Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

But it is not just LNER, is it? We have also heard worrying accounts about Greater Anglia and c2c, shortly after they have been nationalised. The Government say that fare simplification is one of their key objectives; fair enough, but there are increasing numbers of accounts of discounted tickets being removed in the name of fare simplification. How will the Secretary of State prevent the fare simplification process from turning into just the removal of discounts?

[Heidi Alexander]

As we extend contactless ticketing, passengers will benefit from simpler, more flexible travel, and the majority of single tickets will be the same price or even lower. We do not want this positive change to have any perverse impacts, so we will monitor it as it beds in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

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

[Keir Mather]

I am perplexed at the Opposition’s new-found support for passengers on the rail network. Fares in our system rose by 60% from 2010 to 2014 under the last Government, including for residents in the north of England. This Government are committed to levelling up our railway across the United Kingdom, including in the north of England. We will put passenger experience and affordable fares for those passengers at the very heart of what Great British Railways seeks to do.

Free Bus Travel: Over-60s

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Mundell, and all other hon. Members. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) and, through him, Mrs Karen Hickman, who created the petition we are debating, which comes from a sentiment that we can all agree with. We want bus services that serve passengers well and as cheaply as possible. Everyone who uses buses wants affordable journeys. This debate provides us with an opportunity to explore how essential buses are to our constituents and, in particular, the role they play for older people.

Maintaining and improving the existing concessionary scheme, which offers free bus passes in England to those of state pension age and disabled people, is a critical responsibility of the Government, but fundamental to its success is that it remains financially sustainable in serving those who have reached state pension age. We know how valuable the bus pass is to those who have reached pensionable age, affording the opportunity for older people to take journeys and leave their homes. We must make sure that we do not jeopardise the scheme by expanding it beyond the bounds of the Treasury’s willingness to pay for it.

The importance of the scheme is apparent when we look at the experiences of older people. Age UK data suggests that more than 2 million people in England who are over the age of 75 live alone, and more than 1 million older people have said that they go over a month without speaking to a friend, neighbour or family member, which is quite a sobering statistic.

Considering such statistics, the case for bus passes for older people becomes self-evident. Providing an incentive for old age pensioners to travel from their homes into the community clearly has extraordinary merit, but then we come to public funding. The starting point for the provision of any service is that those who benefit from the service should be the ones who pay for it. A free bus pass, after all, is not free. It is just paid for by someone else—in this case, other taxpayers—so we need to be sure that it is a sound reason for increasing taxes, which is the inevitable consequence of increasing public support.

We all know of schemes in our constituencies that seek to bring people together. In my constituency of Broadland and Fakenham, the Aylsham and District Care Trust runs a network of minibuses to bring older people to a central hub to connect them to the community. A free bus pass for pensioners continues that approach and sends a clear message that being older should not be a barrier to remaining a valuable part of the community.

However, as we all know, such schemes do not come without cost. DFT statistics show that £995 million—nearly £1 billion—in net current expenditure is spent on concessionary travel, with about £800 million of that being reimbursed to travel concession authorities. The Government’s response to the petition highlighted the importance of cost, saying that

“any changes to the statutory obligations, such as lowering the age of eligibility, would…need to be carefully considered for its impact on the scheme’s financial sustainability.”

The challenge of extending the scheme to those over 60 is not just a matter of cost; it should also consider the impact on the wider use of bus services. The profiles of the over-60s and those who have reached state pension age are very different. Look at rates of employment: the employment rate of those between 60 and 64 is 58%, but it drops to just 12.8% for those aged 65 and over. In addition, of those who have decided to retire early, the majority have taken that decision because they are in a sufficiently comfortable financial position to do so.

On the issue of available income, looking across the community as a whole, it is not at all clear that blanket taxpayer support for all those over 60 is an effective use of taxpayers’ money. We must ensure that policy decisions relating to buses create affordable trips for all. That is why the last Government’s decision on the £2 fare cap was so effective—it set a price reduction for all bus users, improving affordability for everyone and encouraging the take-up of services across society, not just for one part of it.

We should also recognise that not all parts of the country are the same. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe that where a local authority has identified a particular need in its community, it is the organisation—not central Government—that is best placed to focus appropriate support, including local bus schemes.

Numerous Conservative councils across the country have taken steps to increase bus budgets and use enhanced partnerships to increase ridership. That includes my own Norfolk county council, which since the pandemic has increased ridership by over 40% through its enhanced partnership. Just two counties away, Essex has increased its ridership by more than 50%. In passing, it is worth pointing out that this growth in bus ridership surpasses that of Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, despite his much vaunted Bee Network.

A blanket change across the whole of England is completely different from these targeted approaches that respond to local need. Extending free bus travel to an additional 4 million people, irrespective of their income and based solely on age, is likely to cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds every year through increased taxes—between £250 million, as suggested by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), and £400 million, as we heard from another speaker.

Ultimately, the Conservative party has made it clear that reforms to our bus services need to be realistic, and that we have to focus on passengers. I fear that the result of an expensive scheme could be increased costs for passengers more widely. We have already seen the Government encouraging local authorities to jump into franchising, which may put some local authorities at significant financial risk. We do not want to see further policies that may undermine financial stability, which would be bad for passengers in the long run, as well as for taxpayers.

I recognise that there are parts of the UK in which bus passes are available to those over the age of 60, but if we look at Scotland and Wales, which have had that policy in place for many years—led by the SNP and the Labour party—many of the same challenges present in England regarding buses remain, despite 100% subsidies. Between 2010 and 2025, the number of journeys per head decreased in Scotland and Wales by 31% and 41% respectively. Those decreases were more than, not less than, the fall in journeys per head in England, outside London. That suggests that the Conservative £2 fare cap policy was, in practice, a better solution than free bus passes to the over-60s. It is a great shame that one of the Government’s first acts was to increase that cost by 50%.

[Tom Gordon]

The shadow Minister seems to be saying that he disagrees with free transport for over-60s in the devolved nations. Is it his party’s position that if it were elected in the important elections in just a few months’ time, which is increasingly unlikely, it would get rid of that free transport?

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

Railways Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

This has been a very popular debate with a lot of contributions; I congratulate all those who managed to make their points in just three minutes. I will do my best to summarise the debate, starting by noting the excellent contributions from Opposition Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) brilliantly managed to discuss a Railways Bill by referring to ferries, but he did make the serious point that we want pragmatism, not ideology, to reform the railways. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) made the good point that, through nationalisation, the taxpayer now has to replace private investment.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) made three important points: that the reforms simply advance the sprawling centralisation of powers; that, again, they involve practicality giving way to ideology; and that their drafting puts open access concessions at risk.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who is a member of the Transport Committee, was concerned that this was ideological time travel that takes us back to the 1970s. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) said that, post nationalisation, cancellations of South Western trains had increased on his Chertsey-Addlestone loop.

There were also many thoughtful contributions from the Liberal Democrats. It is telling that the Government’s insistence on nationalisation as the only answer has united the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. It is worth noting that we have heard nothing from Members of the fag packet party, who, I think, still support nationalisation. Then again, however, they would not recognise a transport policy if it slapped them in the face.

Then there was Labour, with speech after speech welcoming the nationalisation of the railways—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Bring it on. In speech after speech, they showed deep suspicion of the profit motive. The tone was set by the Transport Secretary, who said that the current system benefits companies over passenger services—as though the two things are mutually exclusive—and taken up by the hon. Members for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey), with claims of profit prioritised over customer experience, large-scale profiteering on the railways and dividends prioritised over people. I could go on.

This is the authentic voice of Labour: the private sector is not good—not good in the way that the state is good. The private sector invests to make a return, not to create unionised jobs. It innovates to make a return, not to satisfy a Government productivity goal. It innovates to beat the competition and make a return, not to satisfy a ministerial target. However, it does invest, it does innovate and it does improve to compete. Nevertheless, Labour clings on to its ideological faith in the efficiency of the state, despite all the evidence to the contrary—and there is evidence. After all, we have tried this experiment before.

[Laurence Turner]

When the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) was the shadow Transport Secretary, he was recorded saying that his party would likely not reverse nationalisation because the public would be unlikely to think it was a good idea. If this Bill passes, will it be the policy of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) to privatise the railways all over again?

[Jerome Mayhew]

Let us wait to see if Labour actually nationalises it first; but the Conservatives are here to lead, not to follow.

There is plenty of evidence because we have tried the nationalisation experiment before. The railways were nationalised in 1948. [Interruption.] If Labour Members listen, they might learn something. When the railways were nationalised in 1948, there were a billion passenger journeys a year. Thereafter, the impact of nationalisation was immediate: year after year, fewer customers chose to use the trains; year after year, they voted with their feet because the service did not give them what they wanted and was not focused on them and their needs. There was low investment because the railways were competing with schools and hospitals, followed by poor industrial relations with an organisation more focused on itself than its customers—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), says from a sedentary position that it was because there were more cars—let us just hold that in our minds.

By the 1990s, just 735 million passenger journeys were taking place a year, instead of a billion. In 1993, the system was privatised by the Conservative Government. The unions hated it, and Labour therefore hated it, too. However, every year, more and more passengers were attracted to use the trains—not just a few more, but vastly more. By 2019, 1.75 billion people were using the railways each year—and there were many more cars. Labour cannot explain it; it should not have happened, but it did.

If the purpose of the railway is to carry passengers, any rational observer must conclude that privatisation beat nationalisation hands down. Why? Profit is made only by attracting customers. Train operating companies focused on new and more trains, more services, innovative ticketing and customer service, and people voted with their feet.

The railways are a complex system where capacity is limited and costs are high. It is absolutely crucial to drive efficiency, maximise the scarce resources of track access and drive value for money with dynamic management. Can hon. Members think of a nationalised organisation that is a byword for management dynamism and efficiency anywhere, in any country at any time? I cannot either. If poor railway management is the problem, nationalisation cannot be the solution. Why is it that socialists and the fag packet party are such bad learners?

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister responding to this debate represents Selby. One of the great successes of the open system has been Hull Trains, which provides a fantastic service from Hull, through Selby, down to London, and then back again. Does my hon. Friend worry, as I do, that open services such as Hull Trains will be crushed by Great British Railways and the Minister, despite whatever he may say?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My right hon. Friend is right. If Members read the Bill properly, they will see that it spells the death knell for open access.

It is true that the last few years have exposed serious weaknesses in the train franchise model. The separation of track and train created perverse incentives—I accept that. Too often a lack of effective competitive tension allowed there to be poor services. Changes to the DFT contract meant that franchises were encouraged to overbid, leaving them financially vulnerable to any downturn. This Bill was the golden opportunity to address those issues, but the Government have messed it up. Instead of keeping the best and fixing the rest, we have a damaging return to 1970s state control, with 1970s industrial action likely to follow.

The Government are already finding out that money does not grow on trees, that merely saying that they are in favour of growth does not make it happen, and that funds from hard-pressed taxpayers are not limitless. Their plan replaces private investment with taxpayers’ money, drawn away from schools and hospitals and Labour’s ever-growing welfare bill. Their plan replaces railway management teams with civil servants, increasingly micromanaging operations, who will have powers to direct GBR across all its functions.

Then there is that trademark socialist arrogance: gone is the independent economic regulator, for the gentleman from Whitehall knows best. GBR will mark its own homework, save for a toothless passenger council that has no enforcement powers. It will not just mark its own homework but decide whether to allow any competition against itself. It will decide how much to charge its competitors, limited only by how much it thinks they will be able to pay. GBR, on the other hand, will pay no charge at all. The right of appeal is not to be allowed on the merits of a decision, only on the grounds of procedural irregularity.

The Bill marks the end of competition on the GBR rail network, and it is such a shame. This could have been transformational. It could have solved the tensions between the operation of track and train. It could have refined concession and franchised contracts, removing the micromanagement of DFT officials. It could have solved the stop-start funding approach by National Rail and its dysfunctional control periods. It could have focused relentlessly on benefits to passengers and the taxpayer.

Instead, we are seeing a Government floundering at 14% in the polls, whose Back Benchers are in open revolt against their own leader, and whose union paymaster, Unite, is discussing disaffiliation in the press. This is a Government desperate to shore up their fading support. They are sacrificing the future of our railways on the altar of left-wing ideology. We heard speech after speech from Labour Members demonising profit as a motive for economic activity. Do they have any idea how the productive economy works? Ideology before practicality, state direction before dynamic management, and union demands before passenger demand—no, no, no.

I ask colleagues to support the reasoned amendment in my name and help put this bad Bill in the bin.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

This summer, the Department for Transport wrote to the rail regulator that the Government firmly believe that

“the arrival of competition will benefit users of rail services by expanding the number of stations served (including new markets), encouraging greater differentiation in service provision and promoting competitive prices.”

That was for international rail. Why do the Government believe that competition is good when travelling abroad but should be replaced with nationalisation here in Britain?

[Keir Mather]

On no subject is the hypocrisy of the Conservative party laid out more clearly than that of rail. We did not have a competitive rail system when the Conservatives were in charge; we had a fragmented and broken rail service that did not offer passengers the service that they deserved. By having Great British Railways, we can integrate track and rail services together to ensure that these services are run in the interests of passengers. Competition can of course continue through open access, but we want to centralise the service being provided in the interests of passengers right across the United Kingdom.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am very interested to hear that mention of open access, because there is a risk with nationalisation that the organisation focuses on its own union-led interests, rather than the interests of passengers. That leads to bureaucratic inefficiency, delay and increased costs, and we may be seeing that already. South Western Rail was nationalised in May; since then, cancellations have been up by 50%, and delays have been up by 29%. c2c was nationalised in July; in September, it cancelled its online advance discount, making journeys more expensive, not less. Now, at TransPennine Express—the Secretary of State’s poster child for nationalisation—workers have voted for strike action. Is the Minister concerned that this Government do not have the backbone needed to face down demands from their union paymasters and put passengers first?

[Keir Mather]

The hon. Gentleman should know that, through the Railways Bill, we are building a system that will ensure that passenger accountability sits at the very heart of how this railway operates. I would be grateful if he could illuminate to me how constituents of his and constituents across the country are served by the previous system, under which people could not get a train where they needed to go, were plagued by strikes and had ticketing systems that did not work. We are setting up, through Great British Railways, a tough passenger watchdog that can have minimum standards and statutory advice for the Secretary of State and put passengers back at the heart of our railways.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulation 2025

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 October, and their purpose is to simplify marine equipment legislation by consolidating and combining regulatory changes into one piece of legislation, providing greater clarity for industry. The regulations also bring the standards and requirements for ballast water management systems within their scope, introducing a new equivalents provision and removing Government ships from the scope of the legislative regime.

In line with international requirements for ships to carry safety and counter-pollution equipment—collectively referred to as “marine equipment”—that has been approved by the ship’s flag administration, the United Kingdom implemented the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016, which gave effect to the EU directive on marine equipment. Following the UK’s exit from the European Union, the 2016 regulations were amended in 2019 to ensure that they would continue to operate effectively. Amendments were also made by the Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) (UK and US Mutual Recognition Agreement) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which gave effect to the UK-USA mutual recognition agreement on marine equipment by providing for the mutual recognition of certificates of conformity for designated marine equipment, thereby opening up the large US market to UK manufacturers.

The draft regulations will revoke and replace the 2016 regulations and both sets of 2019 amending regulations, and will make three changes to the UK’s marine equipment regime. First, they will bring the type approval of ballast water management systems into the scope of the regulations. In 2022, the UK implemented new International Maritime Organisation requirements and standards for ballast water management systems through the Merchant Shipping (Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments) Regulations 2022. Those regulations included the type approval requirements for those systems. Bringing ballast water management systems within the scope of the marine equipment regulations will make it easier for industry to find and adhere to the relevant requirements. It will also prevent divergence in the approval processes between these systems and other items of marine equipment.

Secondly, the regulations introduce an equivalents provision to allow, subject to certain conditions, non-UK approved marine equipment to be placed on board UK vessels in situations where UK-approved items are unavailable or unsuitable. The conditions ensure that the equipment, when placed on board, will provide an equivalent level of safety.

Thirdly, the regulations will remove Government ships from scope of the marine equipment regime. That is due to the broader change in approach to Government ships, triggered in part by the limited legislative powers available post-EU exit. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and in the absence of appropriate powers in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, that is being done using the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. That will facilitate the amendment of the regulations in future if required.

Since the UK’s departure from the EU, numerous engagements have been undertaken with stakeholders, including UK-approved bodies that are responsible for the approval of marine equipment, manufacturers, other Departments and maritime trade organisations. That provided an opportunity to influence the direction that the policy has taken. Once the policy direction had been developed, a six-week public consultation was carried out, during which respondents expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency published a consultation report including responses to comments received.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The Minister is describing a really good example of draft regulations being shaped by responses to a UK consultation. Is that a Brexit benefit?

[Keir Mather]

Throughout the legislative process, both before and since Brexit, we have always worked hard on a departmental basis to engage with a broad range of stakeholders. We do so through this process as with any other, but if the hon. Member wishes to designate this as a Brexit success, I certainly will not stand in his way.

The MCA issues industry guidance through marine notices to assist the industry in understanding the requirements of the regulations, and new notices will be published alongside the regulations.

I have set out the purpose and scope of the regulations, which consolidate and simplify the UK’s marine equipment regime, thereby bringing clarity and confidence to the industry. The regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards while tailoring our legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU-exit context. I therefore commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.

Connected and Automated Vehicles

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

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.

International Rail Services: Ashford

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

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.

[Ms Billington]

The case the hon. Member is making may have some valid points, but is he prepared to take responsibility for the fact that the British Government do not have a say in what Eurostar does because a previous Administration—run by the Conservatives with their then allies, the Liberal Democrats—ended up without the British Government having a say in how Eurostar runs itself? That was a failed opportunity to be an enabling state.

[Jerome Mayhew]

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.

[Tony Vaughan]

On competition, why did it take a Labour Government to press the Office of Rail and Road to revisit the question of access to Temple Mills, which is key to unlocking competition? Unless other operators use Temple Mills, there is no competition. Why did it take this Government to do that? The hon. Member referred to a debate some years ago after which nothing seemed to happen.

[Jerome Mayhew]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather]

My hon. Friend’s point is very well made. What has struck me throughout this debate is the access opportunities for the constituents of every Member in the room. Members have also pointed to the importance of modal shift and the impact on freight and our decarbonisation ambitions. We have also heard about the impact on our international resilience and our ability to respond to the challenges in the channel with nimbleness and agility. These can all be enhanced by the prospect of increasing our international rail capacity, and those points have been very well made.

The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) gave us the welcome perspective of the case for Ebbsfleet, and he pointed ably to the unity of advocacy from Members of Parliament, businesses and local people. It would be remiss of us to forget Ebbsfleet’s role in this important debate.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) usefully outlined how, in this country, international rail thrived in the 1990s, and he provided a reasonable and ambitious perspective on how Ashford could facilitate its ability to thrive again.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), encouraged me to explore different opportunities to revitalise Kent’s economic connections to the economies of northern France. I would suggest that encouraging competitiveness between different potential providers in this space is exactly what will allow us to explore those opportunities, and to push and work constructively with them. That is why the DFT has been working hard to convene Kent county council, private providers and local residents to explore where those opportunities lie.

I am pleased to hear that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, has a personal stake in this debate as a proud Kent man—

[Jerome Mayhew]

Kentish.

[Keir Mather]

Please forgive me. I learn something new every day in this role.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention how many debates have landed on some of these themes over the years as we have wrangled with these questions. It is earnestly hoped, from the Government’s perspective, that facilitating competition and greater access in this space will allow us to solve what have formerly been incredibly knotty and intangible problems.

[Jerome Mayhew]

A good Conservative approach.

[Keir Mather]

Well, I think it is important to note that this Government are not fixated on ideological dogmatism in this space. Where competition works and can offer tangible benefits to local people in Kent and across the United Kingdom, we will of course proceed with it.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am very grateful and encouraged to hear that point made from the Dispatch Box. If that is the case, can the Minister explain why the Government have written to the ORR advocating against every single open access application since coming into power? After all, open access is bringing additional competition to the wider network.

[Keir Mather]

Of course there is open access ability through these international rail links, which is an important thing to point to. What I find challenging about the assertions that the hon. Member made in his winding-up speech is the notion that some sort of perfect free market competition existed in our rail system prior to the Labour Government taking office. There was enormous dysfunction, which arose from an overly deregulated system.

Regional Transport Inequality

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I join the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in thanking the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing the debate. It gives us an opportunity to talk about the chasm between the Government’s grand promises and the grim reality for passengers, businesses and communities, as has been ably demonstrated by many of the contributions from Back Benchers. I do not have time to do justice to all those who have made contributions: I will leave that task to the Minister. I will move quickly on to roads and the Government’s record on roads, which has come in for some criticism today.

The infrastructure spending review that the Conservatives were responsible for in the run-up to the last election was the road investment strategy 2, which ran from 2020 to 2025. That was some £24 billion of investment, delivering major upgrades, unlocking infrastructure to enable 186,000 new homes for our constituents, improving freeport and airport links, and improving safety with 151 refuge areas built on smart motorways. We now move to 2025-30, with RIS3, which is Labour’s opportunity to outshine us. Has it done so? Absolutely not. RIS3 is marked by the killing of key enhancements, which I will come to, and instead of action we have targets here and consultations there, but it is very light on delivery.

We have a Government of review and policy papers, and that speaks to a wider truth about the Government. It is led by a lawyer Prime Minister who values process over political judgment—just think about his approach to sacking our ambassador to Washington. The Prime Minister’s original defence was that the process was followed: there was no political judgment. We can see that in the transport policy too.

What we need is not process. We do not need further targets here and consultations there: we need action. We need action on the A12 improvements—a £1.2 billion project. The scheme had been signed off, the housing had been cleared and businesses had been relocated, but it was scrapped without warning by this Government. The A12 is a core artery for Essex and South Suffolk. What about the regional inequality of that region?

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend said the magic word: “Essex”. Does he support the Transport for London (Extension of Concessions) Bill that I have tabled? TfL runs to Shenfield, Reading, Epping, Watford, Cheshunt and Amersham, way beyond the boundaries of Greater London. The Bill would require TfL to enable any local authority that is served by a TfL route or by a route to which a TfL concessionary scheme applies to opt in to the concessionary fare scheme, including the freedom pass for our old age pensioners.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am aware that my hon. Friend’s Bill does not make a call on the public purse, at least on the Treasury, and it is for local authorities to opt into the scheme should they wish to. It sounds like a very exciting project and one that should be developed further.

I mentioned the A12 in East Anglia, but there is also the A47 near Great Yarmouth. The Conservatives’ RIS2 included dualling to North Tuddenham, which is going on at the moment—I declare an interest as it is in my constituency—as is the dualling of the Brundall to Blofield stretch of the A47. Labour came into power and cancelled all further improvements.

[Ben Goldsborough]

The shadow Minister talks about the A47, which runs through my constituency. Would he agree that the £200 million being spent on the improvement of the Thickthorn junction in our area will make a huge difference, compared to the £50 million wasted by Norfolk county council, run by his party, on a road that has not had an inch of tarmac laid?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention gives me the opportunity to raise the proverbial eyebrow at his claiming credit for securing £200 million for the Thickthorn roundabout when that has been in process for many years before he was elected. As for the £50 million he mentions, I think he means the western link road, which would be a huge improvement. At the moment we have the equivalent of the M25 for Norwich, but it is missing one section of 3.9 miles. The Conservatives are squarely behind finishing it: I am surprised to hear that Labour does not support the residents of Norwich in a similar way.

I will move on to what Labour has done. It has cancelled the further improvements on the A47, particularly at the other end towards Peterborough. That is just another example of where East Anglia has been ignored by Labour. Buses are the most popular form of public transport and the most important one in areas of high deprivation. They are particularly important for poorer members of society, the young, elderly and disabled. The Conservatives recognise that—we recognise that price matters—so the last Government introduced the £2 bus fare cap, and our manifesto commitment at the last election was to maintain it throughout the course of this Parliament because we recognised how popular and useful it was in increasing bus ridership. When Labour came to power, it had a choice: it could back passengers or it could back the unions. One of its first—shameful—acts in government was to give a 15% pay rise to ASLEF train drivers, who are already the best paid in Europe, paid for by a 50% increase in bus fares for passengers around the country. That speaks to a wider truth: when it comes to it, Labour is the party of the unions and not of the people.

[Laurence Turner]

rose—

[Jerome Mayhew]

On that point, I will give way.

[Laurence Turner]

Does the shadow Minister agree with his predecessor—the last Conservative Rail Minister, Huw Merriman—who said this:

“Whilst it’s legitimate to debate the terms of the deal, the demonisation of train drivers and those onboard and at stations, who carry out a difficult and skilled job for the safety of passengers, is completely unfair. These people work hard and should be shown more respect.”?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I have no problem with the unions making demands—after all, they are representing the interests of their members. What I complain about is the Government giving way to them at the expense of the general public.

On trains, we have got the cancelled projects as well. The midland main line electrification has been cancelled, which has led to lay-offs and the loss of expertise. It is also causing problems for the procurement of new bi-mode trains, because we no longer have any certainty as to whether the line will be electrified. At Dawlish, the Conservative Government completed phases 1 to 4 of the improvements and reinforcement of the line. Phase 5 is all that remains. What have the Government done? They have kicked it into the long grass, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for which I give him credit.

Back in East Anglia, the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) highlighted the need for the Ely junction and Haughley junction projects in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk to be advanced, yet they have been ignored by the Government.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will not, because I am running out of time. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

What is the big plan? It is one of nationalisation for railways. We must look at the Government’s motive—what do they think it is going to do? It is not about unifying track and train, because that was already in the Williams-Shapps review; that was going to happen without nationalisation. Is it about reducing fares? If so, it is backfiring, because nationalised train companies’ fares are rising above inflation. Is it about increasing efficiency? One would hope so, but through the Government’s nationalisation process they are decapitating the management teams that drive efficiency in the individual rail companies.

Is it about increasing passenger numbers? The inconvenient truth for Labour is that under privatisation passenger ridership on the railway doubled, because the companies were incentivised to chase ridership. That was driven by increased open access routes, yet the Government have opposed every single application for open access since the election. Is it to save money? If so, they are not doing a very good job. On South Western Railway—one of the first to be nationalised since the election—they wasted £250 million on infrastructure overspend with the rolling stock leasing companies due to Government negotiating incompetence.

The truth is that the Government are doing it because it is an article of Labour faith—faith in the big state—and also a key demand of the unions. How has it gone for them? As we have heard, ASLEF has already got a 15% pay rise, and the RMT is striking now. Next time, when GBR is finished, that strike will be national.

The Government are one year in. We have heard in the debate of cancelled scheme after cancelled scheme. We have also heard that prices have increased and that money has been diverted from passengers to union pay. That has done nothing for regional inequality, save for the industrial action that is spreading from London and engulfing the rest of the country. It is why passengers are so disappointed in Labour. They deserve better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

No—I have a lot to get through.

I welcome the many contributions from across the House on issues with bus services in Members’ constituencies. The Government know how important good, reliable and frequent bus services are to local communities, and that is why we are investing £1 billion this year to support and improve services and giving local leaders more powers to improve services through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill.

While I welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), he not only seems to have forgotten the 14 years in which his party had the opportunity to improve bus services in regional constituencies but he also forgot to mention that his Government gave £26 million to the Conservative-controlled county councils that cover that constituency.

However, in rural areas and places with poor public transport, driving is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency continues to work hard to combat the unscrupulous practice of reselling tests across the country. In July, we announced over 50 new road and rail schemes, many of which will benefit the constituencies of Members who have spoken in this debate. That includes the midlands rail hub, which we are backing with £123 million and which will create links to more than 50 locations. It also includes the Middlewich Road scheme, the A38 Derby junctions work, transformed rail services across Manchester and new stations in the south-west. We are addressing under-investment in Welsh rail infrastructure with a 10-year funding package of £445 million to meet its long-term connectivity needs and to help kickstart Welsh economic growth.

Turning to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), I will admit that the previous Government did allocate £27 billion for the road investment strategy 2, but that was revised down to £23 billion. From my calculations, RIS3 represents a £3 billion increase compared with the funding for RIS2.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Simon Lightwood]

I will bring my remarks to a close because Madam Deputy Speaker is growing impatient.

I am here today not just as the Minister for Local Transport, but as someone who knows what it is like to live in an underserved community, who has stood in the rain waiting for buses that never arrived, and who has seen at first hand the impact of poor connections, so I could not be more intent on delivering real change where it is needed most. Our plan for English devolution will shift even more power away from Whitehall. Our industrial strategy will drive investment and growth in all regions, and our infrastructure strategy will boost living standards across the UK.

This issue transcends departmental silos. Since last July, we have worked tirelessly to restore confidence and certainty. We are looking after the pennies and the pounds to improve lives and livelihoods across Britain, and I will continue to tackle the shameful deficit of opportunity that plagues this country. We will continue delivering our plan for change until we get the job done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Before I ask my question, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the fact that last night, a man lost his life, a wife lost her husband, and children lost their father because of political intolerance. It was a personal tragedy, but also a tragedy for the body politic. I want to take a moment to recognise the importance of free speech in our democracies.

The Secretary of State quite rightly talks about improving rail performance, yet we are in a city paralysed by strike action from the RMT. The Government claim that nationalising the railways under Great British Railways will bring untold improvements. They are “untold”; Lord Hendy tells us that there will be rigorous performance standards, but he has repeatedly refused to set out what they will be. When will the Secretary of State set out the standards by which the Government’s nationalisation experiment should be judged—or are they still discussing them with the RMT?

[Heidi Alexander]

I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the importance of free speech, but I disagree with his assertions about improvements under Great British Railways. Conservative Members know the value of bringing train operating companies into public ownership; they did it themselves when they were in government. Back in 2023, they brought TransPennine Express into public control, following years of poor performance. It is no surprise to me and Labour Members that since then, TransPennine Express has had a 75% reduction in cancellations and 42% growth in passenger numbers.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

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

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the shadow Minister to his place. My question is on his comments on profitability. Part of the challenge we have found in Essex is that routes that were considered not profitable were being cut, which meant that rural communities were feeling isolated. Does he recognise that if bus services are based purely on profitability, they could be lost, and that that is an issue?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member is quite right, of course. I am not suggesting that bus services should be only for profit. He will know that Essex county council has an enhanced partnership agreement; it has a relationship with for-profit providers, but has negotiated that it will pay extra for social journeys. He will also note that Essex has had more growth in its passenger numbers than any of the franchise operations. In particular, it has had more passenger growth than the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, the organisation that the Bill largely seeks to replicate.

The Bill has a deep suspicion of the profit motive and focuses on process, ignoring what the real purpose of the legislation should be. The House of Lords identified this lacuna in the drafting, and rectified it with a purpose clause, which was clause 1 when the Bill was considered in Committee. It said that the Act should

“improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.”

That is not a particularly high bar, or particularly onerous, because the Secretary of State merely had to have regard to those objectives. I would not have thought that was particularly challenging for the Government. However, it was too much for them, and they removed that purpose clause in Committee. New clause 34, which is in my name and that of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), seeks to reinstate that very reasonable clause. It would ensure that when we discuss the improvement of bus services, at the front and centre of our minds are the performance, accessibility and quality of bus services, so that we put the passenger first.

This Bill, despite the explanations given by the Minister a moment ago, remains weak on protections for the disabled, the partially sighted and the blind. That was a huge concern in Committee. There has been a lot of concern about this in the disabled community—concern particularly focused on floating bus stops, and bus stops with shared use borders. I note that the Minister said that he is looking at having guidance notes on design, and that there should be a campaign to remind cyclists in particular of the highway code. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think a design tweak could be made to a floating bus stop that would provide partially sighted and blind users with the security that they richly deserve when using bus services. An educational campaign to remind cyclists of their duties under the highway code would not do any harm, and I suggest that the Government do it, but it would not be the solution in its own right. We have had warm words from the Minister, both in Committee and today, but we need action. New clause 28 would give the Government six months to prepare proposals to prohibit the creation of new floating bus stops. The Government appear to be deaf to the blind, and not prepared to take effective action on this point.

The Government are also being weak on protections for bus passengers more generally. We want legislation that puts bus users first, both as regards accessibility, which I have mentioned, and protection against antisocial behaviour. We are not asking much—we are just asking that the legislation afford bus users the same protections that rail passengers benefit from. The Government have an opportunity to support those objectives, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that that is the direction that they should take.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the need to provide for disabled bus users. My amendment would require local authorities seeking a franchise to take people with special educational needs into account, and to consult them and the groups that represent them. Does he agree with that proposal?

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady will know, from reading the Hansard of Committee proceedings, what time and effort the official Opposition put into supporting the aspiration to have increased accessibility across disability and special educational needs, so I am very supportive in principle of her amendment’s aims.

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

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I’ll tell you what kind of cut is unacceptable—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only unacceptable cuts were those made to buses by the Conservative Government? In my constituency, 53% of buses were cut.

[Jerome Mayhew]

That does not take away from the overarching point that Labour has increased bus fares by 50% and described it as a price cut, which was disingenuous in the extreme.

We need to understand the impact of Labour’s price rise on ridership, and in particular on social accessibility. That understanding will inform behaviour, and should inform good policy for the future, but the Government have their head in the sand. Amendment 23, also in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services. That proposal was initially inserted in the other place, with wide support from a number of parties, but again, the Government decided to remove it in Committee. They need to own the consequences of their decisions. Last year, Transport Ministers needed to find money for an unfunded pay rise of 15% for ASLEF train drivers. Where did they get the money? Their first choice was to go after bus passengers, and their second was to go after pensioners.

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister talks a lot about price, but he is defending a system in which my constituents must get three buses or more to get to their destination, and pay individual fares on those buses. Under the integrated system proposed in the Bill, we could have a price cap, like the one here in London. Why does he not support that principle?

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Political choices are made locally and nationally. Labour Members talk about the past 14 years, but we Conservatives won control of Lancashire county council in 2017, and increased the bus budget by 50%. We put on bus routes that the Labour party in Lancashire had made the political decision to cut, just as it chose to put up the price cap from £2 to £3. These are political choices.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I refer the House to Norfolk county council—another Conservative council, and the one in which my constituency is based—which has an enhanced partnership with bus companies. That partnership has been more effective in driving bus ridership than the franchised process has been in Manchester—at least as enacted by the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham.

I will now deal with franchising more fully. This bizarre draft legislation appears to have taken a good idea in principle and made it worse in practice. The hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) is quite right that the Conservative Government recognised in 2016 the potential for region-based transport integration. In principle, mayoral combined authorities had the scale, resources and financial sophistication to take on the responsibility of creating a franchised scheme, and would thereby have more control over the design of public transport in their area. That was a Conservative innovation, and I support it.

Under the 2017 legislation, other local transport authorities also had the ability to apply for franchise status, if I may loosely call it that. However, there was concern that smaller local authorities would not have as many resources—be they financial or top-tier management resources—to deal with and design such operations, so a critical safeguard was inserted in that legislation requiring such authorities, should they wish to go down the franchise route, to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State for their plans. It is a sense-check—a needed safeguard—because franchising exposes local transport authorities to huge commercial risk. They are not just letting contracts and, as with an enhanced partnership, adding a bit extra on, after negotiation with commercial operators; they also become responsible for the design of the full bus map and timetable, and have the resulting commercial liability of providing all the buses and drivers. Authorities can either pay a bus company to operate for a fee, and so take no commercial risk—the company just turns up and does what it is told—or expose themselves further by creating a municipal bus company and doing everything themselves. If that goes wrong, it can bankrupt a local authority.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

On the point about financial risk for local authorities, does my hon. Friend agree there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that local authorities such as mine, the Isle of Wight council, would possibly want to touch when it comes to franchising for buses across my constituency? The risk for small unitary authorities is just far too great. If there is any opportunity at all in this Bill—I am not sure that there is—it will apply only to large city councils and metropolitan areas.

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is quite right.

There is some good in the amendments. I come to amendment 58, which would reinsert the Secretary of State’s safeguard. That would not prohibit small unitaries from applying or developing a franchise model; it is about the Secretary of State having the ability to sense-check the commercial ability of an organisation to take the very significant commercial risks that franchising brings with it.

There is another massive lacuna in the current drafting of the Bill. Having expanded franchising to any local authority, no matter how small and whether district, county or unitary, the Secretary of State would withdraw from any power to intervene if things go wrong. We recognise that there is increased commercial risk and that we will ask potentially small local authorities to undertake wholly novel activities of which they have no experience at all, but the Secretary of State is saying, “We wash our hands of this. We do not want to have any power to intervene, even when there is a prolonged failure of services to the public.”

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Conservative position is to support combined authorities being able to take on franchising, yet the Conservative Tees Valley Mayor has flat out rejected franchising powers. I am proud that this Government are bringing forward this Bill to make it easier for combined authorities and other authorities to bring in franchising. In Committee, I raised the example of my constituent Norma Templeman, who has had to fight tooth and nail against the mayor and the bus companies to get buses into her village of North Skelton. How can that be right?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I thought the hon. Member was in favour of devolution. Not all mayoral combined authorities are the same; if we have a mayoral combined authority, we want to have the right system for the area that the mayor represents. If the mayor in Teesside thinks that it is not the right thing for him, I back his decision.

Let me move on to new clause 31, which would give the Secretary of State the power to step in where there has been

“a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by contract.”

It seems genuinely extraordinary that the Government are saying no to that added safeguard. No cost is associated with it; the new clause just says that where there is prolonged failure on the ground to deliver the service for whatever reason, the Secretary of State would have the power to step in and take on the management. Why would the Government say that they do not need that backstop power? They voted it down in Committee, and I do not see them accepting it today either.

All the amendments from the loyal Opposition have a common theme: they put passengers first. This Bill is not really about passengers; it is for a bigger state, more unions and more union involvement, and it is primarily against private business involvement. I understand that that is the ideology of Labour Members, but the problem is that their ideology is demonstrably wrong in this instance, and we see that in the Bill. Without amendment, it will damage our bus services and almost certainly damage our local transport authorities, particularly the smaller ones, if they are misguided enough to follow the encouragement of the Government and go down this route. Above all, I am sorry to say that the Bill will damage the chances of our passengers.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We have had an interesting debate with around 25 to 30 speakers, and some themes have developed from it. A number of speakers mentioned disability access, particularly issues with floating and shared-border bus stops for those who are visually impaired or blind. Other speeches focused on concessionary travel during rush hour and concessionary companion passes. We also heard a number of descriptions of local bus needs in right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies, particularly focusing on rural needs.

I want to pick out two or three speeches for commendation, starting with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who spoke in support of amendment 23 and new clauses 29 and 34. He highlighted a concerning failure by his Liberal Democrat county council, so if we want to improve bus services, we know where the Liberal Democrats can start. I commend the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who put his name to and championed new clause 47, which aims for companion passes to form part of the concessionary travel scheme.

I would like to mention the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), because he had a tiny pop at the Conservatives, particularly about new clause 10 relating to antisocial behaviour. I think this requires a bit of explanation. It was right of him to highlight that the position of His Majesty’s Opposition has changed on this measure, and I will explain why. When we discussed new clause 10 in Committee, the hon. Member will recall—if he does not, he can always refer to Hansard—that I was very sympathetic to the objective of his new clause, but, as I now accept, I took a rather narrow objection to its drafting. The new clause adds a description to a non-exhaustive list and is therefore technically not required, because the definition was already employed. The definition is one of nuisance, and audible antisocial behaviour is, by definition, nuisance. It was the lawyer in me coming out, and I was being slightly otiose.

[Mr Kohler]

Does the shadow Minister accept that I made the point to him in Committee that he was being too narrowly lawyerly? Does he also accept that when I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, the Conservative Benches jeered almost unanimously on this point?

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

[Tom Gordon]

rose—

[Jerome Mayhew]

On that point, I will give way.

[Tom Gordon]

The shadow Minister mentioned how the Conservative party came to change its view on my hon. Friend’s amendment on audible noises. One thing that has not come up during the debate is his party’s position on new clause 2, which would extend concessionary bus passes. Given that the argument is an economic one and his party wants to see disabled people getting to work, will he support that tonight?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful, although I am not sure whether that was an intervention on jeering or cheering and the difference between them. I will go so far as to say that I am not in a position to make economic spending commitments at the Dispatch Box. Although we are supportive of the principle, that is why we will not vote for something that writes a blank cheque for the future, because at least the Conservatives are trying to be economically responsible.

Without amendment, the Bill is a missed opportunity in relation to bus stop design and disability access. It is a missed opportunity in relation to antisocial behaviour on buses and bringing that in line with the protections already enjoyed by rail passengers. It is also a missed opportunity not to focus on passengers as the primary object of all actions undertaken as a result of the Bill, particularly in relation to rural areas.

The Bill is not just a missed opportunity; it is also, in its current drafting, damaging for the future prospects of the provision of bus services, because it risks exposing local transport authorities to potential bankruptcy without support from the Secretary of State. That is, in the first instance, in terms of oversight of plans for franchising—particularly for small local transport authorities—and giving them the all-clear. Secondly, if franchise systems are set up and then they fail to provide over a prolonged period, the Secretary of State must surely be able to step in and provide those services—if we are interested in the experience of passengers as opposed to the organisation. I have raised those two issues consistently throughout Committee and earlier on today. They are significant, genuine concerns that prevent the Opposition from supporting the Bill in its current form.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the shadow Minister for the way in which he is approaching the debate. Local authorities all over England are letting contracts every single day, and all manner of contracts could go wrong. What is peculiar about this power that means there is a risk of bankruptcy?

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am sorry that the hon. Member was not in his place throughout the course of the debate, as he would have heard that a franchise is not a normal contract. Under an enhanced partnership or a standard operating contract, that is exactly so: a contract is let and the commercial risk lies with the provider. The challenge with franchising is that the commercial risk is transferred 100% to the taxpayer, because the local transport authority is no longer letting a commercial contract; it is buying in services for a price, with the commercial risk lying with the taxpayer. That is the crucial difference. I am glad that the hon. Member put his finger on that, because I am as worried as he is about it.

Finally, I will mention the comments of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). We do not agree on many issues, but I do agree with her on this. She said that a lot of good amendments were tabled by Opposition parties—certainly three parties; there were sadly none from Reform, which would not know a transport policy if one got up and slapped it in the face. The hon. Lady came up with some good ideas, and even the Liberal Democrats came up with something or other. As for the Conservatives, we came up with good idea after good idea, yet until now they have all been rejected by the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to his concession on all those good ideas.

[Simon Lightwood]

With the leave of the House, I thank those who have contributed to today’s debate. I have carefully listened to the points raised. The breadth of interest shows that although we may not agree on the approach, we share an ambition to improve buses for all passengers.

As I have mentioned throughout the passage of the Bill, this Government strongly believe that local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their local communities; they know and understand their areas’ specific needs and have a direct relationship with their communities. We do not want to increase the number of burdens on them. We must trust the local areas that we are empowering to take the right decisions for local people.

Even though I recognise the importance of ensuring that there is full accountability, there are a large number of amendments that do not align with that core principle and that would actually increase the burdens on local transport authorities. Amendments have also been proposed today that would take away key funding decisions from local areas, requiring them to fund specific parts of the bus services in their area without considering the possible negative consequences that will undoubtedly arise for others. As I have mentioned, this Government seek to provide greater flexibility in how a local area uses its bus grant. Local leaders are best placed to make decisions for their communities and we must trust them to do that.

I will respond to several points raised by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). On the Bee Network in Greater Manchester, despite what the Conservative party claims, franchising was delivered on time and on budget there, and that is despite the overly complex process that they had to go through because of the previous Government’s Bus Services Act 2017. We are correcting the mistakes of that legislation, cutting red tape and making the process more efficient.

[Jerome Mayhew]

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

[Simon Lightwood]

I am afraid that we have been around this roundabout quite a few times. I neither recognise nor agree with those figures. We would have thought that the Conservatives, as the party that gave Greater Manchester the power to franchise buses, would be more supportive of one of the few positive things that they did in government. If the Conservative party thought it was so important, why did it not do something about it while in office?

I also remind the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), that he was literally the buses Minister. Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government of the 1980s who deregulated buses outside London, which led to services being cut, fares going up and patronage going down. This Labour Government are reversing decades of decline in bus services.