Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, because I am running out of time. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. What is the big plan? It is one of nationalisation for railways. We must look at the Government’s motive—what do they think it is going to do? It is not about unifying track and train, because that was already in the Williams-Shapps review; that was going to happen without nationalisation. Is it about reducing fares? If so, it is backfiring, because nationalised train companies’ fares are rising above inflation. Is it about increasing efficiency? One would hope so, but through the Government’s nationalisation process they are decapitating the management teams that drive efficiency in the individual rail companies. Is it about increasing passenger numbers? The inconvenient truth for Labour is that under privatisation passenger ridership on the railway doubled, because the companies were incentivised to chase ridership. That was driven by increased open access routes, yet the Government have opposed every single application for open access since the election. Is it to save money? If so, they are not doing a very good job. On South Western Railway—one of the first to be nationalised since the election—they wasted £250 million on infrastructure overspend with the rolling stock leasing companies due to Government negotiating incompetence. The truth is that the Government are doing it because it is an article of Labour faith—faith in the big state—and also a key demand of the unions. How has it gone for them? As we have heard, ASLEF has already got a 15% pay rise, and the RMT is striking now. Next time, when GBR is finished, that strike will be national. The Government are one year in. We have heard in the debate of cancelled scheme after cancelled scheme. We have also heard that prices have increased and that money has been diverted from passengers to union pay. That has done nothing for regional inequality, save for the industrial action that is spreading from London and engulfing the rest of the country. It is why passengers are so disappointed in Labour. They deserve better.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Regional Transport Inequality · Hansard source

  More

  I have no problem with the unions making demands—after all, they are representing the interests of their members. What I complain about is the Government giving way to them at the expense of the general public. On trains, we have got the cancelled projects as well. The midland main line electrification has been cancelled, which has led to lay-offs and the loss of expertise. It is also causing problems for the procurement of new bi-mode trains, because we no longer have any certainty as to whether the line will be electrified. At Dawlish, the Conservative Government completed phases 1 to 4 of the improvements and reinforcement of the line. Phase 5 is all that remains. What have the Government done? They have kicked it into the long grass, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for which I give him credit. Back in East Anglia, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) highlighted the need for the Ely junction and Haughley junction projects in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk to be advanced, yet they have been ignored by the Government.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I stand corrected, in the sense that I have listened to the hon. Member and, on reflection, I accept that I was making perhaps too legalistic a point. If by adding “sustained antisocial auditory disturbance” to the definition of nuisance we can make what is an implied power an express one, I am happy to support that. As for the jeering, perhaps my hon. Friends were cheering—who knows?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady will know, from reading the Hansard of Committee proceedings, what time and effort the official Opposition put into supporting the aspiration to have increased accessibility across disability and special educational needs, so I am very supportive in principle of her amendment’s aims. I have addressed accessibility, but what about pricing and increasing bus usage? We know from our experience of operating bus services over the past decade that price is one of the biggest factors affecting patronage. In the previous Administration, the Conservatives put forward a £2 bus fare cap, and it was enormously successful. Apart from anything else, it was hugely popular, but it also aided the recovery from covid, and in getting people back out and about. It was particularly useful for younger passengers; it helped to build their confidence and get them back on the road to recovery. In the run-up to the last election, the continuation of the £2 bus fare cap for the duration of this Parliament was a Conservative manifesto commitment. What was Labour’s response to that? Its first act on coming into power was to put the price up by 50%, from £2 to £3. To accompany that, there was a perverse claim that that was actually a price cut. One does not need to be an economist at the Bank of England, or even from the accounts department, to work that one out. Experience of customer complaints would be enough to enable a person to see that a price rise from £2 to £3 is exactly that: a rise, not a cut.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that the Minister is not misleading the House inadvertently. Although he is right that it was delivered on time and on budget—it was about £156 million—it is argued that the subsequent year of operation had a deficit of about £236 million. Even though it may have been delivered on time and on budget, it has been in a terrible deficit ever since and is on strike now.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thought the hon. Member was in favour of devolution. Not all mayoral combined authorities are the same; if we have a mayoral combined authority, we want to have the right system for the area that the mayor represents. If the mayor in Teesside thinks that it is not the right thing for him, I back his decision. Let me move on to new clause 31, which would give the Secretary of State the power to step in where there has been “a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.” It seems genuinely extraordinary that the Government are saying no to that added safeguard. No cost is associated with it; the new clause just says that where there is prolonged failure on the ground to deliver the service for whatever reason, the Secretary of State would have the power to step in and take on the management. Why would the Government say that they do not need that backstop power? They voted it down in Committee, and I do not see them accepting it today either. All the amendments from the loyal Opposition have a common theme: they put passengers first. This Bill is not really about passengers; it is for a bigger state, more unions and more union involvement, and it is primarily against private business involvement. I understand that that is the ideology of Labour Members, but the problem is that their ideology is demonstrably wrong in this instance, and we see that in the Bill. Without amendment, it will damage our bus services and almost certainly damage our local transport authorities, particularly the smaller ones, if they are misguided enough to follow the encouragement of the Government and go down this route. Above all, I am sorry to say that the Bill will damage the chances of our passengers.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am slightly surprised to be called so early, but I am delighted to speak in the debate. This will be an interesting debate. I am delighted that there is so much interest from Back Benchers. It is interesting to note that the Bill is primarily focused on process rather than passengers. I tried to work out why that was and came to the conclusion that it is, in fact, steeped in Labour’s political ideology—the ideology that the state is better at running things than private businesses—linked with the separate issue that it has a deep suspicion of the profit motive. In some of its clauses, which we will come on to in a moment, the Bill harks back to the 1960s and to municipal bus companies after the second world war. This feels like the happy place of the Labour party.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry that the hon. Member was not in his place throughout the course of the debate, as he would have heard that a franchise is not a normal contract. Under an enhanced partnership or a standard operating contract, that is exactly so: a contract is let and the commercial risk lies with the provider. The challenge with franchising is that the commercial risk is transferred 100% to the taxpayer, because the local transport authority is no longer letting a commercial contract; it is buying in services for a price, with the commercial risk lying with the taxpayer. That is the crucial difference. I am glad that the hon. Member put his finger on that, because I am as worried as he is about it. Finally, I will mention the comments of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We do not agree on many issues, but I do agree with her on this. She said that a lot of good amendments were tabled by Opposition parties—certainly three parties; there were sadly none from Reform, which would not know a transport policy if one got up and slapped it in the face. The hon. Lady came up with some good ideas, and even the Liberal Democrats came up with something or other. As for the Conservatives, we came up with good idea after good idea, yet until now they have all been rejected by the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to his concession on all those good ideas.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, I will give way.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  That does not take away from the overarching point that Labour has increased bus fares by 50% and described it as a price cut, which was disingenuous in the extreme. We need to understand the impact of Labour’s price rise on ridership, and in particular on social accessibility. That understanding will inform behaviour, and should inform good policy for the future, but the Government have their head in the sand. Amendment 23, also in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services. That proposal was initially inserted in the other place, with wide support from a number of parties, but again, the Government decided to remove it in Committee. They need to own the consequences of their decisions. Last year, Transport Ministers needed to find money for an unfunded pay rise of 15% for ASLEF train drivers. Where did they get the money? Their first choice was to go after bus passengers, and their second was to go after pensioners.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am perfectly happy with that principle. In fact, it was a Conservative principle, first introduced in 2016. We do not have to choose between one thing and another; that is a false analysis. The pricing was a political decision by this ministerial team, who chose to increase prices from £2 to £3, and that was voted for by all Government Members; they made that political choice. The choice between a franchise scheme, an enhanced partnership scheme or any other form of scheme has nothing to do with the primary political choice, made by Labour Members, to raise prices for bus passengers to pay for unfunded union pay rises. That is simply the fact.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful, although I am not sure whether that was an intervention on jeering or cheering and the difference between them. I will go so far as to say that I am not in a position to make economic spending commitments at the Dispatch Box. Although we are supportive of the principle, that is why we will not vote for something that writes a blank cheque for the future, because at least the Conservatives are trying to be economically responsible. Without amendment, the Bill is a missed opportunity in relation to bus stop design and disability access. It is a missed opportunity in relation to antisocial behaviour on buses and bringing that in line with the protections already enjoyed by rail passengers. It is also a missed opportunity not to focus on passengers as the primary object of all actions undertaken as a result of the Bill, particularly in relation to rural areas. The Bill is not just a missed opportunity; it is also, in its current drafting, damaging for the future prospects of the provision of bus services, because it risks exposing local transport authorities to potential bankruptcy without support from the Secretary of State. That is, in the first instance, in terms of oversight of plans for franchising—particularly for small local transport authorities—and giving them the all-clear. Secondly, if franchise systems are set up and then they fail to provide over a prolonged period, the Secretary of State must surely be able to step in and provide those services—if we are interested in the experience of passengers as opposed to the organisation. I have raised those two issues consistently throughout Committee and earlier on today. They are significant, genuine concerns that prevent the Opposition from supporting the Bill in its current form.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  We have had an interesting debate with around 25 to 30 speakers, and some themes have developed from it. A number of speakers mentioned disability access, particularly issues with floating and shared-border bus stops for those who are visually impaired or blind. Other speeches focused on concessionary travel during rush hour and concessionary companion passes. We also heard a number of descriptions of local bus needs in right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, particularly focusing on rural needs. I want to pick out two or three speeches for commendation, starting with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke in support of amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34. He highlighted a concerning failure by his Liberal Democrat county council, so if we want to improve bus services, we know where the Liberal Democrats can start. I commend the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who put his name to and championed new clause 47, which aims for companion passes to form part of the concessionary travel scheme. I would like to mention the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), because he had a tiny pop at the Conservatives, particularly about new clause 10 relating to antisocial behaviour. I think this requires a bit of explanation. It was right of him to highlight that the position of His Majesty’s Opposition has changed on this measure, and I will explain why. When we discussed new clause 10 in Committee, the hon. Member will recall—if he does not, he can always refer to Hansard —that I was very sympathetic to the objective of his new clause, but, as I now accept, I took a rather narrow objection to its drafting. The new clause adds a description to a non-exhaustive list and is therefore technically not required, because the definition was already employed. The definition is one of nuisance, and audible antisocial behaviour is, by definition, nuisance. It was the lawyer in me coming out, and I was being slightly otiose.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is quite right, of course. I am not suggesting that bus services should be only for profit. He will know that Essex county council has an enhanced partnership agreement; it has a relationship with for-profit providers, but has negotiated that it will pay extra for social journeys. He will also note that Essex has had more growth in its passenger numbers than any of the franchise operations. In particular, it has had more passenger growth than the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the organisation that the Bill largely seeks to replicate. The Bill has a deep suspicion of the profit motive and focuses on process, ignoring what the real purpose of the legislation should be. The House of Lords identified this lacuna in the drafting, and rectified it with a purpose clause, which was clause 1 when the Bill was considered in Committee. It said that the Act should “improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.” That is not a particularly high bar, or particularly onerous, because the Secretary of State merely had to have regard to those objectives. I would not have thought that was particularly challenging for the Government. However, it was too much for them, and they removed that purpose clause in Committee. New clause 34, which is in my name and that of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), seeks to reinstate that very reasonable clause. It would ensure that when we discuss the improvement of bus services, at the front and centre of our minds are the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services, so that we put the passenger first. This Bill, despite the explanations given by the Minister a moment ago, remains weak on protections for the disabled, the partially sighted and the blind. That was a huge concern in Committee. There has been a lot of concern about this in the disabled community—concern particularly focused on floating bus stops, and bus stops with shared use borders. I note that the Minister said that he is looking at having guidance notes on design, and that there should be a campaign to remind cyclists in particular of the highway code. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think a design tweak could be made to a floating bus stop that would provide partially sighted and blind users with the security that they richly deserve when using bus services. An educational campaign to remind cyclists of their duties under the highway code would not do any harm, and I suggest that the Government do it, but it would not be the solution in its own right. We have had warm words from the Minister, both in Committee and today, but we need action. New clause 28 would give the Government six months to prepare proposals to prohibit the creation of new floating bus stops. The Government appear to be deaf to the blind, and not prepared to take effective action on this point. The Government are also being weak on protections for bus passengers more generally. We want legislation that puts bus users first, both as regards accessibility, which I have mentioned, and protection against antisocial behaviour. We are not asking much—we are just asking that the legislation afford bus users the same protections that rail passengers benefit from. The Government have an opportunity to support those objectives, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that that is the direction that they should take.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is entirely right. I refer the House to Norfolk county council—another Conservative council, and the one in which my constituency is based—which has an enhanced partnership with bus companies. That partnership has been more effective in driving bus ridership than the franchised process has been in Manchester—at least as enacted by the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham. I will now deal with franchising more fully. This bizarre draft legislation appears to have taken a good idea in principle and made it worse in practice. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) is quite right that the Conservative Government recognised in 2016 the potential for region-based transport integration. In principle, mayoral combined authorities had the scale, resources and financial sophistication to take on the responsibility of creating a franchised scheme, and would thereby have more control over the design of public transport in their area. That was a Conservative innovation, and I support it. Under the 2017 legislation, other local transport authorities also had the ability to apply for franchise status, if I may loosely call it that. However, there was concern that smaller local authorities would not have as many resources—be they financial or top-tier management resources—to deal with and design such operations, so a critical safeguard was inserted in that legislation requiring such authorities, should they wish to go down the franchise route, to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State for their plans. It is a sense-check—a needed safeguard—because franchising exposes local transport authorities to huge commercial risk. They are not just letting contracts and, as with an enhanced partnership, adding a bit extra on, after negotiation with commercial operators; they also become responsible for the design of the full bus map and timetable, and have the resulting commercial liability of providing all the buses and drivers. Authorities can either pay a bus company to operate for a fee, and so take no commercial risk—the company just turns up and does what it is told—or expose themselves further by creating a municipal bus company and doing everything themselves. If that goes wrong, it can bankrupt a local authority.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right. There is some good in the amendments. I come to amendment 58, which would reinsert the Secretary of State’s safeguard. That would not prohibit small unitaries from applying or developing a franchise model; it is about the Secretary of State having the ability to sense-check the commercial ability of an organisation to take the very significant commercial risks that franchising brings with it. There is another massive lacuna in the current drafting of the Bill. Having expanded franchising to any local authority, no matter how small and whether district, county or unitary, the Secretary of State would withdraw from any power to intervene if things go wrong. We recognise that there is increased commercial risk and that we will ask potentially small local authorities to undertake wholly novel activities of which they have no experience at all, but the Secretary of State is saying, “We wash our hands of this. We do not want to have any power to intervene, even when there is a prolonged failure of services to the public.”

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I have been told that we are speculating today, so I do not know whether I have to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. However, in an abundance of caution, I declare that I am a homeowner and I also have properties for rent. The kids in Downing Street—whether in No. 11 or No. 10—think it is clever to fly kites about tax rises. We had it last year, from 4 July onwards, with briefings to the press saying there would be tax rises because of a wholly fabricated £22 billion black hole in the economy. That was fabricated as a fig leaf for tax rises that were not in the manifesto. From July to October, those stories dripped in one after the other—and what was the impact? It has been the collapse in business confidence to pandemic levels, the collapse in consumer confidence as a result, and unemployment beginning its inexorable rise month after month for every single month that this Government have been in office. Now the Government are at it again. They have not realised their past terrible mistake, and they are doing it once more. Despite raising taxes by £40 billion last October and increasing borrowing by another £32 billion, they have created a genuine black hole, which the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests means that about £51 billion is required in higher taxes or lower spending. The briefings have started again—a property levy on mansions, the replacement of stamp duty with a national property tax, national insurance contributions on rental income and capital gains tax on primary residences with a value of more than £1.5 million. Even Which? magazine has said there may be changes to the in-life gifting regime to reduce inheritance tax.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He mentions the hospitality sector. Does he recognise the Government’s cruel decision to reduce the business rates discount for the hospitality sector from 75% to 40%? It does not sound too bad, but it is actually a tax increase of 140% on the struggling hospitality sector. What impact does he think that has on future investment plans?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member and a number of his colleagues have referred to the reduction in interest rates as the sign of a growing economy. If he even googled it, he would realise that the first explanation for the Bank of England reducing interest rates is that it is worried about a weakening economy. Does he not realise that?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Do the Government not recognise that posturing from the Government Benches does not come for free? Construction activity has had a bigger fall recently than in the last five years due to the leaks from No. 10 and No. 11. The commercial property sector is in recession. There are hiring freezes and staff are being laid off. People are losing their jobs because of the Government’s kite flying. Residential property prices had a surprise fall last year. We are asked to believe that growth is the No. 1 priority of this Government. They say they are going to build 1.5 million houses during this Parliament. Merely saying that does not make it true, when their policies serve to do exactly the opposite. If Members do not believe me, look at the markets—they are not politicians. Look at the 30-year gilts that the Government are paying today. Government debt is now running at 5.73%. That is the highest rate this century. The markets think that further tax increases will damage growth. That means they will damage the fiscal environment in the future. We will have less tax in the future because of the tax-raising decisions the Government are apparently going to take in November. Labour is planning, literally, to rob Peter to pay Paul. This is no way to run an economy. As someone much more famous than me once said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. Stop now. Stop before it is too late to avoid a vicious debt spiral. I fear—I genuinely fear this—that the Government will be forced to cut spending. They have two options: they can be forced to do so by the markets in a chaotic fiscal event, or they can take the responsibility of government seriously and take the difficult but necessary decisions on spending that the country needs them to take as a responsible Government. Otherwise, they will be swept away by their own incompetence.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot speculate on individual tax measures, but will he deny that the No. 11 machine has been leaking these stories to the national press over the summer?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Victims of Terrorism: State Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Ms Harris. As other hon Members have done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important debate. The timing of it is perfect. I commend other hon. Members who have spoken for their thoughtful, powerful and persuasive arguments. So often in this Chamber and the other one, we have political ding-dong. Sometimes that is effective, and sometimes heat does create light, but this debate has been totally different; it has been from the heart and from experience, and it has brought real compassion and humanity to this very important issue. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), made a good job of précising some of the arguments. I will try not to repeat what he said, but I want to highlight some of them. I will kick off with the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen. He made eight requests of the Minister, and I take this opportunity to amplify them in so far as I am able. I particularly focus on the three primary requests with which the hon. Gentleman finished: to publish the 63 recommendations of the Home Office review; to put forward a national day for victims of terrorism; and to get a date—hopefully an early date—for the opening of the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub. I repeat those requests for the Minister to respond to. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made an incredibly thoughtful speech, in which he recalled the right hon. Lord Tebbit—he died just a couple of days ago—who was badly injured in the Brighton bomb, and his wife even more so. I bring my own very limited experience of this; both of my parents were blown up in that bomb, so it is real for me as well. The hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) told the story of Christian. He was 13 when he was covered in trauma; I was 14. His scarring and injury have been so much worse than my own. The hon. Member highlighted the need for support in the first hour—the golden hour—but also the long-term support that is required, and he quite rightly said that this is a cross-party issue. I will be quite brief, but the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) showed how raw the impact of terrorism is, even 55 years later. He lives it today just as much as he lived it then. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) highlighted the Manchester Arena bombing. He focused on the survivors’ charter, criminal injuries compensation scheme—I will return to that in a minute—and the need for legal support for victims dealing with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I could not agree more. Two careers ago, I was a barrister and represented applicants in front of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. I know the scheme is out of date, but the approach to compensation was one of penny-pinching and seeking to avoid paying compensation for victims of crime, rather than lessening their burden. There is definite work to be done. The hon. Member also highlighted the need to publish the 63 recommendations from the Home Office review. This debate addresses our fundamental duty as a state: how we care for those who have suffered the most grievous of harms—the physical and emotional harms that have stemmed from the wish to terrorise, divide and coerce our citizens and way of life. I want to take this opportunity, as others have done before me, to pay tribute to every victim, survivor, witness and family member whose life has been irrevocably altered by terrorism. Actions and events that play out over a fraction of a second leave lasting traumas, as we have heard—and, indeed, demonstrated—throughout the course of this debate. As one survivor of the Manchester Arena terrorist attack said: “It has been on my mind every single day since it happened…It is going to have a lasting effect.” How right that is. Successive Conservative Governments have committed to supporting victims of terrorism. We have always protected counter-terrorism budgets; these are meaningless numbers, but £2.5 billion was allocated to our intelligence services. Following the series of terrorist attacks in 2017, we created the victims of terrorism unit, establishing co-ordinated support for the first time. Theresa May, as Home Secretary, strengthened the legislative power of the state with the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Her successor, Amber Rudd, established the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), during her time as Home Secretary, proscribed five extreme right-wing terrorist groups. By 2024, the Government were delivering £1 billion annually in counter-terrorism funding. Coming back to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, in 2020, it was announced that there would be a review, with proposals for a standalone scheme for victims of domestic and overseas terrorism designed for the unique trauma involved. Yet it feels as though that has essentially been shelved. I do not want to make a political point—that is not the tone of this debate—but I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why it has been shelved, when, on the face of it, the review supported having a standalone scheme. The impact of terrorism on victims is different from the impact of harms caused by crime. I welcome the recent tender announcement for the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub, but it is funded, as I understand it, by a grant of £2.5 million covering 3.5 years. I stand to be corrected by the Minister; if he has a different figure, I would be grateful to hear it when he responds. By my rough account, it is about £700,000 of support a year, so we will ask this hub to do an awful lot. It will have a wide and important remit. How will around £700,000 a year be sufficient to answer the real need that this organisation is designed to address? Since 2020, the Home Office has funded a number of organisations to help victims of trauma. Victim Support provides a 24/7 contact centre and initial needs assessments. The South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust, which has not been mentioned so far in the debate, delivers specialist clinical mental health support. The Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation facilitates peer-to-peer support networks, which are very important, while Cruse Bereavement Care offers specialist bereavement support. Although I welcome the tender process for the hub, the wording currently suggests that a new provider will be selected competitively. I wonder whether we risk creating a hollow hub. There are concerns that if it does not take advantage of the expertise that the existing organisations have built up, creating a wholly new, standalone body may lead to duplication and a loss of institutional memory and expertise. There is a solution to that, but I want to hear the Minister recognise that as a potential problem and tell us whether the Department is alive to it as a concern. Next, we come to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which is often impersonal and defensive. A Survivors Against Terror survey of 130 victims found that only 7% felt that the CICA was sympathetic, while 72% felt it was unsympathetic. Whatever the outcome of the process, that demonstrates that it is failing—there is clearly something profoundly wrong. Additionally, 68% found the process unfair and unreasonable, and fewer than half could speak to someone for help. As Brendan Cox, the husband of our murdered colleague Jo Cox, stated: “CICA is broken…An organisation that is supposed to be helping survivors recover and rebuild is instead consistently doing them harm.” However, in May, the Government announced that it would not reform the CICA’s scope, the time limits associated with application or its rules. That feels like a significant error, so I ask the Minister: why do the Government appear to be prioritising existing CICA practices over the experiences and concerns of applicants through that process over many years, and particularly those who have experienced terrorism? Under our current system, victims can wait years. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth, has mentioned the French system. It has a guarantee fund for victims of terrorist acts and other offences, which proactively contacts victims within days and provides emergency monetary advances within the first month. However, here in the UK, as a Manchester bombing survivor stated five years after that terrible night: “I am still waiting for CICA to settle my claim.” The ultimate support we can offer victims is to ensure there are no more of them, which brings me to the crucial matter of prevention. The Shawcross review found that the Prevent programme had suffered from mission creep and cultural timidity in tackling Islamist extremism, which remains responsible for 75% of the work of counter-terrorism investigations. We must recognise that head-on and not shy away from it. I would therefore welcome it if the Minister could provide concrete data demonstrating Prevent’s fundamental rebalancing since the Government accepted all 34 of the Shawcross recommendations. In summary, I seek a response on four key areas. First, I would be grateful if the Minister set out his thinking on how the relatively limited funding for the victims and survivors of terrorism support hub will fulfil the hopes and ambitions we all have for that new organisation. Secondly, on integration, can he guarantee that the trusted and experienced organisations I referred to—the South London and Maudsley NHS trust, the Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation and Cruse Bereavement Support—will be mandated as part of the new hub or that it will call on their expertise? Whatever the mechanism, can he guarantee that their expertise and service will not be lost as a result? Thirdly, on compensation, what is the rationale for not progressing the CICA reform, despite what I think is overwhelming evidence that it should be reformed? Fourthly, on prevention, what evidence demonstrates that the Shawcross recommendations are being implemented? Our duty to support victims is a moral obligation. Victims do not need another layer of barriers; they need immediate, compassionate and properly funded support. They need a dedicated terrorism compensation scheme—like the one the previous Government proposed—that would, importantly, put an end to the failing bureaucracy of the CICA. Those targeted by terror have faced humanity’s worst; they deserve society’s best in return.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The jobs tax has decimated business confidence and has seen unemployment rise, and now—along with the Budget blow to Scotch whisky, the attack on family farms and the undermining of the oil and gas industry—the Scottish Hospitality Group has slated the spending review, saying it “does absolutely nothing to support the hospitality sector”. Will the Secretary of State work with the Chancellor to undo the damage her Budget and her spending review have inflicted on family farms, Scotch whisky, the oil and gas industry, hospitality, entertainment and business confidence in Scotland?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Spending Review 2025: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the spending review 2025 on economic growth in Scotland.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Space Industry (Indemnities) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to speak again on the Bill. It is a short Bill—it replaces just two words—but one with substantial implications. The meat of the Bill, if I can call it that, is to replace “may” with “must”. I will briefly refer to some of the excellent contributions. I am relieved to have heard many fewer revolting puns than in previous debates on this subject; nevertheless, a couple slipped through. I start with the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady), who set out the commercial need for the change to the Act. He made the sensible point that Government policy is easier to change than statute. If we were not sure of that before this week, one should just ask the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to understand that it is easier to change policy than it is to change legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for space, which makes him eminently well-qualified to speak in this debate. I was pondering my own qualifications, and the best I could come up with was that I played rugby for a team called the Space Cadets when I was at university. That is about as close as I could get to the space industry. My hon. Friend rightly made the case for a role for the City of London. He mentioned developing opportunities for Lloyds of London, listings, bond issuance and subsequent legal support. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) highlighted the role of Portsmouth and the wider Hampshire space cluster. She said that it was just four words that needed to be changed—in that sentence, she doubled the size of the Bill. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) reflected on space developments in the context of defence, and on commercial opportunities being held back because of regulatory uncertainty. He was right to highlight that regulatory certainty matters. Finally, the hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) said he was the grandson of the father of British space science, which presumably makes him the son of British space science. We cannot complain about inadequate consideration of the Bill. The first attempt to enact the change was introduced by the former Member for Woking, Jonathan Lord, and we had a Second Reading of a very similarly worded Bill on 23 February 2024. Unfortunately, that Bill was lost in the parliamentary wash-up session, as a result of the general election being called later that year. I am pleased that the incoming Government have, through their inspirational Back Benchers, been able to introduce a private Member’s Bill in very similar terms. Second Reading was quite a long time ago—back on 7 March this year—but since then, the Bill has been through Committee and undergone robust line-by-line consideration. I am pleased to report to the House that the word “must” has not been altered in Committee. I wonder whether “definitely should” or “really ought” was posited by Members, but, in the end, we have the same wording as on Second Reading. We now come to the remaining stages, no doubt to an enormous sigh of relief from the industry, and perhaps a little bit of frustration about why it has taken so long to change just two words in an Act that received Royal Assent back in 2018. As a personal observation, I question whether the private Member’s Bill route is appropriate for legislation that has such significant commercial impact. The industry has been waiting. We have heard from speaker after speaker about the commercial importance of changing “may” to “must”, and yet it has taken seven years from identifying the original problem to effecting a solution. We need to really think about that, because this Bill is important and delay has had a cost. The UK space industry generates £18.9 billion for our economy. There are at least 1,800 businesses involved in it, some 52,000 jobs are directly employed by the space industry and, with the supply chain, that number increases to 130,000. No doubt, those figures are out of date as it is a growing industry. We have strong demand for UK commercial spaceflight that led to the original regulatory benefit, arising out of our Brexit freedoms, to have a dynamic regulatory environment. It has given us a genuine economic commercial advantage over our European friends and neighbours, because we have been able to have a more dynamic approach to regulation. However, that has been put at risk because of the difficulties in calculating potential liabilities. Others have already gone through the legal niceties of the Space Industry Act 2018, so I do not propose to go through those line by line as I would normally. Suffice it to say, the legal duty of a space operator is to provide insurance for their operations, and that is required under the Act. That brings a corollary obligation to make a calculation to potential exposure. If someone is making an actuarial calculation of the risk to which a client is exposing an insurer, they need to undertake a calculation of the scale—the quantum—of that risk. This is where the regulatory uncertainty has played its part. Although it has been repeated in this Chamber and elsewhere that it is, and remains, Government policy to have an indemnity beyond a certain level of liability, the uncertainty is that the legislation does not require the Government to do that. Section 12(2) gives the Civil Aviation Authority—the regulatory authority in this case—power to set an upper limit to provide clarity. This Bill turns that power into an obligation, which is quite right. We have had a fun debate and I am very pleased that the legislation is nearing the end of its legislative journey, but we collectively need to stop and think. This is an uncontroversial change, with cross-party support, supporting a growth industry, and yet it has taken five months to progress from Second Reading to the remaining stages. That is simply not good enough. We collectively need to think of a way in which we can get this kind of legislation accelerated. Launches into space are never straightforward, and this Bill is no exception. It had an initial flare-out on its launchpad before the last general election, and since then it has had an excruciatingly slow reconstruction and review. But it is finally ready for launch, and I wish it well. I hope it releases many further launches across the United Kingdom.