Jerome Mayhew
MP for Broadland and Fakenham · Conservative · United Kingdom
“More than 100 organisations have warned the Government that their early release scheme will put women and girls at increased risk. Can the Minister explain to the House and to those organisations how the scheme will help her to halve violence against women and girls?”
“It is apparent to absolutely everyone that this local government reform is now a shambolic, incompetent mess. I just want to put on record how much time, as well as money, has been spent by councillors and council officials right across Norfolk, where this has been a massive, monumental distraction, not for months, but for years.”
“Rural and coastal communities are particularly reliant on seasonal tourism. If Members look at my registered interests, they will see that I used to run one of those businesses. Do the Government not understand that it is already tough enough out there, without them thinking up a new tax on holidays?”
“I am very aware that this may be the last time I face these Ministers across the Dispatch Box, so I just want to say that from my perspective, they are a good bunch. I have really enjoyed it, and I wish each and every one of them the best of luck on Monday or Tuesday.”
“Q7. Books are going to be written about how a Mayor of Manchester has managed to out-manoeuvre a sitting Prime Minister with a 170-seat majority and take the keys to No. 10.”
“Scotland’s beef breeding herd is in trouble; it is down 373,000 in the last decade. There are also declines in dairy cattle, pigs and chickens, which show that the industry is in distress.”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Jerome Mayhew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“Perhaps the Minister would like to feed that suggestion into the wider Government. Let us also look at planning and development in areas with much better local transport provision than many of us currently enjoy. One might think that areas with more developed transport networks would be able to encourage significant planning and development without some of the issues that we have been debating. Utilising areas such as brownfield sites close to existing locations should be an important way to help with some of the planning challenges posed in rural areas including Norfolk. In London, however, which has by far the best transport network in the country, and significantly subsidised transport services with buses, we have seen the London Mayor’s absolute failure to deliver housing. Just look at last year; what has happened is really shocking.”
“The anger that I suspect we all experience on the doorsteps when residents feel they are being ignored is very real. In November last year, the Government published a rapid evidence report on the impacts of integrated land use and transport planning, which summarised evidence on how combining land use and transport planning affects travel. One of the first suggestions in the rapid evidence assessment for policy makers making land use and transport decisions was: “Developing awareness of potential unintended consequences via short scoping studies ahead of major investments.” It highlighted that that could “enable mitigating action to be taken where appropriate.” Anyone who examines the Government’s record over the past 18 months realises that they have an exceptional talent for not considering the consequences of their actions.”
“Despite the Prime Minister talking a good game when it came to organisations unreasonably blocking crucial infrastructure schemes for similar reasons—I pray in aid the bat tunnel—the Government did not step in to help. I am interested to hear from the Minister how the Government are planning to stop unelected quangos effectively vetoing democratic decisions. That road may have hit the buffers, at least for the time being, but the associated housing allocations all remain and can be seen in Taverham—it is a very live issue in my constituency at the moment—and elsewhere. This is exactly what residents hate: the process taking over from the reality on the ground. The cart is put before the horse, and then it is going in one direction and cannot be stopped. There is no review.”
“It was classified as a high-value scheme by the Department for Transport’s criteria. Relying on that planned road, many thousands of new houses had been allocated to land north-east of Norwich. Natural England was consulted throughout that seven-year period; in fact, it was very much part of the team. Then, one week before the final planning application was made, and without any notice to the planning team, Natural England changed its approach to a nearby colony of bats and withdrew its support—not just for that scheme, but for any mitigation approach. That left £50 million of development costs, and local residents and businesses across Norfolk let down. They were not consulted and their views were not taken into consideration.”
“Even when plans have been developed and funding has been secured for key transport schemes, they are often hampered, and sometimes even cancelled due to—in my view—unreasonable and burdensome over-regulation. I need only look at my own constituency and the scheme for the Norwich western link road. The delivery of that scheme is vital to the residents of Norfolk and to the local economy. Traffic congestion, delays, and queues on small rural roads and through communities in my constituency have long been blighting the area to the west of Norwich. Detailed plans were drawn up for a new 3.9-mile dual carriageway, the last section needed to complete the orbital dual carriageway route around the city of Norwich. Plans were developed over seven years with local consultation and £230 million in funding—achieved by me.”
“Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said—yet one of the first acts of the Labour Government was to axe the improvements to the A303, the road that links Dorset to London and the south-east. Currently, an eight-mile journey that should take only 10 minutes is regularly taking over an hour. The A303 is also the vital connection between the south-east and the south-west—areas where the Government’s targets will result in a significant increase in development, with more people, more cars and more congestion. That example demonstrates the disconnect between what local areas need when it comes to transport and what the Government are willing to deliver.”
“In my case, the Liberal Democrat North Norfolk district council is planning a large increased settlement to North Walsham, totally ignoring the huge impact of traffic going through nearby Coltishall, where everyone is funnelled over a single bridge across the river. There is an ongoing fight, with one district council ignoring the needs of another. Surely we can do better than that. The Government have also taken steps to alter housing targets, moving targets around the country. Those steps have not always been accompanied by consideration of the impact on local transport. A prominent example is the county of Dorset, where a significantly increased housing target is being imposed—top-down, as the hon.”
“Her constituency also suffers a double whammy, with travel growth due to the nearby expansion of Gatwick airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) made a number of good points. With multiple developments on local transport infrastructure, each one is identified and dealt with in isolation, not considering the cumulative impacts. The argument goes that the road can stand another 500 or 1,200 units, and that might be the case but, when there are 20 cumulative applications, the infrastructure creaks. He made another good point, of which I have personal experience, about constituencies with multiple local authorities, where one local authority can make a planning decision that adversely affects residents in the authority next door.”
“However, I do not diminish her fundamental argument about transport infrastructure, the subject of the debate—you have rightly been generous, Sir Desmond, in letting us stretch that to other local infrastructure—if new populations are to be accepted by existing populations, infrastructure needs to expand at the same pace, and ideally in advance of the growth in population. We have heard a number of good speeches; I commend the hon. Lady’s speech, but I will also highlight the two Conservative contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) made the important point that where we have an increased population, it is not only the roads, but the railway infrastructure, that suffer and need to be expanded. In her case, that is an extended station at Reigate.”
“I am grateful for that intervention. In her speech, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted said that many of the services from Berkhamsted to London were not on time, so I took the opportunity to look up the frequency of those services. I gently point out that people in my constituency would give their eye teeth for a service every 10 minutes and that level of connectivity—they only have to wait a couple more minutes and there is another train, and another one after that.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The failure of the London Mayor is putting pressure on her constituency and many other communities in the wider orbit of London. The Government will say they are trying to take action to integrate these elements and to ensure that planning development does not negatively impact local transport, but in trying to deliver their targets on development, they should stop and consider the steps they can take to make it easier to build infrastructure and support planning that actually delivers local infrastructure improvements, before new populations arise.”
“Even if we look just at the economic cost of the application fee, that would amount to an additional cost of £7 million, and that is before the cost of the police resources. Many people will think that it is not worth the candle and will give up shooting because it is simply too onerous. Other Members have already talked about the potential loss of about 20,000 full-time equivalent jobs and a loss to the economy of getting on for £1 billion.”
“For as long as we like to cook food and eat it, knives will be available, so even if the Government were successful at reducing the number of fatalities because of legally held shotguns, it does not necessarily follow that there would be a reduction in the number of killings. We are talking, at best, about a partial reduction in the number of killings from a maximum of 3.8, and yet the potential cost of the proposals that the Government are considering is enormous. We have already heard from right hon. and hon. Members that there would be a huge impact in the form of a need for increased police resources. People like me apply for a firearms licence, and at the moment about 3,700 of those are renewed each year, which places a significant administrative burden on our police forces. On average, 150,000 shotgun licences are renewed annually.”
“To put that in context, 50 people tragically lose their lives every year because of faulty cooking appliances and 40 lose their lives because of accidents with ladders. We are talking about an average of 3.8 people tragically losing their lives as a result of legally held shotguns, so that is the size of the prize: reducing a long-term average of 3.8 deaths per year—but to what? It will not be to zero, because any system will contain a remaining risk. Sensibly, we all recognise that no system would be 100% successful, other than a system that removed all shotguns from the public, and we know that even if the Government were successful at removing all shotguns, other forms of lethal weapon are readily available. There are more than 200 deaths per annum as a result of knives.”
“It is the first principle of government, when considering curbing individual liberties, that the Government must have cause and that the benefit sought must significantly outweigh the damage caused as a result of the removal of liberty, so what is the issue that the Government are trying to deal with here? The quick answer is public safety, but how much crime has been committed by legal holders of shotguns? Of all crime, it is a vanishingly small percentage. In fact, 0.00006% of crime is undertaken by legal holders of shotguns. I am told that homicides with legally owned shotguns averaged 3.8 per annum over the last decade, so people have a significantly higher chance of winning the lottery than of being a victim of homicide with a legally held shotgun. It is about a one-in-15-million chance.”
“I recognise that it may not be the Government’s intention and that we are talking about a consultation, so it is early stages, but this feels like another ignorant attack on rural communities, with no proper interest as to the adverse consequences caused. We have heard many excellent speeches today, and I will do my best not to repeat the points that have already been made, but I want to start by acknowledging that this is a deeply emotive issue, because every death caused by a gun—or any other weapon, for that matter—is in itself a tragedy. However, we are legislators and it is our duty to put aside emotion, focus on the facts and take a rational approach, even if that can sometimes lead us to slightly uncomfortable and emotive responses, so let us try to do that.”
“Thank you very much for chairing the debate, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), my constituency neighbour, on opening it in such a measured way, which I think has been noted by all of us. I need to start by declaring my interests. I hold a firearm certificate and a shotgun licence. I believe that I am still a member of the Countryside Alliance; I have not checked recently, but it is very good at taking the direct debit. I also represent a rural community. That is not a formal declaration of interest, but it is why I am here today. In my constituency, there is, overwhelmingly, a mixture of bafflement and anger. People are baffled because they cannot see what problem the Government are trying to fix with this potential legislative change, and they are angry—very angry.”
“It feels like an attack on the rural way of life and economy without justification. The previous Conservative Government, as has been mentioned, did not consult on the proposed change to the law for a very good reason: it is a terrible idea.”
“I join everyone in my deepest sympathy for people who have been affected by this issue in their family, or among their friends, but as a legislator it is my duty to look beyond that. That is why I have set out the data—to help the Minister approach this issue in the right way. I have said that my constituents are baffled, but they are also angry, because this feels like a tin-eared approach to the rural way of life. The measures fail to understand the community connections that bring rural communities together, and it feels like a Government who would propose them have no idea of who we are or how we live our lives. It feels like the Government do not understand and do not care—or perhaps they do, which would be even worse, but instead disapprove of our way of life.”
“However, with these measures, the Government appear to be proposing a change in the law that will have an impact of several hundred million pounds—getting on for £1 billion—in order to reduce the number of deaths from a maximum long-term average of 3.8 to some number less than that, but still well above zero. On any rational basis, there is simply no argument that holds water that suggests the price of 20,000 jobs and an economic hit, particularly to the rural economy, of close to £1 billion, in order to save a percentage of 3.8 lives over the course of a year, is a credible policy position. I recognise that what I have said is deeply uncomfortable, because we are talking about real people who suffer from tragedies.”
“In my other job as shadow Rail Minister, I asked the Office of Rail and Road to give me the economic cost of a saved life on the railways; the answer is £4 million. It is worth spending £4 million on a piece of infrastructure if, over the course of its use, it saves a life. That is the rule of thumb for rail. For road transport, it is actually much less than that. I am not suggesting that every death has the same value economically, because as a society we would be prepared to pay a lot more to prevent a violent murder than even a tragedy on the railway. But that is the level of magnitude at which, in policy terms, we as legislators have decided the economic value of a life sits.”
“My right hon. Friend is of course right. I do not have the data—I am trying to stick with data in the argument I am constructing—but the principle he mentions is a sound one. If we focus our resources in the area where the risk is greatest, we are likely to have a better beneficial impact. [Paula Barker in the Chair ] The Countryside Alliance estimates that the measures will have a huge impact on the value of shooting to the economy, with a loss of about £875 million. And for what gain? This is the difficult bit, because I am going to consider the value of a life. Of course, in one sense, every life is priceless, but in policy terms, we already attribute an economic value to life.”
“When these Ministers came to power, they promised that they would act to reduce the waiting time for a driving test, and not just by a little bit; they said they would get it down to seven weeks. A year later, the waiting time is now 21.9 weeks. In fact, it has gone up by three weeks since they came into power. That is not really a sign of competence, is it?”
“The Government claim to be simplifying rail fares, but we are beginning to see what they mean by that. London North Eastern Railway is scrapping off-peak and super-off-peak tickets, doubling the price of some journeys; it says that that is in the name of simplification. c2c has cut a 40% off-peak discount, straight after nationalisation. Elsewhere, analysis by The Daily Telegraph has revealed that rail passengers are now spending 40% more on some journeys than before the general election. Does the Minister accept that removing the cheapest fares in pursuit of a political slogan is not always in the best interests of the travelling public?”
“I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 80, page 47, line 13, leave out subsection (1) and insert— “(1) Great British Railways must inform Scottish Ministers before making a decision within subsection (2), and if, in the view of Scottish Ministers, the decision would significantly affect the interests of Scotland’s economy or of persons living in, working in, or visiting Scotland, Great British Railways must consult Scottish Ministers before making that potential decision.” This amendment would ensure that Scottish Ministers, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect Scotland’s economy or persons living in, working in, or visiting Scotland.”
“Member for Didcot and Wantage, is intended to facilitate collaborative strategic planning between central Government and local authorities, and would require the Secretary of State to publish a report every five years assessing the long-term changes needed to local rail-related infrastructure. We support the principle of the new clause, but I recognise that a five-year reporting requirement is an onerous task to impose if no concrete improvements follow. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member has to say in support of his new clause.”
“Is this a deliberate decision by the Minister to reduce the rights of mayors and mayoral combined authorities in relation to consultation? If it is, I would be grateful if he could explain why he has reduced powers, as opposed to increasing them. Amendment 106 would ensure that TfL, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the Greater London economy or persons living in, working in or visiting Greater London. I am sure the Minister will speak to Government amendments 158 to 160 in a moment, but to anticipate his comments, they provide a duty to consult Transport for London to cover designated railway passenger services that operate to, from or within Greater London. The Opposition have no objection to these clarifying amendments. Finally, I understand that new clause 25, tabled by the hon.”
“In the interest of speed, I will skip straight on to amendment 105, which would ensure that mayoral combined authorities, and not GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect the authority’s economy. I am repeating a similar argument, but it is an important one—one of process rather than any political issue. Again, we are talking about a rail body making an assessment of the impact of its activities on an economy that it is not a specialist in. Clause 82 creates a duty to consult Transport for London. Again, we have the same concerns as we had regarding clauses 80 and 81. Under the franchise system, the Mayor of London, and other mayors for that matter, were able to drag in rail operators to question them about their performance and standards; however, that right of consultation seems to have been removed.”
“Amendment 103 would ensure that Scottish Ministers, rather than GBR, decided whether a GBR decision would significantly affect Scotland’s economy or persons living in, working in or visiting Scotland. Surely that is the correct approach. Similarly, amendment 104 would ensure that Welsh Ministers, rather than GBR, took the decision. Effectively, instead of GBR having the responsibility to say, “This affects Scotland and/or Wales, and therefore we should consult,” the amendments would give the power to the Scottish or Welsh Ministers to call in a decision on their assessment of their own economy. Surely that is the better approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s rebuttal. Clause 81, which introduces a duty to consult mayoral combined authorities, is pretty similar to clause 80.”
“Most of the clause is pretty unremarkable, but there is one glaring issue with it: it asserts that GBR will decide for itself when a decision will “significantly affect” the Scottish or Welsh economies. The Minister will recognise that GBR is not an economic forecasting or policymaking body and cannot credibly assess national economic impact internally. The clause therefore makes the duty discretionary and risks major decisions proceeding without any meaningful consultation of either Welsh or Scottish Ministers. How is it sensible for GBR to have the duty to assess whether a proposed action is likely to affect the economies of either Scotland or Wales? That brings me neatly on to amendments 103 and 104.”
“That will teach me to go away for a day; the Committee finished off half the Bill without me. Anyway, we will go back to the usual slow progress today! Clause 80 is pretty straightforward. Great British Railways will have a duty to consult Scottish Ministers before making decisions that relate to cross-border services designated under clause 25, where—this is the important bit— “the decision will significantly affect…Scotland’s economy or…persons living in, working in or visiting Scotland.” Similarly, the clause requires GBR to consult Welsh Ministers where its decisions relate to services designated by the Secretary of State that are provided in Wales under a similar process.”
“The Minister asserts that the amendments would make the process inefficient. Will he please explain why giving mayoral combined authorities or the Scottish or Welsh Ministers the power to call in consultation would make the process less efficient?”
“Amendment 160, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, leave out “which is provided in Greater London”. —(Keir Mather.) See the explanatory statement for amendment 158. Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 83 Advice from relevant local government bodies”
“The Minister has heard my submissions. In the interest of time, I will not press my amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 82 Duty to consult Transport for London Amendments made : 158, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, after “a” insert “London”. This amendment and amendments 159 and 160 provide for the duty to consult Transport for London to cover designated railway passenger services that operate to, from or within Greater London. Amendment 159, in clause 82, page 48, line 30, after “service” insert— “(within the meaning of section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999)”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 158.”
“These are two unremarkable clauses. We have no objections to either of them. As for the Government amendments, they are technical in nature and we also support them.”
“I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 85, page 50, leave out line 3. This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the body that gives licences certificates so that it remains the ORR.”
“Amendment 108 is not part of this group but would affect the clause, and would require the Secretary of State to consult passenger and freight service operators, groups representing passengers and railway rail safety organisations before making regulations about the licensing or certification of train drivers. That would mean that not just Labour’s union colleagues would be consulted. I mention the amendment in passing because it is relevant to the discussion of this clause, and I see the Minister nodding sagely. I intend to seek a Division on amendment 107 if the Government are not minded to accept it.”
“Amendment 107 would prevent the Secretary of State from changing the body that gives licences and certificates, so that it remains the Office of Rail and Road, once again restoring power to the independent regulator with experience and expertise in this space. That is a small but important point. It may have been an oversight on the part of the drafters that the ORR is not mentioned. If the intention is to remove that responsibility from the ORR, and that is the Government’s ambition as a result of the clause, perhaps the Minister could make that clear? If not, amendment 107 makes it clear that the ORR is the anticipated body.”
“Through its omission, it opens the door to the removal of the ORR’s role on this important issue. Unions would clearly fall under the definition in subsection (6)(a), but the drafting effectively ringfences them as the primary consultees while shutting out operators, GBR, passenger groups and safety bodies from the mandatory list. There is a non-mandatory ability to consult, but it seems very odd to identify unions but not any of these other very important organisations as part of a mandatory consultation list. That creates an odd imbalance for regulations that directly affect service delivery and safety, giving one group a guaranteed seat at the table while everyone else is included only at the Secretary of State’s discretion.”
“The power to amend that legislation is required to ensure that the train driver licensing regime can be updated to reflect technological, clinical and medical advancements. The ability to update the legislation on an enduring basis will help to modernise the framework and support health and safety outcomes for train drivers, as well as avoiding operational impacts such as train drivers being unable to be deployed on account of not passing outdated medical tests. The ability to designate a person or body, for example the Office of Rail and Road or GBR, to publish and maintain technical standards will allow the train driving regime to remain adaptable and effective. We are therefore support that. Subsection (2)(b) does not confirm the ongoing role of the ORR to issue licences or certificates. That is much bigger.”
“Clause 85 relates to the licensing of train drivers, and other matters relating to them. It gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 and related assimilated law through regulations. The Secretary of State, by interest, has also been empowered to appoint a person or a body to publish and maintain technical standards in a document separate from the regulations. The regulations set out the requirements that ensure train drivers are competent, medically and psychologically fit, trained on the infrastructure, rolling stock and routes that they are to be deployed on, and generally able to drive trains safely.”
“As I mentioned, we support the intention behind these clauses, but I stand firm in defending the need for the ORR to be the issuing body, so I will press my amendment to a Division. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“As for Government amendments 201 and 202, which deal with the Isle of Man, I was slightly surprised by them. I am sorry to say that I have never visited the Isle of Man, so I had to do some research on its rail infrastructure, and it turns out that it is entirely heritage in nature, with Victorian rolling stock including a horse-drawn tramway. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain why Victorian rolling stock and horse-drawn tramways need the benefit of the Cape Town convention and the Luxembourg protocol. I am sure that he has that at his fingertips.”
“As we have just heard, the Luxembourg protocol is designed to provide access to cheaper rolling stock in the UK and overseas, as finance can be secured and/or rolling stock leased from non-UK sources, and UK rolling stock companies can lease abroad at lower risk. I learned an interesting fact over the weekend. I thought that this proposal would affect only ROSCOs operating in this country, but it actually affects the Government too. I learned that the Government own the freehold of one train in the UK, which is on the Canvey Island miniature railway in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who was very keen to point out to me that the Government have skin in the game on this clause. I have read that into the record, so I hope she is pleased with that. We have no objections to the clause.”
“We have no objection in principle to the new clause, but, as we have learned to our cost as consumers in the similar approach taken to car parking charges and the removal of vehicles badly parked elsewhere, this will all come down to the operators contracted by GBR to undertake that function. It is merely asserted that the costs are related to those incurred in the removal, but we all know that such costs can be inflated by unscrupulous operators. Although we do not object to the new clause in principle, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance that reputable companies will be used and that this measure will not be used as a secondary source of income for GBR or its contractors.”
“(2) The Secretary of State and Great British Railways must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in exercising their functions under this Act.”— (Jerome Mayhew.) This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“New Clause 1 Purpose of Great British Railways “(1) The purpose of Great British Railways is defined by the following objectives— (a) prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers in decision-making, (b) delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services, (c) providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices, (d) increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network year-on-year, (e) expanding and improving the network, including services, connectivity, and restoring or adding routes, (f) modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency, and passenger experience, (g) supporting economic growth, national productivity and improving connections between towns, cities and employment centres, (h) improving the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers and ensuring consistent access to assistance, (i) ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators when allocating access and charges, (j) growing rail freight, including supporting delivery of the national freight growth target, (k) strengthening the financial sustainability of the railways, reducing reliance on operating subsidy over time, (l) integrating track and train, simplifying structures, and avoiding duplication, and (m) supporting multimodal integration with buses, trams and local transport networks.”
“2006/246).”— (Keir Mather.) This new clause makes provision about transfers of staff from the civil service to the Passengers’ Council. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.”
“New Clause 65 Transfer of staff to the Passengers’ Council “(1) The Secretary of State may make one or more schemes under which persons who hold employment in the civil service of the State become employees of the Passengers’ Council (but this is subject to any provision contained in the scheme that allows a person to object to becoming an employee of the Council). (2) A scheme made under this section— (a) may make provision for giving full effect to a person’s transfer into the employment of the Passengers’ Council as a result of the scheme, and (b) may (in particular) include provision that is the same as, or similar to, the provision made by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I.”
“(2) In sections ( Transfer schemes made by Secretary of State ), ( Transfer schemes made by Scottish Ministers) and (Transfer schemes made by Welsh Ministers ) and Schedule ( Transfer schemes )— (a) ‘a former GBR’ means a body corporate formerly designated as Great British Railways under section 1; (b) ‘a proposed GBR’ means a body corporate that the Secretary of State proposes to designate as Great British Railways under that section.”— (Keir Mather.) This new clause makes supplementary provision about transfer schemes under new clauses NC61, NC62 and NC63. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.”