Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister for Social Security and Disability, who is no longer in his place, was in the extraordinary position of starting a debate arguing that he needed to save £4.5 billion and ending the debate saying he needed to spend an additional £300 million. Was that not a bit odd?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about perverse disincentives and aspiring to be classified as sick. Does he accept that, with sickness benefits, someone will get £2,500 more than if they are on the national living wage full time? If that is the case, which it is, what is his plan to reverse that perverse disincentive?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Independent Lifeboats: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, it is a pleasure to appear before you, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on securing this debate. I know he is a long-standing supporter of independent lifeboats, and he hid his light under a bushel by understating his involvement in the creation of the National Independent Lifeboat Association. I will pause to remember the efforts of Anthony Mangnall, the former Member for Totnes, who was an excellent contributor—a very good orator—in the Chamber. He had his own style, stood with his hand in his pocket, right at the Front Bench where there is no protection at all. He was a very impressive Member of this House. I should declare an interest. I do not think it is recorded in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but since my early 20s I have been an offshore member of the RNLI, having been a sailor and boating enthusiast all my life. During the debate I played a game with myself to see whether I had sailed or been on a boat in every constituency mentioned. The answer is that I have. I was a bit nervous when the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke, because that constituency is quite a challenge, but then he mentioned the Thames, and I have been there. I was also concerned when the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke; I have of course been on Strangford lough, but I was challenged by Lough Neagh. I have been there, and I think I have been on a boat there. The hon. Member could have mentioned Lough Erne—I have been all over that. So I know of what I speak, having followed every Member round their constituencies and their references to the lifeboats. I can say I have been in those areas, but actually I was under the unseen protection of each and every independent lifeboat that was standing ready and willing to come to my aid had something bad happened. We need to remember that. Being out on the sea is a wonderful recreational experience. It is fun until it is not, when it becomes very dangerous very quickly. These men and women stand ready to put their own lives at risk to protect us, whether we are working on the sea or there for recreation. It is important that we remember that throughout this debate. Independent lifeboat services offer important support for lifesaving, both on the sea and on inland waters, such as those in my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham. The National Independent Lifeboat Association says that more than 80 independent lifeboat organisations operate along the coastline and inland waterways, and it estimates that in 2024 there were getting on for 3,500 volunteers, of whom over 1,000 were operational. They attended almost 2,000 incidents, assisting more than 2,000 people in distress or need. As has been mentioned, that work has been valued at £2.6 million in savings to the Government. This selfless work, carried out by inspirational people, many of whom have been mentioned by name in the debate, not only saves lives but saves the taxpayer money. I want to join in the local celebrations. I am a bit stretched, because I represent an inland constituency, although it includes a part of the Norfolk broads—the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) and I share them. At Great Yarmouth we have Caister lifeboat. I am told, although I stand to be corrected, that it is the oldest lifeboat in the country. It has existed since 1791—consider that: well over 200 years. It is at the heart of the Norfolk coastal community that raises the money to support it. That money goes towards lifesaving equipment and training. This year, Caister came out not just to save lives but to save a historic vessel. As a keen sailor, I have watched the complete restoration of the former royal yacht Bloodhound—I read about the progress in the sailing press over the course of months—which sprung a devastating leak off the Norfolk coast. The Caister lifeboat went out, helped to pump out and secure the vessel, and escorted it safely to the shore. Bloodhound is the vessel in which Prince Philip taught Prince Charles how to sail. It was a royal yacht from 1936 until 1969. On the other side of the Wash is the Humber Rescue lifeboat. On 23 May this year it was launched multiple times over a 10-hour period to deal with a series of serious incidents on the Humber, and it saved three lives in a single day. That is just one example of the incredible work that independent lifeboat has done. An interesting point, which some Members have raised, is that a local lifeboat knows its waters, some of which have particular characteristics that mean that specificity of training pays dividends. Where we have local conditions, we need local lifeboats—independent lifeboats, in particular—to provide the coverage we are all looking for. Last year, the Felixstowe coast patrol and rescue saved six lives and provided assistance to 58 people while taking part in 55 patrols covering thousands of miles. Closer to home, the hon. Member for North Norfolk will recall that, just last month, Hemsby Broads rescue was tasked by Humber coastguard to assist in the rescue of six people on the lower Bure on its approach to Great Yarmouth. We fight over the Bure; it is the barrier, or the demarcation point, between our two constituencies. I have not researched sufficiently to know whether it happened on my side of the river or the hon. Gentleman’s, but the vessel that ran aground was listing heavily near Great Yarmouth. All the casualties were safely evacuated, but without that swift and co-ordinated approach, the situation could have ended very differently. We owe a debt of gratitude to independent lifeboats, whether they operate in inland waters or out at sea. There is a wider point here. For all these institutions, their strength comes from their independence. Although state provision can provide funding and coverage, it comes at the very significant cost of disenfranchising local communities. It comes at the cost of undermining their sense of belonging and the network of social ties—the community resilience—that supporting, running and manning a local independent lifeboat brings about. The strength of independent lifeboats is their very independence. More widely, this is a model for devolution—not the Government’s version, devolution from above, where we destroy the lowest level of government and bring it up to county or bi-county level as a vehicle for undertaking the directions of the national state, but devolution down to communities that empowers them to take decisions on their own behalf. That is the kind of devolution towards which independent lifeboats lead the way. Although these organisations are a celebration of independence, there is a difference between independence and funding, which remains a huge challenge. We have heard that between 2014 and 2020, the previous Government granted a total of £5.66 million to 104 different independent inshore and inland rescue boat charities through the rescue boat grant fund. Sadly, that was stopped in 2020. I hear the lament of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, and I join him in it. It was a mistake that, to save £1 million pounds a year, the capital advantage given to these independent charities, which do so much for their local communities, was stopped. That leads me neatly into my request to the Minister to consider that as we approach the Budget on 26 November. What is she going to do about it? We need to make sure that independent lifeboats are able to act to protect those in need. Are regulations in place to that ensure independent lifeboats can act effectively? Does the Minister agree with everyone in the Chamber about the importance of independent lifeboats? If so, will she update us on the Government’s approach to funding—that is important—and on how she can encourage local lifeboat institutions to thrive? My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) made a very important point about the bureaucracy of volunteering. That is an increasingly significant constraint. There are lots of requirements, each of which is no doubt sensible on its own, but the accumulation of bureaucracy, when taken en masse, prevents people from volunteering. We need to do something about that. Will the Minister commit to a permanent position for NILA on the search and rescue framework? This debate has been a celebration—of civic society, not the state. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley on drawing our attention to this very important part of our civic society and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s speech.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Farmers: Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to her position at the Dispatch Box. I know she will be excellent at the job. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Welsh farming is central to the Welsh economy—we can all agree on that—but it is now facing a double whammy from the mad sustainable farming scheme from Labour in Cardiff, and the frankly bad family farm tax that has been dreamt up by Labour in London. The Farmers’ Union of Wales tells us that more than 85% of active farms in Wales will have IHT bills that exceed their incomes. That spells economic disaster. Why is Labour so deaf to the voice of farmers in Wales?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Farmers: Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  10. What discussions she has had with farmers in Wales on the potential impact of planned changes to inheritance tax relief on the agricultural sector.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China: Assessment of Threat Level · Hansard source

  More

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

• 28 Oct 2025 · China: Assessment of Threat Level · Hansard source

  More

  In her former role, the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Planning Inspectorate raising no objections to the Chinese super-embassy application. She did not mention any concerns about the secret basements—some people describe them as dungeons—on the application, and she raised no objection to the proximity of the application to key data cables in the City of London. In her new role, does she now regret her previous lack of action?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the story so far, but given that there have been so many variations on the truth, can he come up with an explanation of why the Government cannot alight on a single version of the truth of this matter?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Connected and Automated Vehicles · Hansard source

  More

  It is lovely to appear before you today, Ms Vaz. I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) on securing this interesting and important debate. She rightly focused on the three main issues, one of which, of course, is safety—a potential enormous benefit of the developing technology. Another is accessibility, which I will talk about in my comments. She also spoke of the potential for significant economic growth, while accepting that through any economic and technological transition, there are losers as well as winners. A responsible Government ought to take proper account of that. The only other contributor who I will reference specifically is the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has never missed an opportunity to contribute to a debate. I have never heard a more heartfelt elegy for the diesel motorcar than his. I say it was elegiac, because there is, I think, a fin de siècle element to this technology, as we move towards more fuel-efficient cars, then ultimately to self-driving cars. It is so unlike the hon. Gentleman to be hesitant about boldly going where no passengers have been before. I am sure he will catch up when he gets the opportunity—as the hon. Member for West Bromwich has done, having already had the experience of going in a driverless car. I look forward to the opportunity myself. The last Conservative Government took a clear decision to support the introduction of autonomous vehicles on our roads, and to pass the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 to establish the regulatory framework to allow AV technology to flourish in the United Kingdom. The Act defined the legal framework for the authorisation of AV use on our roads through the creation of the concept of the statement of safety principles, as well as subsequent legal responsibility that would be used to govern AV actions—for example, the imposition of a legal liability on a corporate entity, the provider of the technology, as opposed to it being on the driver of a car. That is a novel legal concept on our roads that will clearly be necessary for autonomous vehicles, because who is in command? Who is in control? It is no longer the driver, and that has a knock-on impact on insured risk. The Act also sought to deal with that because it included appropriate sanctions for situations in which a vehicle fails to drive either legally or safely. The Act set out the ability for the Government to set regulations—secondary legislation—requiring organisations to report certain safety-related data to the authorisation authority, of which it anticipates the creation, and the in-use regulator. It sought to protect customers by prohibiting misleading marketing: only vehicles that meet the safety threshold can be marketed in the future as “self-driving”. Finally, it set out the approach to the policing and seizure of non-compliant AVs. As far as they went, the last Government did a great job. They brought forward practical, legislative proposals, which generated confidence in the sector, and they set out the structure that allowed the sector to grow and invest in this country. Modelling put forward by the Government suggests that there is the potential to create 38,000 jobs in the sector in the next nine years, generating value of £42 billion—I always have a healthy degree of scepticism when we are told that future industries will be enormously valuable, and I slightly wonder how people come up with such figures. Nevertheless, that optimism is shared by serious organisations such as Goldman Sachs, which has predicted significant increases in ridership, particularly in the US, following considerable growth over the last few years. It is therefore right that the UK, at the very least, does not block such technological advances and supports its tech sector as it seeks to develop AVs and the software behind them. The Opposition recognise that these developments go well beyond merely economics, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich said. Automated systems can help improve driving quality, reduce congestion, increase the more efficient use of fuel and help with elements of accessibility. Rural pensioners may not have to move into a town when they are too old or infirm to drive. Vehicles as a service can reduce costs for lower-income families. Efficient fuel use and lane discipline can reduce congestion and the environmental impact of driving. On safety, we are told that 88% of all road accidents are contributed to by human error. If AVs can improve that statistic, the societal benefits of this technology could be profound. Waymo, the market leader in the US, claims that compared with the figures for the average human driver over the same distance in its operating cities, the reduction in crashes resulted in 91% fewer serious injuries, with 80% fewer injury-causing crashes of any description. Those are startling statistics. Even though we are at an early stage, those assertions, backed by millions of miles of AV driving—albeit in US conditions—do create cause for optimism. We want to see this technology benefit the British people by making our lives on the road both easier and safer. So far, so good—we all agree—but this is where the consensus is at risk of ending. When technological development is at stake, time is the issue. The 2024 Act was enabling—it anticipated a host of secondary legislation to put meat on the statutory bones—but we are yet to see concrete action from this Government. Where is the secondary legislation around data sharing for insurance purposes? Does the Minister have a timeframe for the introduction of that regulation? While the Minister is looking through his notes to see if he has the answer to that question, where is the legislation on cyber-security? We only have to look at the recent experience at JLR to realise that this is not a theoretical threat—it could be absolutely central to the viability of this technology and its adoption in this country. Where is the secondary legislation on data integrity and resilience against hacking or system failure? That is anticipated in the 2024 Act, and the Government need to take the next step. They have not yet. I do not want to throw too many bricks—well, I do really, but I will restrain myself and ask the Minister for an update: where is the detailed definition of the statement of safety principles? Where are the regulations allowing for competition within the sector, while still maintaining robust safety standards? That is not going to happen by itself; it requires the Government to act. We need an update from the Minster. We have the Government’s industrial strategy, which was published in June. It commits to making AVs commercially viable in the UK, but it did not say when. Perhaps the Minister can provide that answer. The Government are supposed to be seeking to harmonise international regulations on self-driving, and enabling pilots of self-driving vehicles by the spring of 2026. We have some movement on that, but can the Minister update the House on his progress? We all agree that AVs represent a big opportunity for society and business. I welcome the Government’s wholesale adoption of the Conservative approach to this sector. The issue is not party political; we all appear to agree on the same objectives. But there needs to be a sense of urgency from this Administration, and I look forward to the Minister’s response demonstrating that urgency.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Business is crying out that the Employment Rights Bill will cost jobs. Now, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, the spiritual home of the Secretary of State— [ Laughter. ] —says it will cripple the jobs market, especially for young people. It is not a laughing matter. What is the Secretary of State’s view? Will the Employment Rights Bill help his Department to increase employment, or will it cost even more jobs?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Civil Service Strikes · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that answer, albeit partial, from the Minister, because he is quite right: he relies on the Office for National Statistics for the compilation of these figures. Now, even its staff have a strike mandate. They are refusing to attend work even for two days a week. What are the Government doing to enforce attendance levels at work? When does he think the ONS will find time to report on it?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Civil Service Strikes · Hansard source

  More

  16. How many working days have been impacted by strikes in the civil service since July 2024.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Strengthening National Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  He’s right there! Why doesn’t he answer?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office · Hansard source

  More

  The Solicitor General has repeatedly said that prosecutors and not politicians should decide whether to prosecute. Of course that is the case, but that is a straw man argument. The issue here is not political interference in the decision to prosecute, but political interference in the evidence that was given to the CPS, affecting its ability to prosecute. We have been told that the Attorney General was informed. Why was he informed, if not to allow him to take action to perfect the evidence? Why did he not?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will endeavour to do so, Madam Chair. In fact, I will more than endeavour; I will do so. The reason this is relevant is that it speaks to new clause 5. While the Government have their head in the sand in respect of Mauritius’s relations with China—this is why it is important, Madam Chair—their first argument is that Mauritius will not be influenced by China, and is it not awful of us to suggest that it might be. I raised this question with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), back in October last year. I raised concerns that Mauritius was an ally of China and was open to influence from that country. With the disdain for which he is now famous, the right hon. Gentleman pooh-poohed that. He said that Mauritius was not a Chinese ally because it was not part of the belt and road agreement in Africa. When we look at the relationship between China and Mauritius, however, we see that they have strong bilateral ties that go back to 1972, on economic co-operation and diplomatic support. China is the largest trading partner of Mauritius, which entered into a free trade agreement with China—the first such free trade agreement that China has entered into on the African continent. Perhaps it did not need to belong to the belt and road agreement in addition to its free trade agreement. There is influence expressed through investments, loans and grants. China built the international airport terminal for Mauritius. It has invested in the Jinfei economic and trade co-operation zone—a flagship belt and road initiative—and between 2000 and 2012 China also funded 47 development projects in Mauritius through loans and grants. So forgive me, Madam Chair, if I do not swallow the argument that Mauritius is wholly beyond the influence of China. The Government say, “If Mauritius is under the influence of China, don’t worry, because China don’t support this deal. China will be arguing against this deal.” We were told by the Prime Minister that China, Russia and Iran do not support the Chagos deal. Therefore, presumably my geopolitical security fears must be wrong. Well, Ministers have repeatedly been asked for the evidence that China does not support this deal, and none has been provided to date. If I am wrong on that, perhaps the Minister will say from the Dispatch Box where China has expressed its concerns about this deal. If you were to listen to the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius, even you, Madam Chair, would be forgiven for thinking that China is thoroughly in favour of this deal, because he sent “massive congratulations” to Mauritius and said that China “fully supports” Mauritius’s attempt to “safeguard national security.” That is the definition of doublespeak if it does not mean that China is wholly in favour of this deal and is celebrating it with Mauritius. I am not convinced, and neither are the Government.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not often compared to the noble Lord Cameron, but it is absolutely right that as the geopolitical environment changes, so should our policies. We on this side of the House are realists.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will try his best in a few minutes to defend this wholly indefensible Bill, but the public know what it is: they see it as an absolute sell-out. I suspect that the Government Members who are not filling the green Benches see it as a sell-out, too. That is why every single one of them failed to support the Bill in Committee, save for one brave or perhaps misguided Member. The public can see that they are a weak Government without the backbone necessary to stand up for the British public’s interests. They see this Bill as the sell-out that it is geopolitically, with the Government blind to the associated security risks, the sell-out that it is financially, with £35 billion going to a foreign Government, and the sell-out that it is of the Chagossian people, with their exclusion from negotiations.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask those questions—questions that have been asked of the Government time and again throughout this legislative process, but to which we simply have not had an answer. The Government seem to be blind to the risk of the craven withdrawal of influence from the Indo-Pacific region. This is more Jonathan Powell. He was, of course, the Prime Minister’s envoy, and the architect of the negotiation and the deal. The more I learn of Jonathan Powell, the more I realise that he seems to have a long-term instinct to downplay the threat from China—a threat in the Indian Ocean through this negotiated deal. Let us not forget that this is the same Jonathan Powell who now wears a different hat. He is now the National Security Adviser, and that, very unusually, was a political appointment. There is the question of his involvement—or perhaps it is not his involvement— in the collapse of the Chinese spying case. We are asked to believe that he was not involved in it, and that seems baffling as well.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is my hon. Friend aware that Mauritius does not have a navy?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is for exactly those reasons that we so desperately need new clause 5, which would require an annual security report to the Intelligence and Security Committee. That would mean that we are not caught with our heads in the sand again. We are beginning to build a picture of a slippery Government who are not being honest with the British people, not being honest about the legal justifications for this deal and not being honest about the security risk associated with the deal, and who are now being slippery about the financial cost as well. Again, the Prime Minister himself said that this slippery deal was going to cost the taxpayer £101 million a year for 99 years. He rounded that down from £10 billion, which my maths would have come to, to £3.4 billion. Through a freedom of information request, the Government Actuary’s Department has confirmed that the actual cost is £34.7 billion. Did the Prime Minister just get the decimal point in the wrong place, or was it something more sinister? Madam Chair, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Government should no longer be trusted. They are changing their story in relation to this agreement, and they changed their story in relation to the China spy trial collapse. We need new clause 1 so that no payments can be made without direct approval from the House of Commons. At least then the Government would have to explain the real figures and be open to transparency and scrutiny. The public see through Labour’s deal, and they know a sell-out when they see one. The Opposition amendments and new clauses bring transparency to expose this sell-out from a weak Prime Minister without the backbone to stand up for Britain. No wonder Labour Members are about to vote against them.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Sir Desmond, for chairing us today; you are the serial winner of the best dressed Chair competition. As a Kentish man—I was brought up as a Kentish man—I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) on securing this debate. I am glad that I was not part of the negotiations with the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), who probably put forward serial applications for a similar debate. It is important to have this debate, building on the legacy of the former Member of Parliament for Ashford, Damian Green. My former colleague understood the significance of the impact on international services at Ashford and Ebbsfleet. He had an Adjournment debate back in October 2023, and, having read that debate in Hansard, it is remarkable how many of the arguments have been rehearsed in this very Chamber before. I suspect the speech of the then Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, will have more than a passing resemblance to that of the current occupant. It is clear from the contributions that we heard way back in 2023 and today from all Members that reintroducing services at Ashford International would be welcomed by residents across Kent and the whole south-east—and it turns out, also those in Strangford and York Outer. The economic case has been set out most recently by the Good Growth Foundation, which has argued that reintroducing services would deliver significant benefits to the region. I intended to go through all the various data it put forward to support its case in its report, but various Members have already done that job for me, so I will avoid the temptation to repeat all those numbers. It is so far, so good, as we are all furiously agreeing with each other. We agree, as did the last Government, that Eurostar—with a private business and ambitions to grow from 19 million passengers to 30 million passengers across Europe—should reopen its services to Ashford International and/or to Ebbsfleet. If it is looking to grow, why ignore a profitable potential market? Its business plan is obviously up to it as a private business, but it currently appears that Eurostar is content to focus on a more profitable route direct to London. It can do that because, without any direct rail competition, some have suggested that it has become complacent. That is what happens in the absence of competition: the same is good enough, there is no incentive for dynamic development, nor the creation of new products, the defence of one’s markets or the pushing of the boundaries. There is no drive either to cut costs to maximise efficiency. I speak with personal experience of this; before coming into Parliament, I was the managing director of a decent-sized business. I hated competition, because competition in a market forced us to sharpen our pencil, both financially and in the services that we provided. I recognised that it was good for our business in the abstract, but in the day-to-day, people want to avoid it. I am therefore pleased that four challenger brands have seen additional opportunities for the tunnel and HS1, which we should now call—I learned to call it—London St Pancras Highspeed, since February this year. Eurostar uses just 50% of its capacity of the tunnel, and the ORR is currently considering the availability of depot space at Temple Mills. Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, appears to agree. In his letter to the ORR, he argues that “the arrival of competition will benefit users of international rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.” How right he is. Competition leads to improved services, increased efficiency and the development of new markets, so why will the Government not apply the same logic when it comes to domestic rail? If Lord Hendy believes what he said to the ORR, why are his Government doggedly pursing their nationalisation agenda, designing competition out of the UK railways? This is important, and it was referred to positively by Labour Members: why is he planning to remove the crucial role of the independent economic regulator from the ORR, making Great British Railways both the player and the referee in the new version of the railways? Surely, that is like giving Eurostar the job of deciding if there is room for more competition on HS1.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. and learned Member will be aware that the ORR is looking at Temple Mills because applications have been received under open access agreements. That is not a response to the Government; it is a response to applications from the private sector. We can already see the direction of travel with domestic railways. The Government have argued against every single new open access application since coming to power. It seems they can support competition only when the competition is not against them. Who loses out? Just as at Ashford International, it is the passengers, with fewer routes, fewer services and fewer efficiencies leading to higher costs. The Conservatives support any approach that encourages competition and grows the rail sector, whether domestically or internationally. We welcome the four applications requesting access to Temple Mills, at least one of which anticipates the use of Ebbsfleet and Ashford International. We welcome the Government’s conversion to the benefits of competition, at least on High Speed 1. We look forward to seeing that new-found belief in the private sector in their approach to rail nationalisation more widely. If not, I fear it will be passengers who pay the price.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  A good Conservative approach.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  Kentish.

• 14 Oct 2025 · International Rail Services: Ashford · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady and I come from different perspectives. I think competition drives good economic behaviour, not the state directing individual companies on what they can do, whether profitable or unprofitable. That is a genuine difference of approach. In this instance, I agree with Lord Hendy, the Rail Minister, that it is competition in this market that will drive benefits to consumers and the taxpayer. We have to remember that Labour left office in 2010 when there was “no money left” and Governments have to take difficult decisions, as the current Government are learning to their cost.