UK Bus Manufacturing
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Good morning, Dr Murrison. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and my good friend the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) on securing this important debate. Today we gather to discuss British bus manufacturing. We are here to highlight not only skills, the economy and transportation but, I believe, the integral role of all those dimensions to the security of our entire nation.
This industry is woven into every facet of our national life. It is part of the fabric of our island story, and I believe we must defend it. This is not just about vehicles; rather, it is about our British heritage, our skills and the future of our country. There are more than 4,150 highly skilled individuals directly employed, and more than 13,000 indirectly employed, in the supply chain of bus manufacturing throughout the United Kingdom. Bus manufacturing is a powerhouse of skilled jobs that trains and employs local people across 90 local authorities. Those jobs are not only skilled but more highly paid than comparable occupations, with salaries 20% higher than in other parts of the supply chain.
Sadly, we do not manufacture buses in my constituency of Romford, but local people are employed in all parts of the supply chain, and many more depend upon it.
Every day, local people in Romford, which is part of Greater London, rely on buses supplied by great companies like Ulster’s Wrightbus keeping our communities connected. In my borough of Havering to the east side of London in Essex—where my constituency is located—almost a quarter of journeys are made by bus, and across the whole of the Greater London region, buses enable more than two thirds of journeys.
Buses are an essential lifeline for so many of our constituents. I use buses all the time; I jump on the 103, or possibly the 499, from my home down to Romford station on the way to Westminster. We have two very good buses in my community. They are provided by Transport for London, which comes under the Mayor of London. I entirely endorse the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim when he talks about the absolute failure of pride that the Mayor of London shows in our part of the country. British buses could be purchased and procured for use in Greater London, and yet Mayor Khan is going to China: shame on him. That is one reason why people in my borough would love to have the opportunity to not be under Greater London and be fully part of Essex as we have historically always been.
While our buses are essential for both the economy and transportation, that is only part of the picture. We ought not to forget that many British buses are made in Northern Ireland. That is a stark reminder of the severe damage being inflicted by the Windsor framework—a shameful betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland that is creating barriers between British people and businesses, and creating two internal markets in one United Kingdom. That is a national disgrace and must be brought to an end. We are one United Kingdom and all British people should be treated the same. The rules should apply throughout all parts of our great nation; we should not be separating Northern Ireland from Scotland, Wales and England. I look forward to the next Government—and I hope it will be a Reform UK Government—reversing the Windsor framework and implementing Brexit as the people voted for.
It is also a reminder of the continuing avenues for growth and job creation across the Union. Wrightbus is a prime example; the Ballymena company produces dozens of buses every year, employing hundreds of local people and supplying a quarter of buses across Greater London. That means roughly a quarter of bus journeys taken by my constituents are made possible by the entrepreneurial spirit and work ethic of the good people of Ulster. That is an incredible testament to the importance of the Union and showcases Britain at her very best.
By backing British bus manufacturing, we are not only calling on the Government to protect transport networks, the economy or even the Union, but also asking that they live up to their central responsibility to defend our national security. Under the zero emission bus regional areas scheme, which ended in 2024, 40% of buses were procured from abroad, increasing foreign influence in this native industry and divesting from the domestic skills base. Worse still, publications such as The Times, The Guardian and others have reported extensively on kill switches present in foreign-made buses, inserted by international competitors or adversaries of the United Kingdom, such as the People’s Republic of China. The very real risk of foreign disruption has been permitted for too long by successive—I am afraid to say—Conservative and Labour Governments and must be brought to an end. Keeping our bus manufacturing in British hands is no longer a patriotic preference or an economic luxury, but a national necessity. I call on the Government to keep our bus network in British hands, protect our people and create jobs across the kingdom that showcase British excellence. Let us ensure that we have the skills, investment and political will to back British industry making British buses: British made for generations to come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Mather
I would be delighted to encourage local people to give it a try. I am delighted with the announced expansion of pay-as-you-go to 50 additional stations, including Aylesbury station, next month, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it will offer her residents greater flexibility, convenience and the best price for their journey for on-the-day travel.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Heidi Alexander
I fully appreciate that everyone in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will want to see progress on this matter as soon as possible. I would point out that Gallows Corner has been in a state of disrepair for many years. In fact, under the previous Conservative Government, Transport for London received no substantive support, but this Labour Government committed more than £50 million to finally make the structure safe and reliable again in the spending review. Responsibility now sits with TfL.
Regional Transport Inequality
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I join the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in thanking the hon. Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) for securing the debate. It gives us an opportunity to talk about the chasm between the Government’s grand promises and the grim reality for passengers, businesses and communities, as has been ably demonstrated by many of the contributions from Back Benchers. I do not have time to do justice to all those who have made contributions: I will leave that task to the Minister. I will move quickly on to roads and the Government’s record on roads, which has come in for some criticism today.
The infrastructure spending review that the Conservatives were responsible for in the run-up to the last election was the road investment strategy 2, which ran from 2020 to 2025. That was some £24 billion of investment, delivering major upgrades, unlocking infrastructure to enable 186,000 new homes for our constituents, improving freeport and airport links, and improving safety with 151 refuge areas built on smart motorways. We now move to 2025-30, with RIS3, which is Labour’s opportunity to outshine us. Has it done so? Absolutely not. RIS3 is marked by the killing of key enhancements, which I will come to, and instead of action we have targets here and consultations there, but it is very light on delivery.
We have a Government of review and policy papers, and that speaks to a wider truth about the Government. It is led by a lawyer Prime Minister who values process over political judgment—just think about his approach to sacking our ambassador to Washington. The Prime Minister’s original defence was that the process was followed: there was no political judgment. We can see that in the transport policy too.
What we need is not process. We do not need further targets here and consultations there: we need action. We need action on the A12 improvements—a £1.2 billion project. The scheme had been signed off, the housing had been cleared and businesses had been relocated, but it was scrapped without warning by this Government. The A12 is a core artery for Essex and South Suffolk. What about the regional inequality of that region?
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
My hon. Friend said the magic word: “Essex”. Does he support the Transport for London (Extension of Concessions) Bill that I have tabled? TfL runs to Shenfield, Reading, Epping, Watford, Cheshunt and Amersham, way beyond the boundaries of Greater London. The Bill would require TfL to enable any local authority that is served by a TfL route or by a route to which a TfL concessionary scheme applies to opt in to the concessionary fare scheme, including the freedom pass for our old age pensioners.
Jerome Mayhew
I am aware that my hon. Friend’s Bill does not make a call on the public purse, at least on the Treasury, and it is for local authorities to opt into the scheme should they wish to. It sounds like a very exciting project and one that should be developed further.
I mentioned the A12 in East Anglia, but there is also the A47 near Great Yarmouth. The Conservatives’ RIS2 included dualling to North Tuddenham, which is going on at the moment—I declare an interest as it is in my constituency—as is the dualling of the Brundall to Blofield stretch of the A47. Labour came into power and cancelled all further improvements.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State might have a word with her friend the Mayor of London about the appalling mismanagement of the Gallows Corner junction, where a flyover is being constructed. The gridlock, chaos and delays are affecting the whole Romford side of Essex, and east London. It really is chaos. Will she get it sorted out?
Heidi Alexander
I am sure that the Mayor of London and Transport for London will want to do all they can to minimise disruption during any construction of the type that the hon. Gentleman describes. I am sorry but I did not hear his question in full—did he say it was Gallows Corner?
Heidi Alexander
If he wishes to write to me with the specific details of those local issues, I will come back to him.
Road Maintenance
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, because the state of our roads is absolutely critical for safe travel, transportation and logistics, particularly in communities that rely on the road network.
As a former councillor, I greatly welcome the Government’s provision of £1.6 billion for road maintenance in England, and I am sure that colleagues who have been councillors will agree that few topics flood local politicians’ mailboxes more than potholes and the condition of our roads. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike have been failed by consecutive Conservative Governments, with council budgets slashed to the bone, and their Scottish counterparts are no better off.
A report by the Local Government Benchmarking Framework found that the continued budget pressures on local councils have resulted in a 20% reduction in spending on road maintenance, and we see the budget cuts physically etched into the tarmac across our cities, towns and villages. Hon. Members have spoken about the need to resurface roads, rather than just fill in potholes. Although that is ideal in many situations, the reality is that councils have not been able to afford to do so, so they fill in potholes that break up a few months down the line.
I recently met councillors in the Bathgate and Linlithgow constituency to discuss how years of Scottish Government austerity have left our roads in a dire condition. From Bo’ness to Bathgate, we see it all over the place. Councillors are frustrated, hard-working council staff are really frustrated and local residents are frustrated and angry.
As my former council role trying to deliver road improvements highlighted, the state of the roads all comes back to local government funding. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) borrowed a few of the adjectives I had noted down. In Scotland, we have had 18 years of savage cuts, chronic ringfencing and brutal underfunding of local services by the SNP Government.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I have huge sympathy with what the hon. Lady is saying about the underfunding and lack of support from the Scottish Government, but would she sympathise with me? In the London borough of Havering, we have the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority, which take huge sums of money from my constituents, yet we do not see much of it spent in places such as Romford. Roads such as the A12 and the A127, which the Mayor of London is meant to look after through Transport for London, are often neglected. So there is a common theme about these higher authorities that take money away from our constituents, but do not spend it on the people paying the costs.
Kirsteen Sullivan
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but it will be no surprise to him that I cannot agree with him, given the years of massive underfunding that former Conservative Governments inflicted on councils across England.
We have had years and years of chronic underfunding of local services, so I know that the £1.6 billion will be appreciated by councils across England. However, it is yet to be confirmed that the resulting additional funding for Scotland will reach local government. I wrote to the Deputy First Minister earlier this year to find out when the money would be passed to councils in Scotland. In her response, she made it clear that it is for the Scottish Government to decide how that additional money will be spent, and that there was no guarantee that it will make it to councils, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) has also discovered.
As so often with the SNP Scottish Government, funding is passed over from the UK Government and it is never heard of again. It is used to plug mismanaged white elephants, to fund a research unit on independence or to finance shadow embassies overseas. While receiving the largest ever Budget settlement for Scotland, the Scottish Government have not yet committed to the very basic steps of repairing our roads and delivering a safer environment for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians alike. People across England will benefit from the huge investment of this Labour Government, and the SNP Scottish Government must not stand in the way of this Labour Government delivering improved roads for the people of Scotland. Our motorists, cyclists, residents and councils deserve the same commitment and ambition to improving our roads as this Labour Government are showing in England.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
If I could walk 500 miles, Madam Deputy Speaker, and then walk 500 more, it would be a miracle, particularly after all this bobbing. [Laughter.] However, I would also have walked the full length of the road network of Doncaster. Unfortunately, due to the pothole crisis facing every authority in our country, the chances are that I would have tripped up and fallen down long before I got to anyone’s door. Such is the state of the roads in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and the amount of potholes I have reported and had repaired over the past few years that I am also called “Pothole Pitcher” on social media.
Of course, this is no joke; it is a very real issue that affects people’s lives, as the Lister family, who live in Hatfield, in my constituency, are aware. On his 18th birthday, Josh was driving down an avenue when he hit a huge pothole that ripped through the side of his tyre and shot him on to the kerb, leaving a relatively newly passed driver not only in a degree of shock but fearful of driving ever again. He had an 18th birthday he will never forget, but for all the wrong reasons. Just two months later, his mum Gemma fell over a pothole on a footpath, causing her to sustain serious injury to her arms, hands and knees, with the impact lasting many months. Potholes are not a trivial matter; they are hugely serious, and ruin lives.
Like most places, Doncaster and Axholme’s roads and their networks are one of their most precious and most expensive assets. Between the more volatile weather, increased traffic and heavier vehicles, the cost of maintaining those assets has risen at the same time as the council’s budget for dealing with them was cut by half by the previous Government. We now have a repair backlog sitting in the hundreds of millions in Doncaster alone, where our council is fighting tooth and nail just to keep it at that, while trying also to resolve the pothole crisis.
Thankfully, this Government have recognised the importance of tackling this crisis. They have increased funding to local authorities, with £2.3 million for North Lincolnshire and £6.7 million for South Yorkshire. We are finally giving our mayors like Ros Jones and our councils, who know their area and know where to invest, the tools they need not only to fight to stand still but to really make improvements. This is just the beginning.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Gentleman says we are finally giving tools to mayors, but does he not agree that it is surely better to give funding directly to local councils to spend on their local communities? If we give it to a mayor, it will get spent across wider areas where the mayor has priorities, but it will not necessarily go to areas where the constituents who we represent need the money spent.
Lee Pitcher
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I referred to Mayor Ros Jones, who is leader of the council in Doncaster and knows that area specifically—in her case, she is also called a mayor. Devolved mayors also know their area very well, and they work with their area and their constituencies to ensure that the money goes to the right places at the right time.
Our councils have been crying out for help for 14 years. I am pleased to say that Westminster is finally listening. It is listening to the Lister family, who I mentioned, to our constituents and to all the local authorities that desperately need this money to invest. As such, I am almost ready to relinquish the title of “Pothole Pitcher”, but I will be focusing on pavements in the future.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
It is our ambition through public ownership to deliver a more affordable railway. This year’s fare increase of 4.6% is the lowest absolute increase in three years. We are committed to reforming the overcomplicated fares system and expanding ticketing innovations like pay-as-you-go in urban areas across the country.
Heidi Alexander
I hate to disappoint the Father of the House, but I am afraid that I will not be making such a commitment today.
Andrew Rosindell
The British people pay some of the highest rail fares in Europe. However, the Government seem to prioritise the size of the socialist state, by kowtowing to trade unions with radical public pay rises and nationalisation plans. Will the Secretary of State instead please focus on improving the lot of commuters—particularly Romford’s hard-working commuters—and take real steps to reduce rail fares and improve railway services?
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Huw Merriman
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that these fantastic new trains will be not only faster but quieter and more environmentally friendly, as they will be able to take advantage of the increasing extent of electrification that we are delivering on the midland main line. They will have 19% more seats per five-car train, and they are designed for greater comfort and more luggage space. Bearing in mind that my hon. Friend is one of the hardest-working MPs for his constituents, he and they will be delighted that there will be enhanced wi-fi and mobile phone reception, making his productivity even greater.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Guy Opperman)
I am pleased to say that the Gallows Corner scheme was recently approved at outline business case stage, with over £50 million-worth of backing from the Department for Transport. My officials are liaising with Transport for London to progress the scheme to the next stage of the process, and I look forward to TfL submitting the final business case for approval.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for his announcement of the funding for a makeover of Gallows Corner flyover, but I fear that we must do better. This is a major junction connecting the eastern side of Greater London with Essex, and it is where the A12 and the A127 join together. My constituents in Romford, and those of the wider Essex region, will be disappointed that we are not getting a fundamental restructuring of the junction to address the safety and congestion issues that I have highlighted for decades. Will he speak to Transport for London, go back to the drawing board, and come back with something better and more permanent that will put the safety of road users first?
Guy Opperman
I will certainly go away and write to my hon. Friend on his specific point, but I reassure him that we are spending over £50 million to improve that particular junction. If my hon. Friend has concerns about the scope of the works, I urge him to take them up with TfL, because it is for TfL to develop the full business case. It is then submitted to the Department for approval, which we hope will happen later this year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
For nearly half a century the people of Romford, and those of wider Essex and east London, have been waiting for the Gallows Corner A12/A127 junction to be reconstructed. Is it not time we had some investment for the people of Romford? It seems to go everywhere else; let us have some in the London borough of Havering, please.
Guy Opperman
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are passionately committed to improving the A12. Only recently it was the subject of litigation brought by one individual. I will happily sit down with my hon. Friend, who for many a year has been a doughty campaigner for Romford. I entirely agree with him that this needs to be addressed.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Trudy Harrison
I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the matter in detail. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is working hard to increase driving test availability by recruiting more driving examiners, offering out-of-hours tests and asking all those who are qualified to conduct tests to do so. I reiterate my willingness to meet the hon. Lady.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
On 24 January, the Secretary of State announced to the House that all testing requirements will be removed for eligible fully vaccinated arrivals.
Andrew Rosindell
Given the success of the roll-out and the welcome news that the plan B restrictions are ending and will end, with travel restrictions set to end on 11 February, will the Minister please assure the country that we will never again go back to travel restrictions of that kind? The latest travel restrictions seem to have had very little effect and the damage done to our economy was vast.
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: thanks to the success of our roll-out and booster programme—the fastest in Europe—we are now in a position where we can live with covid and start to travel again. The Government are developing a more flexible model, including a contingency playbook to deal with future variants that will provide certainty to consumers and industry alike.
Beam Park Station
Andrew Rosindell Excerpts(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered plans for Beam Park Station.
This afternoon, I will make a series of points relating to the failure to proceed with the proposed station at Beam Park in my constituency. The station is essential for a number of reasons. First, it will successfully complete the Beam Park housing development and wider regeneration across South Havering, and Barking and Dagenham. It remains key to unlocking other housing schemes along the A1306 eastwards towards Rainham and westwards towards Dagenham, an area forming part of London’s largest opportunity area. The station is central to making a success of those possibilities.
Secondly, the station is essential to making good on countless promises made over many years to local residents who have bought homes there, the value of which they fear is fast depreciating. They feel that they have been deceived. Thirdly, the station is essential to following through with commitments made to people in the wider community, who have accepted new housing on the basis of promised new infrastructure. They, too, feel let down and angry.
There is also a wider national issue regarding the so-called levelling-up agenda. If the Government are serious about imposing housing targets on local authorities, they must accept and support the infrastructure and services to go with them, especially when for years they have been promised to residents in order to secure their consent for the plans. In that sense, Beam Park station is an example of how not to regenerate local communities, and how to maximise cynicism and anger in them. People feel manipulated and exploited by the planning system. It is a story of promises made and subsequently withdrawn once consent has been secured. Unless the situation is resolved, I fear that there will be long-lasting effects that will inhibit future economic development and undermine community support for future regeneration, so the stakes are pretty high locally.
By way of background, the Conservative London Borough of Havering has historically been the prime mover behind the planned Beam Park station; it then secured wider support. The detailed project came via the housing zone programme, which was devised by the Prime Minister when he served as Mayor of London. Under Mayor Johnson’s programme, London boroughs could seek housing zone status, and funding based on bids that would commit to increasing housing outputs. The funding was primarily for infrastructure projects or land remediation that would facilitate large-scale housing development. That was always the purpose of the station: to secure more housing units.
As far back as 2013, Havering worked up a bid for the Greater London Authority to bring about the development of Beam Park station. The bid was approved by Havering Council’s cabinet in August 2014, and was driven through by the then housing cabinet member Damian White, the present council leader. In June 2015, Havering secured housing zone status and funding for the Beam Park development programme—one of only four agreed at the time. It was a flagship policy for the then Mayor Johnson, who said:
“Housing Zones will provide the swift delivery of new homes for Londoners that is so desperately needed and create entirely new, highly-connected urban districts”.
In December 2015, Havering and the GLA entered into an agreement for £9.6 million of housing zone funding to cover the station design and initial construction of the site. Havering then funded the governance for railway investment projects process through a contract with Network Rail. Standard documents from Network Rail were then reviewed by the GLA’s internal and external legal advisers. In 2020, the GLA agreed to invest some £32.75 million to construct Beam Park station, stating that the GLA and Countryside Properties, the developer,
“have been working closely with Network Rail…to progress plans for the station.”
It was a done deal, or at least appeared to be. It was signed off by the Conservative Mayor, the Conservative council and developers, and had secured the backing of the Conservative Government, or so we were all led to believe—for example, by the way that Network Rail was involved in progressing the project throughout the process. Network Rail was a willing partner. The Network Rail route utilisation plan from July 2020 describes Beam Park as a “committed scheme”. Once operational, the station was to be transferred to the franchise operator c2c, who would have ongoing responsibility for the station. Once again, c2c was a willing partner. Everyone realises that without additional infrastructure, existing c2c stations will crack under the pressure of an expanding population. Over the years I have worked with c2c to alleviate congestion at Rainham station, and it literally cannot cope with thousands more commuters, and could well become unsafe at peak times.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. As a fellow Havering MP, I endorse everything he said about the benefits of having the new Beam Park railway station, and about the commitment that was given. There would be benefits for our economy and the environment, and there would be more jobs and lower crime—all things that areas such as ours, an Essex area that is part of Greater London, need. Surely we should get these benefits. To take them away would be a betrayal of the people of Rainham, South Hornchurch and the London Borough of Havering.
Jon Cruddas
I completely agree. I am glad the hon. Gentleman has agreed with what I have said. I am not sure that he will agree with all the comments I will make, but I take on board the importance of cross-party support for this project. Hopefully, the problems we have been experiencing since the back end of last year can be rectified. I hope that the Government will support the GLA and the boroughs of Havering, and Barking and Dagenham, in getting this station back on the railway. I welcome the support for the commitment to my constituents and everyone across the London Borough of Havering.
Everyone realises that the pressure on the c2c line could be immense without the three stations at Beam Park, Dagenham Dock and Rainham to remove the congestion. The original c2c franchise agreement from before the pandemic, which is actually published on the Department for Transport website, states:
“The Franchisee shall provide all reasonable assistance and co-operation…to the Secretary of State and any other parties responsible for or involved with the development…of a new station at Beam Park.”
So far, so good. On the basis of these commitments, local residents accepted extraordinary amounts of housing development across south Havering and the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. We are talking about tens of thousands of new units, against a backdrop of austerity and service cuts, because of the promised infrastructure.
Andrew Rosindell
The hon. Gentleman’s point is right. People have invested a lot of money in purchasing new properties. They are buying homes in this area because they believed that there would be transport links to central London so that they could travel to their jobs and for other purposes. Taking this link away after they have committed to living there and have bought a home will really disrupt people’s lives. It simply is not fair. People thought there would be a station, but it has been taken away.
Jon Cruddas
I totally agree with the hon. Member. I am glad that so far we are in agreement on the state of affairs and the need for the issue to be rectified.
The Beam Park development alone consists of 3,200 housing units for 13,000 new residents through a partnership agreement with Countryside Properties and London & Quadrant. However, the scheme was always conditional on a new station being provided. A Grampian condition means that development cannot progress past phase 3 unless the station is delivered. Under phases 1 and 2, to date 1,150 homes are under construction, have been completed or have been sold. Other local housing developments are also dependent on the station. On billboards on the A13, developers are continuing—even this afternoon—to market the properties on the back of a new station. They promise a 20 minute journey time to Fenchurch Street.
Late last year, however, everything changed. The Department for Transport issued letters to the GLA and c2c in August 2021 stating that the Department is not supportive of the development of a new station at Beam Park. In a letter to me, the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) said:
“It is not that the Department withdrew support or funding for the development of the station, but that support was never given in the first place.”
This announcement blindsided developers and the wider private sector, along with the GLA and the local authority. The station is an advanced and fully costed project. GLA officers had been working with Havering, Network Rail, c2c and Transport for London for years. There is a collective desire to see the station brought into service as soon as possible. Detailed designs are in place and construction was due to commence last autumn. The construction of the station will be funded by the GLA. All required funding has been secured. The GLA has also agreed to provide the DFT with an indemnity for the first 10 years to protect against any operational deficit.
In a general sense, I think we can all agree that it is critical that infrastructure is provided that allows land to be developed to its full potential. Beam Park is an excellent example of that. As well as unlocking homes for over 13,000 residents, the station will form a civic heart for Beam Park, acting as a catalyst for the regeneration of the surrounding area, which has high levels of deprivation. The new station will also bring environmental benefits by encouraging a shift away from car use and supporting reduction in parking. The housing projects unlocked by the station will invest over £1 billion in the local area, delivering two new primary schools, a 3 hectare park, community and health centres, and over 60,000 square feet of commercial space, directly creating hundreds of new jobs.
Unfortunately, all that and more is now threatened. Let me spell this out quite simply: since the DFT announcement, private sector enthusiasm for local regeneration has spun into reverse. Already, local compulsory purchase orders have been withdrawn. They were dependent on the infrastructure. The business model for the whole area has been thrown into question. Community anger is intense. New residents feel their property values are in freefall, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) mentioned.
In the long term, residents feel manipulated by the local authority, with false promises of an infrastructural uplift. Local anger is palpable and totally understandable. Within a few weeks, thousands have signed local petitions seeking to get the Government to change their mind. For the Government’s own housing and levelling-up agenda, the decision is a disaster; it is draining support for new housing in a key national priority area for regeneration.
I have met Countryside, which is very supportive of efforts to restore the station project. It has commissioned Grant Thornton to assess the social and economic impact and wider benefits of the project. I have written to Ministers and spoken to the GLA’s deputy Mayor for housing, Tom Copley, who shared his correspondence with Ministers calling for the station to be allowed to go ahead.
The basis of the Government’s withdrawal of support appears to centre on the indemnity that the GLA has offered to the DFT, as the DFT is not actually contributing any funding to the capital cost of the station. The GLA has offered £10 million to cover a 10-year period, whereas the DFT appears to want an unlimited figure for an unlimited period.
To be honest, my real concerns are for the local residents. New residents of Beam Park are angry and feel that they have been sold homes on a false prospectus. Many are now seeking legal redress. The Government’s decision undermines the role of the strategic authority in Havering, which at best has been shown to be negligent and poorly managed. It is an appalling state of affairs when the then Mayor and council can agree a project—
Andrew Rosindell
I have agreed with most of what the hon. Gentleman has said until now, and I have a good working relationship with him as a neighbouring constituency MP. I gently say to him that everyone would benefit from the station, and that what it needs is not to be politicised, but co-operation and collaboration between the Government, the Mayor of London, Transport for London and Havering Council. People’s lives are going to be disrupted if the station is not built, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to work collaboratively on a non-political basis to find a solution so that it can be built and people can live in that community and have the transport links that they need.
Jon Cruddas
I generally agree on the need for cross-party collaboration. I hope that we can work with the Department for Transport to resolve this matter, in collaboration with the local authorities in Havering and in Barking and Dagenham, and the GLA. However, we also have to understand why we got to the present situation. How could the then Mayor and council agree the project and assume that their own Government and Network Rail backed them, only for us to discover years later, due to a lack of due diligence, that they do not and they claim not to have done so, with terrible collateral consequences for local residents?
I do not want to twist the knife and make party political points—I agree with the hon. Member for Romford—but the reality is that this dreadful situation has consequences for thousands of my constituents and will likely derail hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in my area. I am angry and frustrated at the reckless decision making at the heart of this project. It is an appalling state of affairs, yet it is not too late to resolve the situation.
I am sure that there are inter-Government tensions around the decision, not least given the Government’s stated housing objectives. Should the Government not change their mind and allow the station to proceed, the future phases of Beam Park and other housing schemes in the area will be in doubt, as planning consents are dependent on there being a station. There will probably be a need for new planning applications to both Havering and Barking and Dagenham Councils. There will be escalating anger and opposition to new housing development. Both new and long-term residents feel that they have been played and betrayed.
Meanwhile, Government policy appears slightly out of sync. We see the Government mounting pressure on local authorities to increase housing targets, yet simultaneously pulling the plug on the infrastructure needed to support both new and existing communities in their priority areas. I am told that Havering Council has instructed lawyers to consider a judicial review against the Department for Transport decision, legally challenging its own Government, which is quite a state of affairs. Meanwhile, it is trying to blame everyone apart from itself for the debacle.
I urge the Government to sit down with the GLA to resolve the indemnity issue and fast-track the station; it is not too late. The Tory levelling-up agenda is all well and good as a soundbite, but actions speak louder than words. Through either negligence or indifference, those in power have reneged on promises of meaningful investment. Their failure to deliver Beam Park risks growth grinding to a halt across the south of my constituency. Therefore, I urge the Government urgently to rethink their plans for Beam Park station.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Wendy Morton)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) on securing the debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for his contribution.
The provision of a station at Beam Park is a project that has been developed by the Greater London Authority. I understand that the provision of the station is a planning condition set by the local planning authority, and the delivery of additional housing in excess of 3,000 homes is dependent on the station. We do, of course, support the development of housing near the railway in the borough and more widely across the country. In past years, we have released public railway land that is no longer needed for operational use, thereby enabling the delivery of thousands of new homes.
We are working closely with local authorities and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to deliver new stations and railway improvements, enabling new homes to come forward that are served by excellent and sustainable public transport connections. Through the Williams-Shapps plan for rail, we have set out how we will use the establishment of Great British Railways to further support development near stations and deliver local economic growth.
However, we must not lose sight of the need to appropriately scrutinise proposals for works on the railway, ensuring that we deliver schemes with the greatest benefits that protect taxpayers now and in future. The value for money of schemes should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Developers cannot assume to look to the rail operating budget to subsidise housing development.
Where a new station is required to support development, Network Rail’s guidance “Investment in Stations” makes clear to promoters of new stations the importance of the Department’s authorisation for a new station if a train operator is anticipated to serve it, which is the case with Beam Park. That need for the Department’s authorisation and the value of getting it at an early stage, before proceeding to the more detailed and costly business case stage, was underlined to the GLA in a meeting in December 2017, when the GLA first consulted the Department, as proposals to develop a new station at Beam Park had been in place since 2014. At that meeting, early on, the Department’s officials voiced concerns about the business case in a number of rail areas, which I will address.
The full operational costs of incorporating an additional station in the network, which in this case would involve the provision of an additional train and associated crew, had not been considered in the business case. That significantly adds to the cost of providing the station. In addition, the proposals had not acknowledged that the station would be abstracting from the two stations either side of it on the same line—Rainham and Dagenham Dock, which are both approximately a mile away from the proposed new station. Those concerns were raised and identified not only by the Department but by the train operator, Trenitalia c2c Ltd, and were explained to the GLA in writing in March 2018 before it committed to fund Beam Park station.
Adding the extra call at Beam Park would lengthen the journey time for Essex commuters and reduce the attractiveness of the railway to help stimulate new housing developments in Essex. Those housing developments serve and stimulate London’s economy but are outside the GLA’s area of housing responsibility. The Department’s concern is to understand how the GLA takes account of that loss of potential when considering new stations in the GLA area to stimulate housing growth. The analysis of the proposed station at Beam Park that we have seen to date does not seem to consider that strategic issue.
The GLA’s response to our March 2018 letter made it clear that it had no intention of reviewing the business case, despite the concerns I have listed, but that it intended instead to progress with the scope and programme for opening. The next time the Department for Transport was contacted by the GLA on this matter was in mid-2020, by which point the GLA had, in March 2020, approved the expenditure to deliver a new station at Beam Park. Fundamentally, there was no further consultation with the Department and no response to the concerns raised.
In a further letter to the GLA in September 2020, following the contact made by the GLA in mid-2020, the Department restated its concerns about the development of the station in the light of the significant funding risks related to the station’s operational costs, and the performance impact that would have on the network. The letter made it clear to the GLA that the Department could take no financial risks associated with the station.
The Department’s concern throughout the process has been to ensure that we are held immune from all financial risk caused by a new station at Beam Park. The GLA’s offer of a £10 million capped amount limited to a 10-year period is not acceptable to the Department. The GLA’s offer does not cover the full cost risk we believe Beam Park station imports; it would need to be unlimited in both time and cost. In addition, the GLA business case was prepared and approved prior to the covid pandemic; passenger volumes are now significantly lower than previously forecast. Ticket revenue from Beam Park is unlikely to cover the additional costs in the short term, and it may not do so even in the long term.
Let me take the opportunity to clarify that the Department has not withdrawn support for the development of the station; support was never given in the first instance. If the GLA is satisfied that the new station presents value for money and is an acceptable use of public funds, the Department’s position is to look for a commitment to hold the Department immune from any financial risk we believe the new station presents. The Department fully supports the housing development in Beam Park and the wider Dagenham and Rainham area, and continues to work alongside the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to assist with strategy and planning. We will provide support to develop and enhance the existing stations, and we encourage local stakeholders and the GLA to focus their attention on opportunities to improve access to those stations by improving street access where the former industrial land use made station access difficult from parts of the surrounding area.
I thank the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham for securing this debate and shining a spotlight on issues related to Beam Park station.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for all her comments. I fully understand the arguments—the viability of the station has to be paramount; it has to be part of the discussion—but will she please at least pledge to the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham, to me and to all the people of the London Borough of Havering and the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham who could benefit from the station that she will go back and look at it afresh, and look at ways we can progress it? Will she also commit—I know it is sometimes difficult—to work with the Mayor of London to see if he and TfL will co-operate with us?
Havering is a forgotten borough. We get very little from the GLA. We pay a lot of money in, but we get very little back. We are Essex; we are not really London, but we get lumped in with London. This is one thing that would actually benefit our borough. If it is taken away from us, there will be huge disillusionment not just down in Rainham, South Hornchurch and Beam Park but across our borough. We feel neglected. We do not feel we are getting our fair slice of the cake in the Greater London area, and I hope that the Government will take the chance to level up areas such as ours. I gently ask the Minister to take this issue back and see what she can do. This is a cross-party thing. We want the station to go ahead and succeed, and I ask her to do her utmost to ensure that it does.
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He speaks with such passion for his constituents, which I absolutely understand and would expect him to do. What I can say is that the Department has not withdrawn any funding. This is a scheme led entirely by the GLA. We are committed to providing better connectivity, while demonstrating that investments provide appropriate value for money. The Department remains absolutely open to engagement with stakeholders. I hope that gives some reassurance to hon. Members.
Andrew Rosindell
Will the Minister commit to a meeting with me and the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham, together with Darren Rodwell, the leader of Barking and Dagenham Council, and Damian White, the leader of Havering Council, to see if we can iron out some of these issues and work together to make the project succeed?
Wendy Morton
As I said, the Department remains absolutely open to engagement with stakeholders. Let me take that point away and see. I can certainly meet my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham.
In conclusion—I have my eye on the clock—it is important that all parties recognise that much of the work on the current business case was based on the railway pre-covid, and early indications are that the post-covid situation worsens the case for Beam Park, as commuter demand has declined. Despite that, the costs associated with a new station have not reduced. While we will work with the GLA should it be able to provide funding to cover all the costs of Beam Park, we recognise that it may not be able to do so.
Question put and agreed to.