter most.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Before I turn to the Bill, let me comment on the events of the last 24 hours, which have shown just how important effective oversight of our aviation sector is. The shocking failure at NATS has left hundreds of thousands of passengers in the lurch, and serious questions have been raised about the resilience of our air traffic control system and aviation infrastructure. As we consider legislation that gives further functions to the CAA, we must ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny and ministerial accountability are not lost. When something goes wrong this badly, the House must be able to demand answers.

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. The Government could have chosen to make a statement today, but they chose to prioritise other matters. If the Secretary of State would like to intervene to say that tomorrow there will be a statement in which all Members can ask proper questions about what has happened, I would welcome that. A Second Reading debate is not the right place for questions and answers, and only one hon. Member from the Labour Benches intervened on her. This is not an appropriate moment to have that discussion, so perhaps the Secretary of State would like to confirm that there will be a statement tomorrow. If not, I am afraid it looks like there has been a serious miscommunication between the Speaker’s Office and those on the Government Front Bench. [Interruption.] Sorry, does the Minister want to speak from a sedentary position, or does he want to come to the Dispatch Box and speak?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

Okay. If he does not want to answer the questions, we will have to drag him to the House tomorrow.

[Keir Mather]

I am in the House right now!

[Mr Holden]

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.

Having said all that, I welcome the engagement from the Secretary of State and Ministers in the other House on this Bill, and the engagement that has taken place on this matter. I would like to see that engagement continue, and I hope that it can.

The Conservatives agree with the stated aims of the Bill—namely, to promote economic growth and infrastructure development, to strengthen consumer rights and protections, and to enhance aviation security. For that reason, we will not divide on Second Reading. 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. We on the Conservative Benches recognise that certain measures must be taken following our exit from the European Union to ensure that regulatory gaps are filled and continuity is maintained in a way that ultimately keeps Britain’s aviation industry working safely, as the Secretary of State highlighted.

The Bill pays much attention to consumer rights and associated protections, and the Conservatives welcome parts of that agenda. Indeed, I appreciate the Department showing some flexibility on these issues, particularly with regard to safeguarding disabled passengers. However, given the violent agreement between the Secretary of State and me on these matters—I confess that it is not always this way across the Dispatch Box—I am slightly puzzled by one item. Why on earth did her party whip Members in the other place to vote against a review of airport drop-off charges? Why are passengers paying such exorbitant drop-off charges? It would appear that the Government do not want us to know that. Why is it, as The Times has reported, that charges at Gatwick have now reached £10 for 10 minutes, while Luton’s, under Labour-run Luton council, have increased from £2 to £7?

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

In Bournemouth, the charges have now gone up to £8, yet there are no buses to the airport. Two buses, which go at 6 o’clock in the morning and come back at 6 o’clock in the evening, serve the industrial estate, but they do not serve the airport staff or passengers, and it is impossible for people to get there any other way. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree with me that these charges should be restricted or banned until such time as the airport provides alternatives for all passengers?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Lady makes a very clear case for why such a review of airport parking charges is necessary. One has not happened for a decade. It was great to get the support of the Liberal Democrats in the other place in backing Lord Moylan and the Conservative proposals in that space. Now that the provision is in the Bill, I hope the Government will not seek to remove it. There are obviously concerns about the impact that surface access targets have had on some airport parking charges, especially when, as the hon. Member has made clear, genuine alternatives often do not exist properly or are incredibly expensive. 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. I hope that this perfectly reasonable provision for a review that puts passengers first will not be removed from this Bill. It would be great to hear from the Minister winding up whether the Government intend to stick with that important review, which was inserted against the Labour party’s wishes in the House of Lords.

Another point worth mentioning is that the Bill, for all the powers it rearranges and the regulations it enables, offers remarkably little vision for where British aviation should be heading. 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 Opposition understand that economic growth and the competition that fuels it are essential not merely to the success of individual airports and airlines, but to maintaining Britain’s global reputation as one of the world’s outstanding aviation nations. Yet too often this Government appear to regard the aviation industry less as an engine of growth and more as an ATM. Indeed, Labour Members seem to be beset with Tigger-like pleasure at finding new costs to impose on businesses, while growing the welfare bill rather more successfully than they are growing the economy.

Ministers must understand that every additional burden and every tax—air passenger duty or business rates—is having huge impacts on aviation. I was with Manchester Airport Group recently, which is now facing an effective tax rate of 77%, when corporation tax and business rates are combined, after facing a more than 100% increase in its business rates. Manchester is not alone; airports up and down the country are facing huge increases in tax. It will be really important for Ministers to address that as part of the broader concerns about growth.

Every charge deters investment and makes new jobs, new routes and greater passenger choice that little bit harder to deliver. That principle must also apply to the new powers given to the CAA. Can the Minister assure the House that significant new regulatory, safety and airspace decisions will be evidence-based, proportionate and subject to the proper assessment of their costs and benefits?

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend rightly points out the tax increases that airports are facing combined with business rates and increased regulations. We are trying to build a business case for commercial flights from Blackpool airport again, and such things make it really hard for airports that are trying to reopen routes and start new ones. Does he agree that that should be looked at?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Obviously, the air space does not exist within the Bill alone. The tax changes will have huge implications, whether at Blackpool airport or at Humberside airport, which I visited recently. They face life-and-death pressures that will decide whether they continue to be going concerns. This is not just about airports and the jobs that they create directly, but the connectivity that they provide for entire regions. He makes an incredibly important point.

As has been the case with too much legislation of late, the Bill leaves plenty of questions up in the air. Where are the measures to secure the future of the workforce—our mechanics, engineers and next generation of skilled workers? Where are the measures to ease the burdens surrounding apprenticeships, an issue raised with me directly by the apprentices I met at Heathrow recently? Why is there no indication of how to champion our excellent aviation colleges at airports, such as the one at Stansted that I had the pleasure of visiting recently? Where is the plan to tackle pilot shortages? Has the Secretary of State not received representations calling for the Government to assist with pilot recruitment, or is she turning a deaf ear to them? Where is the vision for Britain being a world leader in single-aisle aircraft manufacturing, something for which the industry, as she knows, is clamouring to the rafters?

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. My understanding is that not a single Minister from the Department for Transport went to Farnborough this year. Perhaps she could correct me if I am wrong. It is Europe’s largest airshow, a symbol to the world of Britain’s openness and our leading edge in aviation, so it does seem quite bizarre that, while they were all sat there waiting for the reshuffle, none of them popped down. Maybe that shows the Government’s general view of aviation—they are just not interested. [Interruption.] It seems shocking that the ministerial team did not get there. [Interruption.] If they do not want to do the job, then rather than shouting at me from a sedentary position, we could just swap sides of the House.

Too often, it seems, the Department is in the business of delaying Bills. It leaves drafting to the last moment, and then tables reams of amendments to its own legislation, before expressing surprise that the Opposition might wish to scrutinise what has happened. We will not oppose sensible measures simply for the sake of it. Of course, we welcome stronger passenger protections where they are needed, and of course we want the highest possible standards of safety and security, but we also want a Bill that backs Britain’s aviation sector—a Bill that is backed by a ministerial team who also back Britain’s aviation sector.

We want a Bill that gives the sector the space and the economic environment in which to succeed, and that creates the conditions in which competition, innovation and enterprise can thrive. I look forward to the opportunity to table amendments in Committee. Hopefully, we can work together to improve the Bill, as Opposition Members in the other place did, to ensure that British aviation remains safe, is more competitive and remains world leading.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

It is great to be back at the Dispatch Box, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank all Members for their participation in today’s debate. Before I begin, I too would like to acknowledge the significant disruption caused by yesterday’s air traffic control fault, and apologise to all passengers whose travel plans were affected. As those events have shown, civil aviation is a cornerstone of our national prosperity, supporting jobs, investment and connectivity across the United Kingdom. This Bill is an important piece of legislation, and one that is rightly regarded as an opportunity to strengthen a critical sector for the United Kingdom.

The aviation sector has evolved significantly in recent years as a result of rapid technological developments, new aircraft capabilities and the emergence of new airspace users, including drones. The regulatory framework requires modernisation to adapt to these developments. At the same time, the UK’s departure from the European Union has limited our ability to update certain areas of aviation regulation. The sector has also had to respond to major external shocks, from the unprecedented disruption caused by covid-19 to, more recently, instability in the middle east. To meet these challenges, we need a framework that is flexible enough to adapt to change, support innovation and keep passengers at its heart. The Bill will help deliver that framework.

The Government have listened carefully to the scrutiny that the Bill received in the House of Lords. We made a number of significant changes during its passage through the other place, particularly to strengthen accessibility provisions, passenger protections, accountability and parliamentary oversight. I thank peers from across the political parties and the Minister, the noble Lord Hendy, for their efforts in achieving this. As a result, the Bill that is before the House today is stronger than the one first produced.

I have paid close attention to the points raised by Members across the House this evening, and I would like to address them in turn. I will start with the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), who I warmly welcome to her place—it is great to be working alongside her. They have made an impassioned defence of the aviation sector and aviation businesses; I only wish there were more Conservative Back Benchers in the Chamber to listen to their impassioned pleas. I will make two points, the first of which is on the shadow Secretary of State’s point about making a statement. From my experience as a Government Whip, it is never wise to question Mr Speaker’s decisions about what is allocated or not allocated in this House.

[Mr Holden]

Will the Minister give way?

[Keir Mather]

I will just finish my point. I am, however, more than happy to come and answer any questions the Secretary of State may have in this place.

The shadow Minister made an important point about the fact that the Secretary of State has asked the CAA to report within six months. When we had the major outage in 2023, it took two years for the CAA to make a similar report. In that report, it made 34 recommendations, of which 32 have been implemented, so a six-month timeframe is a much shorter, sharper window in which to get definitive answers to these questions. NATS is also required to provide a report to the CAA within a week of the incident taking place, to fully explain the implications of what has happened.

I will now give way to the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr Holden]

I just wanted to make it very clear that I was in no way questioning what Mr Speaker decided. When he spoke to me, he made it very clear that his understanding was that the Government were going to make a statement. [Interruption.] Government Front Benchers may shake their heads, but that is what I was told by Mr Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I understand the points that are being raised, but the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to not relate private conversations with Mr Speaker to the Chamber.

[Mr Holden]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was making was that I was basically being accused by the Minister of saying something that I had not said. I just wanted to make clear what was said, because the real question here is one of parliamentary scrutiny.

[Keir Mather]

If the shadow Secretary of State is of the opinion that I have mischaracterised what he said, I will of course withdraw that statement, but I suppose we should let the usual channels take their course in figuring that out. I should add that I was slightly remiss in what I said earlier: not 32 but all 34 of the recommendations have been implemented.

Let me now turn to a serious point raised by the shadow Secretary of State about drop-off charges and the amendment that was made in the House of Lords. I can confirm that the Government have no objection to conducting a review of this matter, although we need to think carefully about the terms of such a review and about the time that it will take to ensure that we can engage with the range of issues that Back Benchers have raised today about transparency, charging, ability to pay and free drop-off points.

I understand people’s frustrations when public transport challenges prevent them from accessing airports. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) made that point very powerfully. I should also acknowledge, however, that airport drop-off charges operate as part of a wider framework. They are often used to manage congestion—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince)—to meet mode share targets, and to fund infrastructure improvements. However, all that could be part of the conversation that takes place through a review, and our approach will, of course, always be to protect passengers while supporting our airports as businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

I thank my hon. Friend for saying my speech is fantastic, and it is certainly detailed. I know that we have been cruising at altitude for some time, so I will do my best to get on with it. He raises a broader point about climate resilience at our airports, and I can assure him that the DFT takes this matter incredibly seriously and is progressing work across the Government to think about how we can become more adaptive, in partnership with the private sector, to deal with these issues.

Turning to the matter of the legislative consent motion in relation to clause 7, I confirm to the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey that it does engage the legislative consent process for both Scotland and Northern Ireland. My officials are engaging with their counterparts on this matter, and I will be sure to keep him informed.

The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) asked me about the subject of his private Member’s Bill on creating an ombudsman for the CAA. My view is that the costs of setting up a potential ombudsman outweigh the benefits it would bring. Complex CAA decisions, such as changes to flight paths, are already subject to extensive consultation. I am of the view that the CAA has robust remedies for people dissatisfied with customer service issues, including consideration by the independent complaints assessor, while the work of the CAA is also subject to oversight by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, and that is before we get into a broader conversation about the CAP 1616 process. However, I am happy to discuss this with him after today’s debate and ahead of Committee consideration to think about what more we can do to address his concerns.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also raised a concern about the CAA reporting within six months and us not dealing with the situation with the immediacy it requires. I can assure him that a report will be coming through from NATS to the CAA within a week. That will provide its initial assessment of what has taken place. We will shortly have more to say on what the impacts are and I will endeavour to keep the House informed. He raised a point about whether there will be sufficient follow-up actions. That is a fair challenge, but I would just say that when the outage occurred in 2023, 34 recommendations were proposed to mitigate reoccurrences by the CAA, all of which were implemented.

On CAA oversight, I agree with my right hon. Friend that that is massively important. I would just say that we currently have a robust system for CAA oversight, although we can of course debate whether to take it further. There is an independent complaints assessor, the CAA’s work is subject to oversight by the PHSO, economic regulation decisions can be appealed to the CMA and there is of course the CAP 1616 process for airspace modernisation, but I would be glad to engage with him on where we can take those matters further.

I will draw my remarks to a close. The Bill is about modernising the UK’s aviation framework so that it remains fit for the future: supporting growth; strengthening passenger protections, particularly for those who find travelling through our airports most challenging; and maintaining the highest standards of aviation safety and the UK’s formidable reputation in this space. Our ambition is to build a competitive aviation system that delivers for passengers and keeps pace with technological and operational change. Today’s debate has been wide ranging and a useful opportunity to discuss important issues with hon. Members. I thank all those who have contributed and I look forward to continuing our discussions in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Civil aviation (Consumer protection and regulatory reform) bill [Lords]: programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 22 October 2026.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Shaun Davies.)

Question agreed to.

Civil aviation (Consumer protection and regulatory reform) bill [Lords]: money

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Shaun Davies.)

Question agreed to.

Civil aviation (Consumer protection and regulatory reform) bill [Lords]: Ways and means

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges for the exercise of functions under or by virtue of the Act.—(Shaun Davies.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members have not had the chance today to properly raise the NATS blackout, which has affected over 100,000 passengers and cost UK aviation tens of millions of pounds. The Secretary of State has not indicated that the Government will provide a statement today in the Chamber. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you tell me what those of us on the Opposition Benches, and all Members interested in raising issues that affect their constituents, can do to get answers from the Government?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and he will be aware of other parliamentary mechanisms open to him for raising the matter further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Opposition Members genuinely wish the whole Transport team well ahead of the weekend and next week—although if they are moved up, along or down, at least they will not have to answer the many written parliamentary questions that we have put to them over the last few months.

One of the Government’s flagship policies remains, despite consistent urging from both manufacturers and the Opposition. We have asked the Government to change tack, but the ZEV mandate remains. Despite ploughing in billions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash, last year’s target was met only because manufacturers could rely on compliance credits bought from Tesla and BYD, instead of on consumer demand. Does the Secretary of State seriously believe that year-on-year percentage increases to 80% of zero emission vehicles by 2030 or 100% by 2035 are achievable, or that buying compliance credits from China is a sustainable model for the British car industry?

[Heidi Alexander]

I look repeatedly at data produced by both the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Department for Transport about purchases of new vehicles. In June, nearly 30% of vehicle sales were electric—a significant increase on the year before. We are rolling out new charging infrastructure, with new charge points going in at a rate of one every 30 minutes. The future is electric, and the time to buy electric is now. We see the impact of the conflict in the middle east on petrol and diesel prices, and although we will always keep the ZEV mandate under review and stay in close contact with car manufacturers, it is important that we back the EV transition in this country.

[Mr Holden]

British vehicle manufacturers are expressing the view, with increasing urgency, that the ZEV mandate has simply become an ideological shibboleth of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Will the Secretary of State finally listen to the industry, work across Government to sideline the Energy Secretary, listen to the millions of motorists who simply want the freedom to choose the right van or car for them, adopt the Conservatives’ “plan for drivers” policy, outlined last year by the Leader of the Opposition and me, and scrap the disastrous ZEV mandate before it kills off the British car sector and more than 100,000 good jobs across the UK?

[Heidi Alexander]

What we will not do is make the same mistakes as the right hon. Gentleman’s party made in government. When the former Prime Minister cancelled the 2030 phase-out date for the sale of new pure diesel and petrol vehicles, demand plummeted. We will not change the 2030 phase-out date for pure internal combustion engine vehicles, and we will not change the 2035 phase-out date for hybrids. In this role, I have worked closely with car manufacturers. We introduced new flexibilities last year, and we are talking to them again about a review, which will be completed in the next six months. If I have the pleasure of sparring with the right hon. Gentleman over the Dispatch Box in the coming months, I will be happy to provide him with a further update on that, as soon as the work is completed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

In London boroughs and cities across the country, council-wide 20 mph speed limits are causing havoc. In Wales, councils are desperately trying to unpick the last Welsh Labour Government’s blanket 20 mph speed limits. Why on earth are Labour Ministers trying to repeat that clear failure of policy, dreamed up by Labour, Green and Lib Dem councils in England and a failed Welsh Labour Government obsessed with a war on motorists, and impose it on rural communities in England?

[Heidi Alexander]

We are not imposing anything on anyone, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. He says that the introduction of 20 mph zones is causing havoc. I would point out that, in many areas, they save lives. We know that somebody who is hit by a car travelling at 30 mph is five times more likely to die than someone who is hit by a car travelling at 20 mph. If that is the sort of policy that he wants to defend, all power to him. It is for local authorities and local councillors to take decisions that suit their local areas best.

Ports and Port Connectivity

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

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.

East Midland Railway Collision

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

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.

[Heidi Alexander]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the tone in which he has expressed himself. I share in the condolences he has expressed to the driver of the Corby train, Shaun Burton—as I said in my opening remarks, the thoughts of the whole House are with his family at this awful time.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the RAIB needs to be given space to complete its investigations. It was on the scene within about an hour of the collision, and it has indicated to me that it will issue an update on its investigation in the coming days. He is right that the full investigation will take longer, but as facts emerge the RAIB will be sharing them with the public in the next few days. I agree with him that it would be wrong—and potentially unfair to all those involved—to speculate on the causes of this collision before all the evidence has been properly examined, and I am confident that the RAIB will establish what has happened and why. I also assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will act quickly on its recommendations. It is important that the RAIB independently assesses the facts of the matter and makes recommendations to me as the Secretary of State for Transport.

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that our immediate priority is all those who have been affected. We are supporting those who have been injured and their families, and providing all the assistance that is needed to all those who have been caught up in this terrible incident.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

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?

[Heidi Alexander]

The Mayor of Greater Manchester has led the way when it comes to keeping fares affordable and bringing public transport back under public control, including throughout the years of the right hon. Member’s Tory Government. Funding provided by this Government led by this Prime Minister to the Mayor of Greater Manchester has been used to enable a more generous bus fare cap in the Greater Manchester city region, and it is right that we equip local leaders to take the sorts of decisions that are right for their local residents.

[Mr Holden]

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?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am proud of the fact that we are renationalising the railways, bringing the train operating companies back into public ownership. We have launched the brand-new livery and train designs, but more importantly than that, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that train services that are now under public control are more reliable and have fewer cancellations than those still in the private sector.

Railways Bill

Richard Holden Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

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.

[Wendy Morton]

The shadow Secretary of State is willing to give way to a Back Bencher and listen to their perspective. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are far from offering passengers hope, particularly when they will not even answer questions from Back Benchers about simple constituency matters?

[Mr Holden]

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.

Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 General Committees

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

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.

[Keir Mather]

I encourage the shadow Secretary of State actually to read the Railways Bill, which his party has consistently voted against, where the reason we are pursuing nationalisation is laid out in black and white. It is for one thing and one thing only: to deliver better services for passengers, to ensure that the railway is run in the public interest and not for profit, and to leave behind the decades of misery and delay under the privatised system, which did not serve any of the travelling public across the United Kingdom.

[Mr Holden]

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”.

[Keir Mather]

The shadow Secretary of State talks about value for money for the British taxpayer. The national rail strikes under the last Government cost the taxpayer £850 million in lost revenue between June 2022 and August 2024. I ask him how that compares with the operational savings that will be achieved by the nationalised railways. They are an order of magnitude smaller than the cost of establishing Great British Railways, which unlocks all these benefits for the travelling public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

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?

[Heidi Alexander]

We have extended the fuel duty cut, which was due to end this month, until September, and we have launched the fuel finder tool. Together, they will save motorists £129 compared with previous plans.

Transport Accessibility for Disabled People

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

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.

[Anna Dixon]

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many disabled people simply do not have a choice, because public transport is either not available, if they live in a rural area, or not accessible? Much of the reason why they have to resort to relying on cars and taxis is the failure to invest in an accessible public transport system.

[Mr Holden]

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.

[Daniel Francis]

I thank the right hon. Member for his remarks about what I said. However, all the statistics show that the people who need Motability vehicles the most are the poorest and those who live in rural areas. The Conversative party policy on this matter will damage those people the most, quite frankly, by taking away those vehicles. Will he commit to go away to his colleagues and look at that policy, which will damage disabled people who live in rural communities more than anybody else?

[Mr Holden]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Passengers want safe and reliable journeys, and those who work on our public transport system deserve to be safe at work, especially when they do the right thing in difficult circumstances. However, bus driver Mark Hehir, who was praised by the police for stopping a thief, was sacked. I have met Mark and the lady he saved from a robbery, but has the Secretary of State or anyone from the Department met him? Indeed, has anybody from the Department made representations on his behalf?

More broadly, passengers deserve to feel safe on our railways. What are the most recent British Transport police figures?

[Heidi Alexander]

I am aware of that case from media reports. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that it is a matter for the employer, Metroline. I understand that the case was taken to an employment tribunal where the employer’s decision was upheld. I am not aware of the full details and I will not be drawn further on the issue.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me about British Transport police numbers. The number of officers is in the region of 2,800.

[Mr Holden]

Nobody from the Department for Transport has reached out to a heroic bus driver, and the Secretary of State is clearly not really paying attention to officer numbers either, because they are down by 112. Ironically, that is the same number of unpaid tickets racked up by fare dodger Charles Brohiri, stealing £48,000 from passengers and taxpayers. He did not even receive a custodial sentence. I ask the Secretary of State again whether her Department has made any representations about the leniency of that sentence, or whether she is comfortable with a two-tier justice system in which bus drivers who defend their passengers lose their jobs and fare dodgers walk free.

[Heidi Alexander]

Can I gently suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he listens to the answers that I give? He claims that I am not across the details of the BTP numbers, but I can tell him that there has been a slight decrease from 2,910 to 2,852 full-time equivalents in the last year. I can also tell him that BTP has recently been given a 15% increase to its budget, worth £63 million over the three-year settlement. That will see over 200 more police officers recruited, including for a dedicated capability to tackle violence and intimidation against women and girls.

The right hon. Gentleman will know—or should know—that sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary in this country. It is right that the operator took legal action in the case that he mentions, as persistent and prolific fare dodging not only undermines revenues for the railway, but is unfair for other passengers.