Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2024 · Old Oak Common Station · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State says there was the highest level of spills on record. How does he know? When Labour was in power previously, only 7% of sewage outlets were even monitored.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Budget 2024: Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise what was behind the increase in the national minimum wage for 18 to 21-year-olds, but I have been surprised by the reaction of businesses in my constituency. Those businesses have told me, in terms, that they will reduce the number of 18 to 21-year-olds they employ, because there is a higher failure rate associated with their employment, as they are new to the workforce, yet employing them will cost the same as employing those who are older. Does the Minister recognise that issue, and what will she do about it?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Dental Healthcare: East Anglia · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is not about one organisation over another; there has to be a collaborative approach. We have plenty of dental need to go round, I am sorry to say, in Suffolk, Essex and Norfolk. The more we can collaborate and provide a synthesis of offers—some in dental health qualifications, some in straightforward dentistry and others in dental hygiene, another key part of this jigsaw that we have to put together—the better.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Dental Healthcare: East Anglia · Hansard source

  More

  This debate is about the east of England, not the east of Northern Ireland, but I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention anyway. He is right that we learn our oral hygiene habits as children. It is primarily the responsibility of parents to look after their children’s oral health, as well as their general health; that has always been the case, and that should always remain the case. However, we recognise, as did the last Administration, the increasing role of primary schools in reinforcing the role of parents.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Dental Healthcare: East Anglia · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There is a difference between milk teeth and grown-up teeth, as I will call them, although I know that is not the technical term. I hope that that assessment is wrong, but undoubtedly there will be problems. If there is a long-term lack of access to dentistry, it builds up problems, whether in the teeth or in the gums, both for children and for adults. We can all talk about how we got here, and I can defend lots of very good things that the previous Administration did, but did we get everything right? No, we did not. What I am more interested in is how we can encourage the Government and work with them across the parties to solve the problem in the very near future. I hope we have got to a reasonable analysis of why we are in this position. If it is substantially because of a lack of dental training facilities in the east of England, an obvious solution, although not the sole solution, would be a school of oral health at the University of East Anglia. The Minister knows that the UEA is ready to go. He knows that there is a building under construction and that a large amount of funding has been applied for, some of which has been already agreed. He knows that the UEA is making an application for registration with the General Dental Council and that it will be completed within the next six weeks at the latest. That brings us to the crucial next step, which is the Office for Students. I recognise that the Minister is important and impotent at the same time. He is important because as the dental Minister he sets direction and gives impetus to change, but I accept that in some sense he is impotent because the Office for Students is an arm’s-length independent body. I hope he will take these requests in the light of my acknowledgment of his constraints, but it would be helpful for the UEA and the residents of our area to have his confirmation on the following three points. First, can the Minister confirm whether additional dental training places will be made available by the Office for Students in 2025? It is a political decision how much funding the Government are prepared to put into the overall number of dental training places in the country in 2025. What is the pot that the Office for Students has to work with? Can he confirm that the number will be increased to take account of increased need? Secondly, if that is the case, will there be a regional allocation within that global figure specifically for the east of England, given that the need is not national? There are regional variations, and in the east of England it is worst of all. There is precedent for that approach: recently, medical training places had a regional allocation, although I accept that historically it has not happened with dental places. It is an important point and would be of huge encouragement to our residents. Thirdly, can the Minister give some indication of the timetable on which he and the Office for Students will work to process the 2025 allocations?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Dental Healthcare: East Anglia · Hansard source

  More

  That is the kind of intervention that I find constructive and helpful, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for making it. She is, of course, quite right. We disagree on many things, as I do with the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), but there are some things that bring us together, and the need for a dental training school at the University of East Anglia is one of them.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Dental Healthcare: East Anglia · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered dental healthcare provision in East Anglia. It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to colleagues from East Anglia for supporting this debate and, I hope, making some interventions. I am also grateful to the Minister for Care for coming yet again to Westminster Hall, because this is not the first time that we have had a debate on dentistry in the east of England, and in East Anglia in particular. The reason for those numerous debates is the significant problem of access to NHS dentists in particular, but also to private dentists. Peter Aldous, who I am sorry to say lost his seat at the recent election, was a doughty campaigner on the issue. I pay tribute to him for the numerous debates he brought forward. Most recently, in September, the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), who is not here today, held a debate on the topic. Time is short, so I will not focus on the need as much as I normally would, but the Minister has been here before and knows very well how significant the need is for increased access to NHS dentistry in East Anglia. I will give highlights, however, because the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has described Norfolk not only as a dental desert, but as the “Sahara of dental deserts”. The Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Merron—confirmed in the other place on 25 November that the Norfolk and Waveney area has “the worst ratio of NHS dentists to patients in England”. —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. 479.] In my last debate in this forum, I was shocked to report that in Norfolk and Waveney the ratio of dentists per 100,000 population was 39, when the national average was 52. Now I have to update those figures, because the Secretary of State has recently confirmed that the figure of 39 has dropped to 36 per 100,000 of population, while the national average has increased to 53. It is getting worse, not better. The data from this month is even more concerning. The British Dental Association confirms that there are 3,194 NHS dentists in the east of England, which are the statistics we previously used. BDA’s further analysis last month reveals that that equates to just 1,096 full-time equivalent dentists in NHS roles. If those figures are run through the population, there are 17 full-time equivalent NHS dentists per 100,000 population in the east of England. Those are truly shocking figures. The issue can be sliced and diced in another way. The amount of money that the Government spend on people’s mouths in the east of England makes for sobering reading. The national average is £66 per mouth spent on dental treatment by the NHS. In the east of England, that figure is just £39. What is it? Is it that our fillings and dental work are cheaper in the east of England, or are we doing less? It is not due to less demand; we have the greatest demand. We had more than 1,000 people presenting in the past year at NHS A&E with significant dental problems. I believe I am right in saying that dental concerns are the single biggest reason why primary school children present at hospitals.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Dental Healthcare: East Anglia · Hansard source

  More

  My answer is yes and no. Over the past 18 months to two years in Norfolk and Waveney, a lot of money has been spent on increasing access to emergency dentistry. Although I welcomed that and it has helped to deal with some acute issues, there is a much more fundamental problem. We must fix the system rather than decide on the least worst form of emergency care once the problem has become acute. The big question is why the east of England is in this position. The wrong analysis of how we got here will lead to our imposing the wrong solution. Some people say, “Well, it’s because Norfolk is a remote, rural area with lots of coastline, and that brings problems. If you’re a newly qualified dentist, it’s probably a rather unfashionable place to go to make your new career if you’re not from that neck of the woods. It has a more elderly demographic, which may put off young dentists. It’s not where they want to go to set up their new home.” Yet compare Norfolk with similar counties, such as Devon. I often use Devon as an example because it shares many characteristics with Norfolk: a slightly older population, a large rural coastline and a pretty similar population size. Look at the number of dentists in Devon: they have 49.6 per 100,000 people, which is far more than we have in the east of England. What is the difference? The answer is obvious. Since 2005, Devon has had a dental training school at Plymouth, which was the last one to be set up. The east of England made a bid for that contract and lost out to the Peninsula bid, and we can see the consequences of that in the teeth of Norfolk residents. If someone wants to train as a dentist in Norfolk, Suffolk or elsewhere in East Anglia, the nearest place they can go to train is either Birmingham or London. That means that our home-grown talent has to go off somewhere else, several hours away, to train and qualify. The usual things happen: they develop their professional relationships in that region; they meet someone, fall in love and settle down; they put down roots in the community and they stay there and do not come back. The exact opposite is the case for people not from our region who qualify elsewhere. What is the incentive for them to come and set up home in a part of the world that they do not know and that is perhaps not attractive to newly qualified people in their mid-20s? We also know that about 40% of graduates tend to stay where they train. We have that data from the University of East Anglia and its medical school, because each year it surveys graduates to see where they get their first job and each year about 40% of them take a job locally. This is the really important question for the Minister: do he and his Department accept that analysis? If they do not accept it, what is his explanation for the dearth of NHS dentists and even private dentists in East Anglia?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Dental Healthcare: East Anglia · Hansard source

  More

  I will take an intervention from my other constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald).

• 11 Dec 2024 · Dental Healthcare: East Anglia · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. The school is not the only answer, but it is part of the answer. Part of how it will encourage graduands and then graduates to be sticky—to stay locally—is through its training process. From year one, students will be placed in local dental practices, so they will be providing benefits to real people right at the start of their practice, but also developing professional relationships with those practices so that they can walk into good-quality, local jobs. That should help with the stickiness, but the hon. Member is right that it is not the full solution. We need reform of the 2006 NHS dental contract, but that is not specific to East Anglia and it does not explain why we are in a particular pickle in the east of England. That subject would happily take up another debate, so although I recognise its importance, I will not get too distracted. The other problem, which is slightly more recent in origin, is the imposition of national insurance contributions on dental practice. The British Dental Association has outlined that the recent Budget could have a devastating impact on struggling NHS practices. A local practice in Norfolk says that “the recent changes to employers’ NI and raising of the living wage will lead to bankruptcy and breakdowns. We have been trying to keep our 100% NHS dental practice open under very difficult circumstances, being unable to fill our vacancy for a full-time dentist. This post has been empty since April 2023 and we can no longer go on with only one dentist and pay the bills.” I recognise that it is above the Minister’s pay grade, but I do hope that in his advocacy to His Majesty’s Treasury he will ensure that it is fully aware of the negative impact of the NI increases on dentistry, as well as on GP practices, and that that will be taken into account in future decisions.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Dental Healthcare: East Anglia · Hansard source

  More

  I am shocked to hear that. An example of that in my constituency was reported to me, but that was in the height of the covid lockdowns; I have not heard an example since then. However, irrespective of the headline-grabbing anecdote, it is almost impossible for new applicants to register to an NHS dentist, and I have the figures to back that up. Office for National Statistics data for November indicates that 98.4% of those who were not registered to a dentist but who wanted to access NHS dental care in the east of England were unable to do so. That is the worst rate of all English regions, yet over that period there was a £58 million underspend in the east of England’s NHS dental budget. That is not because the Government do not want to spend the money, and it is not because the money is not available; it is simply because we do not have enough dentists to satisfy the huge need.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Dental Healthcare: East Anglia · Hansard source

  More

  I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I do not think that it is particularly helpful. We are trying to work out what the solution is now and going forward. A huge amount of money was spent by central Government on NHS dentistry. The problem we had, as we can demonstrate by the £58 million underspend of the budget that was available, is that there are physically not enough dentists now. That is not a short-term brickbat that can be chucked around for party political points in a Westminster Hall debate at 11.11 on a Wednesday morning. I submit that it is a rather more serious issue that deserves a slightly more serious approach.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. Mr Speaker,“losing a farm is not like losing any other business—it can’t come back.” Those are the words of the Prime Minister, which he said to the National Farmers Union in order to get farmers’ votes. Can he understand why farmers in Broadland and Fakenham and around the country now think that his Administration is duplicitous?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Rail Services: Devon · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Rural Cycling Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, and I am reassured by his comments. In a previous life, I was a barrister specialising in health and safety risk and risk management, and I was later the managing director of the leisure company Go Ape—Members might not have heard of it—and was responsible for the risk management of over 1 million customers a year. We could have killed every single one of them, so I am deeply familiar with the appropriate mechanisms for risk management. One risk that has to be taken into account is that, if the response is too great or too onerous for the assessed risk, people might not think it is reasonable, leading to omission. Effective risk management requires mitigations to be put in place that bear some relation to the severity of the anticipated adverse event multiplied by its likelihood. I am very concerned that the previous Administration’s initial proposal that these duties should apply to premises with a capacity of as few as 100 people would have broken that association between a reasonable response and the assessed risk. I am therefore grateful and impressed that the Government have listened and changed clause 2(2)(c) to raise the standard duty threshold to a capacity of 200. To my mind, that seems a reasonable compromise to protect smaller facilities, which are, of course, most likely to rely entirely on volunteers, and are unlikely to have the financial capacity to undertake the kind of paid-for training suggested by the Liberal Democrat new clause 2 or to have enough volunteers who are prepared to accept this additional burden on their free time. I think this strikes the right balance. However, I am concerned that paragraph (a) in clause 32 introduces a power, through regulations, to reduce the figure back down to 100 without giving a reason. Why is that? I therefore support new clauses 25 and 26, which would set minimum thresholds of 200 for the standard duty and 500 for the enhanced duty. A cross-party approach has taken the Bill this far, and it is important that that approach is maintained.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Mention has been made during the course of this debate of cross-party consensus and what a good thing that is. In some senses that is absolutely right. We should have absolute cross-party consensus on honouring the memory of Martyn Hett and all those who were killed and injured in the Manchester Arena attack in May 2017, but I raise a note of caution because sometimes when we stop being adversarial in this place, we create legislation that is not as good as it could be. That is particularly the case where we have a very emotive issue such as this, and where there is a huge amount of personal sympathy across all the parties in the House. There is a risk that extreme circumstances provoke a natural reaction of saying, “Something must be done. This has to be prevented from ever happening again,” and we end up with bad law. There is a good example of this risk in the Bill’s progression from its development under the previous Administration, through the election and out the other side. The initial intention of clause 2 was that the standard duty would apply to premises with a capacity to welcome 100-plus people. In my view, this would have had a wholly disproportionate impact on the kind of community buildings that I represent as a church warden, as well as on the village halls that we have already discussed. Pretty much every village hall has the capacity to accommodate 100 people. Every church, bar the very smallest chapels, can expect to welcome 100 people at a wedding or funeral from time to time. There is a tiny, infinitesimally small risk of terrorism in these typically rural areas, yet the previous Administration’s Bill would have imposed very significant costs and time commitments on volunteers. I have already mentioned a couple of times that I am a church warden and, again, I emphasise the risk of unintended consequences when we are all so keen to get on that we do not challenge each other.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have already mentioned that I am a church warden of a small parish church, so I have practical experience. I also have other duties—I am the safeguarding officer, because there are insufficient volunteers who are prepared to undergo the quite significant training needed to maintain safeguarding duties in that organisation. I accept that, given the Church of England’s troubled history over the past 20 years, safeguarding is a necessary part of modern life, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that the duties imposed on volunteers are cumulative in their impact? I can be a Member of Parliament, a church warden and a safeguarding officer, but can I also be responsible for the additional costs and responsibilities that he has in mind?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am particularly concerned about the Secretary of State or Minister having the power to reduce the number from 200 back to 100 by regulation. That is addressed by amendment 25. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the absence of significant evidence or consultation to support such a move, 100 is essentially an arbitrary number? Why 100, and not 125, 150 or 175? Does he agree that we need more evidence to support that regulation-making power being given to the Secretary of State? Does he therefore agree that amendment 25 is a sensible alternative?

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 2(2)(c), defining the premises that will be covered by the legislation, states: “it is reasonable to expect that from time to time 200 or more individuals may be present”. Under the regulations, that might read “100 or more”. Coming back to my experience as a member of the parish church, I would love there to be 100 or 200 people present, but the congregation is closer to six or seven. However, the capacity of the church—the structure—is sufficient to take in 100 or 200 people. While on the face of it, the legislation seems reasonable, does my hon. Friend share my concern that a facility that could welcome 199 people may not have the structures in place, or physically have the people available, to support the increased burden placed on it by the Bill? That would increase the risks of unintended consequences and closure. That would be dealt with by amendment 25.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is not in my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I am church warden of a small parish church. Most parish churches would probably come under the 200-person limit, but the vast majority would be caught by 100-plus. Not only is there fear among volunteers who have to take on this responsibility, but significant risk of unintended consequences. Volunteers may not be prepared to take on the responsibility, and as a result, vital community infrastructure spaces may close to the public. Would that not be a terrible unintended consequence of this well-meaning Bill?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not telling anyone anything; I am reporting what businesses are telling me. As a direct consequence of the actions of the Members on the Labour Benches, young people are not being employed who otherwise would have been. The OBR says that will lead to more than 50,000 jobs being lost. Time will tell, but I think that is an underestimate. We have a reduction in recruitment, a reduction in the employment of young staff, a reduction in investment and, as a result, we will have a reduction in growth over the course of the forecast period. But worse than that, we will have a reduction in living standards. This cost of living crisis, which has now been caused by Labour, will reduce living standards by 1.25% by 2029. That reduction is a direct result of the Budget, so if Labour Members vote for this Bill, they will be voting for increasing the cost of living crisis by 1.25%. None the less, we have seen some increases: debt costs are increasing; inflation is increasing, which will exacerbate the cost of living crisis; and mortgage costs are increasing.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there is a point worth making here. Since covid, the private sector has improved productivity by about 6%. Productivity in the public sector has yet to improve, although before the general election it was starting to do that.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was not on the point that he rose for, but there is one thing that he does not mention, and that is the covid impact. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can laugh about it, but we spent £400 billion supporting the economy and the people of this country in a once-in-a-century impact on our economy.