Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not. I want to make some progress because I have been quite generous in giving way. The OBR says that more than 50,000 jobs will be actively lost as a direct result of the decisions Members on the Labour Benches are about to take. I think that is an underestimate. I have been talking to businesses in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham over the past few weeks and, as a former entrepreneur, I have been taken aback by quite how badly the tax and spend decisions of the Labour party have gone down with my small and medium-sized employers. Their accounts to me suggest that those choices are affecting their decisions on employment, and particularly on employing young people. One employer said to me just two weeks ago that 18-year-olds are harder to employ than, say, 25 or 26-year-olds because overall more of them will fail in their job as they get used to the working environment. Employing 18-year-olds used to be worthwhile because the national minimum wage was lower and national insurance contributions did not have to be paid on the first £9,200 of their employment. That advantage has been removed and it is now disproportionately more expensive to employ an 18-year-old than older members of staff. That is a real-life case, where the employer told me they will stop employing young people in their business. Is that really what Labour Members wanted to achieve? That is what is happening already.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There were a number of points in the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. First, how much money should be spent? Secondly, what should it be spent on? And thirdly, where should we get it from? I will go straight to the heart of where we can get the money from: if we return public service productivity back to 2019 levels, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved; if we return the size of the civil service to the 2019 level, before the big covid expansion, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved; and if we return welfare spending on disability back to pre-covid levels, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) was in process of doing before the general election, there are tens of billions of pounds to be saved.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In a moment. If we add that all up, there would be £50 billion that could be spent on the frontline. However, the problem with the Labour party is that it takes money and spends it on inflation-busting wage rises for its union paymasters, but not on increasing and improving the outcomes for the people who use services. That is the big difference between the Conservative party and the Labour party. The focus of our spending is not the people providing the services; we are for the people who use those services—the people of this country.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are debating the Finance Bill following an election. In usual times, such a Bill would enact what was said in the winning party’s manifesto, but not this time. On the electoral trail, all the Labour Members who are now Ministers repeated what was said in the Labour manifesto time and again: their plans were “fully costed” and “fully funded”. They repeatedly said that they had no plans to raise taxes beyond VAT on private schools or to increase public borrowing. The manifesto said, in bald terms, that “we will not increase National Insurance”. There was no qualification to that—it was there in black and white. It is extraordinary that we are debating a Finance Bill that has no correlation to the manifesto that it comes after. The electorate were profoundly misled. The reality is that the Labour party is increasing spending by more than £70 billion. Labour Members use the argument of their fantasy black hole, which has been thoroughly debunked by the independent Government body, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the independent IFS and the Financial Times . No one believes Labour, because that black hole is not there. It is not a black hole; it is more like a red herring. The reason for that red herring is that Labour needed it as the excuse to do what it always intended to do—put up taxes and increase spending on public workers. Why did it do that? Because Labour Members—all of them— knew that if they had been honest with the electorate and told them that Labour was going to be a tax and spend party, no one would have voted for them. Even then, only 34% of the public did. It was a big con on the electorate. That is why we have a petition live on the Government website that says: “I believe the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises they laid out in the lead up to the last election.” As of this afternoon, 2.75 million people have signed that petition because they feel misled by this Government.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is entirely correct: over the course of the forecast period, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that growth will be cut by 0.7%. It is worse than that, however, because we also have an increase in taxes on businesses of £25 billion through the national insurance contributions, which the OBR tells us will be paid for overwhelmingly by reduced pay for workers, amounting to £7.5 billion. It also forecasts that more than 50,000 full time-equivalent jobs will be lost as a result of the policies that Labour Members plan to vote for.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that intervention. Inflation 11% was a direct consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as everyone knows, but what is important is that the Conservative Government took the difficult decision to get it down to a target of 2%. It is already creeping up under Labour, and it will be higher than it otherwise would have been as a direct consequence of these measures. Do not trust my word for that; that comes directly from the OBR. Again, the OBR tells us that mortgage rises will occur directly because of the decisions of Government Members. Union activity will be up, with the consequential impact on productivity and efficiency of our private sector. The size of the state will go up and, shamefully, the tax take will be the highest since records began. I will not support this Finance Bill, or its Second Reading, so Labour Members will have to take the consequences of their own decisions.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will on that point.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Could she identify which subsidy she is talking about?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister recognises the importance of reducing the tax gap, so will he commend the previous Conservative Government for halving the tax gap they inherited from Labour in 2010?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I will. That was extraordinary.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Stellantis Luton · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State said in his statement that, at the time of the election, Stellantis was minded to close the plant. However, since the election we have had the Budget, which has imposed £25 billion of increased taxes on business, and the Employment Rights Bill, which will also increase costs on business enormously. Both have led directly to a collapse in business confidence. Does the Secretary of State think that those decisions helped Stellantis to stay or go?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister repeat that, please?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 26 Nov 2024 · Draft Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Relations with the US · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps he plans to take to help strengthen relations with the US.

• 26 Nov 2024 · Relations with the US · Hansard source

  More

  Defence spending is a key aspect of our relationship with the United States. Will the Foreign Secretary be able to tell our American allies the date on which we will increase defence spending to 2.5%? If he cannot, what influence will we have on European allies to increase their defence spending?

• 21 Nov 2024 · International Men’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to balance the Benches and stand up for men—Members on the Government Benches cannot have it all their own way. Hon. Members may not be wholly surprised to know that I did not originally intend to make a speech in this debate, but I will add a short one in support of the community sheds and men’s sheds in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham. I most recently visited the Aylsham men’s shed, about two weeks ago, which welcomes women as well as men. I have been very interested to hear some of the comments made by hon. and right hon. Members this afternoon, and I have learned a lot. This debate has helped me to reflect on what it means to be a man. I stand before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, comfortable in my cardigan. That is one form of manhood, but that is probably stretching it a little. Slightly more seriously, I look at my relationships with my wider friendship group and compare them with those of my wife, who is brilliant at communicating and at the small acts of kindness and connection that go into making a personal community as well as a corporate community—a community around the village and school relationships. Compare me with my wife, and I am found wholly wanting; I fit all the stereotypes. Why use a sentence when a single word will do to communicate? Why pick up with old friends when I can ignore them for a few more years? That is fine when things are going well, but as men we are too often found bereft of support when things go badly. Heaven forbid, if my wife were to fall under a bus, I would be devastated—she is the best thing that has ever happened to me—and the community support that I take for granted because of her involvement in my life and my family would be removed. All too often, men are left exposed. I do not quite know why it is, but we seem to be less good at and less prepared to focus on and invest time in the soft relationships that go into making that cobweb and network of community touchpoints that makes us strong. It makes us be here for each other. I have learned a lot in this debate; I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee and to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for organising it. I have already name-checked the Aylsham community shed, but I will finish by name-checking the Brundall men’s shed, which I have visited a couple of times. It is easy to think that these organisations tend to be used by men who are my age and above, but actually they welcome young men and men of all ages. One of their great strengths is that they not only bring men together, but start challenging some of the age exclusions that we have too often in our communities and bring people of whatever age into a comfortable, welcoming and friendly environment. That is exactly what it is about —whenever I go to a men’s shed or a community shed, I feel welcome. It feels like a comfortable environment where we are accepted for who we are and what we can bring. The sheds are a wonderful series of organisations. One of their strengths is that they do not rely on the state for funding; they are community organisations that have come up from below and support themselves in both their direction and funding. However, there is one area in which they really rely on the community, which is quite difficult in some circumstances, and that is in the provision of accommodation. The Aylsham community shed is in a shared space in the high school, which is great but brings challenges, because it has to pack everything away at 3 pm. The Brundall men’s shed is in an extra part of a boat shed, which again means that it is forever reliant on the good will of the wider community. While that good will is there, the organisations can flourish. If I have one message for the wider community, it is to support men’s sheds, provide them with space and get behind them.

• 21 Nov 2024 · Transport Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  We will all miss John Prescott. He was a titan of our politics, and a man not afraid to come out swinging for what he believed in. The figures show that capital spending on transport is not rising under Labour; it will fall by 3.1% in real terms next year. We have huge tax rises and a more than £70 billion increase in tax. Labour’s black hole myth has been debunked by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Financial Times and the Institute for Fiscal Studies—all real economists—so why the cut in capital spending? The Secretary of State was out of her depth when she negotiated a £9,000 pay rise for ASLEF train drivers with nothing in return. Was she out of her depth when she negotiated with her own Chancellor?

• 20 Nov 2024 · Draft Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Act 2023 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  He was just in time.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Project Gigabit: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  4. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of using Project Gigabit funding in urban areas on download speeds in rural areas.