Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  We are talking about the rules. We know that the banks have withdrawn from our communities. My market towns of Fakenham and Aylsham have had all the banks go apart from one Nationwide. They say their answer to that is Link, and yet the rules seem to say that market towns, with that huge hinterland they also serve, are not sufficient to allow for banking services to be provided via hubs. Does the hon. Member agree that if those are the rules, those rules need to change?

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Secretary of State’s comments today demonstrate not only the challenges faced in the past and the reasons that action was taken to reduce the scope of HS2, but the significant challenges ahead if it is finally to be delivered. It is true that the early years of the HS2 project were beset with delay and cost overruns, with HS2 Ltd failing to maintain tight control of the budget and, frankly, the Department for Transport allowing it to get away with it. It was for that reason that the previous Government appointed Mark Wild OBE as the new chief executive of HS2 Ltd with the clear instruction to get a grip of costs and robustly oversee the project. It is apparent from today’s statement that HS2’s leadership under Mark Wild is taking those steps to try to achieve that. Where there are actions that can reduce costs in the long run, the Opposition will clearly support them, but given concerns about trust in the project, I hope that the Government and HS2 Ltd will set out in detail how they believe these measures will save money and deliver even on this new extended timetable. In addition, we have to acknowledge the deep-seated infrastructure challenges we face in this country. When the Prime Minister was campaigning during the last general election, we heard a range of promises about housing and infrastructure goals, but they completely foundered when they came into contact with reality. That is why the Opposition propose substantial changes to environmental legislation to give us the freedoms needed to cut environmental red tape, both for business and large infrastructure projects. Even the Prime Minister does not support regulations that lead to a £100-million bat tunnel—does the Secretary of State? This issue must be addressed because the Secretary of State has made a number of strong statements. If she is angry, as she says she is, those statements must be backed up by consequential legislative changes that prevent cost overruns from occurring in future. Turning to the specifics, I wish to press the Secretary of State on matters on which those in the sector have indicated they want assurances. For example, what do the new project cost figures include? Do they include all the rolling stock under the new plans? To what extent is funding for Euston included in the new estimates, and do they include signalling? Do the Government intend to set out precisely what is being funded and when the various elements will be delivered under their new timetable? Can the Secretary of State also explain what steps the Government have taken to improve HS2 Ltd’s performance on settling claims with those impacted by construction, since she has highlighted separately that this is an area that requires improvement? Of course, HS2 does not operate in a vacuum. On the same day that this statement is being made to the House, it has been announced that Government pressure will result in one in seven rail services being cut on one of Avanti West Coast’s routes following a Government request to reduce expenditure. Given the comments made about the project, is it appropriate that services on the west coast will offer fewer services to passengers? Ultimately, the Government are right to take steps to reduce costs on this project. Errors were made and should be rectified, and I am glad that the Government continue to support Mark Wild and his team as they work towards opening HS2.

• 14 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), I met two trainee midwives in a surgery just last week in my Norfolk constituency. They are training at the Norfolk and Norwich university hospital, where 250 student midwives are going after just 50 places. What has happened to the graduate guarantee?

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I said I would give way to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed).

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the previous Government absolutely did take action to reduce the welfare state, although the global crisis caused by covid knocked that back a bit. The shadow Chancellor, in his previous role as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, was bringing in wide-scale reform, which would have been effective, but it was cut short by the general election. So this was a long-term project for the Conservative Government, but it has gone into reverse as a result of the Labour Administration. If there is one message that the election results last week should have transmitted loud and clear to all of us, it is that the country is frustrated. People feel that we are bogged down in bureaucracy, with Ministers announcing plans and then nothing happens, but it costs a fortune and takes forever, with costs spiralling. So where was the “reducing bureaucracy Bill” that would unlock the power of the state to actually get things moving? We heard the Leader of the Opposition, in her powerful response to the Gracious Address, setting out the plans of a Conservative Administration, yet without such a bureaucracy-busting Bill, this Government are doomed to failure, even on their own terms. For that matter, without cheaper energy, manufacturing in the United Kingdom is also doomed to failure. Commercial energy in the UK is now the highest in the world, which is a sobering fact, and domestic energy is the second highest in the developed world. So Labour Members cannot be surprised when we have a decline in manufacturing if its energy, which is its primary input, is the highest in the world. It is higher not because it costs us more to produce energy in this country than elsewhere, but because of deliberate taxation and levy decisions taken by the Government. The Government have taxes and levies on electricity to subsidise expensive renewables. Where is the cheap energy Bill? They have done the opposite. The Labour Government have doubled down on their renewable levies, tying this country into the world’s most expensive energy for decades to come. Let us look at the wider economy. The high street has been hammered by Labour, whether from the business rates revaluation, the removal of the hospitality and leisure exemption, or employer national insurance contributions. Pubs and shops right across the country—not just in my constituency, but in every one of the Labour Members’ constituencies—have been closing in record numbers. So where is our “bring back the high street Bill”? It is not there. In fact, there is no coherent plan for a stronger economy and a stronger country. Instead, the King’s Speech is just a hotchpotch—bureaucratic fiddling while the Prime Minister burns. The Government have had two years—two years already—yet the Opposition are doing more serious thinking about solving the problems of this country than the Government, with all their resources, which is shaming. [ Laughter. ] Labour Members should not be laughing; they should be ashamed of themselves and of their Government, given that the Opposition have a more complete King’s Speech, with more complete answers to the problems of this country, than their Government seem able to bring forward. It is extraordinary that we have this weak legislative programme from a weak Government. The country deserves so much better.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  I will just deliver this point and then give way. We have the extraordinarily named “regulating for growth Bill”, which I think is oxymoronic—or perhaps just moronic—because it seems to me that the Government’s answer to anaemic growth is more regulation. We will also have “more Europe”, according to the Prime Minister.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, you do not need me to tell you that this is a deeply unhappy Government. It is a deeply unhappy party sitting on the Government Benches, and Labour Members do not appear to understand that their core problem is a lack of economic growth. If the Labour Government were presiding over fast economic growth, the taxes would come rolling in, their ability to spend on their pet welfare projects would be unlimited, and they would be riding high in the polls. They used to know that. When they came into office, they said that their No. 1 mission was to deliver economic growth, yet what we have seen in the two years since is the most appalling example of a fundamental misunderstanding of how an economy works. Instead of bringing in policies to increase economic growth, we have entered into the depressing doom loop of increased taxes to fund increased welfare, leading directly to reduced economic activity, which leads to increased welfare needs and therefore an increased need for tax rises. We need a leader and a Government who have a plan, not just words, to support economic growth—something that reverses the welfare taxation doom loop. And what do we have in the King’s Speech? Where is the welfare reform bill? It is an appalling statistic that we now spend more on welfare than we recover in income tax. Four million adults receive PIP—the figure has gone up by half a million since the last general election. The Centre for Social Justice came out with a really terrifying argument the other day: according to its analysis, 25% of all full-time workers would be better off receiving benefits than they are in employment—a quarter of the working population. Yet, in this King’s Speech, there is nothing to fix the relationship between welfare and the productive economy.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  One of the glaring omissions in the first release of documentation was the Prime Minister’s response to his box notes about the proposed appointment of Peter Mandelson. The Government have now had three months to think about it. Will the Minister set out whether there is any reason why those documents will not be part of the next release?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency · Hansard source

  More

  I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing the debate and on making a very important contribution, which has been supplemented by speech after speech right across the Chamber identifying a common theme around medical cases, as well as other issues. I will come on to those shortly. The DVLA’s role in upholding the licensing system is essential for maintaining driver safety—that is a truism—and ensuring that the correct people are behind the wheel. We should not underestimate the scale of the task; it is a huge one. Last year, the agency collected £8.4 billion of vehicle excise duty for the Exchequer. It maintained 53 million driver records, as well as 47 million vehicle records, and it processed getting on for 100 million customer transactions. That is no mean feat. If we want to keep our country moving, it is vital that the DVLA processes its work efficiently, reaching the correct answers and doing so quickly. The huge disruption caused by the covid pandemic saw the operation creak and exposed its weaknesses, with systems unable to cope with, among other things, staff distancing. Thanks to important work under the last Government, backlogs were brought down and longer-term efficiency improvements began to be implemented. Changes were made to streamline existing processes. For example, the law was altered to enable healthcare professionals other than doctors to respond to DVLA medical questionnaires. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), when he was a Minister in the Department—he is now the shadow Secretary of State for Transport—launched an independent examination of the DVLA in 2023 to establish what the Government could do to provide genuinely customer-focused services. We had hoped that that reform process would continue with the new Administration after the election in 2024, and some of it has, but as we have heard in the debate today, the data suggests that in many instances that reforming zeal has not continued. The DVLA’s business plan tells us that the average waiting time for licensing decisions on medical cases will be within 50 days—a long time in its own right. However, the Government now admit that in October 2025 the waiting time was over 78 days. By November, the delay had increased further to over 80 days. That has real consequences. We have heard that from Member after Member, and I shall pick out one. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), in a powerful speech, referred to a constituent who has stage 4 cancer and has been waiting nine months and counting for a decision. That is totally unacceptable. Across 2025-26 the overall average was over 56 days, missing the Government’s already slack target of 50 days. That is not acceptable, because it leaves drivers hanging, uncertain of what their fate will be. I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister could explain whether the position has improved since November last year—the last date for which figures are publicly available. Have the Government met, or are they closer to meeting, the target? The DVLA has said that it is completing the migration of its digital driver licensing services from its old digital platform on to a new strategic cloud platform. While that is welcome progress, it does not appear to align with the scale of the reform programme set out by the Treasury in its 2025 departmental efficiency plans. The Department for Transport plan listed: “AI initiatives to increase automation and self-service at its contact centre”, “expanding the use of Robotic Process Automation software”, “automating Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) refunds”, and “wider organisational and workforce restructure.” It claimed that, taken together, those changes would secure net efficiencies of £39 million by 2028-29. However, the actual business plan from the Department for 2025-26, published in March, makes no mention of AI initiatives to bring forward automation and self-service, or to automate refunds for customers. What happened to the plans? Has the Minister changed his mind? Has he told the Treasury? Will he tell us? Without that focus in the business plan, how can we ever expect to see improvements in efficiency and service for the customer? Those are not the only reforms that the DVLA is struggling with. There are challenges around fee deficits. The Government have promised efficiency savings, but it is not clear how they plan to deliver them. The shadow Transport Secretary asked about the £2.50 fee charged for the release of vehicle keeper details. Unfortunately and ironically, the Department’s written answers were later acknowledged to be partially incorrect, as they included inaccurate information about the requirement for legislation. Will the Minister take this opportunity—I am sure he will—to explain whether he plans to change those fees and, crucially, whether he is confident that he can make those changes effectively, given that he was unable to provide accurate information on the process in the first place? When there are questions about efficiency savings, it appears that there is a gap between the rhetoric and the actual delivery. Cloned number plates are another problem of increasing concern that must be tackled, as was highlighted effectively by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes). The DVLA has to be supported in its work with the police to crack down on the issue. In her important speech, she referenced the example of a manufacturer who had been caught and received a £5,000 fine and a non-permanent ban—a five-year ban, from memory—from the registration list at the DVLA. That is madness and she is absolutely right to highlight the issue. We have to tackle the supply and use of cloned plates. Current legislation does not properly reflect the seriousness of the crime. The Conservative party is proposing new legislation so that manufacturers and online retailers of cloned plates would face a fine of up to £1,000 and/or up to five years’ imprisonment. On top of that, any driver caught using a plate that does not match their vehicle’s registered data would incur a driving ban of up to two years, up to a year in prison and a £5,000 fine. These are not accidental infringements of driving laws; it is express criminal activity, often to facilitate other crimes, and it should be treated as such. Ultimately, we need to have laws in place that clamp down on criminality. It is an oddity that it is much harder to scrap a car than it is to buy one. To scrap a car, people need ID, a vehicle licence and a UK bank account, whereas to buy one they can just turn up and pay in cash. That is a gateway for thousands of uninsured vehicles to be used for criminal purposes. The different approaches make no sense. Why do we not tighten up the rules, so that if a person wants to buy a car, at the very least they have to record their driving licence? Will the Government consider working with the DVLA to support our proposal to tighten up that method of removing uninsured vehicles from the road? The DVLA is ripe for further reform. Its services our ideal for use of AI to improve productivity, reduce costs and improve responsiveness. Instead of being paralysed by the Mandelson affair, the Government need to focus on driving through reforms to serve the driving public and clamp down on vehicle-related crime. I am concerned that the current data appears to be going in the wrong direction, but there is still time for the Government to turn this around. We have a plan for improvements and I look forward to hearing that the Government have one too.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency · Hansard source

  More

  This is not a party political point, because I am sure that blame could be focused on my party as well. Given that we have 34,000 registered suppliers, does the Minister recognise that it is an impossible task for the DVLA to keep any kind of meaningful record as to whether they are in fact compliant?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for agreeing to chair this important debate, Ms Lewell. Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing it. We have heard a huge amount of unanimity across the political divide about our support for mountain rescue and the analysis of some of the challenges that it faces. Frankly, mountain rescue is easy to ignore because it operates by definition in remote areas, but there is something else: it is operated by people who are typically self-sufficient, independent and tough volunteers, and as a result it is a self-sufficient, independent and tough organisation. Those are not typically the kind of people who put their hands up and say they want the Government to do something for them, but—and this is an important “but”—when someone needs mountain rescue, it is the most important organisation in the world. There seems to be a qualification for being on the Front Bench at the moment. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) was stuck out on a mountain in Italy for 48 hours, and look where that has got him. I was an idiot myself when I was in my teens: I got stuck up above the snowline on a mountain overnight, with no equipment at all, wearing trainers. Unfortunately, that was before the days of mobile phones, and I just had to survive; I managed to climb down the following day. By the sounds of it, there is a link between risk taking and political careers, but I hope that both of us have learned our lessons; I look forward to further anecdotes from the Minister. We need mountain rescue, and we know that demand is increasing. We have heard about the 26 teams in Scottish Mountain Rescue, which in 2025 had 1,270 call-outs and assisted more than 900 people. It is worth remembering that that took more than 39,000 hours of volunteer time. We heard from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the many English mountain rescue teams—five, I think, in his constituency—and we heard from the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) about Welsh mountain rescue. Like her, I want to raise the profile of Llanberis Mountain Rescue Team. In my former career, I was the managing director of Go Ape, working in outdoor recreation—often out in the mountains—and the Llanberis team was responsible for training for the mountain leader qualifications. It is at the heart of this country’s very good training and outdoor education, and was responsible for responding to 10% of all call-outs last year. There is plenty to support and give plaudits for. We have heard a number of arguments that more should be done regarding funding, and some of those arguments no doubt have merit, but we should be careful what we wish for with volunteer organisations. When I think, off the top of my head, about the most loved, must trusted and most supported organisations in our country, I think of the RNLI, the Air Ambulance Service, the hospice movement and mountain rescue. They have something important in common: they are not adjuncts of the state. They grow up from their local community, and they are therefore supported by, loved by and close to their community. It would be a terrible disservice to mountain rescue if, through some misplaced wish to support it, we brought it into the confines of the state.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  That is a reasonable point, but the key argument made by all hon. Members today is about the state getting in the way through regulatory oversight. That may be by mistake, as I think it probably is genuine oversight in this case—that is, the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which were debated in Committee on 15 April. Real concerns have been expressed by Members across the political divide about the potential impact of the draft regulations on mountain rescue. Those concerns were articulated in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), who is medically qualified and was previously a medical member of mountain rescue. She set out concerns about the impact on mountain rescue, the application of treatment by volunteers and the requirement to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale estimated that it would cost each organisation between £10,000 and £20,000 for regulation. There will be a clear impact upon onsite healthcare on the mountainside, but also on sports events, fell running, mountain bike events—which I used to attend—and music festivals. We want high quality care, but as Members from across the political divide have argued, the regulations need to be proportionate. I hope that the Minister is about to announce that there will be an exemption for mountain rescue. We wait on her speech with bated breath. That is just one example of regulatory burden; there are others. We should aim to have proportionate regulation. We should aim to reduce the regulatory burden in terms of bureaucracy while increasing the effectiveness of light-touch regulation to provide care and support when it is needed. The draft regulations appear to be the exact opposite, so I will be interested in the Minister’s response. I have a final point, though it is really an observation. On the increased demand for mountain rescue, we have to ask, “Why?”. It may be in part because of changed attitudes to how we live our lives as a response to covid and the lockdown, and a reassessment of the rat race. People want to get out, experience adventure, get closer to the outdoors and to nature more generally. If so, without hesitation I applaud and encourage, as we all should, that increased demand and appetite for the outdoors. There is an attitude on social media, however, where we seem to laud “extreme” activities, making very dangerous and difficult activities seem accessible and desirable to people like me when I was a teenager in my trainers. There is a concern that that attitude underplays the risk associated with those activities, when professional training is needed to build the layers of experience that make one capable of undertaking and surviving them. There is a balance to be struck between encouraging interest, involvement and engagement, and reinforcing the need for personal responsibility for one’s own safety—a responsibility that one addresses through training, experience and risk mitigation and management structures. We are lucky to have mountain rescue. Finance will always be a challenge. I accept that improvements can be made, but I repeat my caution about the need to stay close to one’s community. At the very least, the Government should not make matters worse with heavy-handed or stupid regulation. We seem to have an example of that going through Parliament right now. The Government have the opportunity, through the Minister, to address the sector’s very real concerns, and I look forward to her comments.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Mountain Rescue · Hansard source

  More

  That sounds like progress in the right direction, but can the Minister address the absolute cost of registration, which we have assessed as being between £10,000 and £20,000 per organisation? How will that be reduced by the Government’s actions?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  For the third time of asking, at the time when the Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador, was he aware that Mandelson had been a director of Sistema?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of his proposed changes to jury trials on the criminal justice system.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  The Justice Secretary has just told us that the reason he is cutting jury trials is to get the backlog down. If that is the case, why is there not a sunset clause, so that once the backlog is reduced, those jury trials can resume?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  21. What steps his Department is taking to support the hospitality sector.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Six hospitality venues are closing every single day under this Government. If the Government actually asked the sector why, businesses would tell them: it is because of the jobs-killing national insurance tax rises—literally a tax on jobs—as well as the red tape and additional costs of the Employment Rights Act 2025. When are the Government finally going to realise that those job losses and business closures are not happening despite the work of the Government, they are happening because of it?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  7. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unemployment.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister answered a question about unemployment by giving data about employment, so let us focus on unemployment numbers. By how much has general unemployment increased since July 2024?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I seek clarity from the Prime Minister: given his initial refusal of permission for the use of bases by the US, is it the view of His Majesty’s Government that the initial strikes by Israel and the United States were illegal?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Desmond, for agreeing to chair this interesting debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) for securing this debate today. Any Member of Parliament with a pulse who has served more than a day here will realise how interconnected is the relationship between planning decisions, housing developments in their constituencies and the provision of local infrastructure to support them. I bet the biggest complaint every single one of us will have received over our period in office is, “We are not against planning, but we need the infrastructure in first and the development later, because we need to look after not just the coming population, but the existing one.” Trying to balance the needs of future and existing populations is right at the heart of local democratic representation.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that intervention. In her speech, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said that many of the services from Berkhamsted to London were not on time, so I took the opportunity to look up the frequency of those services. I gently point out that people in my constituency would give their eye teeth for a service every 10 minutes and that level of connectivity—they only have to wait a couple more minutes and there is another train, and another one after that. However, I do not diminish her fundamental argument about transport infrastructure, the subject of the debate—you have rightly been generous, Sir Desmond, in letting us stretch that to other local infrastructure—if new populations are to be accepted by existing populations, infrastructure needs to expand at the same pace, and ideally in advance of the growth in population. We have heard a number of good speeches; I commend the hon. Lady’s speech, but I will also highlight the two Conservative contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made the important point that where we have an increased population, it is not only the roads, but the railway infrastructure, that suffer and need to be expanded. In her case, that is an extended station at Reigate. Her constituency also suffers a double whammy, with travel growth due to the nearby expansion of Gatwick airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) made a number of good points. With multiple developments on local transport infrastructure, each one is identified and dealt with in isolation, not considering the cumulative impacts. The argument goes that the road can stand another 500 or 1,200 units, and that might be the case but, when there are 20 cumulative applications, the infrastructure creaks. He made another good point, of which I have personal experience, about constituencies with multiple local authorities, where one local authority can make a planning decision that adversely affects residents in the authority next door. In my case, the Liberal Democrat North Norfolk district council is planning a large increased settlement to North Walsham, totally ignoring the huge impact of traffic going through nearby Coltishall, where everyone is funnelled over a single bridge across the river. There is an ongoing fight, with one district council ignoring the needs of another. Surely we can do better than that. The Government have also taken steps to alter housing targets, moving targets around the country. Those steps have not always been accompanied by consideration of the impact on local transport. A prominent example is the county of Dorset, where a significantly increased housing target is being imposed—top-down, as the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said—yet one of the first acts of the Labour Government was to axe the improvements to the A303, the road that links Dorset to London and the south-east. Currently, an eight-mile journey that should take only 10 minutes is regularly taking over an hour. The A303 is also the vital connection between the south-east and the south-west—areas where the Government’s targets will result in a significant increase in development, with more people, more cars and more congestion. That example demonstrates the disconnect between what local areas need when it comes to transport and what the Government are willing to deliver. Even when plans have been developed and funding has been secured for key transport schemes, they are often hampered, and sometimes even cancelled due to—in my view—unreasonable and burdensome over-regulation. I need only look at my own constituency and the scheme for the Norwich western link road. The delivery of that scheme is vital to the residents of Norfolk and to the local economy. Traffic congestion, delays, and queues on small rural roads and through communities in my constituency have long been blighting the area to the west of Norwich. Detailed plans were drawn up for a new 3.9-mile dual carriageway, the last section needed to complete the orbital dual carriageway route around the city of Norwich. Plans were developed over seven years with local consultation and £230 million in funding—achieved by me. It was classified as a high-value scheme by the Department for Transport’s criteria. Relying on that planned road, many thousands of new houses had been allocated to land north-east of Norwich. Natural England was consulted throughout that seven-year period; in fact, it was very much part of the team. Then, one week before the final planning application was made, and without any notice to the planning team, Natural England changed its approach to a nearby colony of bats and withdrew its support—not just for that scheme, but for any mitigation approach. That left £50 million of development costs, and local residents and businesses across Norfolk let down. They were not consulted and their views were not taken into consideration. Despite the Prime Minister talking a good game when it came to organisations unreasonably blocking crucial infrastructure schemes for similar reasons—I pray in aid the bat tunnel—the Government did not step in to help. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the Government are planning to stop unelected quangos effectively vetoing democratic decisions. That road may have hit the buffers, at least for the time being, but the associated housing allocations all remain and can be seen in Taverham—it is a very live issue in my constituency at the moment—and elsewhere. This is exactly what residents hate: the process taking over from the reality on the ground. The cart is put before the horse, and then it is going in one direction and cannot be stopped. There is no review. The anger that I suspect we all experience on the doorsteps when residents feel they are being ignored is very real. In November last year, the Government published a rapid evidence report on the impacts of integrated land use and transport planning, which summarised evidence on how combining land use and transport planning affects travel. One of the first suggestions in the rapid evidence assessment for policy makers making land use and transport decisions was: “Developing awareness of potential unintended consequences via short scoping studies ahead of major investments.” It highlighted that that could “enable mitigating action to be taken where appropriate.” Anyone who examines the Government’s record over the past 18 months realises that they have an exceptional talent for not considering the consequences of their actions. Perhaps the Minister would like to feed that suggestion into the wider Government. Let us also look at planning and development in areas with much better local transport provision than many of us currently enjoy. One might think that areas with more developed transport networks would be able to encourage significant planning and development without some of the issues that we have been debating. Utilising areas such as brownfield sites close to existing locations should be an important way to help with some of the planning challenges posed in rural areas including Norfolk. In London, however, which has by far the best transport network in the country, and significantly subsidised transport services with buses, we have seen the London Mayor’s absolute failure to deliver housing. Just look at last year; what has happened is really shocking. In London last year there were just 5,891 housing starts. That is 94% below target and a 75% year-on-year decline—the steepest drop in the country, the lowest tally since records began almost 40 years ago, and the lowest figure for any major city in the developed world this century. What a record.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Local Transport: Planning Developments · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The failure of the London Mayor is putting pressure on her constituency and many other communities in the wider orbit of London. The Government will say they are trying to take action to integrate these elements and to ensure that planning development does not negatively impact local transport, but in trying to deliver their targets on development, they should stop and consider the steps they can take to make it easier to build infrastructure and support planning that actually delivers local infrastructure improvements, before new populations arise.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  Speak for yourself.