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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her post, and look forward to helping her to do an excellent job.

As we can see following the last few days of flooding, changing weather patterns are damaging our roads and increasing potholes. The last Government allocated an additional £8 billion for road improvements, paid for by the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2, yet all we have seen from Labour is a commitment of £1.8 billion for this financial year. Will the Secretary of State commit to matching the additional £8 billion for road maintenance?

[Heidi Alexander]

We are more than matching the commitments made by the previous Government. Let me say gently to the hon. Gentleman that his commitment in respect of resurfacing roads falls into exactly the same category as the promise to provide 40 new hospitals, and a range of other commitments that proved not to be worth the paper they were written on. They were fantasy figures, unlike the Labour party’s promise to deliver change. An additional £500 million is coming into our highways maintenance budgets, so that people across the country can see that change delivered to their local areas.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I am not sure whether that was a commitment to match the £8 billion, or whether the Secretary of State considered it to be a fantasy commitment. However, it is not just the £8 billion investment that seems to have gone missing. As soon as they were in power, the Labour Government cancelled the A27 bypass, the Stonehenge tunnel, improvements to the A47 in Great Yarmouth, the A1 from Morpeth to Ellingham, junction 8 of the M27 at Southampton, and other projects. That is £3.3 billion axed from works to help motorists. What have they done with the money? Has Labour prioritised pay rises for unions over improving roads and helping motorists?

[Heidi Alexander]

The truth of the matter is that when this Government came to office, we inherited a raft of half-baked, unfunded schemes that we are having to work through to provide a sensible pipeline of infrastructure improvements for our country. I will take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman about investment in our national infrastructure.

Old Oak Common Station

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford; thank you for chairing this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing the debate. We can see by the level of activity and the number of people who have wanted to speak and intervene how important this is for the region, and how enlightening the debate has been. There has been a huge amount of unanimity about the criticisms and suggested solutions for the upcoming interruptions to the service to the south-west and Wales.

The hon. Member identified three different areas: mitigation, improving services for the west in the long run, and how to make Old Oak Common useful for passengers travelling on GWR. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) also focused on the mitigation sum, and wondered whether the £30 million identified by the Government would be enough adequately to compensate and mitigate those users who will have their travel disrupted for the next five years as a minimum. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) noticed that the Welsh rail network has only 7% electrification, and she was essentially demanding Barnett consequentials for the HS2 project. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) was one of a number of Members who highlighted that all trains were due to stop at Old Oak Common, and that that would add between four and seven minutes, depending on the estimates, to everyone’s journey. He also highlighted the need to spend a portion of mitigation sums on the Dawlish works.

The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) highlighted what he described as under-investment in Welsh railways, largely because of the designation of HS2 as an England and Wales project, rather than just an English project, and the consequential lack of additional payments under the Barnett consequentials.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) focused on the need to reassess the use of the £30 million compensation payment scheme. Since the debate on this subject in this place last week that she and I participated in, the Government have provided further information on how they intend to use that £30 million. She believes that the money is being focused on the wrong areas. As if it made the point for her, she also highlighted the need for better communication of delays and other changes. She made a very interesting point when she put a question to the Minister, and I hope that the Minister will reply to it in her response to the debate. My hon. Friend also asked who will pay for the delay repay scheme—will it be the taxpayer, or is there another mechanism for funding those compensatory payments?

The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) again focused on better mitigation. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) did too, and he made an interesting point—that it is no longer correct to say that Sunday is an exceptional day of transport; it is actually part of the general use of the railways. Finally, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) questioned the need for every train to stop at Old Oak Common.

I will return to the issue of Sundays. The Christmas period is coming up and we know that there will be a very significant impact on GWR trains. They will terminate at Ealing Broadway and then the passengers are supposed to use the Central line or District line. There will be no Elizabeth line and there will be a reduced service between Ealing Broadway, Reading and Heathrow. All of that will happen only if everything goes according to plan, because the assumption is that GWR will be able to run a full service, as planned, during the Christmas period, but that relies on ASLEF train drivers volunteering to work overtime. I assume that the Government have plans to make sure that happens, because this is now a Government problem; it is not a GWR problem. It is a Government problem because it was the Government who intervened in the pay negotiations with ASLEF and awarded train drivers a pay increase of £9,000 with no conditions attached. In addition, because that pay award was backdated, I understand—from social media, at least—that train drivers have received a payment of £16,000.

One would have thought that when the Government awarded that very significant pay increase, they would have made sure that holiday services were secured in return, but that is not the case. Nothing was secured in return. In fact, the Government intervention has made the situation worse, because if media reports are to be believed, there has been a reduction in the number of train drivers agreeing to volunteer to man Christmas and overtime services. So, because this is a problem created by the Government, I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us what the Government’s solution to it is over Christmas, new year, and indeed every Sunday in future.

That is in the short term, but there is also a need for long-term mitigation. Speaker after speaker today has focused on the inadequacy of the £30 million that has been identified for mitigation payments and questioned how the Government intend to spend that money. Therefore, my message to the Minister is this: listen to local representatives. They know their area, they know what is important to their constituents and they know much better than departmental officials how mitigation funding can be spent. If anything is to be taken away from this debate, it is that the local representatives who have stood up for their constituents in this debate have repeatedly highlighted the areas that need to be focused on to mitigate some of the worst impacts on their constituents and the rest of the travelling public.

That brings me, finally, to communication. We know that delays are inevitable. This is a huge infrastructure project and everyone—at least everyone who has participated in this debate—recognises that some delay is inevitable. What is important is that changes to services are well communicated so that passengers are informed well in advance, alternative services are run effectively—they run on time and have sufficient capacity to take the number of passengers who will be using them—and the Government supply adequate compensation for poor and reduced services, not just for a day or two, but for years.

Compensation can come in a number of different ways. As some hon. Members have suggested, fares could be reduced over that period to take account of increased journey times and unpredictability. Alternatively, increase the mitigation payments significantly above the current £30 million that the Government have identified, not as an additional cost but as a recognition that the quality of service to the travelling public in the south-west and Wales will be adversely affected. We need to do as much as we can to prevent that, but what plans does the Minister have to reduce prices or to increase the bucket of compensation to reflect the reduced services?

The key takeaway for the Minister is to listen to local Members of Parliament, hear their concerns about the impact of the reduced service on their constituents, and take very seriously their recommendations for mitigation.