Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jan 2026 · Passenger Rail Services · Hansard source

  More

  Rumours are swirling around the northern mayoralties that the Government are about to row back on Northern Powerhouse Rail. Is this going to be another U-turn from the Government, or can the Minister take this opportunity to put those rumours to rest by saying from the Dispatch Box that the scope, funding and timeframe for Northern Powerhouse Rail are not going to be changed?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about rural transport. Does she not recognise that enhanced partnerships run by Conservative county councils in Norfolk and Essex have increased bus usage by more than anywhere else in the country because they are working with the private sector, not against it?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Economic Impact of Government Policies · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, “a continuing cost-of-living crisis and a recent budget that failed to support workers, families and businesses in a meaningful way”. It is not often that I agree with the First Minister but, with absolutely no action to address lagging productivity, she is right, isn’t she?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Economic Impact of Government Policies · Hansard source

  More

  6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the intervention as it brings me to my next point, which is that Government funds are limited. The support provided needs to be focused exclusively on areas in which it can do the most good. A blanket increase to 100% subsidies for a cohort that is mainly in employment does not appear to pass that test. I fear that, by increasing the cost of support for older people more widely, it would risk the current levels of support for pensioners. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on this matter.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Free Bus Travel: Over-60s · Hansard source

  More

  Happy new year to you, Mr Mundell, and all other hon. Members. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and, through him, Mrs Karen Hickman, who created the petition we are debating, which comes from a sentiment that we can all agree with. We want bus services that serve passengers well and as cheaply as possible. Everyone who uses buses wants affordable journeys. This debate provides us with an opportunity to explore how essential buses are to our constituents and, in particular, the role they play for older people. Maintaining and improving the existing concessionary scheme, which offers free bus passes in England to those of state pension age and disabled people, is a critical responsibility of the Government, but fundamental to its success is that it remains financially sustainable in serving those who have reached state pension age. We know how valuable the bus pass is to those who have reached pensionable age, affording the opportunity for older people to take journeys and leave their homes. We must make sure that we do not jeopardise the scheme by expanding it beyond the bounds of the Treasury’s willingness to pay for it. The importance of the scheme is apparent when we look at the experiences of older people. Age UK data suggests that more than 2 million people in England who are over the age of 75 live alone, and more than 1 million older people have said that they go over a month without speaking to a friend, neighbour or family member, which is quite a sobering statistic. Considering such statistics, the case for bus passes for older people becomes self-evident. Providing an incentive for old age pensioners to travel from their homes into the community clearly has extraordinary merit, but then we come to public funding. The starting point for the provision of any service is that those who benefit from the service should be the ones who pay for it. A free bus pass, after all, is not free. It is just paid for by someone else—in this case, other taxpayers—so we need to be sure that it is a sound reason for increasing taxes, which is the inevitable consequence of increasing public support. We all know of schemes in our constituencies that seek to bring people together. In my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham, the Aylsham and District Care Trust runs a network of minibuses to bring older people to a central hub to connect them to the community. A free bus pass for pensioners continues that approach and sends a clear message that being older should not be a barrier to remaining a valuable part of the community. However, as we all know, such schemes do not come without cost. DFT statistics show that £995 million—nearly £1 billion—in net current expenditure is spent on concessionary travel, with about £800 million of that being reimbursed to travel concession authorities. The Government’s response to the petition highlighted the importance of cost, saying that “any changes to the statutory obligations, such as lowering the age of eligibility, would…need to be carefully considered for its impact on the scheme’s financial sustainability.” The challenge of extending the scheme to those over 60 is not just a matter of cost; it should also consider the impact on the wider use of bus services. The profiles of the over-60s and those who have reached state pension age are very different. Look at rates of employment: the employment rate of those between 60 and 64 is 58%, but it drops to just 12.8% for those aged 65 and over. In addition, of those who have decided to retire early, the majority have taken that decision because they are in a sufficiently comfortable financial position to do so. On the issue of available income, looking across the community as a whole, it is not at all clear that blanket taxpayer support for all those over 60 is an effective use of taxpayers’ money. We must ensure that policy decisions relating to buses create affordable trips for all. That is why the last Government’s decision on the £2 fare cap was so effective—it set a price reduction for all bus users, improving affordability for everyone and encouraging the take-up of services across society, not just for one part of it. We should also recognise that not all parts of the country are the same. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe that where a local authority has identified a particular need in its community, it is the organisation—not central Government—that is best placed to focus appropriate support, including local bus schemes. Numerous Conservative councils across the country have taken steps to increase bus budgets and use enhanced partnerships to increase ridership. That includes my own Norfolk county council, which since the pandemic has increased ridership by over 40% through its enhanced partnership. Just two counties away, Essex has increased its ridership by more than 50%. In passing, it is worth pointing out that this growth in bus ridership surpasses that of Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, despite his much vaunted Bee Network. A blanket change across the whole of England is completely different from these targeted approaches that respond to local need. Extending free bus travel to an additional 4 million people, irrespective of their income and based solely on age, is likely to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds every year through increased taxes—between £250 million, as suggested by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), and £400 million, as we heard from another speaker. Ultimately, the Conservative party has made it clear that reforms to our bus services need to be realistic, and that we have to focus on passengers. I fear that the result of an expensive scheme could be increased costs for passengers more widely. We have already seen the Government encouraging local authorities to jump into franchising, which may put some local authorities at significant financial risk. We do not want to see further policies that may undermine financial stability, which would be bad for passengers in the long run, as well as for taxpayers. I recognise that there are parts of the UK in which bus passes are available to those over the age of 60, but if we look at Scotland and Wales, which have had that policy in place for many years—led by the SNP and the Labour party—many of the same challenges present in England regarding buses remain, despite 100% subsidies. Between 2010 and 2025, the number of journeys per head decreased in Scotland and Wales by 31% and 41% respectively. Those decreases were more than, not less than, the fall in journeys per head in England, outside London. That suggests that the Conservative £2 fare cap policy was, in practice, a better solution than free bus passes to the over-60s. It is a great shame that one of the Government’s first acts was to increase that cost by 50%.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  This is another U-turn from the Government. Two days ago, the Secretary of State said that the votes were going ahead. Now we are told, in a statement slipped out just before we rise for Christmas, that they are not going ahead. The Minister uses as her excuse representations that she tells us she has received from councils. Will she take this opportunity to confirm that the Conservative leader of Norfolk county council has not made representations to her, and reaffirm her public position that she will not ask for a delay in elections in Norfolk?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that direction, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let us move to Lords amendment 120N. This is a major new policy. We do not have to argue about whether a £118,000 cap is a good or bad idea. I think the cap is a good idea, but the amendment seeks to clarify the process by which the Government have decided to impose this measure in the Bill. It was not part of the manifesto. It was not part of the Bill or discussed in the Bill Committee. It has just been inserted at the last moment in ping-pong. There has been no risk assessment, no impact assessment, and no consultation. The amendment does not put the Government off course. All it asks the Government to do is, within three months of Royal Assent, “conduct a review of the limit imposed by this section on the amount of the compensation awarded”. That consultation only has to consult employers’ organisations, trade unions—one would think Labour Members would be in favour of that—and “organisations representing employment law practitioners, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.” If the Government choose to implement policy on the hoof, the least they can do is undertake a consultation that they should have carried out—

• 15 Dec 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are short on time, so I will limit myself to two points. I will start with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) admirably described as the “craven capitulation” of the Liberal Democrats. Just a week ago, the Liberal Democrats were arguing passionately about unions’ abilities to cause strikes, and about the right to guaranteed hours. Then what happened? Five peerages came along. Now they are in favour of those things. It used to be the case with their last Prime Minister, Lloyd George, who famously used to sell peerages for money. Now it seems that the Liberal Democrats sell their principles for peerages.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I should make it clear that I spent my career before coming into politics running a ledger business, so I am intimately familiar with a seasonal workforce and I employed about 1,000 people as part of my job. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the business rates—the fixed costs—going up, but the uncertainty in consumer confidence caused, both this year and last year, by the leaking leading up to the Budget, which knocks the people coming through the gate as well? Turnover is depressed at the same time as fixed costs are rising. It is an absolutely catastrophic combination for people who are trying to earn a living and employ others.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  It is easy to make the mistake of talking about SMEs as though they are corporate entities when, in many instances, they are not. They are often a husband-and-wife team working incredibly long hours and living above the shop. I was in my local pub, The Greyhound, the other day, which is run by the tenant and his wife. They told me that they were covering the shifts of the employees who they have let go because of the Government’s tax policy changes. The cost of that is not just economic; it is hugely damaging to their relationship and to their whole way of life, and it is incredibly stressful. Does my hon. Friend accept that the damage caused by these changes is not just economic but societal?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  The Centre for Policy Studies has undertaken an analysis of all the impacts of both the previous Budget and the one last month on the cost of employing 18 to 20-year-olds. The shocking figure is that it will cost an employer £4,000 a year more to employ a single person between the age of 18 and 20. Given that, is my hon. Friend surprised that employers, just like the pub that she has mentioned, are taking rational decisions not to give young people jobs?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend may recall my question at Prime Minister’s questions last week, in which I raised the case of Claire Howard Jewellery in Fakenham. It is one of many shops that contacted me in the aftermath of the Budget. There is a real sense of anger that the Budget claimed there would be a reduction in business rates—particularly for hospitality, retail and leisure—but the experience of those shops, looking at the numbers, was that business rates were going in exactly the opposite direction. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real sense of a breach of trust when people hear politicians saying one thing in public and doing the opposite in the small print?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right, but would she agree that there is a balance to be struck in every policy? Here, the balance is between employment rights on the one hand and business growth on the other. The sign of whether an economy has got it about right is when employment and growth go hand in hand. Does she share my concern that, as a result of the policies of the Government, unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is going up month after month? Is that not a warning sign that the balance is not correct?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point, although it is not just, or even primarily, about the increase from 13.8% to 15% on the overall rate, but that it kicks in at £5,000, down—from memory—from £9,200. That has a particular impact on those employed part-time, youth employment, and lower-wage employment, because it means that employers start paying NICs much earlier in the pay journey. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is exactly why we are seeing youth unemployment rising as well as general unemployment?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right. If Members read the Bill properly, they will see that it spells the death knell for open access. It is true that the last few years have exposed serious weaknesses in the train franchise model. The separation of track and train created perverse incentives—I accept that. Too often a lack of effective competitive tension allowed there to be poor services. Changes to the DFT contract meant that franchises were encouraged to overbid, leaving them financially vulnerable to any downturn. This Bill was the golden opportunity to address those issues, but the Government have messed it up. Instead of keeping the best and fixing the rest, we have a damaging return to 1970s state control, with 1970s industrial action likely to follow. The Government are already finding out that money does not grow on trees, that merely saying that they are in favour of growth does not make it happen, and that funds from hard-pressed taxpayers are not limitless. Their plan replaces private investment with taxpayers’ money, drawn away from schools and hospitals and Labour’s ever-growing welfare bill. Their plan replaces railway management teams with civil servants, increasingly micromanaging operations, who will have powers to direct GBR across all its functions. Then there is that trademark socialist arrogance: gone is the independent economic regulator, for the gentleman from Whitehall knows best. GBR will mark its own homework, save for a toothless passenger council that has no enforcement powers. It will not just mark its own homework but decide whether to allow any competition against itself. It will decide how much to charge its competitors, limited only by how much it thinks they will be able to pay. GBR, on the other hand, will pay no charge at all. The right of appeal is not to be allowed on the merits of a decision, only on the grounds of procedural irregularity. The Bill marks the end of competition on the GBR rail network, and it is such a shame. This could have been transformational. It could have solved the tensions between the operation of track and train. It could have refined concession and franchised contracts, removing the micromanagement of DFT officials. It could have solved the stop-start funding approach by National Rail and its dysfunctional control periods. It could have focused relentlessly on benefits to passengers and the taxpayer. Instead, we are seeing a Government floundering at 14% in the polls, whose Back Benchers are in open revolt against their own leader, and whose union paymaster, Unite, is discussing disaffiliation in the press. This is a Government desperate to shore up their fading support. They are sacrificing the future of our railways on the altar of left-wing ideology. We heard speech after speech from Labour Members demonising profit as a motive for economic activity. Do they have any idea how the productive economy works? Ideology before practicality, state direction before dynamic management, and union demands before passenger demand—no, no, no. I ask colleagues to support the reasoned amendment in my name and help put this bad Bill in the bin.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a very popular debate with a lot of contributions; I congratulate all those who managed to make their points in just three minutes. I will do my best to summarise the debate, starting by noting the excellent contributions from Opposition Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) brilliantly managed to discuss a Railways Bill by referring to ferries, but he did make the serious point that we want pragmatism, not ideology, to reform the railways. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) made the good point that, through nationalisation, the taxpayer now has to replace private investment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) made three important points: that the reforms simply advance the sprawling centralisation of powers; that, again, they involve practicality giving way to ideology; and that their drafting puts open access concessions at risk. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who is a member of the Transport Committee, was concerned that this was ideological time travel that takes us back to the 1970s. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said that, post nationalisation, cancellations of South Western trains had increased on his Chertsey-Addlestone loop. There were also many thoughtful contributions from the Liberal Democrats. It is telling that the Government’s insistence on nationalisation as the only answer has united the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is worth noting that we have heard nothing from Members of the fag packet party, who, I think, still support nationalisation. Then again, however, they would not recognise a transport policy if it slapped them in the face. Then there was Labour, with speech after speech welcoming the nationalisation of the railways—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Bring it on. In speech after speech, they showed deep suspicion of the profit motive. The tone was set by the Transport Secretary, who said that the current system benefits companies over passenger services—as though the two things are mutually exclusive—and taken up by the hon. Members for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), with claims of profit prioritised over customer experience, large-scale profiteering on the railways and dividends prioritised over people. I could go on. This is the authentic voice of Labour: the private sector is not good—not good in the way that the state is good. The private sector invests to make a return, not to create unionised jobs. It innovates to make a return, not to satisfy a Government productivity goal. It innovates to beat the competition and make a return, not to satisfy a ministerial target. However, it does invest, it does innovate and it does improve to compete. Nevertheless, Labour clings on to its ideological faith in the efficiency of the state, despite all the evidence to the contrary—and there is evidence. After all, we have tried this experiment before.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let us wait to see if Labour actually nationalises it first; but the Conservatives are here to lead, not to follow. There is plenty of evidence because we have tried the nationalisation experiment before. The railways were nationalised in 1948. [Interruption.] If Labour Members listen, they might learn something. When the railways were nationalised in 1948, there were a billion passenger journeys a year. Thereafter, the impact of nationalisation was immediate: year after year, fewer customers chose to use the trains; year after year, they voted with their feet because the service did not give them what they wanted and was not focused on them and their needs. There was low investment because the railways were competing with schools and hospitals, followed by poor industrial relations with an organisation more focused on itself than its customers— [ Interruption. ] The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), says from a sedentary position that it was because there were more cars—let us just hold that in our minds. By the 1990s, just 735 million passenger journeys were taking place a year, instead of a billion. In 1993, the system was privatised by the Conservative Government. The unions hated it, and Labour therefore hated it, too. However, every year, more and more passengers were attracted to use the trains—not just a few more, but vastly more. By 2019, 1.75 billion people were using the railways each year—and there were many more cars. Labour cannot explain it; it should not have happened, but it did. If the purpose of the railway is to carry passengers, any rational observer must conclude that privatisation beat nationalisation hands down. Why? Profit is made only by attracting customers. Train operating companies focused on new and more trains, more services, innovative ticketing and customer service, and people voted with their feet. The railways are a complex system where capacity is limited and costs are high. It is absolutely crucial to drive efficiency, maximise the scarce resources of track access and drive value for money with dynamic management. Can hon. Members think of a nationalised organisation that is a byword for management dynamism and efficiency anywhere, in any country at any time? I cannot either. If poor railway management is the problem, nationalisation cannot be the solution. Why is it that socialists and the fag packet party are such bad learners?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q9. My constituent Claire runs Claire Howard Jewellery in Fakenham, and she is one of many small business owners who contacted me after the Budget last week. She was absolutely incensed by the style of the Chancellor, who seemed to give the impression that she was reducing taxes on small businesses when the exact opposite is the case. The tax on Claire’s shop is going up, not coming down. Could the Prime Minister do Claire and many other shop owners the common courtesy of just admitting that their taxes are going up and not down?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It makes it worse.

• 2 Dec 2025 · China: Threat to UK Interests · Hansard source

  More

  Last night, the Prime Minister said some tough things about China. He said: “It’s time for a serious approach” to the national security risk from China. The first opportunity to demonstrate that serious approach is on the planning application for China’s new super-embassy—complete, as we now know it is, with secret basement rooms. In her previous role, the Foreign Secretary wrote a letter in favour of the application, but given her new instructions from the Prime Minister, does she now agree that the application should be refused?

• 2 Dec 2025 · China: Threat to UK Interests · Hansard source

  More

  15. What assessment she has made of the level of threat that China poses to UK interests.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  It has been dragged out of the Government that there was no black hole of £20 billion to £30 billion in the run-up to the Budget. In fact, there was a surplus. That means that Treasury insiders were deliberately misleading the press, the markets and our constituents in the run-up to the Budget, when they intended all along to raise taxes on working people to fund increased welfare. Why is the Minister continuing to take the public—our constituents—for fools?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  At the last general election, the Secretary of State and all his colleagues said that they would raise taxes by £7 billion, and that their plans were fully funded and costed. What democratic mandate does he claim to have for increasing taxes by £66 billion, and debt by a further £70 billion?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The latest growth figures in Scotland have been terrible—just 0.2%—and are even worse than Labour’s figures for England at 0.3%. What has been more damaging to the Scottish economy: SNP policies in Holyrood, or Labour policies here in Whitehall?