UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Jerome Mayhew

  • Jerome Mayhew – 2024 Speech on Foreign Affairs and Defence

    Jerome Mayhew – 2024 Speech on Foreign Affairs and Defence

    The speech made by Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative MP for Broadland and Fakenham, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2024.

    I join many others in congratulating Members on their maiden speeches—they were so much better than my own—but as we are short of time, let me move back to the topic of this debate, which is defence and foreign affairs. While I congratulate the incoming Government on their success, and we wish them well in the spirit of national service, there are serious concerns arising already from the Gracious Speech, and the disconnect between the words of the Government and their actions, particularly in relation to defence and foreign affairs.

    Let us look first at the defence budget. We are told by the Government that the world is more dangerous than it has been in living memory. We are told that there is cast-iron support for increasing the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP, but where are the actions? Stability in terms of the defence budget would be to increase it to 2.5%. That was the decision already communicated by the Conservative Government. That means £75 billion of increased defence spending between now and 2031. Where is the stability, in a more dangerous world, in effectively reducing defence spending between now and 2030—particularly in an environment where defence procurement needs long-term reliability from which to plan? There seems to be a disconnect there.

    The second area is veterans. We are told by the Labour Government that they are focused on the defence family, and that the defence process should be about people. Quite right too, but what about the veterans Minister? Under the last Government, the veterans Minister was a Cabinet member. He had the ability to look right across Government. What was said in the debate down in Plymouth Moor View a few weeks ago between the two gallant candidates? Did Labour stand on a programme that said, “We’re going to reduce the importance of the veterans Minister. We’re going to make them a junior Minister who will be subsumed within the Ministry of Defence”? I doubt that was the message that the residents of Plymouth voted on, but that is what the Government are planning to do. I ask the Government to think again about that.

    Finally, let us look at the overseas development aid budget. Back in the dark days of 2021, when our economy was struggling from the fallout from covid—this massive global pandemic—the Conservative Government took the very difficult decision to reduce ODA from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%, with an ambition to reverse that as the economic conditions allowed. At the time, Labour was furious and outraged by that, saying that even in the economic situation that existed in 2021 it was the wrong decision. The then shadow Minister for International Development, the hon. Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), said:

    “Britain and the world deserve better than a Foreign Secretary who has allowed the aid budget to be slashed, leaving our global reputation lying in tatters”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 1021.]

    The now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that

    “to choose to break this promise to the world’s poorest people is unforgivable”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 1028.]

    But what is Labour doing now? The economy has improved significantly since those dark days, yet Labour’s action is to keep the figure at 0.5%.

    Labour tells us that we need to increase trust in politicians, and that trust must be restored. Well, the way to do that is to act in government in the way that they said they would act when in opposition. I intend to hold this new Government to account.

  • Jerome Mayhew – 2023 Parliamentary Question on the Menai Bridge Closure

    Jerome Mayhew – 2023 Parliamentary Question on the Menai Bridge Closure

    The parliamentary question asked by Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative MP for Broadland, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)

    Whether he has had recent discussions with the Welsh Government on the closure of the Menai bridge.

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)

    Roads are a devolved matter and the decision to close the Menai suspension bridge was therefore made by the Welsh Government. Work has commenced on the emergency replacement of brittle hangers dating back to 1938, and this will be followed by additional maintenance works. Welsh Government Ministers assure me that, subject to safety assessments, the bridge is due to reopen at the end of this month.

    Jerome Mayhew

    The Menai bridge supplies the lifeline of tourism to Anglesey and the wider region. Given Welsh Labour’s negligent handling of the maintenance of the bridge, and now its closure for months, how does my hon. Friend think Welsh Labour is doing on its manifesto commitment to rebuild tourism in Wales?

    Dr Davies

    Quality road infrastructure is vital to unlocking the potential of the north Wales visitor economy. I believe that there are questions to be answered about the specification of the contracted private finance initiative maintenance schedule for the bridge, which was awarded by the last Labour UK Government in 1998, and about the stalled consideration of a third crossing on the Menai strait. I urge the Welsh Government to publish the findings of the roads review and resume the improvement of the north Wales road network.

  • Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Comments on the Norwich Western Link

    Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Comments on the Norwich Western Link

    The comments made by Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative MP for Broadland, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2022.

    Jerome Mayhew

    I disagree with the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) about the western link road. We have created, essentially, an orbital route around Norwich, but rather like the situation with the M25 and the Thames, we have decided not to build the bridge. It is very damaging to connectivity, particularly for the north-east of the county getting access to the physical markets in the rest of the country—

    Clive Lewis

    The hon. Gentleman talks about a bridge over the Thames, but this is a massive road bulldozed through an ecologically sensitive area. There were options to go over the most ecologically sensitive parts, but they were a bit more expensive and were rejected. I think that point needs to be made.

    Jerome Mayhew

    I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It is also a bridge over the River Wensum, as he knows. A consultation was undertaken and, taking that into account, the best route was reached. It deals with a huge amount of rat-running and links north Norfolk to the rest of the country.

  • Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on the Power of Attorney Bill

    Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on the Power of Attorney Bill

    The speech made by Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative MP for Broadland, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

    I aim to be as brief as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). I want to put on record my support for this Bill. Often in Friday sittings we talk about photogenic furry animals, but this is very different. This is an important Bill that will affect us all. To take the example of just one disease, it is estimated by Alzheimer’s Research UK that there are 944,000 people in this country suffering from dementia. The estimate is that one in three children born this year will develop and suffer from dementia in the future. This is an issue that affects us all now or will do in the future.

    I want to highlight the importance of lasting powers of attorney and point out that there are not one but two different types. There are the ones that affect property and affairs and there are, crucially, the ones that affect welfare and health. From personal experience as an attorney in this area, I found the current system surprisingly complex, and that was as a qualified barrister. To be using only paper is surprising in this day and age. The complexity of sequential signatures was also surprising, and the identity checks relying on witnesses are frankly inadequate in modern times. I welcome the intention of the Bill, which is to make it easier to create LPAs, using digital facilities where appropriate. I recognise that about 25% of those over 65 do not have easy access to the internet, although on many occasions it will be younger family members whom they will be appointing as attorneys, and in those circumstances many of that 25% will be given assistance to use digital access as well. However, it is important that a paper alternative continues to be provided, and I am glad that is recognised in the Bill.

    My final point is that it is great that the Bill contains increased protections from abuse, particularly in paragraph 7(2) of schedule 1, which makes reference to the process for objecting to registration for third parties. That is a useful addition, and I thoroughly welcome this Bill.

  • Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on the Child Support Bill

    Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on the Child Support Bill

    The speech made by Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative MP for Broadland, in the House of Commons on 9 December 2022.

    I, too, rise to support this Bill and the great efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) in support of families.

    Relationships are a wonderful thing. From my personal experience, they are the aspect of life that gives me greatest fulfilment. What lies at the core of our relationships provides the value of life, much more so than careers, even careers in this place. We have to recognise, however, that they do sometimes go wrong and that the negative experiences can be as intense as the positive ones.

    Although relationships can change, responsibilities for our actions remain. That is particularly the case when children are involved. A person’s livelihood and support for their children are factors when it comes to a broken-down relationship. It is very important to say that when relationships that involve children break down, in the vast majority of cases the absent parent continues to provide financial support on a voluntary basis. Negotiations take place, often without solicitors or lawyers, and an informal arrangement is reached that is satisfactory to both parties. What we are dealing with here, however, is the small minority of cases where negotiations have failed or where an agreement that has been reached is subsequently breached. That is why the CMS is such an important agency to provide support for those families who are most in need.

    Existing child support legislation is intended to provide a mechanism for the collection of support funds when voluntary agreements have failed. My hon. Friend set out in her opening speech the various mechanisms that are currently available. It is true that under the current scheme, the CMS can apply to the court in certain circumstances in order to get a liability order to seize, through the bailiffs or the sheriff courts, assets to satisfy a debt. The reason I intervened earlier was to highlight the hugely significant role that delay plays in frustrating the needs of families and, in particular, the children. That is particularly the case in the covid aftermath, when delays in the civil justice system are very substantial. I am sorry to say that even before covid, there was significant strain in the civil court process, leading to lots of delay. That delay matters, because we are dealing with the financial support necessary to feed, clothe, heat and support children.

    Right hon. and hon. Members will be intimately familiar with the problem, because of the casework that they receive. To my mind, the Bill is very timely, because just last month a constituent came to me who was owed by the absent—non-resident—parent the sum of £136,833 in arrears of child maintenance. We have to stop for a moment and consider the profound impact of that non-payment on the children. It is simply not good enough to say, “You can go back to the CMS, which in time can make an application to the courts for a liability order. Once that has been processed, we can apply to the bailiff court, and in due course we will get an order to seize goods,”

    I welcome the Bill’s intention, which is to cut out the delay of having to apply to the court, and to give powers to the DWP to make a liability order in certain circumstances that allows assets to be targeted via the bailiff or sheriff courts, without the additional factor of delay. Essentially, the Bill aims to fill a lacuna in the armoury of the recovery of funds to support children, and maintain financial responsibility for children from a non-resident parent. It will help my constituents, and for that reason alone I support it.

  • Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on the State Pension Triple Lock

    Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on the State Pension Triple Lock

    The speech made by Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative MP for Broadland, in the House of Commons on 8 November 2022.

    I am not the first Member of the House to recognise that this motion is not a serious request of the Government, because we have the autumn statement in just nine days’ time. It is blatantly a political stunt to gain headlines.

    Tonia Antoniazzi

    I was going to make reference in my speech to Conservative Members saying that this debate was a stunt. It is not a stunt; it is a political lever. This is an Opposition day—this is what we do in this place. I ask the hon. Gentleman please to correct the record.

    Jerome Mayhew

    I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention; it brings to mind a number of the interventions and speeches from Labour Members talking about pensioners’ fears as they consider the outcome of the triple lock decision. Surely this debate, called by Labour, does not reduce fear but increases it, and that in itself is wholly irresponsible. It is scaremongering.

    I am surprised that Labour wants to draw attention to pensions policy, because the Government’s activities over the last dozen years put Labour to shame. Let us look at pensions more widely, because pensioners get income from multiple sources. We have the state pension, but there are also private and company pensions, individual personal savings and other state benefits in addition to the pension.

    I will focus first on auto-enrolment. Under Labour, members of the public increasingly just could not afford to save for their retirement—either that, or Gordon Brown’s famous tax raid on pension pots simply made it not worthwhile to save for a pension. If we look at the data, during the 2000s private sector pension membership declined. In the year 2000, 47% of people had private pensions, but by 2012 that had fallen to 32%—a decline of 47%. By changing from an opt-in to an opt-out system, auto-enrolment, brought in by the Conservative-led Government, transformed pension saving in this country. In my view, it was perhaps the single most important intervention of Government policy over the past decade.

    The figures speak for themselves: now, 75% of employees are regularly saving and benefiting from tax-free employer contributions. I used to be an employer before coming to this place, and I employed hundreds of very young people—typically 18 to 25-year-olds. We had a company pension scheme and, as a responsible employer, I tried to persuade them to start pensions, but the take-up was very low. The impact of the change to auto-enrolment was amazing, and that has been backed up by our company contributions. It is a wholly beneficial thing and it has reversed the roles.

    The other point worth making is that this is Conservative values in action. Not for us the state’s putting its arms around people and being wholly responsible for individuals’ futures; we want to see people’s being helped to take responsibility for their own futures, with the state there to help the most vulnerable, and that is exactly what the Government have done in this case.

    It has also been mentioned multiple times that the state pension was not a Labour idea; it was instigated by the Conservative-led Government. The right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) is no longer in his place, but I sometimes wonder what conversations in the Treasury were like in 1999, when he was part of Gordon Brown’s inner circle. Presumably, the debate was, “Do we raise the pension by 75p or 50p, or shall we push the boat out and increase it by £1?” It is rich for the Labour party to start lecturing the Conservative Government, whose policy the triple lock actually is, given its own lamentable record on pensions. Labour has nothing to teach us here.

    Anthony Browne

    My hon. Friend has made some interesting points, and I think this debate has been useful to remind the Chamber that the triple lock is our policy. Given the point he has just made, and continuing the Christmas theme, does he agree that Labour attacking our track record on the state pension is a bit like Scrooge attacking Father Christmas for not being generous enough?

    Jerome Mayhew

    I will let that intervention speak for itself, but I entirely agree with the sentiment behind it.

    Since 2010, because of the Conservative triple lock, pensions have increased by £2,300 in cash terms and by £720 in real terms. There will come a point when the triple lock will need to be reviewed; because of its statistical ratchet effect, there will come a time when we should properly remove the triple lock to maintain balance between the various cohorts of society. To date, however, it has been a powerful tool to raise pension values above those Labour lows in the 2000s that we have heard about.

    In addition to the triple lock, Labour also ignored the problem of people’s—overwhelmingly women—child-rearing years not counting towards the state pension. I am delighted that, again, it was the Conservative Government who stood up for women and for the family and the importance of child-rearing, so that now raising a family counts towards the new state pension. More than 3 million will now be £550 better off as a result.

    I have a minute and a half left, but I will not use it all, because others have set out the long list of additional benefits devised by the Government to assist with the cost of living crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We Conservatives recognise that pensioners are particularly vulnerable because they are on a fixed income, but there has been an additional £300 for winter fuel payments, the £400 discount on energy bills, £150 for affected council tax payments, and £650 additional means-tested support, as well as the additional payment for those with disabilities—and the list goes on.

    On the triple lock, we will have to wait and see for nine more days, but even without it pensioners have been looked after by this Government. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, and as his record shows, all decisions taken by this Government will be compassionate and will look after the most vulnerable in society.

  • Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on the Government’s “Plan for Growth”

    Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on the Government’s “Plan for Growth”

    The speech made by Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative MP for Broadland, in the House of Commons on 19 October 2022.

    If we have learned one thing from the experience of the past few weeks, it is that there really is no magic money tree, and the Government really do have to pay their way. Some of us, including myself, had started to doubt that essential economic truth because of the Government’s heroic response to the covid crisis.

    I had intended to say that we had supported the families and businesses of this country to the tune of £400 billion. However, I listened to the Minister at the Dispatch Box, and when we add up all the unplanned borrowing very substantially as a result of covid, the total is actually £630 billion. It is because of that enormous intervention to support families and businesses by this Government that we did not have thousands of bankruptcies and millions of people cast out of work, as was the expectation. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall a forecast that we would have 12% unemployment, but because of the economic management by this Government the impact was cushioned and the economy protected from that enormous external shock.

    The Government were quite right to do that, but why were they able to? It was because of the decade of prudent economic management that repaired the enormous economic damage left by Labour in 2010—prudent decisions that Labour fought against tooth and nail. The Labour motion before us calls for a plan to make the economy work for working people, but Labour does not stand up for working people. Every Labour Government in history, without exception, have left office with more people out of work than before. Their policies, again and again, are not the policies for working people, but the policies of unemployment.

    Compare that record with that of this Government. Despite suffering the biggest economic shock to the world economy in a century or perhaps longer, unemployment has not gone up, as it always does under Labour. It has gone down, most recently to 3.5%, the lowest level since I was a tiny boy in 1974. In my Broadland constituency, the rate is even lower. That economic management is forcing employers to offer higher wages for staff—exactly the kind of economic conditions that help workers, particularly the lowest paid. It also serves to increase productivity, as local employers invest to limit the number of staff needed to produce. That is what will pay for the wage increases of the future, not Labour meddling.

    I recognise, as does the Prime Minister, that the mini Budget went too fast and too far, and she has rightly apologised for it, but this Government have the right economic policies for growth. As one of the few entrepreneurs in this place, having helped to create hundreds of worthwhile, well-rewarded jobs and careers, I know the truth of the business saying that time kills deals. Speeding up the ability of businesses to get projects up and running will have a huge impact on the future growth and prosperity of this country.

    The Government are right to launch investment zones. These zones do not just corral investment into a particular area; by speeding up the process of business, they will also grow the size of the pie. I hope that the results will be so striking that over time they will become a beacon for wider economic policy, showing the way for the rest of the economy.

    The Government are also right to accelerate productivity-enhancing infrastructure projects across Britain to help with levelling up, including the building of the western link road in my constituency, which will shorten ambulance times by 20 minutes, open up a swathe of Norfolk businesses to improved market access and relieve the residents of Weston Longville and others from terrible rat-running—all opposed by Labour, I might add. As for the local Lib Dems, literally half of them have said they want it and the other half have said they do not. That says it all about the approach of the Liberal Democrats: to say whatever they think will sound good to local constituents, with no consistency at all.

    Finally, the Government are right to speed up the review of EU-inspired regulations to make them bespoke for the United Kingdom economy. That will help British businesses and British workers. This Government have an economic record to be proud of, and I would back them to the hilt over Labour any day.

  • Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on the Dental Training College

    Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on the Dental Training College

    The speech made by Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative MP for Broadland, in the House of Commons on 11 October 2022.

    It would be all too easy to focus any speech on dentistry on a call for the renegotiation of the NHS—[Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. Could colleagues leave quietly? Otherwise we will not be able to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

    Jerome Mayhew

    As I was saying, it would be all too easy to focus any speech on dentistry on a call for the renegotiation of the NHS dental contract. Every Member of Parliament will know from their postbag the suffering that ordinary people are experiencing every day because they are simply unable to see a dentist.

    The pandemic has caused the loss of 40 million dental appointments—more than an entire year’s worth of standard pre-covid treatment—but covid is not the cause of our problems. Ever since Labour imposed its NHS dental contract on the profession back in 2006, trouble has been brewing. Dentists have been voting with their feet, moving in their thousands away from NHS treatment into private work.

    That trend has only accelerated through covid. Between the start of the pandemic and May 2022, 3,000 dentists have stopped doing any NHS work. Three quarters of those who are left say that they are likely to reduce their coverage further over the next year, so we simply cannot ignore the problem any longer. The pain and suffering are too great. Labour may have created this bad system, which fails to pay for the cost of complex work, but our job is to fix it, and the sooner the better.

    The purpose of this debate, however, is not to moan about the state of NHS dental provision, but to put forward a positive case for solving the long-term problems in Norfolk and the east. Put simply, we have a desperate shortage of dentists of any description. Too few dentists and too few dental technicians—whether NHS or private—are choosing to work in East Anglia.

    Nationally, the General Dental Council says that we have more dentists than ever before, with a national average of 43 for every 100,000 of the population, but in Norfolk and Waveney, that figure is just 38. That is the fifth lowest ratio of the 106 clinical commissioning groups around the country. Dental practices are crying out for new staff, but they simply cannot get them.

    In the town of Fakenham in my constituency, I lobbied successfully for the NHS to award a brand-new NHS dental contract to increase local NHS provision. That was the Government being prepared to pour new money into increasing NHS provision. However, when that contract was advertised, not a single company bid for the work. There simply was not the staff to supply the need.

    That is not just an NHS issue. In the same town, a private dental practice has been advertising for a private dentist for two years, but without success. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), there is a dentist in Sheringham who operates practices both in London and Norfolk. He has not had a newly qualified dentist come to work in his Sheringham practice for 10 years. Job vacancies in London are snapped up, but he simply cannot get them to take the jobs in Norfolk.

    Why can we not produce dentists in East Anglia? The answer is that there is nowhere for them to train. If someone who lives in East Anglia wants to become a dentist, the nearest place they can train is Birmingham or London. None of the 10 training facilities around England is in the east of England.

    That has to change. We know from our experience with the University of East Anglia that graduates tend to stay and build their lives close to where they have studied. Each year, the UEA does a survey of its graduates to see where they go to accept their first employment. If we look at that survey for doctors coming through the medical school of the University of East Anglia, we see that more than 40% end up taking jobs locally every year. That is great for us in relation to doctors and particularly for the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, which is based in Norwich. Unfortunately, however, the same problem is true in dentistry.

    Let us look at the number of dentists working near existing dental training schools. As I said, Norfolk has 38 dentists per 100,000 of the population. Devon is a broadly similar county—it is largely rural, with coastal communities and one major conurbation, Plymouth—but there is a big difference: Plymouth has a dental school, which was installed in 2005, and Devon’s ratio of dentists per 100,000 of the population is not 38, but 49.6. If we look at the north-east, where there is a school in Newcastle, we see that its ratio of dentists to the general public is 56 per 100,000 of the population. In Cheshire and Merseyside, there is a school in Liverpool, so the whole area benefits from 58 dentists per 100,000 of the population. We can see from the hard data that people tend to settle down where they have trained.

    So if that is the data, surely the solution to East Anglia’s problems is obvious: first, we need to open a dental school in East Anglia. I raised that need directly with the University of East Anglia some months ago and I have been enormously encouraged and impressed by their response, strongly supported by the NNUH, the region’s training hospital. The University of East Anglia has developed an innovative solution to our dental training problems that would minimise cost and get students out into the workplace from the start of their training, helping with capacity in the short term and dealing with the training deficit in the long run.

    Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)

    As a Suffolk MP, I welcome the idea of an East Anglian training centre. I also want the University of Suffolk to play a role. It recently outlined its plans for a Suffolk centre for dental development. Does my hon. Friend agree that, actually, a dental training college in Norwich could work hand in glove with the new centre in Ipswich to make sure that people are trained locally but, when needed, they are pooled to provide services on the NHS for our constituents?

    Jerome Mayhew

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree entirely. There can be collaboration between the university in Norwich and the University of Suffolk, which is based in Ipswich. People can start training in Norwich and, once they are qualified, have career and professional development taken care of by the proposed unit in Ipswich. I will come on to that in further detail.

    To return to the plans of the University of East Anglia, its idea is that students would work in the community for at least one day a week throughout their five-year training course. In that way, dental students will increase the capacity of associated NHS practices right from the get-go. Too often, it is suggested that a dental training school is too long term to solve the problems now. In a sense, it is, of course, but under this plan, we would have increased capacity right from the first year of the students’ five-year course.

    There are more benefits, too: students would not only increase the capacity, but develop employment relationships locally, increasing their stickiness, and provide training income to stretched NHS practices. For that reason, MPs from North Norfolk, North West Norfolk, Mid Norfolk, South Norfolk and Norwich North all support the proposal. If there were an East Norfolk constituency, I am sure that that Member would support it as well.

    Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)

    I speak as an MP with a foot in both camps: I am a Suffolk MP but I also represent the Norfolk and Waveney integrated care system area. Does my hon. Friend agree, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) said, that it is very important that the two proposals being put together by the University of Suffolk and the University of East Anglia are collaborative and worked on together, so that they come through with a solution for the whole of East Anglia?

    Jerome Mayhew

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The only phrase that I would pick him up on is that he has “a foot in both camps”. I do not think there should be two camps. This is an East Anglian solution, whereby the proposals are complementary and, in time, they should both be implemented.

    George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)

    I commend my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising this issue and highlighting the huge pressures that the dental service in his area and mine is experiencing on the ground. Many of our constituents are struggling and this proposal would not only make our region a leader in the science and technology of dentistry, but help to meet that demand and need on the ground. With new housing, the pressure will only get more acute in the next few years.

    Jerome Mayhew

    My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a further point to be made about the collaboration between the University of East Anglia and the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, because they also have the Norwich research park co-located. I am thinking particularly of the Quadram Institute, the sole focus of which is world-leading research on the gut microbiota. I cannot pretend to know exactly what the gut microbiota are, but I know that they start with the mouth. There is huge capacity for proper, hard research in the area, and it could be assisted by a dental training school in Norwich. That is the first solution.

    The second solution, which is also needed, is for the dental school in Norwich to complement the University of Suffolk’s plans to build a centre for dental development in Ipswich to support further career development in the region, attracting and retaining newly qualified dentists. My hon. Friends the Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and others have all pushed for that.

    The truth is that we need both to attract qualified dentists in the short term and to find a long-term solution to the wider training problem. It may be that an assessment is made nationally that there is no need for additional dental training seats, but people are human. We have to look beyond the empirical analysis and recognise that training needs to be offered in a location of real shortage. That location is East Anglia, and Norfolk in particular.

    As a Conservative, I believe that people should have power over their own lives and that communities should not be dictated to by national Government. Rather, they should be empowered to come up with their own solutions to their local needs. We know what the problem is, and we have a solution to fix it locally; we just need the Government to trust the people to let us get on and do it.

    We simply need more dentists and dental technicians in East Anglia. We recognise that budgets are tight and that timings may have to be stretched. We accept that short-term fixes are sometimes more powerful arguments in politics than long-term solutions. We simply ask the Minister to agree to meet the University of East Anglia team to learn at first hand how we can make East Anglian dentistry better, and to be inspired by their practical vision.

    Peter Aldous rose—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    I cannot quite tell whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute.

    Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)

    I will contribute very quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will give me the opportunity.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) has set out a great vision of a future in which East Anglia, Norfolk and Suffolk have high-quality dentistry schools. That is great, but we need a bridge to get to that future, because two dentistry schools will take some time to set up. Does he agree that we need to look at other strands to address the crisis in NHS dentistry in East Anglia, including recruitment and retention in the short term, making it easier for people from overseas to come and work in local dentistry; contract reform, which I think my hon. Friend referred to; a fair, long-term funding settlement; a focus on prevention; and improved local accountability through the fledgling integrated care systems?

    Jerome Mayhew

    I am grateful—

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Order. Perhaps I am confused, but I thought that the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) had finished. [Interruption.] Ah, so now he is intervening on the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). That is absolutely fine.

    Jerome Mayhew

    Thank you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Does my hon. Friend agree that all those aspects are very important, but that perhaps there is another proposed solution that he has not mentioned? As we have learned today, there are inducement payments for teachers in special areas that are struggling to recruit. Perhaps we could apply the same approach to dentists in special areas that are struggling to recruit.

    Peter Aldous

    I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and apologise for hijacking his debate. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. This is a multifaceted challenge; there is no one solution and no one golden bullet. We need to address all the points, and he is right to raise that one.

    George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)

    As a former Minister for life science and for science and research, I rise very briefly to highlight the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) made about the microbiome and the mouth—the buccal cavity—as a primary diagnostic for our understanding of the role of the biome and of gut flora and fauna, not only in good health but in diseases such as cancer. As a diagnostic tool, it could make our region a leader in the diagnostics of the digestive system and the gut biome, which would have a whole bunch of other important secondary health benefits. For that reason, I commend my hon. Friend’s case to Ministers on the Front Bench.

  • Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative MP for Broadland, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2022.

    I add my remarks to the outpouring of love, affection and gratitude for the life of Her late Majesty on behalf of the people of Broadland. It is a sombre day as we grieve, so who would have thought that we would have laughed so much as we remembered her extraordinary life? I have loved listening to colleagues’ speeches as they have recalled their mishaps with Her Majesty.

    Through those stories, I have learned much about her deep graciousness. I was never lucky enough to meet her, but I still grew up with her as part of my family, for that was the impact of her life on all of us. Through her service, she reached into our homes and our hearts. Whatever else was going on in our lives or in the country, the Queen was always there—a steadfast anchor of rightness. She did not represent the people; she embodied them through her steady selfless service, year after year, decade after decade. By her life, and how she lived it, she pointed out to all of us the real values by which life should be lived: integrity, devout faithfulness, duty.

    We in return have demanded constant attention, constant attendance and constant access, irrespective of any difficulties in the Queen’s own life. We have often demanded the most at the hardest times, yet she never faltered or stepped back. She stayed true to her young oath. What a wonderful woman. What a wonderful monarch. Her heavy burden, which she somehow managed to wear so lightly, has now passed to the King. His wonderful speech to his peoples today shows how he has shouldered it. May the Queen rest in peace. God save the King.

  • Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

    Jerome Mayhew – 2022 Speech on Employment Agencies and Trade Unions

    The speech made by Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative MP for Broadland, in the House of Commons on 11 July 2022.

    I rise to support both statutory instruments, but I will speak in support of only one: the liability of trade unions in proceedings in tort and the increase in the limit on damages. To set the context, we need to look at the rights and obligations under the law of tort—the common-law duty under tort—so that we can understand the rationale behind the measures. As many Members will know, for a liability under tort to become established, we first have to have a duty of care for one organisation or individual to another. There needs to be a breach of that duty and then evidence to demonstrate that the breach was causative of identified damages. That is a standard part of the law of tort and of our common law. It is worth making the point that it applies to all of us in all our relations with one another; it is not unique to the unions. The starting point is that every organisation is responsible in damages for a tortious breach of its duty of care.

    I turn to the specific problem with trade unions and trade union-inspired strikes. Although the withdrawal of labour is a fundamental right, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) made clear, it can lead to a huge number of breaches of tortious duty if a strike is illegal, because public sector work has an impact on so many other organisations. In previous legislation, the Government created an exemption for unions on legal strikes—the official protected industrial action clauses—but illegal strike action is not protected under the law, so the risk remains that trade unions are open to crippling damages being awarded against them. Why should they not be? If through their illegal actions they have caused identified losses to other individuals, why should they not be responsible for them?

    Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)

    Could the hon. Member identify the last time that there was an illegal strike, please?

    Jerome Mayhew

    Since 1982, there has been effective legislation to dissuade that kind of act, but the effectiveness of that legislation has diminished over time to such a level that it is no longer worth applying. The damages cap is so low in real terms that it has become ineffective as a disincentive.

    Barry Gardiner

    Does the hon. Member understand that as the normal remedy is an injunction, what he proposes might, ironically, make injunctions against strikes more difficult for employers to obtain? One of the conditions for the grant of an interlocutory emergency injunction is that it must be shown that damages, if awarded at full trial, would not be an adequate remedy, so raising the level of that remedy makes it less likely that an employer could get an injunction. The hon. Member’s argument has therefore undermined itself.

    Jerome Mayhew

    I am grateful for that intervention, but I fundamentally disagree. As the hon. Member will know, when someone makes an interlocutory application for an injunction, they often have to give an undertaking in damages. The cap, which I have not yet come on to, will not be raised to a new level; the order merely restores what was put in place, which was the will of Parliament when the legislation was enacted back in 1982.

    There is a very strong argument that an organisation that causes loss to another through its breach of a duty of care should be responsible for 100% of damages, but the Government have not taken that view. They have capped the liability in damages for trade unions, even when strikes are illegal. They have tried to balance the disincentive from strike action, for which I make no apology, with protection for trade unions from the full consequences of their actions, even though they might be illegal. The reason is that the Government are in favour of trade unions and do not want crippling damages being awarded against them. There is a balance of rights and obligations, which in my view is absolutely reasonable.

    The cap was set by Parliament under the Employment Act 1982 at between £10,000 and £250,000, based on the size of the union and its ability to pay. It seems quite wrong, in 38 intervening years, for the caps not to have been increased by the rate of inflation or by any other amount. The rights of unions and the rights of damaged businesses and individuals have now, in my submission, become unbalanced. The legislation is no longer acting as proposed, and I think the Government are quite right to take action to rebalance it, as it originally required. I have looked up, on the Office for National Statistics website, the retail prices index figures for inflation between January 1982 and May 2022. The multiplier, to be entirely accurate, is 4.31963. The Government’s proposals, which use a multiplier of four, are actually less than the inflationary increase.

    It is entirely right that the order restores the original intention of Parliament. The legal right to strike is wholly protected, and it is disingenuous for Opposition Members to suggest that the right to strike is being in any way affected. The order merely restores the balance of rights between the damages available to the victims—and they are victims—of tortious losses caused by illegal strike action and the protection of trade unions from crippling losses. That is right: it is an incentive to avoid illegal strikes, which I think is a good thing.

    This is good government. I support the order; I only suggest that from now on, the limits should rise automatically with inflation to avoid having a repeat of this debate in 2060.