Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Commons Chamber

[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

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[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)]

3. What recent progress he has made with Cabinet colleagues on easing international travel restrictions for UK nationals.

[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

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[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]

On one quick final point, will the Minister give way?

[Wendy Morton]

If my hon. Friend is very brief.

[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.

Road Traffic Offences: Fatal Collisions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I draw everyone’s attention to the safety guidance issued by the House of Commons Commission, and I ask everyone to be considerate of others and keep their distance where possible. Thank you all very much.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 323926 and 575620, relating to road traffic offences for fatal collisions.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. E-petition 323926, started by Louise Smyth and Helen Wood, with the title “Tougher sentences for hit and run drivers who cause death”, opened on 20 July 2020 and closed on 20 January 2021, and received 104,324 signatures. It states:

“The maximum penalty for failure to stop after an incident is points and a 6-month custodial sentence. Causing death by careless/dangerous driving is between 5-14 yrs. The sentence for failing to stop after a fatal collision must be increased.

Our sons, Matt aged 25 & Paul aged 23, were both killed on their motorbikes just 9 months apart. Both drivers fled the scene. We are not the only families to have suffered this tragedy or endure unjust sentencing. We at the Roads Injustice Project want the laws changed as we feel they are both outdated and unfair. Tougher sentences are needed for the life sentence we have to deal with every single day from the loss of our son’s due to the actions of somebody else.”

On 28 August 2020, the Ministry of Justice responded to the petition, saying:

“It is wholly irresponsible for drivers to fail to stop and report an incident. However, the offence of failing to stop should not be used to punish an offender for a serious, but not proven, offence.

We were very sorry to read of the deaths of Matt and Paul; our sympathies are with their families and friends.

Failure to stop and report offences are often referred to as ‘hit and run’ but this is not an accurate reflection of the offence. The offence is designed to deal with the behaviour relating to the failure to stop, not to provide an alternative route to punish an offender for a more serious, but not proven, offence.”

E-petition 575620, started by Leanne Saltern, with the title “Ryan’s Law: Widen definition of ‘death by dangerous driving’”, opened on 2 March 2021 and closed on 2 September 2021, and received 167,470 signatures. It said:

“The offence of causing ‘death by dangerous driving’ should be widened to include: failure to stop, call 999 and render aid on scene until further help arrives.

A hit & run driver left my brother Ryan in the road & he died. Hiding for 36 hours, charged with failure to stop, the driver received a suspended sentence/fine. Failure to stop/careless driving offers lighter custodial sentences & focuses on fines/suspensions. Drivers should STOP, ring 999 & render AID until help arrives. If they do not they should face charges for death by dangerous driving. The Law should require this & aim to reduce the number of hit & runs & roadside deaths. With this definition, a minimum 10 years-max life sentence, citizens would be better protected.”

On 24 March 2021, the Department for Transport provided a response identical to that given by the Ministry of Justice, apart from this sentence:

“Ministers are aware of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Ryan Saltern and extend their sympathy to family and friends.”

The DFT added:

“The Government takes this issue seriously. The Department for Transport is looking into the issue of such incidents of failure to stop resulting in death or serious injury, and exploring whether there are further options that can be pursued.”

It is no surprise that those in favour of a change in the law say that there is a perverse incentive for a driver who is under the influence of drink or drugs to leave the scene of a traffic collision, thereby avoiding a drink and drugs test by the police. If they hand themselves in to the police later, they cannot be tested because of the time that has elapsed and are likely to avoid a more serious offence or penalty.

I met the petitioners virtually last week and listened to their heartbreaking stories, which reduced me to tears. I cannot image the pain they have gone through and are still going through. They have come to Parliament today. I met them again this afternoon and they are in the Public Gallery this evening. I cannot pretend to understand the depth of their grief, but I commend their courage and tenacity in wanting something good to come out of their grief.

On 29 August 2018, 25-year-old Matt Smyth left his girlfriend’s house at about 3 am. He was heading home on his motorbike on the A1307 when he was hit by a delivery van that pulled out of a side junction into his path. The driver stopped briefly at the scene but then drove off, leaving Matt lying in the road. A passing HGV driver found Matt about 25 minutes later. The driver who had collided with Matt came to a stop a few miles up the road and telephoned his employer. He told his company that he had hit a deer and his van was damaged, so it could not be driven. The company arranged for him to be sent a new van and he continued on his delivery round before going home to bed.

The police caught up with the driver, Mr Ricardas Taraska, later that day when he was still asleep in his bed. Mr Taraska was charged with causing death by careless driving and failing to stop after a collision. The prosecutor said that it was inconceivable that the driver did not realise that he had hit a motorcycle, because Matt was thrown on to the van’s bonnet and the driver had to manoeuvre around Matt’s body and motorcycle.

Mr Taraska was sentenced to 14 months, of which he served only five months, and he was disqualified from driving for 31 months. The judge said that it was a “grossly irresponsible act” not to stop, and that driving around Mr Smyth’s body and the wreckage of a motorcycle was inexcusable. On the morning that Matt was killed, he had been due to attend his first midwife’s appointment as a father-to-be. Matt never lived to see his daughter, who is now two and a half years old. Matt’s father was also tragically killed in similar circumstances 18 years ago while he was driving his motorcycle.

Matt’s best friend, Paul, was 23 years of age when he was killed nine months later. Paul left for work on 24 May 2019 at 6.45 am on his daily motorbike drive to work. He was hit by a Range Rover that pulled out in front of him. The driver, Mr Cooksey, got out of his vehicle and lit a cigarette. A witness at the scene spoke to Mr Cooksey and noticed the smell of alcohol on his breath, but he ran away and hid behind some trees before walking to Cambridge train station. There, he got into a taxi to go to a pub in Romford, where he lived. He drank eight pints of lager before handing himself in to the local police station that evening, and he could not be breathalysed because he was intoxicated. Paul was pronounced dead at the scene.

Mr Cooksey had been disqualified from driving the previous month, and had previous convictions for drink driving and driving while disqualified. He admitted drinking heavily the evening before until about midnight and said that he was driving his car at about 5 am, but that could not be proved because he had left the scene, and he continued to drink until he handed himself in to the police. The judge said that the driver was “devious and untrustworthy”, with

“a bad record for driving offences that have resulted in disqualification and even prison sentences”,

and:

“No sentence…will ever reflect the loss of a human life”.

Mr Cooksey admitted failing to stop at the scene of the collision and was found guilty of causing death by careless driving, causing death while disqualified from driving and causing death while driving uninsured. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment—he will serve half, or less—and banned from driving for four and a half years. Paul’s family told me that they have not been the same since he was killed. His family are living a life sentence, but the criminals on our roads are not punished in accordance with their crimes.

Our loved ones need to be recognised as human beings, not wing mirrors or bits of metal damaged in a road traffic collision. The hit and run, or leaving the scene, sentencing guidelines were put in place many years ago. They need updating to encourage drivers who have caused a collision to stay and get the help needed for the victim, potentially saving the lives of hundreds of victims on our roads every year.

Ryan Saltern, a postman, husband, and father of young children, was killed in the early hours of 28 July 2019 while walking along the single-track B3267 to a party. He was hit by a driver who did not stop. Ryan’s body was dragged beneath the car and he died of catastrophic injuries. The driver made no attempt to stop, and Ryan was subsequently left in the road to be discovered by the next passing vehicle. The forensic investigation proved it was the failure to stop that caused the injuries relating to Ryan’s death.

The driver, Mr Wayne Shilling, was identified some 36 hours later after being reported to the police by his own father. A blood test proved negative for alcohol because of the time that had elapsed, and it was too late to conduct a toxicology test. Mr Shilling admitted to failing to stop and failing to report an accident while he was driving home from a carnival, at which witnesses said he had been drinking. Mr Shilling told the police that he felt a slight bang and did not realise that he had hit anyone, but the collision was found to have punctured his car’s radiator.

Mr Shilling received a sentence of four months—suspended for 12 months—and he was disqualified from driving for 12 months, given an evening curfew for four months and ordered to pay a £207 victim surcharge and prosecution costs. Ryan’s family believe that the law protects not the victim of crime, but the criminal, and that it is a total injustice to Ryan. Although Mr Shilling chose not to answer questions leading up to and at the trial, he admitted at the coroner’s inquest to drinking four cans of alcohol before hitting Ryan. He has never displayed any remorse whatsoever to Ryan’s family, and he taunts them.

Ryan’s family believe that when a driver hits a person, they should stop, ring for help and remain on the scene, rendering aid when possible, appropriate, and necessary, and as instructed by emergency services. When a driver does not to do this, they should be considered a dangerous driver and a minimum sentence should be set, ultimately encouraging drivers to stop after a collision. Stopping at the scene will help to save lives and identify those who have genuine accidents, as opposed to those who leave the scene to protect themselves. There are many more cases like Ryan’s, with drivers escaping justice by not stopping at the scene.

I also met virtually with Alison Hernandez, who is the police and crime commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly and the road safety lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. Alison launched a strategy in 2018 to create the safest roads in the UK. A 2020 APCC road survey received 66,266 responses from across England and Wales, and 81% of respondents believed that road offences required more enforcement.

This is not the first time that these life and death issues have been debated in Parliament. On 8 July 2019, the former Member for Warrington North introduced a debate on e-petition 236952, “Violet-Grace’s Law – Life sentences for Death by Dangerous Driving”, in memory of four-year-old Violet, who was tragically killed when a stolen car was driven at 83 mph in a 30 mph zone. Violet’s nan was with her and suffered life-changing injuries. The driver and his passenger did not attempt to help Violet and her nan; they fled from the scene. There is evidence that they had to step over the bodies of Violet and her nan, lying in the road, when they got out of the stolen car. The driver not only fled the scene, but fled the country and went to Amsterdam. When he eventually returned, he and his passenger were sentenced but served less time in prison than Violet was alive. For people to have confidence in the law, it has to protect the innocent, punish the guilty and deter further offences. However, families believe they have not had justice with the imposition of unduly lenient sentences.

The offence of causing death by dangerous driving was not introduced until the Road Traffic Act 1999, but even then there were widespread complaints that the Crown Prosecution Service often charged people with the lesser offence of careless driving, because it was felt that doing so was more likely to lead to a conviction. In 2003, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving was increased from 10 to 14 years. The Road Safety Act 2006 introduced the offence of causing death by careless driving, and of causing death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified, or uninsured. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 introduced the offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, which is punishable with a sentence of up to five years. The Criminal Courts Act 2015 introduced the offence of causing serious injury by driving while disqualified, which is punishable by four years’ imprisonment and a fine.

In October 2017, following a consultation in which 70% of respondents thought that the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving should be increased from 14 years to life imprisonment, the Government announced that they would do so when parliamentary time allowed. A one-clause Bill would have had widespread support across the House and from the public, but the Government failed to find any parliamentary time. Nearly three years later, on Tuesday 21 July 2020, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), introduced a Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment, and for connected purposes. She said that

“dangerous driving is an all too familiar phrase”

that does not reflect

“the tragedy and devastation of lives that lies behind it.”

She told the House about her constituents, saying that

“19-year-old…Bryony Hollands died at the hands of a dangerous driver—a driver under the influence of drink and drugs. He was sentenced to eight years and served just four years in jail…Ciara Lee’s husband Eddy was killed on the M4. The driver responsible was sentenced to just 22 months”.—[Official Report, 21 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 2039.]

She also spoke of 13-year-old Max Simmonds, who was hit and killed by a driver who was under the influence of drugs. The Bill was short, specific, and targeted. It would have allowed judges to retain the discretion to decide the appropriate length of sentence, as well as providing greater scope and enabling more severe sentences. It would have done the Government’s work for them.

The latest statistics provided by the House of Commons Library show that the current law does not cope with these offences. In 2020, there were 2,467 prosecutions and 1,889 convictions for failing to stop or report a road traffic accident; the most common sentence was an average fine of £289. A small number of people received custodial sentences, the average being 3.6 months. In 2020, there were 184 prosecutions and 154 convictions for causing death by dangerous driving; the most common sentence was immediate custody, with an average sentence of four years and seven months.

In September 2020, the Government produced a White Paper. Clauses 65 and 66 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill propose increasing the maximum penalties for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs, and for causing death by dangerous driving, from 14 years’ to life imprisonment, and they create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving. That Bill is currently going through Parliament.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) moved new clause 20 in the House of Commons on 5 July 2021. It proposed a maximum sentence of 14 years where a driver fails to stop and exchange details or to report the accident to the police in cases where they knew or ought reasonably to have known that a serious or fatal injury had occurred or might have occurred. The then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice said that

“more work needs to be done to identify that class of driver who manipulates the system and evades responsibility in a way that clearly outrages the community and offends the wider public.”—[Official Report, 5 July 2021; Vol. 698, c. 675.]

On 8 November, at Committee stage in the House of Lords, the right hon. Lord Paddick moved amendment 161, which had wording very similar to that of new clause 20. Lord Paddick stated that six months may be appropriate when someone drives off after scraping the paintwork of someone’s parked car, but not when someone is left dead by the roadside.

Passenger Boats and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of passenger boats and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

Thank you very much, Dame Angela, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on this St Patrick’s day. What a great day to have this debate. It is also Montserrat day. Mr Speaker is flying the flag of Montserrat from New Palace Yard, which is the first time ever that the flag of an overseas territory has been flown from the Palace of Westminster. Happy Montserrat day and happy St Patrick’s day to one and all.

I have served in the House now for 20 years. Also, I have served as the MP for my home constituency of Romford, which is and always has been a proud part of the county of Essex, while of course bordering on and with very close links to the capital city of London. As an MP within the authority area of the London Borough of Havering, located on the Thames estuary, I am all too conscious of the role that our great River Thames has played in our nation’s history, and the role that it will undoubtedly play in our future. To the east of London, the River Thames has once again become crucial for our trade, and in central and west London it continues to play a hugely important role for tourism and the London leisure economy.

I enthusiastically welcome the new Thames freeport, where thousands of new jobs will be created close to my Romford constituency, serving Romford, Havering, east London and the whole of the south-west Essex area. That is a piece of great news that we can celebrate today.

The River Thames is our river. It belongs to us in this region of the United Kingdom, whether we are from London, Essex, Kent, Surrey, Middlesex, Berkshire or beyond, and it must always be a river that the people of this region of our country are able to use for business, travel and pleasure. [Interruption.] Yes, I should perhaps have mentioned Oxfordshire as well, although today’s debate is more about the use of the River Thames in the more central part of London. But I assure the Minister that I had not forgotten Oxfordshire.

Many of my constituents rely on the Thames for their livelihoods and careers. They are highly skilled, and keen that a fair, competitive and safe working environment is maintained on the river, both for them and for future generations. As we go further upriver into central London and beyond Westminster, there is—as Members will know, because in normal times we see it alongside Parliament every day—a vibrant river-based tourism industry, whereby visitors to London and tourists can enjoy a unique boat trip along the Thames.

That is one of the issues I want to address today. I will explain why proposals from the Government’s Maritime and Coastguard Agency for London’s older passenger boats threaten to put this all at risk. As they stand, the plans are, I believe, disproportionate, inflexible and unfair. They risk forcing up to 25 popular and safe older passenger boats off the River Thames. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter on Monday that set out a determination to proceed with the plans, but I will now set out my very real concerns, which are shared by many Members on both sides of the House.

The MCA first proposed changes to the rules that govern passenger boats operating in category C tidal waters, such as the tidal Thames, three years ago. They are known as grandfather rights. The Thames, uniquely, is home to a large variety of safe, older passenger boats that operate in different parts of the river, based on their target tourist market and suitability. Each year, in normal times, they safely carry hundreds of thousands of passengers both on scheduled services such as the hugely popular and historic Westminster to Kew Gardens and Hampton Court summer service, or on private charter work such as evening parties and functions. As well as the many direct skilled jobs that those services retain, they also indirectly support the Thames boatyards and key tourist attractions, such as Kew Gardens, Hampton Court and London’s night-time economy, all of which have suffered terribly because of a year of lockdowns. They are essential in helping to deliver recovery.

In recent years, because of the growth of the fast and large Uber Thames Clipper fleet of boats, many of the older passenger boats on the Thames have chosen to operate in the less congested upriver areas of the tidal Thames, in the area west of Westminster pier. That will become more attractive as the large, river-reliant infrastructure projects, such as the Northern line extension at Battersea and the Tideway tunnel, are finished and the large tug and barge flows connected with those projects come to an end.

In the Minister’s letter to me on Monday, he said that the determination to proceed with plans was based on “evidence of ship numbers, movements and incidents upriver of Westminster, particularly in Lambeth Reach.” May I ask the Minister to please write to me and detail each incident that the Department has considered and the criteria against which they have judged it appropriate to take those plans forward? That surely is crucial information to judge whether it has been the right decision.

The MCA plans contain some proposals that can be met and delivered by operators, despite their having no work since the pandemic struck last March, but the specific proposal for vessels on the tidal Thames to have to subdivide their hulls, fit new bulkheads and effectively totally rebuild their boats at the waterline is both economic suicide and effectively vessel ending. Known as the damage stability rule, it would slash the passenger-carrying capacity on vessels that were built on the Thames to operate on the Thames and would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds per boat.

Consequently, owners will not be borrowing money to make their boats unfit for purpose—of course not. These boats are owned and operated by family businesses whose ancestors have worked on the river for centuries. They are long-standing stakeholders in the river, and the MCA proposals will put them out of business and their boats and jobs will be lost—the last thing we want at this stage. We should be revitalising the industry, not crushing it. I therefore sincerely hope that the Minister will see the need for at least some flexibility, pragmatism and risk-led common sense, both to improve river safety and to keep the sector afloat.

I want to place on the record the significant cross-party opposition to the MCA’s subdivision plans for older Thames passenger boats. Excellent work has also been done on the matter by Lord West of Spithead, in the other place, as the Minister will know. There have been letters to Secretaries of State for Transport from more than 60 Members of Parliament—cross-party—including the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who used to lead the Conservative group on the Greater London Authority, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the leader of the Liberal Democrats. The Minister will also know that many members of the London Assembly support the opposition to the proposals, and have raised objections and written to the Transport Secretary and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I understand that the Prime Minister has been made aware of the issue by his concerned west London constituents.

Importantly, the organiser of the 2012 Thames diamond jubilee pageant, Lord Salisbury, has also written in protest. One of the boats under threat from the MCA is the Connaught, which led the pageant and carried the Queen’s heralds, alongside Her Majesty’s own vessel. It was a special day for the River Thames, the Queen, the royal family and the whole country. Yet that boat is under threat from the proposal. Surely that cannot be right and there must be a reconsideration of the whole proposal. I hope that the Minister is starting to understand my horror at the implications. I ask him please to intervene and urgently review the Government’s position.

There is a key word that the MCA continues to use in promoting, and seeking to justify, its proposals. It says that the boats must be subdivided in the hull to make them safer. Safety is of course critical and must be proportionate across all modes of transport, particularly heritage transport. The Marchioness incident of 1989, which I am sure we all remember with great sadness, is sometimes cited by the MCA and the Minister in justifying the bans. However, that is not fair or valid. The Marchioness was the victim of a total and unforgivable lapse in navigational rules and standards, which caused it to strike and be sunk by a much larger vessel.

Importantly, in a letter on the subdivision issue to a Thames boatyard owner in September 2019, the chief executive officer of the Port of London Authority wrote: “I fully accept that such a change would in all probability have had minimal impact on the tragic outcome of the Marchioness collision.” That point is an important contribution. River skills, route knowledge, quieter and lower-risk waters, and the best possible training are key for the future of the Thames, alongside a viable and credible compromise that I want to set out for the benefit of the Minister and his Department.

I note that the MCA has told the Thames boat operators that it wants to update them on its plans on 14 April. I hope that the debate can help us to make some progress on that. The Minister is aware of the careful thought and consideration that have gone into the compromise proposal for the older Thames passenger boats, which is that they should be restricted to the Thames west of Westminster pier, with the use of the pier itself, without the need for the subdivision. In our virtual call with the Minister on November 2, Lord West explained how operators were prepared to limit their operations from this point, and concentrate their navigation in the less congested areas of lower operational risk along the river. Indeed, many of the boats were built to operate in the upper tidal reaches of the Thames, with their shallow draft and low deck profiles.

This solution would achieve four important goals. First, river authorities would know where older passenger boats were operating at any one time, given their new zonal restrictions alongside already being on the automatic identification system. Secondly, no older passenger boat would be forced off the Thames and would be able to play its part in bringing tourists and visitors back to the river after the covid restrictions, and help meet the Transport for London, Port of London Authority and Greater London Authority ambitions to significantly grow river passengers over the next 15 years, particularly upriver. Thirdly, the boats would continue to support the important Thames boatyards and skills supply chain, which means jobs would not be lost and yards closed. Fourthly, we would avoid the MCA’s earlier plans to issue exemptions only if individual boats can successfully clear their future risk assessment test, the criteria for which have never been published or released.

I foresee a real risk of bureaucratic and legal quagmire here. As the Minister knows, the upper tidal Thames has full and fast Royal National Lifeboat Institution cover as well. There are many issues that I do not believe have been fully addressed in the current proposals. That is why the Minister simply has to take this seriously and change the current projection and policy. It is crucial that we strike a pragmatic and proportionate balance for operators and safety. This lower operational risk solution will deliver this, without forcing anyone out of business or losing any of these key and safe assets from the river.

If the Minister will not change direction, will he discuss with the operators what compensation they will be offered for the forced loss of their income and their businesses, as well as the considerable devaluation of their assets? He needs to address this directly. If he pushes ahead, he has to consider what he is doing to the livelihoods and the businesses that will be affected. The Government will have to pay huge sums of money to compensate for the damage this policy will do. That could all be avoided if he reviews this policy today.

The Thames has changed considerably in the last 20 years, and it is great to see so many people using it for leisure and commuter travel. As it has grown in importance and popularity, the need for services to be carefully regulated and monitored is all too clear, as is the importance of preventing any anti-competitive practices or unfair situations, which I fear have been allowed to develop. That is a further angle to this.

As the Minister knows, I am increasingly concerned by reports from my constituents that the company tasked with delivering the river’s commuter boats, Uber Thames Clippers, has been abusing its dominant market position and enjoying unfair advantages, which in turn unfairly undermines other operators on the river. I wrote to him about this last year and he replied, asking to be kept informed.

Since 1999, Transport for London has made provision for a dedicated scheduled river boat commuter service, now called Uber Thames Clippers, which is regulated by TfL, under the responsibility of the Mayor of London. Clippers run services between Putney and east London in normal times, in the morning and evening commuter peaks and throughout the day. Consequently, in normal times they carry hundreds of thousands of tourists and visitors. It seeks to attract them with prominent marketing. Uber Thames Clippers is therefore not only a commuter service; it is also a tourist service.

For this daytime tourist offering, Uber Thames Clippers enjoys many commercial advantages as a result of arrangements with TfL that are not enjoyed by competing scheduled Thames tourist boat operators. That simply is not fair. It is this point that I wish to explain. I have written to the Deputy Mayor for Transport in London twice, and my colleague in the Greater London Assembly, the Assembly Member for my own borough of Havering, Keith Prince, is also taking these matters up in the GLA and asking probing questions of the Mayor of London, but no answers have been given; this matter is unresolved. A future investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority may now be necessary, and I ask the Minister to address this point.

The key issue is that Uber Thames Clippers does not have to pay landing fees at busy central TfL-owned peers such as Westminster, Tower of London, Greenwich and Bankside, when its boats disembark and pick up tourist passengers during the day, but its scheduled competitors do. These costs run into hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, which Uber Thames Clippers avoids but its rivals—the traditional operators—still have to pay. That cannot be fair, it cannot be right and it is uncompetitive, and the Minister must intervene to end this unfairness.

TfL has explained how and why it justifies and maintains having one rule for one tourist operator and one for another. I have constituents who work on the Thames and have to endure the unfair competition and unacceptable distortion. I want to know how it is justified by the Mayor and what Transport Ministers might be minded to do, in line with the Competition Act 1998, given the unfair practices being maintained by a body, in TfL, that has received billions of pounds in public support.

All the operators ask for is a level playing field, so that when they compete with Uber Thames Clippers for tourist passengers outside of commuter times, they all pay the same pier fees. At the moment, Uber Thames Clippers enjoys an unfair market advantage, which is being maintained and defended by the Mayor and TfL. Will the Minister tell the House what the Government can now do to bring more scrutiny and attention to this disturbing issue, especially when the Mayor and TfL have been given billions in taxpayer support over the last year alone? Does he think a CMA inquiry might be an option for consideration?

The future of London is intrinsically tied up with the future of the River Thames. It is the liquid highway, and it has again become key to how we enjoy this great city and to creating jobs, growing the city and showcasing it to the world as part of our new global Britain. Everything must be done to prevent and remove any bad policy, plan or failing situation that threatens to disproportionately undermine those who rely on it for their business or the public’s ability to enjoy it, especially as we come out of the pandemic and look again to the river for some peace, fulfilment and enjoyment. I therefore hope that the Minister will answer my points and provide real assurances to those who want to help ensure that our wonderful River Thames recovers after this bleak period in our history and resumes its historic role of helping Londoners to work, with key services provided on the river in a fair, pragmatic and safe environment.

I conclude on this St Patrick’s day by paying tribute to the vital part that our Irish friends have played in the history of the River Thames over many centuries. I draw the House’s attention to the important contribution of Irish workers, particularly the vital part they played in building the Thames tunnel between 1825 and 1843, which has a special place in British history as the first tunnel built under a navigable river anywhere in the world. The workers spent long shifts digging the 700-foot tunnel in treacherous conditions that would lead to the death of six during the course of its construction. These workers were predominantly Irish migrants who moved to London in the 19th century to find work, and who created a significant piece of London’s history. It is important that their work and achievement should be remembered, and I can think of no better day on which to do that than this St Patrick’s day.

Dame Angela, Minister, colleagues, let us celebrate the central part our River Thames has played in the lives of our people, our capital and our nation, and seek to ensure that it may go on doing so for many centuries to come.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on his presentation and on doing it so well. I wish all hon. Members here in this Westminster Hall sitting and elsewhere a very happy St Patrick’s day. It is a pleasure to come and speak today.

It is good to remind ourselves, as the hon. Gentleman did, that those who built the Thames tunnel were Irish migrants. We should thank them—many from Northern Ireland, and many from the Republic of Ireland—for their contribution to this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As you probably know, Dame Angela, and as others will know as well, they say that if St Patrick turns the stone the right way up on St Patrick’s day—in other words, if it is dry and sunny, as it is outside—that probably means that we will have good weather between now and the summertime. I hope that is the case.

I wish the hon. Member for Romford many happy returns. He is an Aries, I think—

[Andrew Rosindell]

Pisces.

[Jim Shannon]

Sorry. I am an Aries—I am not that far away. Again, I wish the hon. Gentleman many happy returns.

The title of this debate is very clear and specific, and I will come to it specifically, but I would like to make some general comments to start with, and I would also like to talk about river ferries at the end. I have to take this opportunity to discuss a massive issue for my constituency. Some of the context in my constituency will tie in with some of the things the hon. Gentleman has referred to.

As we are all aware, Northern Ireland is a landlocked nation in the UK, and, as the Northern Ireland protocol has shown very clearly, landlocking brings its own problems. I am not going to talk about the Northern Ireland protocol—that is not appropriate, Dame Angela, and I know you would bring me into line and correct me if I did—but I just wanted to make that point and then say how it features within this debate.

The onus on hauliers and shipping is massive, and any issue or problem with this route affects the supply of basic goods to Northern Ireland. The passenger ferries from Larne to Cairnryan, where some of the problems we have seen have occurred, or the other ferry services, do not simply ensure free movement of people—they carry our necessities. The issue for ferries, for water travel, is so specific, and it ties in well with this debate about the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the future of passenger boats.

Coronavirus has seen a massive impact on our connectivity, and understandably so. However, what must be understood is that this has wider connotations for GB-NI trade, which must be protected at all costs. The waterways are not simply a way for tourists to travel, although having travelled on the Thames on a few occasions with my wife, with other family members and individually, I can understand its attraction and that of maritime boats—it is similar in my constituency, which many people visit to experience the landscape and the warmest welcome—but the waterways are also a way of feeding people.

Over the last four Sunday evenings, Strangford has featured in “Bloodlands”—a drama programme that has given James Nesbitt fairly great prominence. When my wife and I were watching it on television, we were not as intrigued by the drama and the story as we were by trying to work out which part of Strangford lough it was set in and whose farm we were seeing. I can identify with that.

Let me turn to the main thrust of the debate, which is the replacement of boats that are older and that may need attention. The hon. Member for Romford referred to how important that is, and I want to give another example from my constituency. Old is not always not good, and it is important we recognise that. The hon. Gentleman referred to providing grants and help for small boats. We have done that in Northern Ireland; it was in a different sector, but the same principle applies, and that is what I want to refer to.

The fishing fleet in Portavogie is between 45 and 48 years old. It was decided that massive rebuilds had to take place to bring it up to safety standards. Any seaman or fishing person in Portavogie would say that they would take their sturdy, old, seaworthy boat over the new and improved one any day, any time. The Government and, most of all, the Northern Irish Assembly, through the fisheries Department, have made sure that grant in aid is available for that. I know that we are in a difficult time with covid, and that resources are minute, so that is not always a possibility, but the Minister might want to look at the issue.

While it is undoubted that any passenger ferry must be to a high standard and safe, that is not to say that we must discard the older boats. As one who is feeling this more and more, let me say that sometimes the old things can be the best things, and it is important to put that on record as well.

I share the concerns of many about the impact on services, should the requirements be implemented to the full. I will certainly be asking the Minister to listen carefully to those whose livelihoods and trade depends on these boats—the hon. Member for Romford has referred to them, and I am here to support him in his request to the Minister and in what he wants to bring about.

Safety can go hand in hand with this lively and wonderful internationally recognised service. Without a doubt, when people come to London for a few days, as I do every week, or for a break, one of the things they have to do is travel on a boat—one of those leisure cruises—and enjoy the scenery and the water.

In my constituency, there are thriving private fishing and leisure boat business. We have excellent fishing in Strangford lough and the Irish Sea. Those businesses thrive because the opportunity to catch fish is there, but also because there is something really exciting about doing that. I am not sure whether we have the same ability to do that in the Thames, or whether there is a thriving fishing sector—or angling sector, I should say—but, if there is, it would certainly be another thing to look at.

Again, while safety is paramount—it has to be, and it must be upheld—we also have to look at how we can improve some of the older boats. I have spoken to people regarding this debate and comments by the hon. Gentleman about the Thames and the area. I find myself agreeing with a number of MPs, and especially the hon. Member for Romford, who introduced the debate, as well as with others who are looking at this debate from afar—I have spoken to some of them as well, and although they are not here today, they have a similar opinion to the hon. Gentleman.

I will just quote from the Evening Standard:

“The operators are SMEs and family-run businesses which have worked on the river for generations. The double whammy of covid and these unnecessary MCA proposals will do potentially terminal damage to London’s maritime heritage, river jobs and tourism. They should be changed so that no boats are forced off the river and the sector can recover.”

I know that the Conservative party—and, in fairness, the Labour party as well—is committed to ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises can be protected, and that the self-employed have opportunities. If ever there was a time to do that, it is now. Perhaps in his response the Minister can give us some assurance that SMEs will be protected in legislation. I know that the Minister and the Government have done that and continue to do that, but we need that assurance today.

I support the Evening Standard in its call. I truly believe that we can see these boats being safely used and upgraded in a methodical and financial manner that does not close businesses down, but that, as with the changes to fishing vessels in my constituency, where this happened, subsidises them with grants, guides them and enhances them. This is not the time to be putting unbearable financial pressure on any aspect of tourism. In my constituency, tourism is vital—it is the key theme of Ards and North Down Borough Council and Strangford as well. I ask the Minister to review the mechanism and timing of these proposals.

In conclusion, these boats are a wonderfully visual aspect of tourism and must be safe and protected. We can do these things differently, and the hon. Member for Romford referred to that. I ask the Minister to review this issue once more, with a post-covid view and perhaps with a slightly different perspective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for his response, and the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), and of course my good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for their contributions. I thank the Minister for his responses to many of the points that I made, but I fear that it will be met with disappointment. I am sure that he instinctively understands my points and why I am making them in this way. I hope that he will not simply follow what he is being told, but that he will be genuinely convinced that this is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I hope that the Minister will go back to his Ministry, talk to the MCA, fight for my constituents and the boat operators that have served London for so long and so well, and not be part of a decision that will wreck people’s jobs and wreck an industry that has done so much for London and played such a central part on our wonderful River Thames. I ask him to please think about those points: please go back to the Ministry, speak to the people who work in the industry, and look for flexibility and compromise. Do not take what we are told—look at the real situation.

Finally, I was a little concerned by the phrase “design or good fortune”. My goodness—imagine if we applied that principle to everything we do in Government and everything we do in our lives: “It is only by good fortune that bad things have not happened.” We might as well have a permanent lockdown and have everyone stay indoors and never do anything in their lives, just in case we do not have good fortune. We cannot live like that. We have to allow flexibility. We are a Conservative Government and this is in unconservative way of approaching the problem. Yes, we need safety and a sensible way of dealing with such things, and we need people to upgrade their standards where possible, but for goodness’ sake, let us have a light-touch Government, not interfering with everything and taking measures to an extreme whereby people lose their jobs and livelihoods.

I know that the Minister must, deep down in his heart, agree with much of what I am saying. I know, given the Minister that he is—strong and determined—that he will not go back to the Ministry and allow civil servants and others to dictate, but that he will make the decision himself. He will, of course, be responsible for those decisions, so I know that, in the end, he will make the right decisions for the River Thames and for all those people who work in this cherished industry in our capital.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of passenger boats and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I believe those arguments are entirely sustainable, and I am happy for the right hon. Gentleman to continue that conversation with the Prime Minister.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

10. What plans his Department has to construct new transport infra- structure to serve growing towns on the outskirts of London.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (George Freeman)]

Transport in the Greater London area is devolved to the Mayor and delivered on his behalf by TfL. The Department continues to fund investment in major transport projects benefiting London, such as Crossrail and the Thameslink upgrade. The Department is also working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to plan transport infrastructure as part of sustainable house building, particularly through the housing infrastructure fund and the garden communities programme.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for his response, but has he looked into the possibility of expanding his investment programme to the Gallows Corner area of my constituency—a major hub from Essex into London? Its 50-year-old structure now needs to be replaced. Is it not time that the Government stepped in to make sure that this happens?

[George Freeman]

I am delighted to confirm that we are indeed stepping in. My hon. Friend is a dogged advocate of the needs of Romford and, along with his companion Buster, has done more than anyone to put this subject on the map. I know that as well as Brexit he wants “Hexit”—he wants control of Havering taken back into Essex. However, I can confirm that we are looking at this scheme with TfL to develop a series of major structural renewals at Gallows Corner, as announced by the Government in October 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grant Shapps]

I should just clarify for the hon. Gentleman that we are not going out to consultation; we are in fact acting on statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

T6. The Minister will be aware that transport affects the whole Greater London area, but beyond that, is it not time that this was reviewed so that places such as Essex, Kent, Surrey and Hertfordshire have a say about transport policy in the Greater London area?

[Grant Shapps]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, of course, that Transport for London has a big impact on constituencies outside, including mine in Welwyn Hatfield. I do note, however, that there are widely differing views, including in my area, for example, where people would welcome more Transport for London involvement. In his area, perhaps the opposite is the case. I do think that it is a case of making sure that whatever we do fits in with the Williams review and the White Paper, which is to be published shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

That was absolute nonsense. Labour electrified 10 miles of existing network in all the 13 years it was in government. There has been more electrification in the north-west alone under this Government than in all those 13 years, so we will take no lessons from the Labour party on this. With regard to the transpennine upgrade, we are spending £2.9 billion. It is the biggest single project in control period 6, as I explained to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) only a moment ago. Rather than criticising, Labour Members should be supporting this project, and perhaps asking why they did not do it. We will take no lessons whatsoever from the Labour party, which did nothing at all for our rail network.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

12. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the delay to Crossrail on the London economy.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the important question of Crossrail. He will know that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Transport for London, and it is for TfL in the first instance to evaluate the future. Notwithstanding recent hiccups, we feel excited about the potential for the project.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will understand the huge disappointment in Romford, where we were hoping that Crossrail would be coming into action much sooner. At least partly because of the Mayor’s poor financial management of TfL, we have to wait a lot longer, so will the Minister assure the House that the new funding package will bring Crossrail to fruition much sooner?

[Jesse Norman]

As I said, Crossrail is a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL. It would be wrong for me to comment on the way the Mayor has handled TfL’s finances—that is a matter for him—but I will say that it is a very important project. As my hon. Friend will be aware, there is a new chief executive, Mr Wild, and he is understandably taking time to review the project fully before he publishes his own views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

We have set a limit in line with inflation for the increase in regulated fares. Transport for the North and the Rail North Partnership have additional financial resources from the compensation package provided last summer that they can use on lines that continue to be affected by underperformance if they choose to do so. I would be very happy to see them do that.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

T3. The Minister will be aware that it is illegal for a taxi not to collect someone with a guide dog, yet 42% of taxis still refuse to do this. Will the Government please bring in strict new guidelines to raise awareness throughout the taxi and minicab industry?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. For over a decade it has been illegal for taxi and private hire drivers to refuse assistance dogs, and I am clear that they must comply with the law. We cannot risk lowering people’s confidence and ability to travel independently. Licensing authorities have the power to stop this happening by training drivers to understand their duties and by prosecuting them when they fail to comply. We are considering the recommendations mentioned by my hon. Friend and will publish a response in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman and I had better have a conversation about that, so that we can look at specific cases. It is clearly important that consumers with electric vehicles have the benefits of the same consumer protections as any other kind of vehicle driver.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

9. What progress his Department has made on reducing the level of civil aviation noise.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)]

We have set a policy framework which expects industry to manage and provide mitigation for aviation noise. Within this, the overall level of civil aviation noise in the UK continues to decrease. Last October, I introduced a suite of new policies which enhance the way the impact of noise on communities is assessed in airspace changes. At the same time, I announced the establishment of an Independent Commission on Civil Aviation Noise. Through the development of our new aviation strategy, we are now looking also at the regulatory framework, to make sure we have the right protection in place for local communities.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Secretary of State will be aware that complaints about London City airport have gone up dramatically since the introduction of the new concentrated flightpaths. Although quieter aeroplane engines are welcome, will he do all he can to ensure that there is a fairer spread of flightpaths along the east Thames corridor, particularly affecting my constituents in Romford, Hornchurch and the whole London Borough of Havering?

[Chris Grayling]

This is a very important issue, and one that my Department and the Civil Aviation Authority are reviewing carefully. Notwithstanding the work needed in the shorter term to address noise from City airport, I believe that the outcome of our airspace modernisation programme, using new technology to manage airspace, will enable us to manage the impacts on communities much better and make a real difference.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) did mention diesel, which is a fuel, so I am not sure that a crowbar was altogether required. It is a matter of terminological preference, I think.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

9. If he will take steps to ensure the improvement of safety at the Gallows Corner roundabout on the A12.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

As my hon. Friend will know, the A12 in London is managed by Transport for London as part of its route network. The Department for Transport consultation on proposals for the creation of a major road network was launched in December and included an indicative network of the expected future major roads. That included the A12 and A127 at Gallows Corner. We aim to publish a consultation response this summer. The roads forming the final major roads network will be confirmed by the end of 2018.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The Minister will be aware that the Gallows Corner flyover at the A127-A12 junction is a very congested accident hotspot. The hopelessly inadequate response from TfL and the Mayor of London should be dealt with by the national Government. Will money from the national highways budget be used so that the Government can step in to help us to resolve this ongoing problem?

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend has regularly and properly raised this issue. It is a matter for TfL, but I am happy to have a further conversation with him about how we can look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Rosindell Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We want bus passenger numbers to rise, and the measures in the Bus Services Act 2017, which passed through the House a few months ago, will provide an environment in which bus ridership can recover and improve and will lead to more and better services around the country.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

T5. What assurances can Ministers give to help taxi drivers who buy the new electric taxi before the vehicle excise duty change comes into force?

[The Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime (Mr John Hayes)]

My hon. Friend is right that that matters to taxi drivers. A legal change is required to allow the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to identify electric taxis as separate from cars and vans in order to apply the exemption. I wrote to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury—I emphasise for the record that he is my former PPS—on 25 October, and I am meeting him on 12 December to discuss exactly the issue my hon. Friend raises.