Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Transport without a brake would be like a car without a driver—Tom Brake.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

In relation to Operation Yellowhammer, may I ask the Secretary of State what role the 300 troops and 180 police officers who are to be put on standby will play in policing the transport network in and around the port of Portsmouth, and how many other troops and police may be deployed at other ports?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

It is always a pleasure to respond to the happy-go-lucky Member for Carshalton and Wallington, especially on the matter of Brexit because I was reading his website last night, on which he says,

“clearly this was a democratic vote and we must abide by this decision”

—something that he has forgotten, I believe. My Department is operationalising Yellowhammer, and I will happily write to the right hon. Gentleman with the details he requires.

East Midlands Rail Franchise

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I wonder whether there is a way to formalise this slot as an urgent question to the Secretary of State for Transport, because this is clearly a weekly event that could be formalised in the parliamentary calendar.

My question to the Minister is this: what is the Secretary of State’s responsibility when it comes to making market-sensitive information available? Given how leaky the Government are, was it appropriate to leave nine days between disqualifying Stagecoach and announcing its disqualification?

[Andrew Jones]

After the decision has been made within the Department for Transport, there has to be a period of communication with other Departments, such as the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. That is entirely standard in public procurement. It is not a question of the Government sitting on their hands within the Department. There was a standard process. That is typical in rail franchises, as it is in other parts of public procurement. I am aware of the press story, but it is simply wrong.

No-Deal Brexit: Cross-channel Freight

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

That is the central point. The process was carried out properly in the context of the legal advice that was available and the needs elsewhere in Government. My Department never needed any ferry capacity; it was procured because other Departments did. If further contracts are let, it will be because of other Departments’ needs for services such as the national health service. The Opposition seem more interested in trying to score political points than in supporting the securing of drug supplies for the national health service.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On 11 February, the Secretary of State said in response to my question on ferry procurement:

“I have been absolutely clear that this procurement was dealt with very carefully by officials in my Department and in the Treasury”—[Official Report, 11 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 623.]

Although the Secretary of State may believe that this matter was dealt with very carefully, I think the rest of the world believes otherwise—that, in fact, he has reached dizzying new heights of incompetence. His latest bungle has cost an extra £43 million, on top of the £2.7 billion he has cost us so far. If P&O wins its case, how much more is the Secretary of State going to cost the taxpayer, and will that be the point at which he finally accepts that he has no choice but to resign?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman does not believe in Brexit and he clearly does not believe in no-deal preparations. He also clearly did not listen to me previously. I have set out exhaustively in this House why we took the decisions that we did and why we responded in the way we did to the legal advice we had. We simply took steps to ensure that we were ready for a no-deal Brexit—the responsible thing to do. He might not agree with it, but that is what we have done.

South-Eastern Rail Franchise

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

My hon. Friend has been a very diligent campaigner on this issue. I know that it matters a lot to her and to her constituency. She has been a real vocal champion on this issue specifically. However, this is also an industry-led process and we are working with it to deliver the benefits as soon as possible. I cannot comment immediately on that matter because it is not part of this franchise but, of course, I will check the information and keep her posted on progress.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

If the rail review recommends that suburban services in the London area be transferred to London government, will the Government allow south-eastern suburban services to be transferred in that way to maximise integration of transport services in London?

[Andrew Jones]

That is a very interesting question. I would expect the rail review to make some interesting recommendations about devolution. I am personally a fan of devolution, but we had better see what it says before commenting on the outcome.

East Midlands Rail Franchise

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

I have already said how I think that franchising has been a key part of the turnaround in our rail network since privatisation. On services to Grimsby, a new Nottingham to Grimsby service, with limited extension to Cleethorpes, is part of the new franchise, and the hon. Lady should welcome it.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

What is the point of asking Keith Williams to conduct a root-and-branch review of the railways while at the same time awarding a very long franchise?

[Andrew Jones]

To make sure that we get the benefits to passengers as fast as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I very much hope that the work will commence within a matter of weeks. We will then need to go on and deal with the cliffs, which are a significant issue and will require longer development and consent processes because of the extremely sensitive environment around them. It is my view that we need to sort out the cliffs as well as the sea wall.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

15. What powers he has to sanction train operating companies for poor performance.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)]

The Department monitors operator performance closely through the franchise agreement. If performance falls below a predetermined level, we can require the operator to incur expenditure to improve performance for passengers. If an operator delivers consistently poor performance, the Department can intervene to act in passengers’ best interests, and this can include removing the franchise and acting as the operator of last resort.

[Tom Brake]

The Minister will be aware, as will anyone here who is a Southern commuter, that for the past three years Southern has been let off the hook again and again. He will also know that, from next month, train operators will switch to “on time” as a target. Southern is currently hitting that target only 72% of the time. At what point will he call for the company to be sacked?

[Andrew Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman is not correct to say that action is not being taken. We have held Govia Thameslink Railway, which is part of the bigger franchise, to account for its role in the disruption last year. I recognise that the quality of service that he expects for his constituents has not been delivered over the past few years, but GTR will not make a profit in this financial year and we have capped the profit that it can make for the remaining years of its franchise. GTR is also paying £15 million into a fund for tangible improvements, in addition to the £15 million that it contributed towards the special compensation scheme.

EU Exit Preparations: Ferry Contracts

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

Are we absolutely sure about that? Given the Transport Secretary’s ability to count, “A hae ma doots,” as they say.

The Transport Secretary has never been able to answer what the loss of the 10% Seaborne contract would actually mean for the impact on Dover? Dover is so sensitive that even 10% would have a massive effect. We have heard about the fact that a minute and a half to two minutes of additional checks per lorry could lead to 30-mile tailbacks. Fortunately, under the Transport Secretary’s competent planning for no deal, we know that the Government have planned for at least 10,000 lorries by doing an exercise involving 89 lorries, driving up and down the motorway! [Interruption.] Yes, and the bin wagons. So 89 lorries driving up the motorway and parking up at Manston airport successfully proves that this Government can handle no-deal preparations! I am relieved; I am happy at that. I hold to my faith in the Transport Secretary.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that according to reports what those lorries were mostly doing was sitting stationary while the drivers were drinking cups of coffee, so I am not sure the Secretary of State will have learned too much from that?

[Alan Brown]

Well, at least the lorries were not polluting the air so much if the drivers were just sitting drinking coffee; I am sure they enjoyed the exercise anyway. This illustrates a key point, however: if the Government are seriously saying that they are ready for a no-deal Brexit, they need to up their game in what they are doing and show some level of competency. I do not see many Conservative Members wanting to justify that exercise or how the Government handled that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing the debate, and you, Mr Speaker, on granting it.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), who is no longer in her place, earlier speculated on why it was the Secretary of State for Health who responded yesterday. I am sure Members are aware that requests have gone out to civil servants in all Departments—for example, the Department for Education—saying, “Please, please, please, will you come and work for one of the Brexit Departments?” It may be that the Secretary of State for Health was simply responding to such a request from the Department for Transport to go and bolster the numbers in that Department.

Mr Speaker, you rightly pre-empted the introductory comments a number of Members wanted to make in relation to the Secretary of State’s rather cluttered hall of shame. Had you enabled us to dwell a little bit on the other matters for which the Secretary of State has been responsible, or indeed irresponsible, this debate would have continued for much longer. I will just say, “Probation, timetable fiasco, drones” and move on to the subject of Seaborne. Before I do, it is worth pointing out on the timetable fiasco that in correspondence with me the Secretary of State refused even to reveal that the Department for Transport had any responsibility for that. That is rather indicative of the way he approaches things, as is his unwillingness to issue an apology for anything he has been responsible for. I think he actually sneaked in a very small apology earlier today, I think for the first time, although it was collective responsibility that he seemed to be admitting to. Maybe that is a positive development.

I have a chronology. It is not as detailed, erudite or in-depth as anything from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but I thought I would go through recent statements by the Secretary of State to see where he has referred to no deal, just to see his level of awareness of the prospect of no deal. I started googling, as everyone does these days, and the first reference was from last month. Nothing surprising there. Apparently, because of the Secretary of State’s completely disrespectful manner and what he has been saying about a no-deal Brexit, he has been banned from the port of Calais. That augurs well. I understand he may have had to leave the Chamber because there is currently a go-slow at Calais. It does not augur well for our future relationship if Calais has sought to ban our Secretary of State for Transport because of his attitude to no deal.

Going back a bit further to September 2018, Mr Barnier was apparently ticking off one of our departed Secretaries of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), over his no-deal letters. In September 2018, therefore, there was clearly an awareness of no deal. In August 2018, hauliers were warning our Secretary of State for Transport that he had no plans for no deal, so clearly in August he was being warned that he had no plans. Going back a little bit further to February 2018, some Members will remember that the Secretary of State for Transport was saying that in a no-deal situation we would be growing our own—farmers in the UK would be doing the growing, but presumably some of us would be too—potatoes and other vegetables in our own back gardens. He had also made the same comment in October 2017.

At that point, I gave up. It was clear that however much more trawling I did, I would find earlier references the Secretary of State had made to the risk of no deal. Clearly, for him to say now, or to have said a couple of months ago, that no deal was an emergency about which there was no knowledge within the Government, is not borne out by the facts that are very easily there and available for people to dip into if they choose to do so.

More recently, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West has been particularly insistent on pursuing him over the contracts, as have other Members of the SNP and Members of other parties. I wrote to the Secretary of State in January. My final question was: “Are the contracts in accordance with procurement rules?” I made lots of other points in the letter, most of which were answered, but that final point was not answered. I do not know why. A lot of other things were said in the reply to my letter, including that it was because of me personally and my Liberal Democrat colleagues that we were going to have no deal, rather than the 118 Conservative Members who voted against the Prime Minister’s deal. Apparently, it was all my fault. However, the point about whether the contracts were in accordance with procurement rules was completely ignored in the response I received. The response was not from the Secretary of State, of course; it was from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani).

I would like to conclude, as I know other Members wish to speak. We have had to bring the Secretary of State, or his representative on Earth in the shape of the Secretary of State for Health, before us a number of times and it is hard to find new material to go over, so I will just finish by saying that in any other Government at any other time the Secretary of State would be sacked by the Prime Minister. In any other Government at any other time, the Secretary of State would in fact have resigned before he was sacked, but this is not any other Government at any other time. Our calamitous Secretary of State remains in post mainly, I suspect, because he was in charge of the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign when she became our Prime Minister.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) on securing it, and I thank you for approving it, Mr Speaker.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) could have conducted this debate on her own, because in the space of what I am reliably informed was about 10 minutes, she utterly dismantled any shred of credibility that the Secretary of State and the Government had left. She has made a succession of attempts to get a simple answer—I can vouch for that, because I was often either behind or beside her when she did so—but one has not been forthcoming. The charitable explanation of that is, as she suggested, that the Government made up the answer just a few days earlier. The less charitable, but, I fear, correct, answer is that they responded to every single question with a deliberate attempt to place obstacles in the way of Members of Parliament and prevent them from doing their job. This Parliament is supposed to be getting back sovereignty as a result of Brexit, but the Government’s first, and often only, response to proper parliamentary inquiry is to stonewall, swat away questions and often to insult the motivations of those asking the questions.

It was a bit rich for the Secretary of State to talk about how many times he has answered these questions. He has not answered them at all. He has responded to them, but has not yet given an answer. Although my right hon. Friend could not, within the terms of parliamentary order, say that he has not been telling the truth, it is fair to say that he has not been telling the whole truth. Although not telling the whole truth is not unparliamentary, it can sometimes have the same effect as telling a complete untruth. Although the explanation that the contract is about securing emergency medical supplies has apparently been talked about in Government circles since August or September last year, it has been used as an explanation for Members of Parliament only for the past few days. It simply does not wash.

[Tom Brake]

I agree that the explanation about medicines is entirely dubious. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even if it were true, the fact that our Government—in peacetime, not wartime—are having to prepare to air freight in medicines because of the risk that they will get stuck at the border is condemnation enough of their complete incompetence?

[Peter Grant]

Absolutely. The single biggest example of incompetence coupled with complacency—it must be said that a lot of the official Opposition were guilty of this—was triggering article 50 and setting a two-year deadline that we cannot unilaterally get out of, after which we will leave without a deal, before the Government had any idea what no deal meant. It is notable that, although the Prime Minister’s mantra was, “No deal is better than a bad deal,” we just heard the Secretary of State announce that, two years after the referendum, they suddenly discovered that no deal would be a lot more disruptive than they realised. I will just mention in passing that when the Government discovered that a no-deal Brexit would be much worse than they realised, they were allowed to change their minds, have another think about it and do something that they had not done before, but 60 million citizens of these nations have not been allowed to have another think and perhaps another go at a decision now that they have been told what they could not have been expected to know in June 2016 about the disastrous consequences of no deal, because Her Majesty’s Government were blithely unaware of it until August or September last year.

We are told that the reason why the Government brought in this new company was the desire to support a new start-up business. Well, bravo. I would always support that, but it completely annihilates the claim that the reason for urgency was that this was a potential life-or-death medical supplies requirement. If there is a service that cannot be allowed to fail because people’s lives would be at risk, who in their right mind would give the opportunity to undertake that work to somebody who had never done the job before? I am sure that health services and health authorities all over the United Kingdom do what they can to give work experience and job opportunities to young people who have not had too great a time at school, but they would not under any circumstances put them behind the wheel of an ambulance with a blue light and ask them to go and save lives, but that is, in effect, what the Secretary of State is telling us the Government did with this contract. Either the contract was innocuous enough that we could afford to give it to a business that did not exist, because nothing would go wrong if the whole thing collapsed, or it was a life-or-death contract that, for reasons of urgency, had to be signed very quickly. If that was the case, it was an act of utter folly to award it to anyone who did not already have an impeccable record in the running of ferry services.

I commend the efforts of the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) to protect the Secretary of State by saying, “It wasn’t the Secretary of State who was incompetent; it was everyone else in the Government.” My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West has given us the way out of that.

What does the fact that this Parliament does not have the authority to table a vote of no confidence in the Secretary of State for Transport tell us about this model of parliamentary democracy? We do not have the authority to instruct a Prime Minister to remove a Minister from office, and we do not have a say over who the Prime Minister appoints or does not appoint to any post in the Government. We must be one of the very few allegedly democratic Parliaments in Europe that does not get a say before Ministers are appointed. Ministers in the Scottish Government have the same Crown appointment as Ministers in the UK Government, but the First Minister of Scotland will not put them forward until they have been agreed by a motion of the Scottish Parliament. The First Minister herself did not accept the commission from Her Majesty until her appointment had been recommended and agreed by a vote of the Scottish Parliament. Maybe that is one of the 1,001 improvements to democracy we need in this place, so that in future Ministers are appointed and unappointed not at the whim of the Prime Minister but by a vote of their peers in this Parliament and can removed from office when this Parliament loses confidence in them, rather than only when the Prime Minister decides they have become too much of an embarrassment.

Throughout this Brexit shambles, any number of serious issues have been raised—life-or-death issues, issues with the potential to devastate our economy, issues such as citizens’ rights that have the potential to ruin the lives of millions of our fellow citizens, issues with the potential to wipe out entire sectors of industry and put tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of people on the dole—and each and every time the knee-jerk, first-choice response from Her Majesty’s Government has been to throw it back at the person raising the concern. If it comes from Labour Members, they are told, “Well, if you lot had been in power, it would have been an even worse disaster.” What kind of a way is that to run a Government? I can understand why a lot of people would have concerns if the current Leader of the Opposition became Prime Minister—I would have my concerns as well—but if the only thing the Government can say to defend themselves is that the Government-in-waiting would be even worse, they are a Government well past their sell-by date.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West has repeatedly and rightly raised valid concerns—I hope she will continue to raise them because she has right on her side—and the response from numerous Ministers has been ridicule: she did not know what she was talking about, she was trying to make trouble, she was just an SNP Member, the SNP did not want to leave the EU anyway so how could they possibly have any good ideas for making Brexit less damaging? That would be unacceptable for a Government with a majority of 150. For a Government who threw away their majority and do not command majority support in the House or the nations, it is a despicable way to behave. If that is the best they can do, not only the Secretary of State but the whole Government have to go.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Brake Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

As my hon. Friend will know, the Mayor of Manchester and I recently agreed to work together on the potential expansion of the Metrolink network with the use of tram-train technology. The Government have already funded a tram-train system in Sheffield, which is making a difference there, and I am keen to see how we can extend that to Greater Manchester.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

T5. Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to improve air quality in urban areas is through the use of tram schemes? May I commend to him the Sutton tram scheme and encourage him to work closely with the Mayor of London to try to ensure that such schemes are viable and are rolled out?

[Jesse Norman]

Not only do I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but we published a light rail call for evidence only last week, specifically highlighting all the concerns he mentions of air quality, congestion relief and so on.

Seaborne Freight

Tom Brake Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It is not for me to ascribe any motivations to Arklow for the decision it has taken. I regret it having taken that decision, and I think it is a shame, particularly as it gave clear commitments to Seaborne at Christmas time and to my officials and me in January before changing its mind suddenly. I do not know what prompted that decision. I just think it is a very great shame.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

What will it take for this Secretary of State to get the sack? Let me see if the following would cause the Prime Minister to issue him his P45: breaking EU procurement rules. Does the Secretary of State really believe he can claim no deal is an emergency that came to light only in October? If it did, it is his fault for underestimating the disruption caused at the ports. Is he confident that this argument is going to stand up in court?

[Chris Grayling]

I have been absolutely clear that this procurement was dealt with very carefully by officials in my Department and in the Treasury who fully understood the legal implications of it, and it was approved by my accounting officer. I will not comment on any other legal matters.

Seaborne Freight

Tom Brake Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I give him an absolute assurance that I will continue that work. Frankly, the tragedy is that the Labour party seems to have abandoned interest in the national interest.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The train timetable fiasco, the drone disruption, the Manston lorry park carry-on and, now, ferrygate—the Secretary of State is the embodiment of the Peter principle.

On the earlier point about competition, can the Secretary of State explain the

“extreme urgency brought about by events unforeseeable by the contracting authority”?

Can he explain what was unforeseeable about no deal, for which the Government have been planning for the past couple of years and to which they have referred many, many times in this place? What was unforeseeable about that?

[Chris Grayling]

Sadly, what was unforeseeable is the attitude of many hon. Members, mostly Opposition Members, towards the Prime Minister’s sensible agreement. The agreement meets all their requirements, and they are now saying they oppose it anyway.