Jerome Mayhew MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mass Transit: West Yorkshire · Hansard source

  More

  The answer is that this is spending from 2026 to 2031, so of course we do not have the allocation in 2023. We will have it in 2026, however, and it is part of the Government funding process. If the hon. Lady asks me where that money is coming from, it is from the savings made through the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2. In rail terms, that was £19.6 billion.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Mass Transit: West Yorkshire · Hansard source

  More

  It is very good to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. As everyone else has done, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this debate. West Yorkshire and the city of Leeds have long been underserved by transport connections; that is common ground across this Chamber. Research from the Centre for Cities in 2022 found that just 38% of the population can reach the city centre within 30 minutes by public transport. That is a very low percentage for a city the size of Leeds. As the former Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities made clear in his 2024 policy paper, that leads to below-average productivity in the area, and a critical catalyst for improvement must be better transport connections. The hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley was also right to allude to a long history of promises, half promises, schemes and plans to improve transport in Leeds, going back many decades. He was generous enough to say that it was a failure of Governments of multiple different colours. I will go back just to the 2000s, when there was the supertram proposal, which the hon. Member might remember. It was a 17-mile system with 50 stations, but it was cancelled by Alistair Darling in 2005 because of cost overruns. In the interests of time, I will not read out the juicy quote from the leader of Leeds Council, but I am sure the hon. Member is familiar with it. In 2007, that proposal was replaced by the bus rapid transport scheme with FTR. That had some of the benefits of the supertram, but with lower initial capital costs, and it was replaced in 2012 by Wright StreetCars. Also in 2012, the trolleybus network proposal was approved by the Government. The scheme was allocated £173 million of public money to be in operation by 2018. From memory, it involved two park and rides and a bus system into the city centre. That, in its turn, was dropped in 2016—again, because of cost overruns and delays. Then we jump forward to 2021, to the West Midlands combined authority and the mass transit scheme with light rail and tram-trains, or bus rapid transport. I am pleased to say that in 2023, it was given the go-ahead by the Conservative Government of the time, and £2.5 billion was allocated for the mass transit system, funded in full for Leeds and West Yorkshire by the Secretary of State’s predecessor Mark Harper. That was a firm commitment supported by the Treasury at the time. On last week’s announcement by the Chancellor of £2.1 billion for the West Yorkshire mass transit scheme, I can see how the constituents of the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley might feel a little sceptical—they have been burned more than once. The plan now is to get the spades in the ground in 2028. It is almost as good as the previous Conservative Government’s plan, which was to get spades in the ground in 2027. The number is remarkably similar to what was then Network North policy. It is worth looking at the numbers. In 2023, it was announced that £2.115 billion would be allocated, so it was a bit of a surprise that last week it was £2.1 billion. The Chancellor has knocked off 15 million quid, but it is absolutely a re-announcement of existing policy.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has clearly been looking over my shoulder, because I was about to say that the last Government did undertake a consultation; it is very noticeable that there has been no official response from the Government. My next question to the Minister, who I know is keen to provide us with full answers, is this: when will we receive an official response to that previous consultation? What is the current Government’s position on method of production labelling? It must be right that increasing transparency through clearer labelling could empower consumers to make informed choices. Improved engagement with religious certification bodies could help to promote the wider use of pre-stunned methods, particularly for halal meat: some stunning methods—where the animal is capable of revival, for example—have been deemed compatible with religious standards. I hope that this afternoon’s debate leads to renewed engagement between the Government, communities, scientists, welfare organisations and religious groups, so that we find an accommodation, rather than a conflict, that both respects faiths and honours our shared responsibility for the welfare of animals.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to see you in your place, Mr Dowd, and it is a privilege to speak in this debate on a petition that has attracted over 109,000 signatures from members of the public across the country. At the start of my comments, let me acknowledge the importance of this issue, which touches on two fundamental principles: commitment to animal welfare on the one hand, and respect for religious freedoms on the other. Those values should not be placed in opposition one to the other, but reconciled through careful evidence-based policy. The petition argues that non-stun slaughter is incompatible with modern animal welfare standards and urges the Government to ban the practice, as has already happened in some other European nations. It is worth remarking that the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that such a ban does not violate the European convention on human rights. An hon. Member—I cannot remember which one—made reference to article 9 on freedom of religion, and the court has already found that that can be balanced against legitimate animal welfare concerns. So there are conflicting positions. We have animal welfare, a cause close to the hearts of many Britons and many of our constituents—we can see that by the large number of signatures to this petition; I sometimes think my constituents prefer their animals to their neighbours. Many would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. The RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association and Compassion in World Farming all argue that slaughter without prior stunning causes unnecessary pain and distress. Their research shows—there has been some conflict between the numbers being bandied around, but the general sense of the numbers has been consistent throughout the debate—that consciousness is lost for sheep within five to seven seconds and for adult cattle within 22 to 40 seconds, although some larger numbers were referenced in other people’s contributions. During that period we have to accept that animals will endure pain and suffering. For that reason, non-stunned killing has been banned for many years in this country, with the religious practice exception going back at least until 1933. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said in her intervention, we need to recognise that when we eat meat an animal always dies. But I accept the argument from the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), with his expertise as a veterinary surgeon. He said—I have no reason to doubt him—that the science is clear. Contrary to some of the arguments put forward by hon. Members during the course of this debate, welfare is improved by stunning. So where do we go from here? I very much liked the contribution of the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), who, if I wrote this down correctly, said that there is a British answer: to maximise animal rights while defending religious freedoms. Equally venerable has been our determination as a society to defend religious freedoms. It goes back, as I mentioned a moment ago, as far as the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which contains an exemption for stunning for religious slaughter for Jews and Muslims. That has been repeated more recently in the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015. Religious slaughter in the UK is permitted under exemptions laid out in those regulations. That does not mean that we cannot make significant improvements to the current position. One issue raised was that of oversupply: the killing of more animals without stunning than are required for religious observance in this country. That might be because they are being exported. That begs the question: why do we need a religious exemption to fund or support an export market rather than religious observance in this country? Another issue could simply be over-production. There is a wild variety of estimates as to how much oversupply there is in this country; the figures that I have seen vary between 32% over-production and 278% over-production. That could mean that as many as 99 million animals are being slaughtered annually without stunning, despite not being required for religious observance—at least, not in the UK. Such a huge variation suggests that better data, at the very least, is required. What steps is the Minister intending to take to obtain reliable data on the end use of non-stunned meat? The second significant area where improvements can be made is in the area of labelling. Many consumers are unaware of whether the meat they purchase comes from stunned or non-stunned animals, and that is not the same as saying the meat is halal or kosher. We have heard repeatedly that 88% of all halal-killed animals are pre-stunned. Nevertheless, there are currently no legal requirements to label meat by method of slaughter. That creates a genuine lack of consumer choice—especially for those who, for ethical or welfare reasons, prefer to avoid non-stun meat, or conversely, those who wish to consume meat that has been religiously slaughtered.

• 2 Jun 2025 · Government Announcements · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House has just told us that the document was “trailed” to journalists, but at 10.41 this morning The Daily Telegraph published a long article in which its authors clearly set out that they had read the entire document. At the same time, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence was refused an advance copy of it, even under Privy Counsellor rules. Why do the Government appear to trust journalists with national security, but not the shadow Secretary of State?

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

  More

  This has been a really enjoyable debate. One of the great benefits of winding up is that we are forced to sit and listen to absolutely everything. Most speeches I enjoyed, but there were one or two that I did not. It is up to hon. Members to work out whether I am talking about them. The contributions to this debate have been enlightening, because they have exposed some clear differences of economic and political philosophy among the parties. The Liberal Democrats, one after another, argued for improved services, particularly rural services, but were less clear about how to fund them. On the Labour Benches, there was huge optimism and enthusiasm under the perhaps mistaken belief that the Bill, in itself, will improve passenger services for their constituents. The truth is that when we look at the terms of the Bill, it is clear that the focus of its reforms is not primarily on improving bus services for passengers—quite the contrary. In the other place, Labour whipped its peers to vote against what is now clause 1, which makes the improvement of the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain the purpose of the Bill. I send birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and make a plea on her behalf for her Whips not to be too harsh on her for her support of clause 1. Perhaps she was unaware that it was opposed by her own party in the other place. Why do the Government not want to put performance improvement at the heart of the Bill? Because that is not the Bill’s primary intention. Labour’s true focus was set out in its background briefing to the King’s Speech. It is about “accelerating the bus franchising process…building on the success of…public bus services still in operation.” No mention there of passengers, performance, improvements or cost control; it is the structure of the bus providers that has excited the Government. They intend to increase the number of municipal bus companies, presumably because they think that civil servants are better equipped to run efficient bus companies than private sector operators. I can see that, in some examples, that is possible. I spoke to the managing director of the Warrington bus company last week and I was impressed by the performance figures, although they are very unusual. However, the Government’s faith does not translate into confidence that the new municipal bus companies could win a competitive tender, as the Bill, perhaps inadvertently, allows local authorities to do away with competition. Extraordinarily, as currently drafted, it would allow any local authority to first create a new municipal bus company and then grant itself a franchise, without any competitive process. If that is deliberate, it really would be the triumph of socialist political ideology: that the state is somehow better. Franchising is an alternative solution, potentially allowing greater co-ordination of transport provision, but it comes at a cost. It takes commercial risk away from the bus operators and puts it in the hands of local authorities. It requires dynamic contract, design and management skills. It is necessarily complex and, if done badly, risks the removal of the innovative power of the private sector, replacing it with state direction. Let me say again what my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) made abundantly clear at the opening of this debate: we do not oppose bus franchising in principle. We support it, in fact, when it delivers value for money and, above all, when it improves services for passengers. But what we have seen from the Government today is a refusal to engage with the very real risks embedded in the Bill. The existing 2017 legislation has been referred to more than once during the debate. It recognises that mayoral combined authorities have the scale and resources needed to manage the development of franchise model. However, even here, political ineptitude and mayoral hubris can make a mess of things. Andy Burnham’s Bee Network has been touted as the socialist example to follow— [Interruption.] I hear it from the Government Front Bench right now, but let us have a look at what has actually happened in Manchester. Buses that cost the private sector £180,000 cost Andy Burnham £220,000. Bus depots that cost the private sector less than £4 million cost Andy Burnham more than £12 million—in fact, nearly £13 million. Private sector bus companies train sufficient staff for their needs while Andy’s team, having failed to secure enough trained drivers, is in the absurd position of having to pay more than 400 agency staff to drive their buses at inflated hourly rates and with accommodation costs on top. The cost to the taxpayer is estimated at £17.4 million a year and rising. Who is focusing on cost reductions in Manchester? Well, it is not the bus companies—it is not their job to reduce costs any more. In fact, the bigger the overall contract cost, the more profit they make. Require them to give above-inflation pay rises to unionised staff, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. It goes on the bill, and they get a profit percentage on top. Require them to donate to charity, as Andy Burnham has done? No problem. Just add it to the bill, and get a profit percentage on top. Profits go up as the size of the contract increases. While Labour claims to have increased value for money because of the much-touted reduced profit percentage, the taxpayer is quietly fleeced. This is the doublespeak of Labour’s “value for money”. What is the real cost of Labour’s return to “On the Buses”? Had Andy Burnham stuck to his own business plan, the Bee Network should have been profitable after the transition period, but because of his self-aggrandising hubris and statist ineptitude, the loss for this year alone is forecast to be £226 million and it is likely to rise further in the years ahead—that is £1 billion in under four years. And that is in a mayoral combined authority, although admittedly a Labour one. Has this worked to increase traveller numbers? Between 2022 and 2024, Greater Manchester has experienced a 34.34% increase in ridership, according to Government figures, but let’s look at my county of Norfolk, which has a Conservative county council: its enhanced partnership has increased ridership over the same period by 43%. Let’s look at Essex—again, a Conservative-run council with an enhanced partnership, which has increased ridership by 52.3%. In the wider context, Greater Manchester has in fact underperformed. Why does the Bill remove the crucial safeguards that ensured franchising was rolled out by authorities with at least a notional capacity to deliver? Why has Labour walked away from giving the Secretary of State the power to intervene if the worst happens and services fail? Why does the Bill not require a competitive tender process when local authorities decide to run their own bus companies? Labour appears content to let any council, regardless of size, experience, expertise or cash reserves, take on these huge financial and organisational risks. That is not empowering local government; that is setting it up to fail. And that is before we talk about money. These franchising powers are meaningless without the money to implement them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington made clear, just £243 million of the £1 billion promised by Labour is destined for actual bus services. That does not even satisfy Andy Burnham’s bus habit for a year. What about the rest of the country? Without billions—literally billions—of pounds to back up this Bill, it is just posturing. So where is the money? The answer is that there isn’t any. The Government have scrapped the Conservatives’ £2 bus fare, which was genuine financial support focused 100% on passengers, and now it is rumoured that even the £3 bus fare is due for the chop. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. The Government tell us they have a plan for passengers, but it seems that their plan for passengers is to make them pay more. The Bill needs to have the improvement of passenger services at its heart. It needs to encourage the innovation and efficiency of the private sector. It needs to consider vulnerable SEND children and their educational needs. It needs to recognise the huge financial risks of franchising and municipal bus ownership, and to provide appropriate oversight and support. Most importantly, it needs a Government who are prepared to think again in Committee and be open to improvements to the Bill.

• 22 May 2025 · Access to NHS Dentistry · Hansard source

  More

  The point has been made repeatedly that dentists can earn a lot more money in private practice than in NHS dentistry, and that is unlikely to change no matter what happens in the renegotiation. Does the hon. Member agree with the last Government’s review, which suggested that the roughly £300,000 cost of training a dentist should come with a requirement to work for the NHS for a number of years afterwards?

• 22 May 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 22 May 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker—I mean it this time. The Secretary of State has asserted from the Dispatch Box that it is the risk of an UNCLOS judgment that is requiring this capitulation of sovereignty. Can he therefore answer this specific question: is he aware of a single case that is live under UNCLOS at the moment against the United Kingdom?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I was going to point out to the hon. Member the size of the sum involved but he went on to mention it himself. This is translating a theoretical loss into a real one guaranteed by the Treasury with taxpayers’ money, so I think the hon. Member is definitely on to something.

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about growth and his pro-growth policy. In quarter 1, he had the unexpected growth of 0.7%. The UK Treasury’s April 2025 survey of independent forecasts assesses that the entire growth for the year is 0.8%. Does that mean that he is looking forward to 0.1% growth for the whole of the rest of the year? His policy is not working, is it?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Will my right hon. Friend give way?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. A moment ago he told the House that real household disposable incomes were rising as a result of this Government, but does he not accept that the OBR, when critiquing the Budget last October, found that during the forecast period real household disposable incomes would fall as a result of the Budget proposals?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will know that business confidence has plummeted since Labour came to power. Does he agree that one of the reasons it has plummeted is the loss of faith in this Government? Businesses were promised that their plans were fully costed and fully funded in advance and there would be no increased business taxes, but within 90 days the Government went back on that. How can business ever trust this Government again?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend talks about the message of this Government, and just last week I spoke to a first-generation immigrant, who talked about the message for entrepreneurs in this country. She said, “If you can’t hand on more to the next generation through your own hard work, what’s the point?” She is right, isn’t she?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, we had a huge change to how our country was governed, which was dictated to us by the people, because we are a democracy. One of the reasons I entered Parliament was that, despite voting remain in 2016, I was outraged as a democrat by the failure of Parliament between 2016 and 2019 to effect the will of the people, as clearly expressed in a referendum. That pushed me from being an activist to being a politician in order to effect the will of the people. Since then, there have been pros and cons. There are a lot of pros, and over the past five years I have seen for myself how important some of our Brexit freedoms have been. If there were a plebiscite today on whether to leave or rejoin the European Union, I would vote without hesitation to leave, because I have seen some of the benefits. In my area, the common agricultural policy was a disaster, both economically and socially, and had a hugely negative impact on the environment, farms and countryside of Broadland and right across the country. With our Brexit freedoms, we replaced that with the environmental land management scheme, a wholly beneficial policy change—imperfect though it was; it was part of an iterative process to learn from our experience with farmers. That would have been impossible without Brexit. Similarly, some of the trade deals we have done would have been impossible without Brexit, as would myriad regulations that have been improved just a little in all those Delegated Legislation Committees we have all enjoyed so much over the years. Much of that could not have been achieved without Brexit. None of those regulations will reach the front pages of the newspapers, but iteratively, over the years, they have the opportunity to make our economy and our society stronger. That is one of the main reasons I was so disappointed by the Government’s capitulation to the European Union on dynamic alignment just a couple of days ago. We have taken on the disadvantages of non-membership of the European Union—we become rule takers—without any of the benefits of dynamic divergence of our regulatory system, which would allow us to bend our rules most accurately to reflect the opportunities of our own economy. That was an interesting divergence, but I will now come back to the main argument of my speech, which is that Labour misled the people in the run-up to the general election. It said that its policies would be fully funded and fully costed. It said that there would be no taxes on working people, and it expressly said in its manifesto that there would be no increased tax on national insurance contributions. What is reality? Labour chose to use a fig leaf, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) might have said, which is this fabricated £22 billion black hole in the economy—the black hole, by the way, that the OBR failed to find. The former Financial Times journalist, the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who is no longer in her place, might recall that the Financial Times also failed to find the £22 billion black hole in the economy. Labour uses that figure as a fig leaf not to raise £22 billion—no, that would be sufficiently unambitious—but to raise £40 billion of tax and another £32 billion of debt. It has done that by focusing the tax on jobs. National insurance contributions are focused on young people, part-time workers, and women in particular. The Employment Rights Bill put another £5 billion on taxation—on the Government’s own impact assessment. The increase in high street business rates is inexplicable in a period of such strain on our businesses, and that is not to mention the effect of agricultural property relief. What is the result? Some 200,000 businesses have closed, which is a 20-year high—a high only beaten by the previous Labour Government. In January 2025, corporate insolvencies were up 10.7%. That is the highest since the financial crisis when Labour was last in power. Unemployment was up 10% to 4.5%. The Bank of England forecasts that it will go up further to 5%. Youth unemployment was up 11%. This feeds into the well-worn war narrative that Labour always leaves government with unemployment higher than when it arrived. The Government must stop and think again. I know that they were new to government; they had been out of power for 14 years, and they have made some really profound, rookie mistakes, but we must not let our businesses and those employed pay the price for that. The Government should look again and seek to recover their economic reputation.

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that intervention. I joined this House in 2019, but the original Brexit debate had hyperbole on both sides. We had Project Fear saying we would need an immediate fiscal event as soon as we had the referendum, but that did not take place. Growth has actually continued since the referendum back in 2016. In fact, growth in the United Kingdom has outpaced that of Germany, France and Italy, and, for that matter, Japan. There were a lot of arguments, both one way and the other, over the likely consequences of Brexit. My takeaway is that, overwhelmingly, it has not made that much difference to the world economy or to Britain’s relationship with the world. There have, undoubtedly, been some trade frictions, and those have been particularly acute for SME import/export—I recognise that. But overall, trade has continued, and we have actually outperformed our European big economy neighbours.

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Pubs are the lifeblood of communities, particularly in rural constituencies such as mine in Broadland and Fakenham. People could perhaps make an argument for individual tax rises, but it is the combination of three in particular that are hitting pubs so badly. It is the increase in the minimum wage—the Government are very good at increasing prices for everyone else, but not themselves—as well as the removal of business rates relief for hospitality and leisure, and the rise in national insurance contributions for employers. The latter point is not so much about the overall percentage rise, but the reduction in the threshold from £9,200 to £5,000, which particularly impacts those who employ part-time staff and those on low wages. It is a triple whammy on pubs. Is that why so many are closing across the country?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is being enormously generous in giving way, and I am genuinely grateful. Labour parroted during Prime Minister’s questions that there has been growth of 0.7% in the first quarter of this year. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we look into the figures, we see that a chunk of that is production rising by 1.1%? That is actually due to electricity, gas and water prices being raised, and the Government count that as economic growth.

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister said that I was wrong. And, yes, it was the Treasury’s own survey, so perhaps it was wrong, but is the Bank of England wrong as well? It has a forecast of 0.75% growth for this year, and even the OBR has a forecast of just 1% growth. His growth policies are simply not working, are they?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend talks about the mess that the coalition Government, as it then was, inherited in 2010. Does he recall that youth unemployment was running at about 10%? The coalition and then the Conservative Government were successful in rebuilding the nation’s finances. Painful as those decisions were, at the same time that Government created 800 jobs every single day from 2010 to 2024.

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  Labour used to agree with the point that my right hon. Friend makes. Am I right in saying that it was a Labour Government in 1976 that generated the policy of having a relief in the first place?