Illegal Encampments (East of England)

Debate between Lord Haselhurst and Robert Halfon

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Connoisseurs of parliamentary proceedings may find it wry that I have the honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I hope your mind is cleansed of those occasions when the roles were reversed and I may have had occasion to call you to order.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for giving us this opportunity to raise these issues—issues that I imagine a large number of Members have, to varying degrees. I am in his slipstream in what I want to say this afternoon. He is a doughty champion of Harlow and its residents, and he can rightly describe Harlow as his beautiful city. Equally, I hope he recognises that the district of Uttlesford, which comprises a large part of the Saffron Walden constituency, is continually cited as one of the most desirable places to live in the country. That, of course, adds to some of its problems, as people reading that fact may think about moving to the area. Those people may include Travellers, because we have regular visitations.

It would be hard for me to compare any of the situations in my constituency with the scale of the problem that my hon. Friend is confronted with in his; even my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) might take second place in the order of crisis, given the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has described. There are many different situations, but too often, across the piece, those situations give rise to public fury; hence the involvement of Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow has graphically described what can go wrong, and I recognise most of those situations as having also arisen at encampments in my constituency.

Those who know me will understand my particular concern, not only as president of the West Essex district cricket board, when an incursion in the village of Hatfield Heath interfered with the local cricket ground, causing a competitive fixture to be postponed at a critical time. An ordinary, very English activity that is traditional to villages was disrupted by caravans being parked on the ground. The pitch was scuffed—one remembers a test match that was affected by the pouring of oil on the pitch —and water was taken, causing total disruption. That is part of the general annoyance that has been caused. The general annoyance is that such disruption is a regular thing in the village of Hatfield Heath. Just as people think they have cleared one situation, there is an anticipation, borne out by history, that it will be repeated, which gives rise to extra annoyance. The annoyance is caused not just by that continuity, but by the regular reappearance of caravans, although they are not necessarily the same ones.

A quite different situation arose in Little Dunmow, where the houses came after the Gypsy settlement. There had been no particular complaints about the Gypsy settlement, which has been established for quite a long time, but once houses are built close by, some of the disturbances that come from such settlements become a source of difficulty—dogs barking at all hours of the night, shotguns being fired and stray horses wandering around. Although Essex county council has a Gypsy liaison officer, it is hard to imagine someone not invested with police powers, or anything of that kind, being able to control a situation and bring about harmony between the newcomers in the houses and the longer-established people on the Traveller site.

Uttlesford district council and the city of Chelmsford, the rural areas of which I also represent, are known to be looking for pitches to accommodate certain numbers at the Government’s behest. People are starting to ask questions. I accept the logic in trying to establish the requisite number of official pitches, because the theory is that, if those pitches are established, we can swiftly move on caravans that park on unofficial sites. There is nothing more infuriating for anyone than to wake up and find a caravan or caravans on greensward in front of their house, or in a field next door. People naturally expect the authorities to do something, but nothing is gained if all the authorities can do when they succeed in moving the caravans on is cause a second unofficial parking.

I see the logic in trying to have official pitches, and it all seems straightforward, but unfortunately it is not. Hopefully the Government can help, but we need to know exactly for whom we should be providing the pitches. Are they for itinerant Travellers, or are we also meant to be covering static caravans? There is an important distinction between the two. What criteria should apply? If Travellers can just turn up, whether on a village green that also hosts a cricket pitch or on an area by the side of a road such as a lay-by, surely there need to be basic facilities, otherwise we will see the unsavoury activities of human beings without any kind of facilities for ordinary toilet practices and so on. People will also have to search for basic facilities such as water, and there seems to be no advance provision. If a site is volunteered, there should be criteria and minimum standards; otherwise, it should not apply.

Highways issues should also be taken into account. The city of Chelmsford is battling with its need to provide an allocation, and it seems to have set its sights on a possible settlement at Drakes lane in my constituency. The road that serves the site is wholly inadequate, as there is surrounding industrial activity. What is the sense of encouraging provision for Travellers—in many cases, one expects, with children—where heavy lorries are pounding down an unsuitable lane? The scope for accidents is obvious. We need to know more about what we have to do and for whom.

I will not be censorious about the police, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow was, but the relevant bits of legislation covering all their powers are longer than the ten commandments. In all the different circumstances that could apply, such legislation helps to confuse the police about what they can do. It is often down to the status of the land. Is it private or public land? What are the rights of access for members of the public? If there are rights of access, how can we discriminate between one type of member of the public and another?

I am grateful to the police for coming together with all the local interests to solve—finally, we hope—the recurring problems in Hatfield Heath. The key lesson I got from those discussions was that a crime has to have been committed to make it easier for the police to apply section 61 of the 1994 Act. If that is the case, to put things at their simplest, we need to know what constitutes a crime in relation to the sorts of problems that my hon. Friend described.

[Robert Halfon]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of what section 61 states. If there are six or more vehicles trespassing on private land, the police can issue instructions under section 61.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

That was not exactly how it was explained to me by the police officer who came to the discussions at Hatfield Heath; but what my hon. Friend says demonstrates my point. There is uncertainty about what must happen. If the law is being applied unevenly because police discretion means variation from one place to another, that is not helpful to any of us.

To sum up, what we need and what the public are looking for is fairness. This is not a matter of discriminating against the travelling community, let alone those of the Romany tradition; it is a matter of fairness. If one person is not allowed to do something, why should someone else be allowed to do it without any kind of retribution being visited on them? That is basically what people want dealt with. If we legislators cannot provide a clear definition of what is or is not fair, we will continue to have very dissatisfied constituents.

West Anglia Rail Line

Debate between Lord Haselhurst and Robert Halfon

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

It was almost three years ago, on 19 January 2011, that I last had the opportunity to address the House on the subject of the West Anglia rail line. The line runs from Liverpool Street to Cambridge and beyond, serving many stations in my constituency and in other important towns and villages. In the speech that I made in 2011, I castigated every Government from 1985 onwards for first willing the expansion of Stansted airport—which is served by the line—and then branding the M11 corridor, as it is described, ripe for major development, while doing absolutely nothing about the capacity or quality of service on a line that served all those different needs. I regret to say that not much has changed in the intervening years, apart from the fares that long-suffering passengers have to pay.

I acknowledge that there was a timetable change in December 2011—in the teeth of opposition from Transport for London, I should add—which made possible the reinstatement of some peak services. That returned the journey time between Audley End and London to something like it was in 1977: although it was not quite as good, there was certainly a major improvement. I also acknowledge that, as the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), told me in her reply to my speech in January 2011, some of the new type 379 train units did come our way. I am not sure that that was entirely due to my persuasion; it was probably rather more to do with the fact that business at Stansted airport had slumped rather badly, and 10 of the 30 new train units were spared to supplement services for other passengers on the line.

Despite those two welcome steps, however, not much has changed. I am tempted to use the term, “Same old railway.” There is no new track and no sign of fleet replacement. It is true that there is a new train operator, Abellio, under the colours of Greater Anglia, and a new airport owner, with Manchester Airports Group having bought Stansted from BAA.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is an incredible champion for commuters in our area and I am very proud to have him as my neighbouring MP. I recently did a survey at my local railway station, Harlow Town. Some 73% of commuters said they had to stand too often, and 60% of them want longer trains. Does he agree that there needs to be investment in rolling stock and that the trains that go through Harlow need to be extended?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I certainly do not disagree with that in any way, and I would think that quite a number of other colleagues whose constituencies are served by this railway line would echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments. I acknowledge his support in the campaign to bring the Government’s focus more sharply on to this line.

House of Commons Administration and Savings Programme

Debate between Lord Haselhurst and Robert Halfon

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), because this is the first time that the House has been able to examine, after a considerable degree of preparation and consultation, what is, in effect, its budget. This is an important occasion, and it may well be one that can be repeated on an annual basis.

Some people, when they look at the suggested savings, might think that we are dancing to the Executive’s tune and that that is not what a legislature should do. In fact, one can see from our spending plans that there are ways of making changes and savings that bring us up to date in our operations, even if we are in a 19th-century building. The trouble is that everyone has their own ideas about savings, and what pleases some will not please others, according to their particular pattern of working. At some point, a package needs to be decided. It is not necessarily just a question of cutting or of doing things in a different way; the other ingredient can be to generate income.

We should not over-emphasise the public’s reverence for this building, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has done in the past, because I suspect there is a lot less reverence for the catering deficit, which was £5.9 million at the start of this Parliament and which the proposals will, if carried, bring down to at least £4.4 million for 2012-13. If there is doubt whether we can press ahead with the full programme for the restoration and renewal of this building—a matter to which the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) has just referred—it is because of the fear that the public will be concerned about the costs involved. I think that the public look to us to act in a responsible and, I would hope, business-like way.

I want to concentrate on catering and retail, bearing in mind the thrust of my hon. Friend’s amendment. Clearly, we felt that the catering subsidy could not be ignored. We were not exactly helped by the Commission’s decision to impose a 10% price increase at the start of this Parliament, before the Administration and Finance and Services Committees were in place. That got us off to a difficult start. I wish it had left it a little longer. It has resulted in some perverse effects.

People think of this place as 650 Members of Parliament, but there are in fact 13,000 pass holders, not all of whom have the same income as MPs. A few have higher incomes, but for the most part they are on much lower incomes, and outlets have seen a reduction in footfall. Members of Parliament also entertain their constituents here and are finding that it has become much more costly to do so. We should not create a regime that makes Members hesitate to bring in guests because of the facility costs in certain outlets.

Income generation is an important element in achieving our objectives and we can do it through both catering and retail. I do not think that a considered approach to the issue should be dismissed—as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow seems to wish—as commercialisation, as though it were a vulgar activity. If, in his own words, this is the people’s palace, I do not see why we should not widen access, especially when our facilities are not needed by us.

[Robert Halfon]

My right hon. Friend has said that some of the proposals are justified because Members are finding the restaurant prices too high. What he is saying is that it is okay to bring in companies to have special access to our facilities, because that will help Members reduce their bills. How can that be right and how would members of the public react to such a proposal?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

My hon. Friend is both unfair and wrong. I said that one effect of the price increases has been felt by colleagues, but that a much greater effect has been felt by lower-paid pass holders in this Palace—I was more concerned for them. The fact of the matter is that large organisations, be they charitable, private sector or nationalised, have access to this place already, and we take a great deal of revenue from them. All they need is the fig leaf of sponsorship from a Member of Parliament. The proposals simply say that access could be achieved without the presence of a sponsoring MP. There is no actual difference with regard to the ability to access the Palace.

I am worried about the IPSA effect—the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority—on our budgeting arrangements. I believe that the change to Tuesday’s sitting hours has been effected by those colleagues who have found themselves without support for accommodation in central London. I must not impute motive to them, but 43 out of the 96 people affected by that IPSA regulation voted for the change in hours. I can understand why, but it has a serious effect on revenues. On Tuesday evenings this place is now deserted, and on Tuesday mornings we now have great difficulty in bringing in visitors from our constituencies, which is something that many Members value. That is also a question of access.

The Administration Committee has looked—indeed, it is still looking—at how our facilities can be better used. As a general approach, I honestly do not see what is wrong with that. First, I would like to think that Members themselves would use the facilities more often—that would be a start. The Committee, together with the catering management, is trying to find innovative ways in which we can hold Members here more often to take advantage of the facilities and, therefore, make a contribution to revenue, but allowing public access is the other way. Other Parliaments do it. Indeed, in the Parliament of Quebec, the public are able to book a table in the restaurants not only when Members are not present, but on days when the Parliament is actually sitting. I am not suggesting for a moment that we go that far, but the idea that this is a revolutionary or demeaning move on the part of the Palace of Westminster is entirely wrong.

Is it wrong to host civil ceremonies? Is it wrong to develop specialist tours, such as a works of art tour? Is it especially wrong to hire out the facilities? That is what we already do, but we could do more of it. My amendment to the business improvement plans simply draws attention to the valuable work done by the management in that direction, and I believe that that should be given the fullest opportunity to work before we consider any outside catering or similar. Let us put that to the test first—that is the gravamen of my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). He has a thankless task, but he always deals with me with respect and understanding. I greatly admire the work he does; I simply disagree about the emphasis.

I welcome much that is in the report, and it is rare that I disagree with my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). We have worked together on other matters, but I disagree fundamentally with some of his arguments. As far as I am concerned, there are three issues: first, as I have said, our respect for Parliament; secondly, the precedent that the Commission’s decisions might set; and, thirdly, the need for savings. I am not against savings. I believe that we should have savings; I just dispute where those savings should be made.

The issue of respect is incredibly important, because Parliament is not a stately home or a tourist attraction like many of our other tourist attractions. It is not a hotel or a conference venue. It is a very special place and the foundation of our laws and democracy, and so it needs to be treated differently. Yes, we could make a lot of money by allowing companies to hire out rooms, letting people hold weddings here and allowing film people to use Elizabeth Tower, but, once we set that principle, where do we stop? The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is incredibly enlightened, and I believe him when he says that these changes will be limited, but who is to say that someone less enlightened will not in years to come extend the principle still further?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden said, “Well, we already have business sponsored by Members”, but most of that is politically related. We reached a compromise: we allow business to enter Parliament when sponsored by Members and when Members are there, and it is usually related to their activities as Members of Parliament. That is different, however, from allowing businesses to hire out rooms or from giving people special access, because they are rich, to see paintings that my constituents, who are not rich, who are on £20,000 a year, cannot see. This is our Parliament, our democracy, and we pay for it through our taxes. It is not like going round a stately home. That is why I feel so passionately about it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden criticised what I said during the campaign to stop charges for Big Ben tours. I said much of what I said then for the same reasons I say what I say now. He talked about overseas trips. The whole House will recognise the incredible work that he has done in the Commonwealth and elsewhere, but if we asked taxpayers whether we should shave a few percentage points off overseas trips—I will come on to savings in a moment—or give people privileged access to the Houses of Parliament, I know what they would say.

Once we set the precedent, where do we stop? Do we have rollercoasters outside? [Laughter.] Members may laugh at the suggestion, but once we agree the principle that we become nothing more than a theme park, we create a dangerous precedent.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

It does not help the quality of debate to start using terms such as “theme park”. My hon. Friend has a vivid imagination, if he believes that any of us are interested in going in that direction. What is being proposed is an enlargement of what we do already. The logic of what he is saying, particularly about businesses coming in, is that hon. Members should be prevented now from allowing these functions to take place, and that is irrational.

[Robert Halfon]

This is where the disagreement lies. I think that we have reached a happy compromise and that we should go this far and no further. The Commission is suggesting that businesses will have special privileges to hire out rooms. My right hon. Friend said that if people are rich they should be able to see some special paintings in the House of Commons. That is wrong. This is our Parliament. We should not make a distinction between people with money and people without when deciding who sees which parts of Parliament.

I turn to savings. I have already talked about overseas trips: if a small percentage—20%, for example—was cut, we could save £250,000 a year. Another £50,000 a year is wasted on food waste. Have we ever considered closing one of the dining rooms, for example, because often the dining rooms are not used?

Transport Infrastructure (Essex)

Debate between Lord Haselhurst and Robert Halfon

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who is a fantastic champion not only for transport, but for business, in Essex.

In Harlow, we face three major challenges: reputation, skills and infrastructure. We are dealing with the first two. We now have the highest business growth in the UK, as Experian has shown. An enterprise zone is opening next year, a new university technical college is opening in 2014, and 600 more people are in work in the town, compared with January, but transport infrastructure is holding us back in three ways. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) highlighted so well, we are not getting enough investment in trains in the east of England. Secondly, Harlow lacks proper motorway entrances. Thirdly, a sense of unfairness has built up over decades, due to only a fifth of fuel duty receipts being spent on our roads. I shall consider those points in turn.

I welcome what the Government have done to limit train fare rises. Many people in Harlow are on below-average earnings and commute into London, and could not afford some of the bigger rises that were initially mentioned. Of course, expensive rail fares have not happened overnight. Simon Carter, a Harlow resident who is also a councillor, has the ticket stubs to prove that a season ticket from Harlow to London went up by some 40% over the past 13 to 15 years, but Harlow commuters still suffer from the worst overcrowding in the country.

I recognise and welcome what the Government have done to invest in new rolling stock and to negotiate with Abellio to run a short franchise when National Express dropped out. I appreciate that Abellio has hired 100 extra security staff on the west coast main line, protected all Harlow services from cuts and smartened up our train stations, but Essex is a major engine of the English economy and our train fares are still too high, compared with the inward investment in the network. That is why I, along with my hon. and right hon. Friends, urge the Minister to consider the East Anglian rail prospectus, with targeted schemes, such as a third line in the Lea valley, and line improvements along the Stansted Express route, so that trains can get up to speeds of 100 mph. Improvements in infrastructure in the Roydon and Sawbridgeworth stations would be welcome.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

On my hon. Friend’s point about increased rail capacity through the Lea valley, we do not want to be sold short on just a third rail. For that job to be done properly, we need four rails, ideally, as far as Broxbourne. That would separate the more localised traffic from the traffic to more distant destinations, such as his constituency and mine.

[Robert Halfon]

Of course, my right hon. Friend is correct. He is an incredible champion for commuters across Essex.

Crossrail is estimated to have raised property prices along its line of route by about £5.5 billion, meaning that one third of the scheme’s cost has already been recouped by local home owners. This is the value that major transport projects can unlock.

I urge the Minister to expand the Oyster and other smart card systems to include Harlow commuters, because most people who commute to London from there use the London underground or London buses.

The Minister is aware, from a previous debate, that I have long campaigned for an additional junction on the M11. A new junction is critical if Harlow is to continue to grow and attract new businesses. Harlow town alone has a population of some 81,000 or 82,000, in addition to that of the villages in my constituency, but we have only one entrance to the town, which is crazy for a huge employment hub close to London. The industry is located at the opposite end of the town, meaning that lorries must trundle back and forth, almost through the town centre. Almost every day, our town faces gridlock because we do not have the extra junction.

I welcome work done by the local council on a £500,000 study into building a new M11 junction 7a, which will report in November—in a few weeks. I urge the Minister to consider that report. The case for a new M11 junction is simple: it would cost only around £15 million, would create jobs and growth, cut congestion and the cost of traffic, and would generally make Harlow a much better place to live. Our local enterprise partnership has secured a small amount of funding for road improvements, and I welcome some things that the Government have announced, but this is a sticking plaster. We will not solve our transport problems in Harlow until we get the extra junction.

I want to talk briefly about how our infrastructure is funded. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) has brilliantly highlighted how, unfortunately, money raised for the railways by commuters through fares is not spent in the east of England; most of it goes to other parts of the country. We must move to a situation where money raised in the region by commuters paying high rail fares is spent in the region. The same thing has happened with fuel duty. Through the 1920s, the road fund was repeatedly raided to prop up the Treasury, and from 1937 it was treated as a general tax. By 1966, just one third of the revenue was spent on roads, and by 2008 the figure was just one fifth. The proportion of fuel duty being spent on roads has shrunk hugely, but at the same time that duty has risen. Motorists regard that as unfair because they do not see any benefit from the huge sums in fuel duty tax that they pay. The same is true of train ticket price rises. How can we justify those without proper investment in our local road and rail networks?

The cost of living is the No. 1 issue in my constituency. People want cheaper travel and they want every penny that the Government take from them to be recycled back into the community. I urge the Minister to refocus the Department on extra infrastructure investment in the east of England, in our trains, motorways and road networks—a cause that is close to our hearts. We need more radical transparency, so that people can see whether fare increases are genuinely being ploughed back into their area.

I am glad that the Government have fulfilled their election pledge and stopped a second runway at Stansted airport. The answer to infrastructure spending is not to spend millions on an extra runway, but to spend that money, if it is ever available, on our roads, rail and other transport infrastructure. Stansted is running at only 50% of full capacity, so there is no economic case for a second runway. Some say that people in Harlow would benefit, but Stansted has some 10,000 employees, of whom only a few hundred come from Harlow. I am yet to be convinced that Harlow people would benefit if there were an extra runway.

The Government should look seriously at the case for a new airport, but my constituents ask me time and again for a new M11 junction and extra train capacity to London.