Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate about a place where innovation really happens, but which is also a great place to live. The whole idea of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is fantastic, but the name is absolutely terrible: politicians love the word “growth”, but the public at large are scared by the idea of growth. They think it is going to ruin their way of life—and then “corridor”? I mean, that just sounds like a place we never want to be in. It is somewhere that gets people from A to B, but what about that bit in the middle? To me, it just conjures up the Tories running down the NHS and being stuck in a corridor in a hospital.

However, it is the right place to be focusing on. We can already see that, because the universities play such a good role and businesses invest there all the time. There are more than 8,000 high-tech firms in the wider area already. Given that it is thriving already, we might ask what the role for Government is? We do not want to mess it up at all; we want to try to improve it. I would argue that there are still bucket-loads of potential, and the three areas where the Government can add value are governance, transport and a sense of place.

Let us start with governance. For investors wanting to invest in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, particularly those from overseas, it is really difficult to know who to pick up the phone and call. Regional devolution will help with that, particularly with the duty in the Bill for mayors to co-operate with each other. However, we need to get to a position where the whole area has mayors, and we cannot allow some councils, such as the one in my area, to block that progress. We also need to make sure that devolution means that mayors have genuine powers, because sometimes I think there can be an overemphasis on co-operation and consensus, which actually gives us stasis and stalemate.

On transport, I absolutely welcome the £2.5 billion the Government have invested in East West Rail. In recent weeks, it has felt as though we are ramping up on that. East West Rail matters to all the stations along the route and those that are nearby—I made that point to the East West Rail chair the other day. It is less than 10 minutes from Leighton Buzzard to Bletchley, and that opens up a world of opportunities for people in Bletchley as well.

Finally, on a sense of place, when I used to think about the wider east of England region and what on earth linked it, I sometimes thought it was only our fantastic local broadcaster “Look East”—

[Rachel Hopkins]

But was it “Look East (West)” or “Look East (East)”?

[Alex Mayer]

Indeed. It is so important to make sure that we have things that link us, and I think Universal will make a real difference on that. I very much urge the Minister to make sure that Paddington Bear is a key feature—what an ambassador for our region that would be! The forest is also fantastic news for us; I finish by urging my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge to agree with me that the national forest really is a tree-mendous opportunity.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Fortune]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I have tried hard to ensure that my new clauses are objective and would apply to anybody serving as mayor. If I could be cheeky, I can completely understand why she might not want to limit mayoral powers, being mindful of future ambitions that she might have.

New clause 65 would rectify the democratic deficit in London by giving the Assembly the power to direct that the mayor not take proposed decisions while they are under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly the power to recommend that the mayor reconsider a proposed decision. These powers should be standard for any devolved authority, and would ensure that the views of all Londoners are heard loud and clear by the mayor. The leaders of the 32 London boroughs have made a united cross-party call for a seat at the table as part of the devolution settlement for the capital, and I fully agree with them.

New clause 66 would start the process in delivering that new settlement, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London borough representatives in GLA decisions. I am firmly of the view that any new model must give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that not only my borough of Bromley but all London boroughs are able to contribute to and challenge decisions that impact them directly.

It is right that power is returned to our cities, regions and communities, but this must come with effective scrutiny and accountability of those who hold devolved power. There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, and anyone who is serious about the success of devolution in London will see that my new clauses are sensible first steps to rectifying that deficit. This is not political in nature. At this point, I note the excellent new clause 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), which also seeks to equalise that democratic deficit. As I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), this is not political—indeed, the very make-up of the GLA means that these new clauses would return power to Assembly members of all parties, as well as empowering London boroughs and local councillors to do the job they were elected to do.

I urge the Government to embrace these new clauses, listen to London’s council leaders—the majority of whom are from the Labour party—and ensure that we have a properly accountable mayor in London and in all combined authorities up and down the country. It is difficult to see how anybody could seriously argue for less accountability.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

I really welcome devolution and look forward to a time when every local area really wants a mayor. I have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses, which I will go through in turn.

First, on the question of commissioners, I have to say that I disagree completely with the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) in her amendment 85 to clause 9. I really welcome commissioners being brought in; I think that if we want our mayors to do a good job, we need to give them tools that enable them to do that. I think of the commissioners coming in as the Magnificent Seven.

However, I have tabled amendments 161 and 162 on this matter, because my concern is how we got to the number seven. I have a gut feeling that we just went down the list and counted all the responsibilities that there were and came up with the number seven. As it stands, an individual commissioner can work in only one specific area, which I think gets rid of any sense of bringing in people with cross-cutting responsibilities. The Government talk a lot about governing in missions—what if mayors want to do the same kind of thing? We could get rid of the cap of seven or that list of responsibilities in order to enable people to look at different things. Of the responsibilities that mayors have at the moment, transport and infrastructure tend to be where they have the most. If we wanted to stick with the number seven, and a mayor wanted to look at somebody who was doing more of transport—an active travel commissioner, or anything like that—we should let the mayor decide.

New clause 60 is on the question of deputy mayors. This is, I think, a bit of an oddity. At the moment, the pool of people from which a mayor can choose their deputy is really limited, as it is made up of the people in their cabinet from each of the constituent authorities. That means that we could have a situation—as we already do in one part of the country—where a democratically elected mayor who stands on a political ticket is forced into choosing a deputy mayor who is not of their own political party. My new clause would open this process up so that they could choose a councillor who is also democratically elected, but from any of the different authorities that they represent. This would not solve the problem entirely—it would not help if an independent were elected, for example—but for the vast majority of people, whether the mayor is from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Labour or the Greens, or Reform, probably, it would solve that problem.

New clause 61, which brings in the concept of mayoral special advisers, is not going to be particularly popular, but I do think it would be useful. I just think this process needs to be more transparent; it happens at the moment, but it happens with a wink and a nod. I would like to bring out into the open the people who are providing political advice to democratically elected mayors.

On a more general level, it continues to concern me to some extent that all this devolution is based on the Greater Manchester model, and I think we need to look more widely than that. The Greater Manchester model is very different from other parts of the country, not least because it has a lot of councils that are all of the same political persuasion, and so the mayor ends up with a cabinet of people of the same political persuasion. That is not going to be the case as we roll out devolution further, and I think we need to think about that carefully. Also, as local government reorganisation goes forward, we will have fewer councils from which cabinet members can be drawn, so it will be much easier for one individual to block something. Mayors need to be able to get on with decisive and responsive governance.

I turn to transport and clause 27. I often bore Transport Ministers because I really do think that bus stops, bus lanes and buses should all be looked after by the same individual. They are not at the moment, and that is down to the long-standing issue of a split between transport and highways. My area has a unitary authority, so those responsibilities are together, but they would be split up as soon as we got a mayor, as I hope we will, eventually. I very much welcome the power of direction on key route networks and—looking at that split—we could take that further.

I have some sympathy with amendment 23, tabled by the Conservatives, on micro-mobility. It seeks to ensure that there is enough parking for e-scooters. That, again, is a reason for looking at the highways and transport split. I welcome the Bill. It presents a real opportunity, and it could well be the most consequential Bill of this Parliament. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we get devolution right by considering a few tweaks.

Local Government Reorganisation

Alex Mayer Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

I would say that, given our housing crisis, 27,000 new homes seems like good news to me, and we need to see more of that. Councils need to operate in a business as usual way, making sure that they get their business done. The worst outcome would be for councils going through a reorganisation to press pause on important items of business. That would be a complete absence of leadership.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

One effect of creating more strategic authorities appears to be the splitting of transport and highways powers in more areas. Will the Minister provide assurances that this will not slow down the delivery of capital projects that are necessary to achieve economic growth?

[Jim McMahon]

No, that is certainly right. Our ambition is for acceleration, not for lagging behind, and we will make sure that no schemes are delayed as a result of reorganisation.