Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is for exactly those reasons that we so desperately need new clause 5, which would require an annual security report to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would mean that we are not caught with our heads in the sand again. We are beginning to build a picture of a slippery Government who are not being honest with the British people, not being honest about the legal justifications for this deal and not being honest about the security risk associated with the deal, and who are now being slippery about the financial cost as well. Again, the Prime Minister himself said that this slippery deal was going to cost the taxpayer £101 million a year for 99 years. He rounded that down from £10 billion, which my maths would have come to, to £3.4 billion. Through a freedom of information request, the Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that the actual cost is £34.7 billion. Did the Prime Minister just get the decimal point in the wrong place, or was it something more sinister? Madam Chair, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Government should no longer be trusted. They are changing their story in relation to this agreement, and they changed their story in relation to the China spy trial collapse. We need new clause 1 so that no payments can be made without direct approval from the House of Commons. At least then the Government would have to explain the real figures and be open to transparency and scrutiny. The public see through Labour’s deal, and they know a sell-out when they see one. The Opposition amendments and new clauses bring transparency to expose this sell-out from a weak Prime Minister without the backbone to stand up for Britain. No wonder Labour Members are about to vote against them.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Sir Desmond, for chairing us today; you are the serial winner of the best dressed Chair competition. As a Kentish man—I was brought up as a Kentish man—I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. I am glad that I was not part of the negotiations with the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), who probably put forward serial applications for a similar debate. It is important to have this debate, building on the legacy of the former Member of Parliament for Ashford, Damian Green. My former colleague understood the significance of the impact on international services at Ashford and Ebbsfleet. He had an Adjournment debate back in October 2023, and, having read that debate in Hansard, it is remarkable how many of the arguments have been rehearsed in this very Chamber before. I suspect the speech of the then Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, will have more than a passing resemblance to that of the current occupant. It is clear from the contributions that we heard way back in 2023 and today from all Members that reintroducing services at Ashford International would be welcomed by residents across Kent and the whole south-east—and it turns out, also those in Strangford and York Outer. The economic case has been set out most recently by the Good Growth Foundation, which has argued that reintroducing services would deliver significant benefits to the region. I intended to go through all the various data it put forward to support its case in its report, but various Members have already done that job for me, so I will avoid the temptation to repeat all those numbers. It is so far, so good, as we are all furiously agreeing with each other. We agree, as did the last Government, that Eurostar—with a private business and ambitions to grow from 19 million passengers to 30 million passengers across Europe—should reopen its services to Ashford International and/or to Ebbsfleet. If it is looking to grow, why ignore a profitable potential market? Its business plan is obviously up to it as a private business, but it currently appears that Eurostar is content to focus on a more profitable route direct to London. It can do that because, without any direct rail competition, some have suggested that it has become complacent. That is what happens in the absence of competition: the same is good enough, there is no incentive for dynamic development, nor the creation of new products, the defence of one’s markets or the pushing of the boundaries. There is no drive either to cut costs to maximise efficiency. I speak with personal experience of this; before coming into Parliament, I was the managing director of a decent-sized business. I hated competition, because competition in a market forced us to sharpen our pencil, both financially and in the services that we provided. I recognised that it was good for our business in the abstract, but in the day-to-day, people want to avoid it. I am therefore pleased that four challenger brands have seen additional opportunities for the tunnel and HS1, which we should now call—I learned to call it—London St Pancras Highspeed, since February this year. Eurostar uses just 50% of its capacity of the tunnel, and the ORR is currently considering the availability of depot space at Temple Mills. Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, appears to agree. In his letter to the ORR, he argues that “the arrival of competition will benefit users of international rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.” How right he is. Competition leads to improved services, increased efficiency and the development of new markets, so why will the Government not apply the same logic when it comes to domestic rail? If Lord Hendy believes what he said to the ORR, why are his Government doggedly pursing their nationalisation agenda, designing competition out of the UK railways? This is important, and it was referred to positively by Labour Members: why is he planning to remove the crucial role of the independent economic regulator from the ORR, making Great British Railways both the player and the referee in the new version of the railways? Surely, that is like giving Eurostar the job of deciding if there is room for more competition on HS1.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Member will be aware that the ORR is looking at Temple Mills because applications have been received under open access agreements. That is not a response to the Government; it is a response to applications from the private sector. We can already see the direction of travel with domestic railways. The Government have argued against every single new open access application since coming to power. It seems they can support competition only when the competition is not against them. Who loses out? Just as at Ashford International, it is the passengers, with fewer routes, fewer services and fewer efficiencies leading to higher costs. The Conservatives support any approach that encourages competition and grows the rail sector, whether domestically or internationally. We welcome the four applications requesting access to Temple Mills, at least one of which anticipates the use of Ebbsfleet and Ashford International. We welcome the Government’s conversion to the benefits of competition, at least on High Speed 1. We look forward to seeing that new-found belief in the private sector in their approach to rail nationalisation more widely. If not, I fear it will be passengers who pay the price.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  A good Conservative approach.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  Kentish.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady and I come from different perspectives. I think competition drives good economic behaviour, not the state directing individual companies on what they can do, whether profitable or unprofitable. That is a genuine difference of approach. In this instance, I agree with Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, that it is competition in this market that will drive benefits to consumers and the taxpayer. We have to remember that Labour left office in 2010 when there was “no money left” and Governments have to take difficult decisions, as the current Government are learning to their cost.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful and encouraged to hear that point made from the Dispatch Box. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the Government have written to the ORR advocating against every single open access application since coming into power? After all, open access is bringing additional competition to the wider network.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of the mistakes made during the counting of votes yesterday. Are you able to give some guidance to those on the Treasury Bench on the importance of the work of the Whips?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Passenger Rail Performance · Hansard source

  More

  Before I ask my question, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the fact that last night, a man lost his life, a wife lost her husband, and children lost their father because of political intolerance. It was a personal tragedy, but also a tragedy for the body politic. I want to take a moment to recognise the importance of free speech in our democracies. The Secretary of State quite rightly talks about improving rail performance, yet we are in a city paralysed by strike action from the RMT. The Government claim that nationalising the railways under Great British Railways will bring untold improvements. They are “untold”; Lord Hendy tells us that there will be rigorous performance standards, but he has repeatedly refused to set out what they will be. When will the Secretary of State set out the standards by which the Government’s nationalisation experiment should be judged—or are they still discussing them with the RMT?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in thanking the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing the debate. It gives us an opportunity to talk about the chasm between the Government’s grand promises and the grim reality for passengers, businesses and communities, as has been ably demonstrated by many of the contributions from Back Benchers. I do not have time to do justice to all those who have made contributions: I will leave that task to the Minister. I will move quickly on to roads and the Government’s record on roads, which has come in for some criticism today. The infrastructure spending review that the Conservatives were responsible for in the run-up to the last election was the road investment strategy 2, which ran from 2020 to 2025. That was some £24 billion of investment, delivering major upgrades, unlocking infrastructure to enable 186,000 new homes for our constituents, improving freeport and airport links, and improving safety with 151 refuge areas built on smart motorways. We now move to 2025-30, with RIS3, which is Labour’s opportunity to outshine us. Has it done so? Absolutely not. RIS3 is marked by the killing of key enhancements, which I will come to, and instead of action we have targets here and consultations there, but it is very light on delivery. We have a Government of review and policy papers, and that speaks to a wider truth about the Government. It is led by a lawyer Prime Minister who values process over political judgment—just think about his approach to sacking our ambassador to Washington. The Prime Minister’s original defence was that the process was followed: there was no political judgment. We can see that in the transport policy too. What we need is not process. We do not need further targets here and consultations there: we need action. We need action on the A12 improvements—a £1.2 billion project. The scheme had been signed off, the housing had been cleared and businesses had been relocated, but it was scrapped without warning by this Government. The A12 is a core artery for Essex and South Suffolk. What about the regional inequality of that region?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  I am aware that my hon. Friend’s Bill does not make a call on the public purse, at least on the Treasury, and it is for local authorities to opt into the scheme should they wish to. It sounds like a very exciting project and one that should be developed further. I mentioned the A12 in East Anglia, but there is also the A47 near Great Yarmouth. The Conservatives’ RIS2 included dualling to North Tuddenham, which is going on at the moment—I declare an interest as it is in my constituency—as is the dualling of the Brundall to Blofield stretch of the A47. Labour came into power and cancelled all further improvements.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman’s intervention gives me the opportunity to raise the proverbial eyebrow at his claiming credit for securing £200 million for the Thickthorn roundabout when that has been in process for many years before he was elected. As for the £50 million he mentions, I think he means the western link road, which would be a huge improvement. At the moment we have the equivalent of the M25 for Norwich, but it is missing one section of 3.9 miles. The Conservatives are squarely behind finishing it: I am surprised to hear that Labour does not support the residents of Norwich in a similar way. I will move on to what Labour has done. It has cancelled the further improvements on the A47, particularly at the other end towards Peterborough. That is just another example of where East Anglia has been ignored by Labour. Buses are the most popular form of public transport and the most important one in areas of high deprivation. They are particularly important for poorer members of society, the young, elderly and disabled. The Conservatives recognise that—we recognise that price matters—so the last Government introduced the £2 bus fare cap, and our manifesto commitment at the last election was to maintain it throughout the course of this Parliament because we recognised how popular and useful it was in increasing bus ridership. When Labour came to power, it had a choice: it could back passengers or it could back the unions. One of its first—shameful—acts in government was to give a 15% pay rise to ASLEF train drivers, who are already the best paid in Europe, paid for by a 50% increase in bus fares for passengers around the country. That speaks to a wider truth: when it comes to it, Labour is the party of the unions and not of the people.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, I will give way.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because I am running out of time. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. What is the big plan? It is one of nationalisation for railways. We must look at the Government’s motive—what do they think it is going to do? It is not about unifying track and train, because that was already in the Williams-Shapps review; that was going to happen without nationalisation. Is it about reducing fares? If so, it is backfiring, because nationalised train companies’ fares are rising above inflation. Is it about increasing efficiency? One would hope so, but through the Government’s nationalisation process they are decapitating the management teams that drive efficiency in the individual rail companies. Is it about increasing passenger numbers? The inconvenient truth for Labour is that under privatisation passenger ridership on the railway doubled, because the companies were incentivised to chase ridership. That was driven by increased open access routes, yet the Government have opposed every single application for open access since the election. Is it to save money? If so, they are not doing a very good job. On South Western Railway—one of the first to be nationalised since the election—they wasted £250 million on infrastructure overspend with the rolling stock leasing companies due to Government negotiating incompetence. The truth is that the Government are doing it because it is an article of Labour faith—faith in the big state—and also a key demand of the unions. How has it gone for them? As we have heard, ASLEF has already got a 15% pay rise, and the RMT is striking now. Next time, when GBR is finished, that strike will be national. The Government are one year in. We have heard in the debate of cancelled scheme after cancelled scheme. We have also heard that prices have increased and that money has been diverted from passengers to union pay. That has done nothing for regional inequality, save for the industrial action that is spreading from London and engulfing the rest of the country. It is why passengers are so disappointed in Labour. They deserve better.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  I have no problem with the unions making demands—after all, they are representing the interests of their members. What I complain about is the Government giving way to them at the expense of the general public. On trains, we have got the cancelled projects as well. The midland main line electrification has been cancelled, which has led to lay-offs and the loss of expertise. It is also causing problems for the procurement of new bi-mode trains, because we no longer have any certainty as to whether the line will be electrified. At Dawlish, the Conservative Government completed phases 1 to 4 of the improvements and reinforcement of the line. Phase 5 is all that remains. What have the Government done? They have kicked it into the long grass, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for which I give him credit. Back in East Anglia, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) highlighted the need for the Ely junction and Haughley junction projects in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk to be advanced, yet they have been ignored by the Government.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I stand corrected, in the sense that I have listened to the hon. Member and, on reflection, I accept that I was making perhaps too legalistic a point. If by adding “sustained antisocial auditory disturbance” to the definition of nuisance we can make what is an implied power an express one, I am happy to support that. As for the jeering, perhaps my hon. Friends were cheering—who knows?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady will know, from reading the Hansard of Committee proceedings, what time and effort the official Opposition put into supporting the aspiration to have increased accessibility across disability and special educational needs, so I am very supportive in principle of her amendment’s aims. I have addressed accessibility, but what about pricing and increasing bus usage? We know from our experience of operating bus services over the past decade that price is one of the biggest factors affecting patronage. In the previous Administration, the Conservatives put forward a £2 bus fare cap, and it was enormously successful. Apart from anything else, it was hugely popular, but it also aided the recovery from covid, and in getting people back out and about. It was particularly useful for younger passengers; it helped to build their confidence and get them back on the road to recovery. In the run-up to the last election, the continuation of the £2 bus fare cap for the duration of this Parliament was a Conservative manifesto commitment. What was Labour’s response to that? Its first act on coming into power was to put the price up by 50%, from £2 to £3. To accompany that, there was a perverse claim that that was actually a price cut. One does not need to be an economist at the Bank of England, or even from the accounts department, to work that one out. Experience of customer complaints would be enough to enable a person to see that a price rise from £2 to £3 is exactly that: a rise, not a cut.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that the Minister is not misleading the House inadvertently. Although he is right that it was delivered on time and on budget—it was about £156 million—it is argued that the subsequent year of operation had a deficit of about £236 million. Even though it may have been delivered on time and on budget, it has been in a terrible deficit ever since and is on strike now.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thought the hon. Member was in favour of devolution. Not all mayoral combined authorities are the same; if we have a mayoral combined authority, we want to have the right system for the area that the mayor represents. If the mayor in Teesside thinks that it is not the right thing for him, I back his decision. Let me move on to new clause 31, which would give the Secretary of State the power to step in where there has been “a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.” It seems genuinely extraordinary that the Government are saying no to that added safeguard. No cost is associated with it; the new clause just says that where there is prolonged failure on the ground to deliver the service for whatever reason, the Secretary of State would have the power to step in and take on the management. Why would the Government say that they do not need that backstop power? They voted it down in Committee, and I do not see them accepting it today either. All the amendments from the loyal Opposition have a common theme: they put passengers first. This Bill is not really about passengers; it is for a bigger state, more unions and more union involvement, and it is primarily against private business involvement. I understand that that is the ideology of Labour Members, but the problem is that their ideology is demonstrably wrong in this instance, and we see that in the Bill. Without amendment, it will damage our bus services and almost certainly damage our local transport authorities, particularly the smaller ones, if they are misguided enough to follow the encouragement of the Government and go down this route. Above all, I am sorry to say that the Bill will damage the chances of our passengers.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am slightly surprised to be called so early, but I am delighted to speak in the debate. This will be an interesting debate. I am delighted that there is so much interest from Back Benchers. It is interesting to note that the Bill is primarily focused on process rather than passengers. I tried to work out why that was and came to the conclusion that it is, in fact, steeped in Labour’s political ideology—the ideology that the state is better at running things than private businesses—linked with the separate issue that it has a deep suspicion of the profit motive. In some of its clauses, which we will come on to in a moment, the Bill harks back to the 1960s and to municipal bus companies after the second world war. This feels like the happy place of the Labour party.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry that the hon. Member was not in his place throughout the course of the debate, as he would have heard that a franchise is not a normal contract. Under an enhanced partnership or a standard operating contract, that is exactly so: a contract is let and the commercial risk lies with the provider. The challenge with franchising is that the commercial risk is transferred 100% to the taxpayer, because the local transport authority is no longer letting a commercial contract; it is buying in services for a price, with the commercial risk lying with the taxpayer. That is the crucial difference. I am glad that the hon. Member put his finger on that, because I am as worried as he is about it. Finally, I will mention the comments of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We do not agree on many issues, but I do agree with her on this. She said that a lot of good amendments were tabled by Opposition parties—certainly three parties; there were sadly none from Reform, which would not know a transport policy if one got up and slapped it in the face. The hon. Lady came up with some good ideas, and even the Liberal Democrats came up with something or other. As for the Conservatives, we came up with good idea after good idea, yet until now they have all been rejected by the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to his concession on all those good ideas.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, I will give way.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  That does not take away from the overarching point that Labour has increased bus fares by 50% and described it as a price cut, which was disingenuous in the extreme. We need to understand the impact of Labour’s price rise on ridership, and in particular on social accessibility. That understanding will inform behaviour, and should inform good policy for the future, but the Government have their head in the sand. Amendment 23, also in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services. That proposal was initially inserted in the other place, with wide support from a number of parties, but again, the Government decided to remove it in Committee. They need to own the consequences of their decisions. Last year, Transport Ministers needed to find money for an unfunded pay rise of 15% for ASLEF train drivers. Where did they get the money? Their first choice was to go after bus passengers, and their second was to go after pensioners.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am perfectly happy with that principle. In fact, it was a Conservative principle, first introduced in 2016. We do not have to choose between one thing and another; that is a false analysis. The pricing was a political decision by this ministerial team, who chose to increase prices from £2 to £3, and that was voted for by all Government Members; they made that political choice. The choice between a franchise scheme, an enhanced partnership scheme or any other form of scheme has nothing to do with the primary political choice, made by Labour Members, to raise prices for bus passengers to pay for unfunded union pay rises. That is simply the fact.