Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Kohler]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. The Lib Dems support the Bill and applaud the Government’s ambitions. This is an excellent move forward, and we support the purpose set out in clause 1. The stated aim to

“improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services”

in the UK is vital. However, buses have for too long been a poor relation in public transport, which is why we are pushing the Government to give local authorities a general duty to promote the use of bus services.

The bus is the most popular form of public transport, but it has long been neglected and, to some extent, looked down on. New clause 22 would ensure that local authorities have a duty to encourage the use of buses and promote their benefits and services, but it is only a general duty. Subsection (2) would not be mandatory; it simply suggests the things that a local authority might consider.

Although the Government’s ambitions are wonderful and to be commended, we want local authorities to start saying to people, “Yes, buses are important, and we have a role in providing them.” That is why we are pushing the Government on that.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is very reassuring to have you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I already feel calmer, and I am sure the Minister does as well.

[The Chair]

How are you spelling that—calmer or karma?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will tell you at the end of the day.

The Opposition welcome the Bill in principle, which is why we did not divide the House on Second Reading. We welcome it because franchising was an innovation that the previous Government introduced in 2017. At that stage, it was limited to mayoral combined authorities, although any local authority could apply to the Secretary of State for agreement that franchising could be brought in.

We are concerned, however, that the Bill does not deliver the goals of value for money and improvement of passenger services as it is currently drafted. It is therefore important that we use this opportunity to carefully consider the many amendments from the Government, official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens; each of them has their various merits, and there are many good ideas to improve what every party agrees is currently an imperfect Bill.

That brings me to clause 1—the purpose clause—which was proposed by the Earl of Effingham in the other place, and received substantial support. It ensures that the overarching aim of the Bill is to improve bus services, and that that remains at the heart of all decisions undertaken in its provisions. By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose, the clause embeds into the legislation a commitment to improve bus services. That is not merely a formality; it is about setting a clear duty on the Secretary of State to put the improvement of bus services at the core of any decisions he or she makes under the legislation.

The clause gives the Bill a necessary focus; it is the framework on which all the baubles of other clauses and requirements are hung. That is important when there is a change to structures, as the Bill anticipates, because it is easy for process to take over from the clear objectives of the Bill. In a purely commercial construct, where there is an operator driven by the profit motive—they need to drive fare box and have customers to get a return on their investment—it is obvious that the natural incentives focus on the customer. When we move to a franchise and the primacy of commercial incentives are removed, the risk is that the customer gets overlooked.

In what is commonly described as full-fat franchising—rather like the Manchester example of the Bee Network, which I believe we will refer to quite frequently in Committee—the local authority takes full assumption of commercial risk within its remit and the operator is contracted merely to provide a service. That brings the temptation to mould services in favour of the supplier—particularly if the supplier is a municipal bus company, such as an in-house provider—as opposed to the passenger.

With external providers, there are a couple of checks on that: first, the direct relationship between fare box and profitability, which I have already mentioned; and secondly, the local authority’s overseeing position to challenge operators and hold them to account, particularly when partnerships are the enhanced partnerships that we have in many local authorities around the country. That combination enforces the interests of the passenger, even when they are not directly consistent with commercial performance. Under wider franchising, there is a risk—albeit a manageable one—that that check will disappear, because local authorities may become both the judge and the jury.

That makes the purpose clause even more important to ensure that the Secretary of State focuses on passengers in every decision. It makes it clear that the accountability for achieving that result lies firmly with the Secretary of State, and it is useful, as in any complex consideration, to have organisational clarity. Nothing in the Bill, other than here in clause 1, puts passengers front and centre—that is a notable omission from the Bill as currently drafted; all the rest deals with procedure. Placing an explicit duty on the Secretary of State provides a valuable guiding principle throughout the Bill’s implementation period, and ensures that every step taken under the Bill will be aligned with the objective of improving bus services for all those who rely on them.

The Minister in his opening remarks said that the clause was not necessary, because it does not encompass

“the full scope of the Government’s ambition.”

Yet the clause says that the Bill will

“improve the performance, accessibility and quality”.

Surely “quality” encompasses safety, which was the Minister’s example as to why the clause was inadequate to describe the full scope of the Government’s ambitions. I push back on that, because quality does encompass safety in the ordinary sense of that word.

Paragraph 1 of the Government’s explanatory notes for the Bill says:

“The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill brings forward primary legislative measures intended to support the government’s commitment to deliver better buses.”

Clause 1 honours that Government commitment to deliver better buses and should remain part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Clause 2 removes the requirement for local transport authorities that are not mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities to gain the Secretary of State’s consent to start the franchising process. The measure puts all local transport authorities on a level playing field. It also removes from the process an administrative step that does not provide an effective check on local transport authorities’ plans, given that it occurs before a franchising assessment is produced. I am confident that the measure will make franchising more attractive to local transport authorities by speeding up the overall process.

New clause 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, would require authorities to publish a statement that outlines their objectives, reasons and supporting evidence for deciding whether franchising is the best option to achieve their aims, before they initiate the formal process. The Department for Transport has established franchising guidance; to require local authorities to provide an up-front statement during an exploratory stage would be premature. The franchising scheme assessment also provides a robust way to present the evidence and rationale behind a decision to franchise.

Although local authorities might choose to develop a feasibility assessment to investigate the right bus model for their area, this should remain optional to allow them the flexibility to adopt the approach that best suits their needs. The new clause would also make the franchising process slower and undermine the Government’s ambition to streamline franchising, making it faster and more cost-effective.

New clause 18 would require local authorities to publish the costs associated with franchised bus services operated by local authority-owned bus companies. Authorities are already subject to statutory requirements to publish detailed information on their spending and financial performance. Under the 2015 local government transparency code, they must regularly publish data on all expenditure over £500, and are required to produce and make publicly available their annual statements of accounts, which are subject to external audit and public scrutiny. The framework ensures a high level of financial transparency and public accountability, making such an additional burden on authorities unnecessary.

New clause 30 would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance for local transport authorities on the development of franchising schemes that includes specific information on rural and suburban areas and coastal communities. The Department for Transport has published franchising guidance, including on the consideration of neighbouring authorities and on the requirement to consult affected areas. The Department continuously refines the franchising guidance, and plans to undertake comprehensive updates after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The introduction of piecemeal additions without considering the guidance in its entirety would risk reducing its effectiveness.

In addition to the guidance, the Department supports LTAs through the franchising and bus reform pilot. The ambition is to explore alternative models that may suit a local area and help to provide evidence for the decision. Lessons learned, tools, templates and best practice will be shared throughout the pilot programme.

New clause 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require franchising authorities to establish a forum of stakeholders to address staffing and employment issues in the franchising area. It seeks to increase accountability in areas that choose to adopt franchising. I am sympathetic to the new clause’s aims, but it is not the role of central Government to prescribe how local transport authorities run their services. Franchising guidance that covers driver welfare already exists, giving the franchising authority scope to decide what forums it wants to put in place to support the delivery of its bus services. The new clause is therefore unnecessary and I hope it will be withdrawn.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 2 amends the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the availability of franchising schemes. It is essentially a facilitating clause to allow for one of the really important changes in the Bill, which is to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to any local authority other than mayoral combined authorities when deciding whether to embark on a franchising scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I am a Warrington MP, and, as has been mentioned, the town has one of the country’s eight remaining municipal bus companies—the award-winning Warrington’s Own Buses. It is a trailblazer, and it is an example of what a municipal bus company can be and what can be achieved. For example, Warrington still has capped fares, and the bus company can still offer a flat fee of £2 for adults and £1 for under-22s. We have a pioneering all-electric fleet and a brand-new depot. Any profit goes back into the service, and we have free travel for care leavers. With a municipal bus company that understands our communities, we have been able to maintain the essential services that private providers would simply give up on and walk away from.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I agree with much of the hon. Lady’s description of Warrington’s Own Buses. A few weeks ago, I spoke to the company’s managing director and I was impressed, as I said on Second Reading. However, does the hon. Lady agree that that is because Warrington’s Own Buses has 30, 40 or 50 years’ institutional experience in running those kinds of services—experience that other local authorities simply do not have? Does she also agree that exactly the same delivery of services can be achieved through an enhanced partnership, in which the operator works in collaboration with the local authority, and it is up to them to decide what is important for the community?

[Sarah Hall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I put it on record that Ben Wakerley, who heads up Warrington’s Own Buses, is fantastic. He has been a real asset for us. Experience is an important factor, but it is also about understanding the community that a company serves, and that does not take 30 or 40 years. It just means taking the time to know and understand the community. Ben has not been there for 30 or 40 years, but he has been leading the way with a lot of the delivery.

Collaboration can be good, but my experience of Warrington’s Own Buses, and of how it has focused on services and delivered in the way that it has, shows how powerful that format can be. I encourage other areas to adopt the same thing, because it has put power back into the hands of the community, not private providers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

There is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about which system passengers prefer. The way to really judge that is through ridership—how many people take the buses. It is absolutely right that in Greater Manchester, under the Bee Network, there has been a post-pandemic increase in ridership of about 34%, from memory. However, does the Minister not accept that in Norfolk, where there is an enhanced partnership, ridership has increased by more than 40%, and in Essex, another enhanced partnership area, ridership has increased by more than 50%? The point is that it is not the scheme design that is fundamentally important, but the way in which it is approached. Does the Minister accept that we can have outcomes that are just as good—better outcomes, in fact—through enhanced partnerships as we can through franchising?

[Simon Lightwood]

What the shadow Minister failed to hear in my previous remarks is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to buses. This could be done through franchising; it could be done through municipal bus companies or local authority-operated bus companies; or it could be done through strengthened enhanced partnerships.

Let me touch on franchising, because the shadow Minister talks about Manchester as the full-fat model. A huge number of alternative franchising arrangements are available, including the Jersey model, which I will go into in a moment. Within franchising assessments, there will be a detailed investigation that is then checked robustly for assurance purposes. Obviously, the process as it stands does not provide an effective check on local transport authority plans, because it happens before a franchising assessment is produced.

On the Secretary of State’s consent, as I have said, it is not effective because it is at the beginning of the franchising process. The assessment must look at the finances of the proposed scheme and then be independently assured. Different areas will also have different circumstances when pursuing franchising; the Secretary of State is not in a position to scrutinise them all.

On funding and LTA support, £1 billion of funding was announced for 2025-26, £700 million of which was for local authorities to improve bus services. That is not for franchising per se; as I said, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The Government are opening up options to local transport authorities. No LTA is being forced to franchise. No LTA has been forced to franchise through the Greater Manchester model, in fact. The Government are looking at how best to support LTAs, including through franchising pilots, which will include elements of rural communities as well. Funding is provided through the bus allocations for LTAs to decide how to spend. The franchising pilots will look at alternative models, one of which could be a joint venture model like the one in Jersey.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The Minister is right, of course, that all sorts of different franchising schemes and mechanisms are available, and I am looking forward to his description of the Jersey model. However, does he not recognise and accept that, of the authorities that have expressed a direction of travel so far, both Liverpool and West Midlands have also decided to go down what I have described as the full-fat model? It is not just Manchester being an outlier. It is likely that the Bill will ensure—in fact, it is happening already—that full fat is seen as the direction of travel. Does the Minister not think that that is correct?

[Simon Lightwood]

I concede that, at the moment, it tends to be city regions that are looking at franchising, which is why we are doing the pilots to ensure that we have the template approach. We will learn the lessons from the various different franchising models that could be used. As we announced at the spending review, York and North Yorkshire is one of the areas that would be ideally suited to demonstrate the effectiveness of franchising in a rural setting. There was a comment about coastal communities, so let me just put this on the record: this South Shields-born, not SW1-postcoded MP knows full well the importance of buses to coastal and rural communities. In fact, I am the son of a bus driver as well. [Interruption.] I have ticked all the boxes—he was not a toolmaker, though.

Let me touch on Manchester. The figures quoted on franchising costs in Manchester refer to the level of investment being made to improve Greater Manchester’s bus network, supporting economic growth, greater productivity, access to homes and so on. In 2024-25, the cost of operating the franchised bus network was about £151 million, but it would be misleading to compare that with the £226 million in an attempt to argue that costs have inflated year on year. Greater Manchester was only partway through the three-phase transition to franchising during ’24-25, so the cost was accordingly lower. Transport for Greater Manchester was operating only half of the full network for the majority—nine months—of ’24-25. There is very little additional cost resulting from the adoption of franchising in Greater Manchester, and evidence to date shows that this model is more efficient and effective at delivering value for money.

Bus depots in Greater Manchester were required to ensure a level playing field when procuring franchised operators; otherwise, there would be an inherent advantage, of course, to incumbent operators. Depot acquisition also recognises the importance of investing to bring infrastructure up to modern standards to deliver a quality service and electrification of the fleet.

Turning to local authority bus companies—LABCos or municipal bus companies—there is a level playing field for arm’s length LABCos, which the existing ones in England are, and for private operators. There is existing legislation and regulations around local authority bus companies.

There will be different ways that LTAs can franchise. Rural areas, for example, could look to integrate demand-responsive transport into the network. It is right to recognise the successes that there have been in Jersey. When I visited in April, I saw at first hand the benefits of franchising and what it has delivered for passengers. A small team have successfully introduced franchising in rural areas. Although that offers useful lessons for rural and suburban communities in England, Jersey offers just one model, and there will be particular local transport challenges and opportunities in other places. Far from stipulating the one-size-fits-all Greater Manchester model, we are exploring and working with local transport authorities throughout the country to demonstrate different forms of franchising to make that a success.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Specification of areas

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I wish to speak to new clause 35 and amendments 70 and 71 tabled in my name. The Minister has done a very good job of outlining what those proposals seek to achieve, for which I am grateful. I am seeking to remedy the lack of vision for fixing the public transport problems that we face in rural areas.

As I have said, we cannot just throw new powers at rural areas and hope for the best. We have to create workable models for adoption to support areas to use the new powers in the best way possible. There has been great excitement about how to use them to transform the bus networks in our major cities, but in all the conversations here on this issue, rural communities seem to have been forgotten about.

In rural areas, the local bus service is not just a convenience or a “nice to have”, but a real and genuine lifeline. For many, it is the main way they can get to see friends and family, go to medical appointments, and get to the shops and to leisure activities. Bus services keeps many rural villages going. It is no surprise that when the withdrawal of routes in areas like this are proposed, there is fury locally and major campaigns against it.

I asked some of my rural colleagues about their experiences and, unsurprisingly, I was inundated. My hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) has been campaigning to save the X5 between Aylesbury and Hemel Hempstead, which was replaced with an unreliable service that is making it hard for residents to get to key medical appointments. My hon. Friends the Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) are trying to bring back the 84/85 route from Yate to Wotton, a vital route to shopping centres, schools and colleges and for those visiting HMP Leyhill. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) has been working with campaigners to save school bus services in Ancells Farm, with children facing the prospect of long walks down unsafe roads to get to and from school in Fleet.

There are all these communities and campaigns, but we still have not come up with better ways to serve rural areas and protect their access to services. It is telling that when my Transport Committee colleagues and I, several of whom are represented on both sides of this Committee, wanted to go and see some best practice of rural bus networks for our “Buses connecting communities” inquiry—report forthcoming shortly; I am sure everyone will be reading it as soon as it is published—we had to travel to the Republic in Ireland to find them. We simply do not have good examples of successful rural networks here in the UK.

All of that serves to say that it is time for a bold new approach. A good few years ago, when we were researching the Liberal Democrat manifesto for Norfolk’s 2021 county council elections, we undertook research with a number of key local stakeholders to hear what they thought of the local bus network and what we could do to improve it. I personally interviewed bus companies, council officers and other stakeholders. Most importantly, we surveyed local people, including those who do not currently use buses—an often overlooked audience segment. We concluded that we need to combine two of the most successful features of current public transport models to create a new model for rural public transport. Those two things are park and ride services and demand-responsive transport. Pairing them could create a real network that works for our rural towns and villages without the near-impossible task of running an hourly timetable to every village. That conclusion resulted in the rural bus hub scheme outlined in new clause 35.

Rural bus hubs would allow people to get between key towns and villages that they need to visit directly. People in many rural areas suffer from having to take buses in the opposite direction from where they want to go, going to the nearby town or city just to go straight back out again. That adds hours to people’s journeys, the journey is totally derailed if one link in the complicated chain goes wrong, and it is ultimately an inconvenient way to get about. As a result, it does not improve passenger numbers.

Similar to our park and ride networks, rural bus hubs would have facilities to enable those living nearby to travel to the hub independently, either by car or active travel routes. The hubs would have the amenities to charge electric vehicles, and to lock and store bikes safely, so that people could easily return to them to complete the final few miles of their return journeys. The hubs would also be well served by demand-responsive transport for those who are not independently mobile. That would ensure that the network could reach into all areas, including rural villages and harder-to-access communities that may never have had a regular service, if any service, from an existing bus route.

Such passengers, once at the hub, could catch direct, frequent buses to any part of a proper network, getting them to the hub nearest to where they want to go, and linking up with train connections or even hospitals and employment areas. It is a model that could easily be adopted by transport authorities. It would reach the most people possible without seeking to run a regular bus through every village, and it would connect those in rural areas to a proper public transport network that broadens the range of their destinations, rather than just taking them to the nearest city or large town.

My amendment 70 would permit rural bus hubs to fit into the current model of franchising, allowing for specified services to include those running to and from, or between, the hubs. My amendment 71 would add to the review of service provision to villages an assessment of how service in the villages could be impacted by the establishment of rural bus hubs, or how the establishment of the hubs has affected services for villages at the time of the review. That would ensure that, as we assess how villages are faring following the passing of the Bill, we do not simply grow a list of complaints but assess what could be done differently to make improvements and the impacts that those improvements would have.

I grew up in a rural village with a sketchy bus connection. I now live in another, and my children are growing up with the same sketchy connection that I had. That cycle cannot continue. We have to do better for areas like mine, and conventional thinking is not going to cut it. It is time for a radical rethink of how we deliver public transport in rural areas. We have to challenge the old ideas and be willing to seize on something new.

I am sure that the Government will oppose these ideas, but I would gently say that they have not put forward anything equivalent. It is all very well to say, “You could do anything,” but there is nothing of substance to say, “Of all the things you could do, these are the things you might specifically like to consider.” We could feasibly help households to reduce the number of vehicles they rely on, saving them thousands every year. We could encourage active travel by expanding the number of journeys, and the hubs could be a component of that. By expanding demand-responsive transport, we could even remove car reliance altogether, while connecting the carless to a far better range of travel times and destinations than they currently have.

The same old approach is not working. The situation will not magically fix itself with the new franchising powers alone. We have to try something different, and do something to create networked, accessible public transport that works for people, and gets them where they want to go, when they want to go there. I do not think that is asking the world, and I hope that the Government will pledge to look into this idea further to deliver real change for people in North Norfolk, and rural communities across the country.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Clause 3 is not controversial, so I will not make a long speech. Proposed new subsection (2A) of the Transport Act 2000 simply makes it clear that, where more than one area is specified in a franchising scheme, the specified areas “need not be contiguous.” I say no more about that.

Amendment 70, in the name of the hon. Member for North Norfolk, adds a reference to bus hubs. As he is my constituency neighbour, our constituents share many of the same experiences, and I absolutely support the sentiments that he eloquently expressed: rural areas are often overlooked, bus policy is designed with the major cities and large towns in mind, and policymakers—perhaps because they have limited experience of life in the kind of rural communities that he and I serve—do not consider the very different challenges that we face. I therefore support the sentiment of the amendment, but the challenge is the cost. We keep coming back to the money—or lack of it—in this legislation, because it is disproportionately expensive.

The hon. Member is absolutely right that park and ride is an interesting hub-and-spoke model for rural areas, but there is also the on-demand model, which I have previously described as the Uberfication of rural transport. The tech is obviously already there. Someone books in and says that they want to go from here to there; the algorithm sorts out the route and how many people can be picked up; and then they are delivered from door to door. Because it is door to door, it has the opportunity to provide an improved customer experience.

The challenge is getting the take-up, because it requires a large number of people to buy into such a scheme, and the set-up costs are expensive. There has been a trial in Wymondham, in Norfolk, where the county council put forward a type of on-demand rural service, but the take-up was disappointingly low. Why was that? My working hypothesis is that, if it is a pilot, hardly anyone knows about it, but if there is wide-scale adoption—“This is the future of rural transport”—and it is backed up with public information so that everybody in the community cannot help but know about it, the take-up will be much greater and that then transforms the economics of it.

As a fellow Norfolk MP, I fully support the concept behind the hon. Member’s amendment, but I am afraid that I question whether it is needed, given the specifics of the drafting. As “places” are not defined under the clause as drafted, I am not sure about the requirement to define a specific place—this is my lawyer’s background coming through; it is a nasty rash I am developing—and I wonder whether there is a legal need for that clarification.

I will move on to clause 4. According to the explanatory notes, it inserts proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(a) into the 2000 Act to clarify that services can be specified by routes or the places intended to be served. I think that is sensible. For example, a franchising authority could specify the services by listing the principal points to be served, so, “The local services to be provided under local service contracts are ones that serve the following principal points,” followed by a list of what they are, such as the hospital, the railway station and the doctor’s surgery.

Another example under this proposed new subsection would be for services to be specified route by route. I will come back to that in a moment, because that is quite an important clarification when we look at the kind of operators that will be in a position to provide these services. Specifically, there is a question about the access of small and medium-sized enterprises to contracts under franchising, which sounds a bit niche but is nevertheless important.

Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(b) of the 2000 Act clarifies that services can be specified by describing intended services in general terms. It is broad and gives franchising authorities a wide range of options for specifying services under this proposed new subsection. That, again, is eminently sensible; I will not go into the detail.

Proposed new paragraph 123H(2B)(c) of the 2000 Act clarifies that franchising authorities can combine the approaches under proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b). For example, a franchise authority that covers both urban and rural areas could specify services by reference to the specific routes for the urban areas, in line with proposed new paragraph (a), and then could take a broader approach for the rural areas. Finally, paragraph (d) clarifies the catch-all that franchising authorities can specify services “in such other way”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steff Aquarone]

I appreciate the warm support from the hon. Gentleman, who is, as he stated, my constituency neighbour. I defer to his lawyering experience on his salient points about the propriety of my amendments given the Bill’s drafting, but I will ask for his reflections on two points.

First, cost is a big unanswered question in the Bill. If the Minister had access to the Treasury, I know that he would be raiding it to fund improved rural bus services. Does the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agree, however, that at least looking at a hub model makes more sense financially, and for service provision, than trying to establish hourly services in every village?

Secondly, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for amendment 71. Although I intend to withdraw amendment 70, I will push amendment 71 to a vote with his support.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I do not disagree with anything the hon. Member said. I do not have in my head the financial details associated with rural hubs, but it makes more commercial sense as a matter of principle, although it would probably not be profitable, to have a hub-and-spoke approach rather than an hourly service for every village. I do not know whether the hon. Member has counted the villages in North Norfolk, but there are well over 100 in Broadland and Fakenham, so that would be a challenge for any provider.

The Opposition support the concept of new clause 35 if the finances—the missing link—add up, but we question the need for it, because there is nothing in the Bill to prevent local authorities from doing what it sets out.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I am conscious that we are finishing in three minutes, so I will limit my comments to give the Minister some time. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, I query the premise that public is better than private. The hon. Member for Warrington South mentioned the ability to provide a better service than existing franchise services, but I want to put on record that we can still get £2 fares in South West Devon. There is not necessarily a concrete need for a franchise; it is not necessarily a magic wand. I will fit my other comments in somewhere else, because I am conscious of time.

Mass Transit: West Yorkshire

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is very good to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. As everyone else has done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate.

West Yorkshire and the city of Leeds have long been underserved by transport connections; that is common ground across this Chamber. Research from the Centre for Cities in 2022 found that just 38% of the population can reach the city centre within 30 minutes by public transport. That is a very low percentage for a city the size of Leeds.

As the former Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities made clear in his 2024 policy paper, that leads to below-average productivity in the area, and a critical catalyst for improvement must be better transport connections. The hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley was also right to allude to a long history of promises, half promises, schemes and plans to improve transport in Leeds, going back many decades. He was generous enough to say that it was a failure of Governments of multiple different colours.

I will go back just to the 2000s, when there was the supertram proposal, which the hon. Member might remember. It was a 17-mile system with 50 stations, but it was cancelled by Alistair Darling in 2005 because of cost overruns. In the interests of time, I will not read out the juicy quote from the leader of Leeds Council, but I am sure the hon. Member is familiar with it. In 2007, that proposal was replaced by the bus rapid transport scheme with FTR. That had some of the benefits of the supertram, but with lower initial capital costs, and it was replaced in 2012 by Wright StreetCars. Also in 2012, the trolleybus network proposal was approved by the Government. The scheme was allocated £173 million of public money to be in operation by 2018. From memory, it involved two park and rides and a bus system into the city centre. That, in its turn, was dropped in 2016—again, because of cost overruns and delays.

Then we jump forward to 2021, to the West Midlands combined authority and the mass transit scheme with light rail and tram-trains, or bus rapid transport. I am pleased to say that in 2023, it was given the go-ahead by the Conservative Government of the time, and £2.5 billion was allocated for the mass transit system, funded in full for Leeds and West Yorkshire by the Secretary of State’s predecessor Mark Harper. That was a firm commitment supported by the Treasury at the time.

On last week’s announcement by the Chancellor of £2.1 billion for the West Yorkshire mass transit scheme, I can see how the constituents of the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley might feel a little sceptical—they have been burned more than once. The plan now is to get the spades in the ground in 2028. It is almost as good as the previous Conservative Government’s plan, which was to get spades in the ground in 2027. The number is remarkably similar to what was then Network North policy.

It is worth looking at the numbers. In 2023, it was announced that £2.115 billion would be allocated, so it was a bit of a surprise that last week it was £2.1 billion. The Chancellor has knocked off 15 million quid, but it is absolutely a re-announcement of existing policy.

[Katie White]

Does the hon. Member agree that although those announcements were made, like many other announcements, such as those on hospitals, they were never funded, and so the Treasury never allocated the money to them. He is right that there was a similar intention, but we are fulfilling on the delivery of that intention.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The answer is that this is spending from 2026 to 2031, so of course we do not have the allocation in 2023. We will have it in 2026, however, and it is part of the Government funding process. If the hon. Lady asks me where that money is coming from, it is from the savings made through the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2. In rail terms, that was £19.6 billion.

[Tom Gordon]

On that point, I had an interesting interaction with the Secretary of State for Transport. I asked her about the reallocation of that HS2 money, and she referred to it as “fantasy money”. What does the hon. Gentleman say to the point that it is a reallocation of money that the Secretary of State says did not exist?

[Jerome Mayhew]

That is an interesting point. If it is fantasy money, this is a fantasy announcement from last week. I suspect that the Treasury has realised that it is not fantasy money. It is the scheduling of capital expenditure in five-year periods, a bit like we have with road networks and the road investment strategy. In the RIS system we have a five-year forward allocation of resources, and this is just the same, so there is a little political sleight of hand here.

A report by Steer suggests that a light rail vehicle with a capacity of 200 operating every three minutes can carry up to 4,000 people per hour in each direction. That is equivalent to about 50 fully laden buses. The aim now is to get it up and running in the mid-2030s. But if the past is any guide, the biggest risk to the project is delay and cost overruns. With that in mind, I ask the Minister these questions. What steps is she taking to ensure that costs are contained and deadlines do not slip? Has the West Yorkshire combined authority set out a timeline for the environmental and technical work to enable the development to proceed on time? Can she outline what discussions she has had with the mayor to ensure that upgrades to heavy rail infrastructure, such as the trans-Pennine route upgrade, are fully integrated? Can she provide assurances that tomorrow’s transport budget will not see cuts in other areas? Will this scheme actually be delivered? We shall wait and see. I certainly wish it well, but I understand why the residents of West Yorkshire feel sceptical.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

This has been a really enjoyable debate. One of the great benefits of winding up is that we are forced to sit and listen to absolutely everything. Most speeches I enjoyed, but there were one or two that I did not. It is up to hon. Members to work out whether I am talking about them.

The contributions to this debate have been enlightening, because they have exposed some clear differences of economic and political philosophy among the parties. The Liberal Democrats, one after another, argued for improved services, particularly rural services, but were less clear about how to fund them. On the Labour Benches, there was huge optimism and enthusiasm under the perhaps mistaken belief that the Bill, in itself, will improve passenger services for their constituents. The truth is that when we look at the terms of the Bill, it is clear that the focus of its reforms is not primarily on improving bus services for passengers—quite the contrary.

In the other place, Labour whipped its peers to vote against what is now clause 1, which makes the improvement of the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain the purpose of the Bill. I send birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and make a plea on her behalf for her Whips not to be too harsh on her for her support of clause 1. Perhaps she was unaware that it was opposed by her own party in the other place.

Why do the Government not want to put performance improvement at the heart of the Bill? Because that is not the Bill’s primary intention. Labour’s true focus was set out in its background briefing to the King’s Speech. It is about

“accelerating the bus franchising process…building on the success of…public bus services still in operation.”

No mention there of passengers, performance, improvements or cost control; it is the structure of the bus providers that has excited the Government. They intend to increase the number of municipal bus companies, presumably because they think that civil servants are better equipped to run efficient bus companies than private sector operators. I can see that, in some examples, that is possible. I spoke to the managing director of the Warrington bus company last week and I was impressed by the performance figures, although they are very unusual.

However, the Government’s faith does not translate into confidence that the new municipal bus companies could win a competitive tender, as the Bill, perhaps inadvertently, allows local authorities to do away with competition. Extraordinarily, as currently drafted, it would allow any local authority to first create a new municipal bus company and then grant itself a franchise, without any competitive process. If that is deliberate, it really would be the triumph of socialist political ideology: that the state is somehow better.

Franchising is an alternative solution, potentially allowing greater co-ordination of transport provision, but it comes at a cost. It takes commercial risk away from the bus operators and puts it in the hands of local authorities. It requires dynamic contract, design and management skills. It is necessarily complex and, if done badly, risks the removal of the innovative power of the private sector, replacing it with state direction.

Let me say again what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made abundantly clear at the opening of this debate: we do not oppose bus franchising in principle. We support it, in fact, when it delivers value for money and, above all, when it improves services for passengers. But what we have seen from the Government today is a refusal to engage with the very real risks embedded in the Bill. The existing 2017 legislation has been referred to more than once during the debate. It recognises that mayoral combined authorities have the scale and resources needed to manage the development of franchise model. However, even here, political ineptitude and mayoral hubris can make a mess of things.

Andy Burnham’s Bee Network has been touted as the socialist example to follow—[Interruption.] I hear it from the Government Front Bench right now, but let us have a look at what has actually happened in Manchester. Buses that cost the private sector £180,000 cost Andy Burnham £220,000. Bus depots that cost the private sector less than £4 million cost Andy Burnham more than £12 million—in fact, nearly £13 million. Private sector bus companies train sufficient staff for their needs while Andy’s team, having failed to secure enough trained drivers, is in the absurd position of having to pay more than 400 agency staff to drive their buses at inflated hourly rates and with accommodation costs on top. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated at £17.4 million a year and rising.

Who is focusing on cost reductions in Manchester? Well, it is not the bus companies—it is not their job to reduce costs any more. In fact, the bigger the overall contract cost, the more profit they make. Require them to give above-inflation pay rises to unionised staff, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. It goes on the bill, and they get a profit percentage on top. Require them to donate to charity, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. Just add it to the bill, and get a profit percentage on top. Profits go up as the size of the contract increases. While Labour claims to have increased value for money because of the much-touted reduced profit percentage, the taxpayer is quietly fleeced. This is the doublespeak of Labour’s “value for money”.

What is the real cost of Labour’s return to “On the Buses”? Had Andy Burnham stuck to his own business plan, the Bee Network should have been profitable after the transition period, but because of his self-aggrandising hubris and statist ineptitude, the loss for this year alone is forecast to be £226 million and it is likely to rise further in the years ahead—that is £1 billion in under four years. And that is in a mayoral combined authority, although admittedly a Labour one.

Has this worked to increase traveller numbers? Between 2022 and 2024, Greater Manchester has experienced a 34.34% increase in ridership, according to Government figures, but let’s look at my county of Norfolk, which has a Conservative county council: its enhanced partnership has increased ridership over the same period by 43%. Let’s look at Essex—again, a Conservative-run council with an enhanced partnership, which has increased ridership by 52.3%. In the wider context, Greater Manchester has in fact underperformed.

Why does the Bill remove the crucial safeguards that ensured franchising was rolled out by authorities with at least a notional capacity to deliver? Why has Labour walked away from giving the Secretary of State the power to intervene if the worst happens and services fail? Why does the Bill not require a competitive tender process when local authorities decide to run their own bus companies? Labour appears content to let any council, regardless of size, experience, expertise or cash reserves, take on these huge financial and organisational risks. That is not empowering local government; that is setting it up to fail. And that is before we talk about money.

These franchising powers are meaningless without the money to implement them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington made clear, just £243 million of the £1 billion promised by Labour is destined for actual bus services. That does not even satisfy Andy Burnham’s bus habit for a year. What about the rest of the country? Without billions—literally billions—of pounds to back up this Bill, it is just posturing. So where is the money? The answer is that there isn’t any. The Government have scrapped the Conservatives’ £2 bus fare, which was genuine financial support focused 100% on passengers, and now it is rumoured that even the £3 bus fare is due for the chop. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. The Government tell us they have a plan for passengers, but it seems that their plan for passengers is to make them pay more.

The Bill needs to have the improvement of passenger services at its heart. It needs to encourage the innovation and efficiency of the private sector. It needs to consider vulnerable SEND children and their educational needs. It needs to recognise the huge financial risks of franchising and municipal bus ownership, and to provide appropriate oversight and support. Most importantly, it needs a Government who are prepared to think again in Committee and be open to improvements to the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the Minister, can I just remind Members—I appreciate that I am largely preaching to the choir here—that they are expected to attend for the wind-ups when they have spoken in a debate. Today, many Members have not had the opportunity to be called, but have sat here throughout; perhaps they will point that out to their colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Greater Anglia supports economic growth in the east of England with modern, quiet, fast trains, paid for by £2 billion of private sector investment. Its service is the most punctual in the country, it is popular with its passengers, and it is run so efficiently that instead of costing the taxpayer, it pays money into the Treasury. It is currently train operator of the year. Greater Anglia knows that nationalisation is coming, and it has offered to extend its operations to allow the Government to focus on the worst performing operators first. Why did the Government refuse? Is the Secretary of State focused on improving the lives of passengers, or is it an ideological determination to put the unions back in charge of the railways?

[Heidi Alexander]

I really do not know how many times I have to say this to the hon. Gentleman. I met him a couple of days ago, and I explained that our process for bringing train operating companies into public ownership is designed to offer best value for money to the taxpayer. We will not be buying out failing private sector operators by breaking contracts early. He is right to say that Greater Anglia provides an excellent service, and I am confident we will build on that when it comes into public ownership in October.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Perhaps the Secretary of State did not understand the nature of the offer from Greater Anglia. It was not expecting to be bought out; it was offering to continue its current arrangements for a couple of years.

In a previous answer, the Secretary of State said to me that the benefit of rail nationalisation will be the £150 million of efficiency savings. Let’s see how that is going. Her first nationalisation will be South Western Railway in two weeks’ time. That new service will need trains, yet The Telegraph has revealed that inept contract negotiations by her Department, where there was no effective competition, mean that the cost of re-leasing the same trains is increasing by £250 million over five years. Are those the efficiency savings she had in mind?

[Heidi Alexander]

The up to £150 million of savings that the taxpayer can enjoy as a result of train operating companies coming back into public ownership are the saved management fees that we are currently paying to private sector operators, and efficiencies will be delivered on top of that.

On the substantive issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about South Western Railway, the cost of renewing rolling stock leases has been fully and properly budgeted for, with successful commercial negotiations recently concluded. The franchising process under his Government saw some “buy now, pay later” deals done on rolling stock, where costs were always expected to increase. I think that approach was deeply dubious, but that was the short-termist, ill-thought-through approach of his Government, and we are now having to clear up that mess.

Road Maintenance

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Alexander]

Decisions on the appropriate speed limits on their roads are decisions for local highways authorities. I will not pretend to know the detail of what my hon. Friend is talking about, but I will say that safety is an absolute priority for this Government, and that any local highway authority should be taking appropriate decisions to limit the number of people being injured on our roads and, ideally, to eradicate death and serious injury.

This Government’s ambition for road users stretches far beyond local roads. Just last week, we announced £4.8 billion for National Highways to deliver critical road schemes alongside maintaining motorways and major A roads. With this bold investment, which is higher than the average annual funding from the last multi-year settlement, we can get on with vital schemes in construction, such as the A57 Greater Manchester link road, the A428 Black Cat scheme in Cambridgeshire, the A47 Thickthorn scheme near Norwich, unlocking 3,000 new homes—

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

[Heidi Alexander]

I hear appreciation from the hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench.

Those works will also include the M3 junction 9 scheme in Hampshire, which will support 2,000 more homes. By raising living standards, creating high-quality jobs and kick-starting economic growth, these projects will drive this Government’s plan for change.

We are committed to delivering the road infrastructure that this country needs today, tomorrow and far into the future, and we are already working on the next multi-year road investment strategy to do just that. This is part of our mission to secure the future of Britain’s infrastructure. We are building better roads, creating safer streets and unlocking more efficient transport systems to help businesses to thrive and make life easier for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Secretary of State.

Each year, the Liberal Democrats and their friends travel about 800 billion km, while those of us on the Conservative Benches travel about 500 billion miles, and 90% of that is by road. Roads are the backbone of our transport network; they deliver goods, services and, importantly, people. They deliver economic growth and human flourishing—workers to their jobs, students to their schools, patients to their hospitals—and bring families together. It is absolutely right, therefore, that good roads deliver a stronger economy and a stronger society—I think we can all unite around that.

The roads network is divided between the national infrastructure and local roads. Since local roads make up 97.3% of the network as a whole—nearly 204,000 miles—I think it is best that I start there, because local roads are at the heart of the problem of potholes. Legal responsibility for maintenance of those roads lies with the local authorities, but it is too easy for us to blame local authorities and move on, because their funding comes from central Government. The previous Government felt a degree of frustration, which I know is now shared by this Government, that while some local authorities are better than others at clearing up potholes, it is the Government—of whatever colour—who tend to get the blame.

The Prime Minister has taken a view on this issue—he seems to be frustrated as well. Last month, we had the announcement that local authorities are required to publish reports on how many potholes they have repaired. That is not a novel undertaking; they were, as I recall, required to do exactly that back in 2013 or 2014. The risk now is that if they have not repaired a sufficient number of potholes, local authorities risk losing 25% of their increased grant.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that adopting a policy of managed decline, as the Conservatives did in Oxfordshire in 2014, is a disaster, and is really not the appropriate way to fix the problems we have in front of us?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I would absolutely agree that managed decline is not the right way to fix these problems, but I refute the accusation that the Conservative Government managed decline—[Interruption.] Well, let us look at the data.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made reference to the RAC pothole index, which is a very useful piece of information that tracks how much more likely a driver is to suffer a breakdown as a result of a pothole. This data goes back to 2006, when Labour was in power. You may not be wholly surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, to learn that under the previous Labour Government, a driver was more than twice as likely to suffer a breakdown as a result of a pothole than under the subsequent Conservative Government, corrected for seasonal weather effects and improving longer-term vehicle reliability. Those on the Government Benches say that the Conservative Government managed decline, but, in fact, exactly the opposite is true. Breakdowns caused by potholes peaked under Labour in 2009, and have more than halved as a result of the investment of the coalition and Conservative Governments.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Birmingham city council, which is the largest council in Europe, covers some of the vast number of roads and arterial routes coming in and out of the city with Spaghetti junction. Labour has controlled the council for around a decade, and roads are simply going from bad to worse. Part of the problem is the desensitisation of the residents, who feel there is just no point complaining about a pothole—officers come out but do not repair them. What mechanisms need to be put in place so that we can address the potholes that exist and are getting worse?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The best mechanism would be to vote for a Conservative local authority on 1 May. If we look at the data rather than the slogans, 68 miles of roads on average are repaired each year under Conservative councils, while just 14 miles are repaired under Labour councils. I say it again: if people want potholes fixed, they should vote Conservative on 1 May.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. I get on with him relatively well—[Interruption.] Very well, I should say, though we will get on even better if he agrees with my point. He has just said that people should vote Conservative because of the successes to which he has just referred. What would he say to my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme who have a Tory borough council and county council—and have done for several years—who describe our roads as “deeply sunken” and “physically uncomfortable to drive over”, and say that they have “crumbling surfaces”, “failed resurfacing work” and “repairs that don’t last” and “worsening conditions despite recent repairs”. Several constituents have noted that “only a few potholes” were ever patched and “hazardous conditions from multiple directions”—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Interventions are getting far too long. There is a very long list of speakers wishing to contribute to this evening’s debate, so interventions should be short and pithy.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I had hoped the hon. Gentleman and I got on better than that, but I am grateful for the question. Everyone in this Chamber can point at potholes and say that more needs to be done, and we would all be correct. We have far too many potholes, and we need to build, repair and improve our network over time. I accept that it will not just be by voting Conservative that we reduce potholes overall.

There is a question of prioritisation of funding, and that applies under both Labour and the Conservatives. How funding is provided is also important. The overall amount of funding for the repair of potholes is obviously crucial, but how it is provided in the long term is essential for local authorities to schedule their repairs. Long-term funding would increase their efficiency. it would not be the stop-start feast or famine that we hear so much about at the moment.

Local authorities could also increase the number of potholes being repaired for the amount of money spent. It was for exactly this reason that the last Conservative Government committed to a 10-year £8.3 billion investment for the repair of potholes. That long-term approach made an enormous difference. The RAC welcomed the news and said that the plans would “give councils certainty of funding”, allowing them to “plan proper long-term maintenance”.

The Asphalt Industry Alliance—I am sure you read about them often, Madam Deputy Speaker—said that there is a consensus among local authorities that

“guaranteed long-term funding helps increase efficiency and provide a more resilient road network”.

It said that

“security of funding helps authorities to plan with more confidence and drive greater cost and environmental efficiencies through the promotion of proactive asset management techniques.”

The point is that long-term, predictable funding increases the number of repairs undertaken and reduces the cost we have to pay for it.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

The hon. Member has mentioned a couple of figures, including one from 2006, when I was nine. To quote a more recent figure from the annual local authority road maintenance 2025 report, when the Conservatives left office they left us with a backlog of £16.8 billion-worth of pothole repairs. What does he say to the people who are still driving over those potholes?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member may have misunderstood me; the figure I was referring to was from 2009-10—the very last year of the Labour Government. Since then, although there have been variations because of winter and summer, the number of potholes leading to breakdowns has more than halved, according to the RAC, which is of course independent. I know there are lots of examples of people driving into potholes, including me and everyone here who drives, but the overall data demonstrates beyond doubt that people are better off under the Conservatives than Labour if they want to avoid potholes that cause breakdowns.

Long-term predictable funding leads to an increased number of repairs at a reduced cost, but Labour has cancelled that long-term approach, so predictability of funding for local authorities has gone. The efficiencies associated with that predictability of funding are gone, as are the cost savings. Instead, we have had an announcement of £1.6 billion until 2026, which is very welcome; I have constructive opposition to this issue, so when more funding comes for the repair of potholes, I welcome it.

However, if we look beneath the bonnet, we see that the Labour Government have at the same time increased costs to local authorities through their national insurance contributions hike of £1.1 billion. They give £1.6 billion with one hand, but they take away £1.1 billion with the other. It does not stop there. Their hike on vehicle excise duty over the course of this Parliament means another £1.7 billion being taken from motorists. They take £1.7 billion from motorists, and they give £400 million net back for road improvements.

What happens after 2026? Do we know? Does the Secretary of State herself know what happens with the funding after that? The Government have been entirely silent, leading local authorities to be deeply concerned about their ability to plan long-term repairs, not just to potholes but to road infrastructure as a whole. It is an unfortunate example of this Government chasing headlines over responsible government.

Let us move from local roads to the major road network. Labour’s first act on coming into Government was not to back our road infrastructure or improve repairs but to cancel five vital road improvement schemes. Those were the A5036 Princess Way, the A358 Taunton to Southfields, the M27 Southampton junction 8, which was obliquely referred to earlier, the A47 roundabout at Great Yarmouth—the other end of the Thickthorn roundabout, which the Secretary of State is continuing the previous Government’s improvement of—and the A1 Morpeth to Ellingham.

Labour is not prioritising roads or road users, despite taking another £1.7 billion out of vehicle excise duty. It is dipping its hands yet further into the pockets of motorists while cancelling major road improvements. That contrasts with the Conservative record of 2015 to 2025, where we invested £40 billion into England’s strategic road network. Short-term headlines over long-term planning—that is Labour.

What is to come with Labour’s road maintenance plans? I hope this debate will shed light on it and clarify the future of funding for road maintenance. Perhaps the Secretary of State can whisper into the ear of the Minister for the Future of Roads before she winds up so she can tell us what happens after 2026, because local authorities deserve better than to be marched up a hill with road repairs and then left in a hole.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Alex Mayer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

It has been an interesting debate, and one might be forgiven for thinking that there are local elections coming up. I do not know what caused me to think that, but there was there was something in the air; let us leave it at that. I am not going to go through everyone’s contribution, insightful and interesting as each of them was in its own way. I will just pick out a few highlights of the debate.

I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). Rather in the theme that I developed earlier, he referred to Bradford council’s terrible performance on potholes and said that it was leading to a loss of trust in Labour. In particular, he referenced the residents of Ilkley, who went to the trouble of having a referendum on what they should do about the state of the roads. He talked about the council’s proposal to impose speed humps and a 20 mph limit, despite 98.3% of residents voting against it. They were ignored by Labour.

Then we heard from the hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), who is in his place. He also raised the condition of his local roads, but he went on to make an interesting point when he complained of what he described as the “crumbs of levelling up”. I took advantage of the length of the debate to look up what the crumbs of levelling up were, and, in fact, £19.9 million was directed to Burnley through three town centre schemes. That was an achievement of the excellent former colleague of mine, Antony Higginbotham, who was an understated but amazingly effective Member of Parliament. I will follow the career of the current Member for Burnley closely to see whether he delivers even a fraction of that for the people of Burnley.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) showed off about the length of his roads, which certainly put mine to shame. He was another advocate for the JCB Pothole Pro, saying that 1,889 repairs had been undertaken in six months. But what he really exposed was the repeated failure of the SNP, which has cut funding north of the border, and the lack of interest shown in this debate from SNP Members in this place, as we can see from their empty Benches.

[Peter Swallow]

The shadow Minister is making a gallant effort to rattle through the fantastic contributions that we have heard tonight. Will he take this opportunity to congratulate Bracknell Forest council and its Labour administration for the £5 million investment over four years in pothole repairs?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am happy to commend any council, of whatever colour, that gets on top of its potholes. I am about improving the quality of life for the residents of this United Kingdom. I make no bones about it: if Bracknell Forest council is improving the potholes in its neck of the woods, that is great, and the same is true of Conservative-led councils.

In his exposure of the SNP’s failure, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk was joined by the hon. Members for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). They agreed that the SNP is failing the people of Scotland. I will take this opportunity, as I was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West, to highlight the need for wheelchair access on pavements. That is a very important consideration.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made a speech that reinforced the reputation he has already earned in this House. We heard contributions from the hon. Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), and then we heard from the hon. Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan), who, as I should have mentioned earlier, also blamed the SNP for failing motorists. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who made an expert intervention, levering in a reference to Romford during a speech that was entirely about Scottish issues. I learned an important lesson: he gained the maximum impact from the minimum amount of time in the Chamber—if only the rest of us had followed his example.

There were contributions from the hon. Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), as well as the hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), who referred to the power of mayors. That gives me an opportunity to make a shameless plug for the Conservative candidate for mayor of Doncaster, Nick Fletcher, who is a former colleague and very good friend of mine. He will be the best leader for Doncaster.

There were further contributions from the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) —we all miss Jonathan Gullis in this place—and, finally, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume).

I opened this debate for the Opposition by talking about the need for predictable long-term funding, which is a key issue. I wish to draw a quote to the House’s attention:

“British people are bored of seeing their politicians aimlessly pointing at potholes with no real plan to fix them”.

That quote is not from me, but from the Prime Minister. He was right, and he identified the problem, but he has gone on to make it worse. [Interruption.] Well, I would love to be corrected. I will give this Minister the opportunity to confirm yesterday’s calculations from the Local Government Association, which said that the Government’s actions, through their national insurance contribution tax grab from local authorities, will reduce their ability to fund roads and other important matters by £1.1 billion. Does she agree with the Local Government Association, which is of course an independent organisation? Secondly, will she confirm that the Government will increase vehicle excise duty to the tune of £1.7 billion over the next five years, and whether that dwarfs the funding that Labour has so far announced for road improvements?

It is not too late. The Government could admit that they were wrong to shorten the timeframe for investment in road infrastructure. They could today commit to a 10-year funding plan. They could take this opportunity to reassure local authorities about how their funding will be received, allowing them to increase the efficiency of their pothole repair programmes. They could take this opportunity to deliver the long-term funding that our road networks need. I look forward to the imminent announcement from the Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is clear that local roads maintenance is an issue that affects every one of us, and that our constituents care about deeply. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken up on behalf of their constituents. I assure them that the Government get it and are determined to do something about it. There were too many contributions for me to mention them all, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) highlighted why it is important that local councils are required to publish reports on their plans. We want people to know if their local council is choosing not to spend the extra funding that we are providing on fixing their cratered, potholed, pimpled roads. I assure her and other members of the Transport Committee that work is already under way on a complete review of the guidance—the code of practice on well-managed highway infrastructure, to give it its full name.

I am really pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) highlighted the innovation that has been adopted by Stoke-on-Trent’s Labour council and its highways department—investing in AI to properly understand and monitor its road network and using the Pothole Pro to undertake long-lasting repairs. I am really sorry to hear that Conservative Staffordshire county council is not as responsive to the concerns of my hon. Friends’ constituents who are calling for investment in road safety. As my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) rightly reminded us, Staffordshire residents can do something about that problem by voting Labour on 1 May, as can residents in Derbyshire, Northumberland, Hertfordshire, Lancashire and many other parts of the country.

I am grateful to Scottish colleagues for their contributions. It is disappointing to hear that the SNP Government are not acting to tackle the state of Scotland’s roads, as this Government are in England and my Labour colleagues are in Wales. The Scottish people deserve better. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) raised the important issue of pavement parking, as did others, and he was right to do so, because it contributes to our broken pavements, which are so unsafe for many elderly and disabled people. The previous Government promised action for almost a decade and did nothing. We plan to respond to the 2020 consultation and set out our policy in this area.

When I tell people that I am the roads Minister, I can pretty much guarantee that the first question they will ask is, “What are you doing to fix my street?” It is not surprising that this issue is so often raised with us when we are out and about in our constituencies. The appalling state of our local roads and pavements is all too visible to us every single day. As we have heard time and again in this debate, it is unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists and bikers, it makes motorists’ lives a misery and it is holding back economic growth.

The shadow Minister suggested that things were worse in 2006 than under his Government, but according to the RAC pothole index, drivers were nearly 40% more likely to have a pothole-related breakdown in 2024 than they were under the last Labour Government.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Not right now, as the hon. Gentleman has already had an opportunity to speak on this issue.

[Jerome Mayhew]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you give me some advice? Where the Minister has misquoted me and refuses to give way, what steps can I take to correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. I think that is a matter of debate, and it is now on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

We are told that nationalisation is the answer to improving passenger rail performance. If that is the case, surely it would make sense to start by nationalising the worst performing operators. CrossCountry comes last out of all train operating companies for passenger satisfaction and it is not complying with its obligations. The Secretary of State could call in that contract, so why is it not the first operator to be nationalised under GBR?

[Heidi Alexander]

We made a commitment to bring the train operating companies back into public ownership without any cost to the taxpayer. The appropriate point at which to bring the train operating companies back into public ownership is when the franchises expire. If there is terrible performance, we can seek to break a contract earlier. I am pleased that there are some improvements at CrossCountry. We are seeing improvements from the train operating companies that have been brought into public ownership. In particular, for TransPennine and LNER there is a really positive story to tell on passenger journeys and revenue growth.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but she ducks the point that if she had the political will she could bring CrossCountry in-house now. It is not the first operator to come under GBR or even close to it. Under current plans, the Government will not get around to tackling CrossCountry until 2031. In the meantime, highly effective private operators with some of the highest levels of customer satisfaction such as c2c and Greater Anglia will be subjected to dislocating nationalisation this year. Why are the Government forcing nationalisation in areas where current services are liked, and sitting on their hands where people are crying out for improvements?

Transport Connectivity: North-west England

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing the debate, and congratulate all hon. Members, who have put very forceful cases for transport in the north-west. Their combined contributions have demonstrated that there are many shared problems in the region.

I do not have time to mention every hon. Member who has contributed, so I will limit myself to commenting on the contribution of the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton, who highlighted that her constituency, like I suspect many others in the area, is a post-industrial commuter belt that is struggling to cope with the consequential increase in traffic. Because of the over-reliance on cars, the society suffers from high transport-related social exclusion. There are a number of issues, but I will try to mash them together into three headlines.

Let us start with the positive news, which is the welcome devolution of transport policy. It was implemented by Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, but it was of course a Conservative policy that was brought in in 2017, so while we welcome it, we should share the plaudits. I welcome the success of the Bee network, but we have to recognise that it was expensive—there was £1 billion of Government support.

That raises a big issue, because as well as that £1 billion, Bee is supported by considerably north of £130 million a year from central funds, by my calculations. Its parent, as it were—Transport for London—receives in excess of £1 billion a year. There is therefore a fundamental question here for the Minister. The Bus Services (No. 2) Bill is going through the House of Lords, and I have with me the consultation on Great British Railways and “A railway fit for Britain’s future”. If this is the model for the future, can the Minister shed some light on where the increased funding will come from? It is a good development—it was Conservative policy—but where it is expanded beyond the large mayoral combined authorities to other combined authorities, there will inevitably be an associated cost.

The second related issue is the potential conflict when regional policy butts up against national policy, when a strong regional mayor rightly wants control over a combined transport policy, whether that is buses, rail or road. We potentially have a directing mind under Great British Railways—intended to be one of its key benefits—coming up against Andy Burnham, for example. The consultation paper refers to that, but has no detail on how those potential conflicts will be resolved and who will be the final arbiter. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to respond on that.

Many hon. Members called for the reintroduction of the northern HS2 extension, focusing not on speed, but on capacity. We have to recognise that, again, it comes back to money. The cancellation of the northern part of HS2 redirected £19.8 billion to other transport projects for the region. This is not a comprehensive list, but it gives a flavour: £2 billion for the new station at Bradford and a new connection to Manchester; £3 billion for upgraded and electrified lines from Manchester to Sheffield, Sheffield to Leeds, Sheffield to Hull and Hull to Leeds; about £4 billion of additional transport funding for the six city regions; £2.5 billion of additional funding for outside the city regions; and £3.3 billion for road improvements, albeit largely filling potholes.

[Mrs Russell]

I understand that in that announcement there was £180 million for Cheshire East council, but council leaders were told it would be weighted towards the back end of the seven years. They feel strongly that it was made-up money that was always predicated on borrowing, and that there was never any real intention to give that money to the north-west.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Their concerns were wrong. I had a minor position in the Treasury at the time, and I can assure the hon. Lady that that was genuine redirection of funds, albeit over a period, as one would expect, with the release of funds associated with the development of HS2 in the northern sector.

To conclude the list, we had £3.3 billion for road improvements and an additional £11.5 billion for Northern Powerhouse Rail from Manchester to Liverpool. The question that is easy to miss in opposition but impossible to avoid in government is this: where do the Government want money to be spent? That money could be used for those widespread improvements or be rediverted to a northern branch of a version of HS2, but it is impossible to spend the same money twice. If the Minister wants to do both, where is the money going to come from?

Finally, many hon. Members referred to the seeming disconnect between investment decisions in London and the south-east and elsewhere in the country, the north-west in particular. The hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton used a good phrase:

“Growth goes where the growth already is.”

The previous Government at least took the first step in tackling an injustice in the Green Book analysis. That was undertaken to unlock some of the levelling-up investment that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) referred to. I am concerned that the new Government—certainly the new Treasury—are reverting to type. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer had her growth panic a few weeks ago—

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on raising the important topic of connectivity in the north-west—an area that was a cradle to so many transport innovations and is home to beautiful countryside and some of our greatest cities and towns. It is not quite Yorkshire, but it is still a pretty special place.

Kick-starting economic growth is the Government’s No. 1 mission, and the economic performance of the north-west is vital to successful delivery. It is essential that we deliver our plan for change to create more jobs, put more money in people’s pockets and help to rebuild Britain—but, as I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, we cannot have good growth without the transport connectivity to support it.

A truly connected transport network must be designed and built in collaboration with local leaders. That is why the English devolution White Paper published last year is so important. It is an opportunity to reset our relationship with local and sub-national government and to empower local leaders and mayors to make the right decisions for their communities. We are already seeing the benefits across mayoral areas with the introduction of the Bee network in Greater Manchester, alongside mayors in the Liverpool city region and West Yorkshire who are working towards taking back control of their buses. I will just put on the record how pleased I was to hear yesterday that South Yorkshire will also be taking back control of its buses.

The Government will be still more ambitious, however. First, we will make the process for taking buses back into public control faster and simpler through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill. Secondly, we will give mayors a statutory role in governing, managing and planning the rail network, working alongside Great British Railways. Thirdly, through the English devolution Bill, we will put the roles of mayors on a primary footing, setting out a clear and broad set of powers that will be available to mayors and local leaders.

Our transport network has seen decades of decay. Communities have been cut off and short-changed. Fragmented networks have hindered meaningful change, and the state of our local roads is a result of past under-investment. We are determined to reverse that. An uplift of £200 million was secured at the autumn spending review for city region sustainable transport settlement areas for 2025-26, which was welcomed by the mayoral combined authorities, including Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region, which are receiving over £1.7 billion from the current CRSTS programme.

The autumn Budget announcement also included a commitment of over £650 million in local transport funding in 2025-26 to ensure that transport connections improve in towns, villages and rural areas, and a funding uplift of £500 million for 2025-26 for highways maintenance. Of that £500 million, the north-west region is receiving over £64.8 million in additional funding. In the Budget the Government confirmed investment of over £1 billion to support and improve bus services and keep fares affordable. Local transport authorities across the north-west have been allocated nearly £150 million for the 2025-26 financial year.

The Government are committed to improving transport across the north, including boosting rail connectivity from east to west. We are already taking forward the trans-Pennine route upgrade—TRU—which will improve rail performance and support growth and housing by reducing journey times and providing more passenger services on the line between Manchester and York. We are delivering the Manchester taskforce programme, which is central to the Government’s ambitious multibillion-pound rail investment across the north. As announced in the autumn Budget, we are maintaining momentum on Northern Powerhouse Rail by progressing planning and design works to support its future delivery.

On our strategic road network we are developing a five-year third road investment strategy that will cover 2026 to 2031. The RIS will be published before the end of 2025. Our vision is for a network that connects more people to more places, making our day-to-day journeys easier and simpler, and building a network that can attract investment, whether that is through boosting efficiency or unlocking land for development.

The integrated national transport strategy will be published this year and will set a long-term vision for transport in England, focusing on how transport should be designed, built and operated to better serve all the people who use it and enable them to live fulfilling lives. We will develop the strategy through collaborative and open engagement with our stakeholders and people who use transport.

It is impossible for me to cover every point raised today, but I will touch on a few. On Northern Rail, it has been made really clear to Northern’s management that the current performance is not acceptable. That is why Rail North Partnership, through which the Department for Transport and Transport for the North jointly manage Northern’s contract, issued it with a notice of breach of contract, which has required Northern to produce a detailed plan to improve its services.

On HS2, transport is an essential part of our mission to rebuild Britain, and I am committed to delivering infrastructure that works for the whole country and of course to improving rail connectivity across the midlands and the north. My ministerial colleagues and I are carefully reviewing the position we have inherited on HS2 and wider rail infrastructure.

On the previous Government’s commitments on investment, I will just remind the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) about the £22 billion black hole. They left this Government to pick up the pieces.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will not give way.

We acknowledge that rates of step-free access remain low across Great Britain, which is why the Access for All programme is working to address that. In the Greater Manchester area—

North Sea Vessel Collision

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

Yesterday morning, shortly before 10 am, the container ship MV Solong collided with the oil tanker MV Stena Immaculate, which was at anchor in the North sea off the coast of Yorkshire. The Stena Immaculate was on a short-term charter to the US navy’s military sealift command and was carrying 220,000 barrels of jet fuel. The Minister has not formally confirmed the cargo of the Solong, a Madeira-flagged vessel, but it has been widely reported that it was carrying 15 containers of toxic sodium cyanide. I listened to the statement carefully, but can the Minister confirm that that is now not his understanding?

The collision and the resulting spill are deeply concerning. However, before questioning the Minister on the Government’s response, I join him in paying tribute to HM Coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, the emergency services, and all others who helped to respond to the incident. As the Minister noted, the emergency services were on the scene swiftly and their actions saved many lives. Approaching fiercely burning vessels with a risk of explosion takes enormous bravery and we all commend them.

I am grateful for the confirmation that all mariners from the Stena Immaculate have been recovered without injury, and that 13 of the 14 crew members from the Solong have been brought safely ashore. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and colleagues of the missing member of that crew. I understand that the search for life has concluded, but can the Minister update the House on the efforts being made to recover that mariner?

Turning to the collision itself, the Minister confirmed that early investigations do not point to foul play, but will he commit to remaining vigilant to ensure that any indications of foul play are carefully investigated? Additionally, will he inform the House of the impact on the investigative process of the involvement of ships registered in both the US and Madeira? Have the Government contacted the respective Governments to ensure their close co-operation?

The Minister will be aware of the deep concern over the effect of the oil spill on the surrounding marine environment. Environmental organisations have warned of potentially devastating impacts of pollution from the tankers on the habitats and species in the area, including threatened seabird colonies, grey seals and fish, and nature-rich sites such as the Humber estuary, where conservationists have been restoring seagrass and oysters, could be devastated by this emergency. Has he been briefed by the Environment Agency on its response, and could he give us more details on it?

The Minister made reference to the drift of the Solong and the risk of it running aground without intervention. Can he update the House on the steps that will be taken to ensure that that does not happen? I understand that the marine accident investigation branch has begun a preliminary investigation into the emergency, and I am pleased that the Minister is working closely with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as it conducts an assessment on the counter-pollution response that may be required over the coming days. However, I seek assurances that the Government will engage closely with local communities, who will be concerned about the impact of the collision on their environment.

The incident involves multiple Departments spanning emergency response, environmental protection, maritime safety, defence and chemical transport regulation, and effective cross-Government co-ordination is therefore crucial. Will the Minister assure the House that such co-ordination is taking place and that Parliament will receive regular updates? It is, of course, too early to draw significant conclusions at this stage, but it is clear that something went terribly wrong in the handling of these two vessels. We will support the Minister in whatever action is needed to ensure the highest standards of safety on the high seas.

[Mike Kane]

The shadow Minister is exactly right: something did go terribly wrong. My thoughts and prayers are with the missing sailor’s family. The company has been informed, and his next of kin are being informed.

In response to the series of questions the shadow Minister asked, we know for sure that the Immaculate was carrying 220,000 barrels of Jet A-1 fuel, but we are yet to establish the cargo of the Solong; as soon as I know, I will make that information available to the House.

We will do everything to recover the body of the mariner. In a recent debate on emergency response services, we heard that though lives are lost at sea, some succour and comfort is given by the rescue services, who often bring people’s loved ones back to them for a proper funeral and burial.

Whether there was foul play is, I think, speculation; there is no evidence to suggest that at the moment. Through the MCA, we are in contact with our American and Portuguese counterparts and have liaised with them. On the counter-pollution measures that the shadow Minister mentioned, the MCA is standing by with marine and aerial counter-pollution measures, which it will use at the necessary time. However, the immediate concern is to put out the fire on the Solong.

The shadow Minister mentioned the issue of drift. The Immaculate remains anchored, so we are safe there; it is the Solong that is drifting at 2 nautical miles per hour. It is currently being shadowed by two tugboats, and the order will be given by SOSREP or the MCA to intervene as and when necessary to protect life onshore.

The shadow Minister is right about the marine accident investigation branch. We have deployed those assets to the scene. They are currently working with the local resilience forum, and I want to pass on my thanks to the Humberside resilience forum at this time. I can assure him that Government agencies are working together effectively and have been giving Ministers and the Secretary of State regular updates through situation reports as the night went on and the day continues.

Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

What fun we have had. We could have proper jobs, but instead we are talking about space industries and debating their importance. I recognise the ambition of the last Government; when deciding which Department should monitor space industries, one might have thought it would be the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but no—we thought it should be the Department for Transport.

I am delighted to stand in front of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to support this hidden jewel in our high-value industry. In the latest data that I could find, from 2023, the industry has revenues in the United Kingdom of £18.9 billion. It is supported by about 1,800 businesses, the vast majority of which are SMEs, right across the country in all our constituencies, developing the small satellites that are the particular expertise of Glasgow. This is the first time that I have had a Glasgow mafia of MPs in the Chamber all underselling their own constituency or city, because while they said that Glasgow produces more satellites than any other city in Europe, I believe the Department for Transport said in the previous debate in February 2024 that it is the largest manufacturer of satellites in the world outside of California.

There are 52,000 full-time equivalent workers employed directly in the sector. If we add in a supply chain of about 130,000 people across the country, we can see that this is already a very significant sector. It is growing in terms of employment, at 6.7% per year, and in terms of investment. Again, in 2023, the last year for which figures were available, there was investment of £8.85 billion into the space industry in the UK, and there is huge opportunity for more growth.

Applications for small satellites are going through the roof—on their way to orbit—and the geography of the UK is almost uniquely suitable for low Earth orbit satellites. Whereas the large satellites that we used to send up into space need to be sent up near the equator, being closer to the north pole makes launches into low Earth orbits more suitable. The other thing we have is lots of sea around us in case it all goes wrong. Additionally, the increase in the geopolitical uncertainty of the world makes it more important than ever that we develop our domestic capabilities in this area.

For all those reasons, the last Conservative Government backed commercial spaceflight from the UK and created the founding instrument for the industry, the Space Industry Act 2018. It created the legal framework for commercial spaceflight, and it was followed up in 2021 by the creation of a spaceflight regulator—the Civil Aviation Authority. I am proud to say that we took advantage of the genuine Brexit benefit of being able to create a regulatory environment far faster, and in a more comprehensive fashion, than our EU friends over the water have been able to do. It gives us a genuine commercial opportunity for rapid growth, which we have already seen.

Although the Space Industry Act 2018 is good, it is not perfect. As we have seen from yesterday’s news in Florida, when we occasionally have what is described as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly”, what goes up can come down. When it does so, it can cause loss and damage. UN space treaties make nation states responsible for loss and damage caused by space activity launched from their territorial areas, and it is for this reason that section 36(3)(a) of the 2018 Act passed financial responsibility from the state to the operator, requiring that the person carrying out spaceflight activities must indemnify His Majesty’s Government for loss, subject to any limit set out in section 12(2), which gives the regulator—the Civil Aviation Authority—the power to set an upper limit for that indemnity.

The rationale for a limit on indemnity is clear: without it, it would be impossible for insurers to assess the quantum of risk associated with an unforeseen event. In actuarial terms, if we cannot assess the quantum, the risk can no longer be insurable, yet we have already imposed through legislation a legal duty on any space operator to have sufficient insurance, which prompts the question of what insurance is sufficient. This issue has been identified and is the genesis of the two-clause Bill that we have before us today. The problem with the wording is that the cap on the indemnity is not mandatory; the Bill simply allows for a cap.

Before taking an investment decision that could involve many hundreds of millions of pounds, big investors need reassurance beyond a Government policy statement to give them the confidence to commit large sums for investment, and this Bill fixes the problem. Section 12 turns the power to cap an indemnity into a requirement to do so. The last Government supported a private Member’s Bill introduced by the former Member for Woking, Jonathan Lord, which had suspiciously similar drafting terms. The Second Reading of that Bill was held on 23 February last year and, to my great disappointment, the legislation was lost in the election wash-up as we approached July.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition wholeheartedly welcome the reintroduction of the Bill today. If nothing else, it has given us an opportunity to rehash some rather painful space puns—Hansard is still reeling from last time. I have read Hansard from February last year, and there is a noticeable difference in the kinds of space puns used. From Labour Members, I am sorry to say that we have had references to Trekkies, “Flash Gordon” and “Star Wars”. From the Conservatives, we have had references to “The Clangers” and the Soup Dragon, which are much more patriotic.

Other contributions to today’s debate are worthy of mention. I have already referred to the over-representation from Glasgow—the city’s MPs spoke for about half the debate—but some very serious points have been made. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), who I think is the first space lawyer in Parliament, spoke about the geopolitical risks and the need for a satellite launch capability in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) noted that about 20% of all space jobs are in Scotland, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) highlighted the increased role for women in the sector and the potential to break down stereotypical barriers, for which I commend her.

Moving south of the border, the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) made unfortunate references to both “Flash Gordon” and “Star Wars”, but she also made a serious point about the opportunities for young people in her constituency and beyond. Moving further south still, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) commented on what a time it is to be alive—I agree with him. He will have noted that the previous career of the hon. Member for Glasgow East was chargeable by the hour, which might explain the position in which we have found ourselves.

All those contributions recognise the hugely important role that space already plays in our economy and the incredible opportunity that the sector has to drive growth for all of us. The Bill gives the Minister the opportunity to confirm that His Majesty’s Government, despite the change in party, remain fully supportive of space industries and that he is wholly behind the Government’s target for the UK to be the leading provider of commercial small satellite launches in Europe by 2030.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East on proposing this legislation. It changes two pesky words—just six letters if we add them up—but is six years in the making, which begs the question about the speed at which our legislative processes are able to operate. After the first Bill’s rapid unscheduled disassembly in the general election, I hope this Bill has a smooth lift-off and takes its place in the firmament of British legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I am very interested by that last answer, because the Government do think that nationalisation will reduce the cost of rail travel. What lessons has the Secretary of State learned from the SNP’s nationalisation of ScotRail?

[Heidi Alexander]

We will be increasing value for money in the way we operate our railways. To start off with, we will be getting rid of up to £100 million a year in management fees that we are currently paying out of the public purse to the train operating companies. We are determined to drive up performance on our railways and give better value for money to the taxpayer.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The latest experiment in nationalisation has shown in just two years that state inefficiency has pushed up costs—not reduced them—by £600 million, forcing fares to rise, alongside an increase in delays, a slump in customer satisfaction, and cuts, instead of improvements, to services. The data shows that in England, Greater Anglia has been the best performing operator, saving money for taxpayers while serving passengers with modern, punctual trains. The Secretary of State is about to launch a public consultation on nationalisation—one that has been as delayed as ScotRail trains. I am told that even the plan to publish it today has been further delayed, with the excuse of No. 10 on the line. If the Secretary of State consults, she has to be prepared to listen. Will she now listen to the deep concerns of the rail industry, and not just the ever-generous unions, and avoid another disastrous nationalisation?

[Heidi Alexander]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the consultation on establishing Great British Railways is coming soon, and I look forward to discussing it further with him. I am confident that by bringing together the management of track and train, we can strip out duplication in our railways, provide better value for the taxpayer and ensure that trains are turning up on time, with reliable and punctual services. That is what we will deliver.