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.

Rail Services: Devon

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in your position, Mr Pritchard. You remain an ornament of the Bench.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) on securing the debate. I have learned a lot about the rail possibilities in Devon. A huge number of issues were raised, including both threats and opportunities for the area. I will read just a handful of those I have written down: the Dawlish sea wall works; the success story of the reopening of the redundant Exeter to Okehampton line; Old Oak Common, which I will talk a little about; accessibility challenges at stations; platform lengths, and the cancellation of the restoring your railway plan. However, that was all mentioned within the framework of the hon. Member’s initial assessment that rail is an enormous success in the area, and that is overwhelmingly due to the benefits of privatisation.

From the heyday of the railway, which is generally considered to be the early 1950s, participation trended inexorably downwards—people voted with their feet; the direction of travel was a straight line downwards—until privatisation, when it reversed. That is because of the enormous investment that privatisation allowed to be brought into the railway, and passenger numbers have doubled as a result. I therefore question what the Government’s position on renationalisation will do for passenger numbers and who will stand up for the passenger under the new system—but most of that is for another day.

I will touch on two of the issues that were raised, the first of which is Old Oak Common. There is deep concern in the region about the impact on GWR services, with diversion of services from the south-west, reduced track operations, closure of access to London Paddington, occasional redirection to London Euston—but when, and will it be predictable?—longer journeys and a reduced quality of service. I am sure the Minister recognises that, and the need for disruption is understood. My question is whether people will have to pay similar prices for a noticeably worse and disrupted service, and when they will have certainty about the timetable—not just a printed timetable, but one in which they can have confidence sufficient to book and rely on the service being delivered.

The other issue with GWR is Sunday performance, which is reliant on voluntary overtime from unionised drivers and other train operators. That is an extraordinary position to be in. I recognise that this is a long-standing issue, so I am not having a particular go, but how can we possibly have a mandated schedule that is reliant on people volunteering to staff it? I look for a Government response on that. Early signs are not particularly encouraging. The no strings attached £9,000 pay rise to ASLEF train drivers, with no Sunday working agreements or any productivity enhancing characteristics, is not a good start. I fear that nationalisation of the service as a whole will only make it worse. My question to Minister is: when the system is nationalised, and there is no incentive to go after extra customers, who will stand up for the customer experience? When the Minister for Rail—the noble Lord, Lord Hendy—says that he continues to press for resolution of the Sunday working issue, I ask the Minister how. We all wish it, but what active steps will the Government take?

Secondly, in my last 30 seconds, I want to talk about restoring your railway. The first thing the Government did in July was cancel it. It was an enormously popular project and we have seen how effective it was from Exeter to Okehampton. The Tavistock to Plymouth service is just as important. However, in his letter yesterday, Lord Hendy is now saying that the Department is looking at it again. Is that a U-turn? If they needed time to stop and think, why did the Government not do that, rather than take the precipitate decision to cancel the entire project back in July? If their answer is “Well, there was no money”, that is not correct. There was the entire £150 million of funding for that project, which was coming from the cancellation of the second leg of HS2—[Interruption.] If that has been gobbled up by something else, perhaps the Minister can tell us what has happened to the money.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I just remind Parliamentary Private Secretaries that they do not usually intervene, either officially or unofficially, if they do not mind my saying so.

Rural Cycling Infrastructure

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) on securing the debate. We have heard from many of the speakers today about the enormous benefits of cycling, and let us start with the most important one: it is enjoyable. It is healthy, and it gives people cardiovascular exercise, which leads to a better quality of life. Then there are the public sector aspects of it, which are reduced traffic congestion, reduced public transport crowding and reduced emissions in our hunt for net zero. However, it is not all positive, as there are a couple of negatives. One is the examples of road entitlement that we get from some aspects of the cycling community. I am a member of that community, and I hope I am not too entitled when I am on my saddle. The worst one, of course, is that we are exposed to MAMILs around our constituencies. I threatened my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) that I would namecheck him in that regard, because I saw him just this morning in his Lycra.

However, on balance, it is a huge net positive to us as individuals and to us as a society that we encourage cycling. That is exactly what the last Conservative Administration did, despite the brickbats thrown at them in a number of the speeches we have heard this afternoon. For example, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, my neighbour the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), said that there were ruthless cuts to the active travel budget. However, he did not give credit to the previous Government for creating the fund in the first place, back in 2017. Yes, as the current Administration are beginning to find out, there is a need to take difficult decisions—I have heard that phrase more than once in the past few weeks—about how to spend public money, because it can only be spent once, but the previous Government invested £6.6 billion from central Government funding into active travel from 2016 to March 2025. That helped to create the national cycle network, which is some 12,000 miles of specialist cycle routes, but there is more to do. In my constituency, we have great cycle routes such as Marriott’s way, the Weavers’ way and the Peddars way—which was not mentioned earlier, but also links into our local community—but there are also frustrations. At the moment, we are dualling the section of the A47 in my constituency. A cycle route has been planned beside the dual carriageway, but with just a few hundred yards from North Burlingham, it could be linked into Acle and a much wider network. There is definitely more work to be done, because that was not part of the original scheme.

I welcome the Budget announcement that £100 million will go into cycling and walking infrastructure, but I am slightly concerned that that will happen only if the funding is confirmed in the Department for Transport’s business planning process. The same goes for any funding over the two years after that. What will happen as a result of the spending review? I should be very grateful if the Minister would expand on his commitment to be a strong advocate for active travel with His Majesty’s Treasury when it comes to the spending review. Can he confirm that that is one of his Department’s key objectives?

It is not just cycle routes, though; we also use roads in the rural community. In fact, the vast majority of us who cycle regularly in the countryside use our roads—typically our B roads—as the mechanism for doing so. Because of changing weather patterns, potholes are an ever-increasing scourge. The last Administration spent £8.3 billion on road repairs, but I am the first to admit that there is plenty more work to be done. Potholes have a particular impact on cyclists, who typically ride towards the edge of the carriageway; that can be a real challenge for us as riders. Can the Minister also give reassurance that he will continue to advocate for increased investment in road infrastructure to support active travel and safer, well-maintained roads for all users, including cyclists?

I again congratulate the hon. Member for Henley and Thame. He is right to highlight the benefits and challenges of cycling in the rural community, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, in which he will no doubt tell us all the things he will do to support that important activity.

Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 General Committees

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

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I join the Minister in his words about the poor pilot of the DHL plane that crashed in Vilnius. If we needed further reminding of the importance of aviation safety, that provides it.

The draft regulations are not contentious and I reassure Government Members that I do not intend to call a Division on them. They are eminently sensible. We could go through them regulation by regulation, but in essence the Civil Aviation Authority has got out of step with the International Civil Aviation Organisation and its SARPs, the consequence of which is that, without the regulations, UK-registered aircraft cannot use more sophisticated systems and equipment. That applies both on board the aircraft, for the management of fuel and other systems, particularly to deal with low-visibility landing, and in respect of the ability to take advantage of infrastructure on the ground at aerodromes to assist in those processes.

Chapter 1 of part 2 of the draft regulations deals with instruments used for flying in poor visibility; chapter 3 deals with improvements to mandatory crew training that are associated with the relevant activities; and chapter 4 includes regulations to require improved aerodrome facilities for low-visibility conditions. There is also provision relating specifically to the use of helicopters and related infrastructure. They are all good improvements and will they help to keep the UK up to date internationally and maintain our reputation as being at the forefront of aviation safety. For those reasons, the Opposition will support the draft regulations.

There are, though, inevitably a few questions on which I would like further information from the Minister, and I will be grateful for his response. First, will the Minister have a look at the rationale behind the impact assessment of the reduced fuel load required? One of the key rationales for the regulations is to allow for more efficient flight plans and, as a consequence, for the carrying of less fuel, as a safety factor, while maintaining the same or increased levels of safety. Because there is less fuel in the aircraft, it has less weight and therefore burns less fuel.

In the cost-benefit analysis that accompanies the draft regulations, it is assessed that, across all operators of UK-registered aircraft, only £12.3 million-worth of fuel is likely to be saved. I had a quick google to find the fuel cost just for British Airways in 2023, and that single operator spent £3.83 billion on fuel. If it is estimated that the entire sector is to save just £12.3 million, it appears that the regulations, while well meaning, are not going to have any significant effect at all in what we want, which is a reduction in carbon burn, a reduction in costs and an increase in efficiency. Will the Minister confirm whether it is his understanding that the benefits are de minimis? Or is there scope for further improvement that the impact assessment does not identify?

Secondly, on the same issue, does the Minister recognise that if it is true that only £12.3 million will be saved through incremental changes, a much greater saving of both carbon and fuel costs would be achieved by a reorganisation of air traffic control routeing? I think particularly of minimising, or ideally preventing, the issue of stacking around airports and the associated congestion.

Thirdly, I will come back to congestion around airports in a moment, but before that I turn to section 14(5) of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Paragraph 6.10 of the explanatory notes says that

“where changes are made to secondary assimilated EU law using section 14 of the REUL Act, the overall effect of the changes made by it under that section…should not increase the regulatory burden.”

The majority of the section 14 provisions relate to the imposition of criminal offences under the draft regulations, and the impact assessment confirms that they do not significantly increase the regulatory burden. But there is a lacuna in the impact assessment, because it identifies that there are some section 14 provisions that do not impose a criminal sanction, yet there is no assessment as to whether the rule requirement under section 14(5) is satisfied. Will the Minister confirm that there is no increased regulatory burden as a result of the non-criminal sanction provisions affected by clause 14(5)? That seems rather technical, but it would be useful to make sure that we are compliant with the existing legislation.

Finally, the Prime Minister has just returned from COP29, where he burnished his international credentials—in his view—by committing to an 81% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2035. Now, that is all very well, but in the sixth carbon budget the Climate Change Committee identified that if we are to reach that target, it can be done only by the restriction of passengers and airport capacity. Will the Minister say whether it is now Government policy to restrict any net increase in airport capacity? If it is, which airport that is currently in operation will be further restricted to allow for the increased capacity anticipated by the expansion of London City airport, which the Government have just allowed?

[Mike Kane]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham on his elevation to his current position and look forward to working with him over the years to come. I had quite the turnaround in my three years of opposition, so I hope he stays longer than some of his his predecessors. It is great to welcome him. I recently spent some time with him in Northern Ireland, where we had an extraordinarily good fact-finding trip and did some relationship building with the Executive there. He should always be proud of the work his father did as Secretary of State to bring peace to our islands.

I thank Members for their consideration of the draft regulations. The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked me a number of questions, the first of which was about impact assessments. A full impact assessment was submitted with and published alongside the explanatory memorandum on the Government legislation website, so I direct him to that. It assesses the impact of amending the legislation to align with the latest ICAO SARPs concerning fuel planning and management.

The hon. Member asked about fuel. We do not think there will be significant carbon savings based on this SI, because only a few large operators will take advantage of the new fuel schemes, and only in some limited circumstances. However, I direct the hon. Member to our manifesto commitment on sustainable aviation fuel, for which we have already laid the mandate for 2%, starting on 1 January 2025, which I signed into law just the other week. That will start to grow a sustainable aviation fuel industry in the UK and begin to decarbonise our skies.

On the stacking issue that the hon. Member rightly talked about, our second key manifesto commitment was on airspace modernisation. If only we could get our planes to fly in a straight line and not in circles, we would immediately begin to decarbonise our skies. There is an easyJet plane that flies from Jersey to Luton and probably emits about 35% more carbon than it should because of the route it has to take, because we have an analogue system in a digital age. The Government are hugely committed to our two key manifesto commitments on decarbonising our skies.

On section 14 and the regulatory burden, we consider that the overall effects of the changes made under this IS will not increase the regulatory burden in this particular area. New Members should know that this is a “take back control” SI. We were a member of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency but we came out of it, and now we have to do the typos ourselves. That is the power we now possess. It would have been done elsewhere and on somebody else’s dime.

On the Prime Minister’s huge commitment on the 81%—I said at a conference the other day, “Where did he get the 1% from? Where’s that particular saving?”—the Government have embarked on an ambitious project with our missions, and we have to do it because the climate is changing. I run the lighthouses in this country, and our operatives could spend less time at sea. Storm Bert this week meant that my journey took four hours instead of two, because of flooding and damage. We have emitted trillions of tonnes of carbon. We cannot afford to begin to emit that much again. We have to change. I am sure Members from all parties agree that the international situation is getting more dire by the day. We have to become energy secure. The commitment to do that by 2030 is hugely key.

The safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for this Government, as it is for every Government—

[Jerome Mayhew]

I know the Minister was trying hard to answer all my questions, but he may have forgotten to clarify the Government’s position on airport capacity, so I will give a second opportunity.