High Speed 2

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

For the record, the roads Minister is a very good one, who has had to swap lanes today at short notice. How many of the HS2 stations will have ticket offices? Last Thursday in Westminster Hall, there was a train crash of a debate in which not a single Back Bencher from any political party backed the Government’s proposals. As many people have asked the Minister to pass on messages today, could I add one more, in all good faith? “You are under enough pressure on HS2 as it is. Do yourselves a favour and drop the bonkers proposals to get rid of our ticket offices.”

[Mr Holden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments—he has always been a champion of our road network, and now he is a champion of our rail network as well. I will certainly take his thoughts back to the Department.

Railway Ticket Offices

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Chris Loder]

I agree that my hon. Friend shares many of the same difficulties and challenges that I face in West Dorset. I will be pleased to articulate further why I agree with him.

The fact that nationally 12% of tickets are purchased from ticket offices does not necessarily warrant them all being closed down, particularly as the percentage for many rural stations and among higher-age communities is much higher than the national average, and no more so than in the south-west. The demographics of constituents in my West Dorset constituency are such that 30% of the population is over 65, which suggests that more people than average use ticket offices. That totally busts the myth that only 12% of tickets are sold at all stations. For example, at Barnstaple station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), 45% of all tickets are sold at the ticket office.

In Dorchester, even if the company gave me the stats they would not offer an accurate picture because such is the level of management incompetence that the ticket office door was closed for in excess of three months last year, awaiting repair. That will undoubtedly have skewed the statistics and is, quite frankly, questionable in itself. The only reason why that situation got sorted was because I complained about it.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I have an email from a whistleblower who works for Abellio Greater Anglia. The key thing it says is that

“the ticket offices are used much more than people realise. Although the figures say only 12% of tickets are issued by ticket offices, this is an average…Stations like Billericay, Wickford and Raleigh are selling over 500 per shift at weekends.”

So people who work for the railway and who know the truth would agree with everything that my hon. Friend just said.

[Chris Loder]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution and support.

There is a significant Access for All bid in for Dorchester South, for a new footbridge to make the station accessible. What company of any moral standing would propose a reduction in staffing hours of 55% when half the station is inaccessible, and when the company refuses routinely to change the platform to help those in the greatest need?

Typically, when we buy our tickets online through retailers such as the Trainline, we assume that they are working in our best interests as fare-paying passengers, and that they automatically search for the cheapest fare possible, perhaps through something called a split ticket. I can tell the House today that that is not the case, and I shall offer an example or two.

The cheapest way for rail passengers to get from London to Plymouth is to travel via London Waterloo and change at Exeter St David’s. They should buy a ticket from Waterloo to Axminster, and another ticket from Axminster to Plymouth, which in total will cost £93.90 for a return, and with a railcard just £64.50. Any Members present with a smartphone should feel free to have a look for themselves. I checked this before the debate. If they enter London to Plymouth on the Trainline, they will be given the option of taking the 10.04 am from Paddington to Plymouth, and offered a ticket for a staggering £158.70. That is almost £100 more than the cheapest alternative, which is actually on the 10.20 am from Waterloo to Exeter, and then change.

Why is that? It is because anti-competitive online digital algorithms have been set to block certain ticket combinations, in this case on the Waterloo to Exeter line. To be fair, it is not just on the Trainline app that this happens. Those who want to should have a look on South Western Railway’s website and try to book the same fare. Put in those details—why not even try specifically to put London Waterloo to Plymouth? It will not give them the cheapest combination either; it will send them to Paddington and make them pay more.

Do not think that the issue is reserved to the south-west alone. This time last year, I called out Avanti West Coast and the Trainline for similar behaviour on the route between Manchester and London, where the supposed walk-up fares were quota-controlled if bought online. If the ticket quota had sold out, the customer would be redirected to a more expensive online fare, or the cookies on their smartphone would tell the system that they wanted that ticket and it would automatically charge them more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

The second highest number of signatures on the petition against these proposals comes from my constituents in Rayleigh and Wickford. I have been pressing the Minister for months for figures on ticket office sales in my constituents’ stations. They arrived yesterday afternoon. At Hockley, he says they sell an average of 219 tickets a day, in Rayleigh 461 and in Wickford 480, but the email I read out from the Abellio whistleblower—by the way, I have no faith in Abellio’s management—says that in fact, and particularly at weekends, the figures of ticket sales are even higher. I ask the Minister to listen to my constituents and to people who work on the railway.

In my reply to the consultation exercise on 24 July, I said:

“In summary, I do not believe that what is proposed will provide significant savings for train operators but will conversely provide serious disbenefits to passengers. In other words, ‘the game is not worth the candle’. I very much hope…that these proposals will be reconsidered and eventually dropped.”

That “very much” remains my view.

I have had the privilege of being a Minister, and the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), is a fair Minister, I know. In all seriousness I offer him and the Government some genuine advice: look around. The proposals are completely unloved. They are not popular even among Conservative Back Benchers—quite, quite the opposite. I urge the Minister to accept that mistake has been made. It may not have been his mistake, but I say to him: take the hint, drop it, get rid of it and retreat gracefully. Do not press forward with this. The House of Commons does not want it and nor do our constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)]

3. What recent steps he has taken with Cabinet colleagues to reduce disruption caused by roadworks.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

10. What recent steps he has taken with Cabinet colleagues to reduce disruption caused by roadworks.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)]

Roadworks are essential to ensure the safety and integrity of England’s highway network, and it is also essential that utility companies can install and repair the equipment on which we all rely. Some disruption is inevitable, but the Government have introduced several initiatives, such as Street Manager, to reduce that. Another tool, lane rental schemes, allows local highway authorities to charge works promoters for the time that street works and roadworks occupy the highway. Charges are focused on the very busiest streets at the busiest times, with the aim of reducing congestion.

[Mr Holden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I was in the west midlands just a couple of weeks ago visiting the RAC just off the M42. The scheme between junctions 3 and 4 to replace the barrier will provide increased safety to drivers, which remains our top priority. Once completed, the new barrier will require significantly less maintenance and repair after incidents, which will further reduce disruption for her constituents. To minimise disruption, National Highways has endeavoured to keep all lanes open to traffic and is utilising the longer daytime hours and good weather to complete the works as quickly as possible for her constituents.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the Minister for personally endorsing my “Can the cones” campaign and my associated Roadworks (Regulation) Bill, which has its Second Reading in November. One great frustration of modern life is spending ages crawling through a set of traffic lights at a contraflow to finally drive past a large hole in the road, immaculately coned off with no one doing any work on it. The Bill is designed to make it much more difficult for that to happen. Does the Minister have any good news at all that might help all of us in our constituencies to can the cones?

[Mr Holden]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent and continued work in this area, alongside his colleagues in Chelmsford, Southend and elsewhere in Essex. I am particularly pleased to see that he has already managed to persuade Essex County Council to move ahead with a lane rental scheme, and his regulatory reform suggestions are being considered by the Department. I hope to be able to update the House later in the year, because the progress that he has suggested is directly feeding into the Government’s general policy.

Road User Charging Schemes

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for his very able introduction of this very important subject. I also thank everyone who has taken the trouble to sign the petitions that we are reflecting on today.

I will focus on the proposed extension of the ultra low emission zone to cover all London boroughs, including the whole of my Chipping Barnet constituency. I do not believe that this extension is either justified or acceptable. Although I can see that there is potentially a place for charging regimes in appropriate circumstances, ULEZ expansion is the wrong scheme at the wrong time.

Of course everyone in Westminster Hall today will agree that we need to reduce air pollution, and a range of Government policies are delivering progress towards that important goal. The Mayor of London published an independent impact assessment of his ULEZ expansion proposal that concluded that it would have only a negligible impact on air quality. I emphasise that—only a negligible impact. Yet I am sure that many of us have had constituents attending our surgeries to explain the financial hardship that they will experience as a result of this charge being introduced at a time of major increases in the cost of living.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As an Essex MP, I wish to place firmly on the record my opposition to Mayor Khan’s ULEZ scheme, but another thing that affects air quality is when people have to queue for ages to get through roadworks. One thing that I support is what is known as lane rental, which is the concept whereby utility companies have to pay per day for the privilege of digging up the road and creating inconvenience for everyone else. The Minister and I have discussed this issue before. Essex County Council now supports this idea, by the way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a sensible measure to improve air quality would be not to bring in ULEZ but to crack down on roadworks?

[Theresa Villiers]

I think that cracking down on roadworks is a good idea, although I have to say that we have heard many times that lane rental is to be introduced, and somehow we all still seem to get caught in those traffic jams. My right hon. Friend makes some valid points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

Absolutely. It is also fair to say that in any consultations that took place at the time, the majority of people were in favour of banning smoking in pubs. Even if we accept wholeheartedly what the Mayor of London has said about the consultation process, we know that a majority of people do not support the ULEZ expansion. It was a sham consultation. What is the point in having a consultation and totally ignoring its outcome? There are lots of rumours that the cameras were bought before it took place, and that therefore there was never any chance of Sadiq Khan rolling back on the policy. He was hellbent on expanding the ULEZ no matter what anybody said, and no matter what the outcome.

What we have not heard is Sadiq Khan saying that he will not move the goalposts. I firmly believe that he has in mind the fact that he has to earn a certain amount of money to pay for the infrastructure that he will put in—£250 million, for a start—and to fill the black hole in his finances. If too many people switch to compliant vehicles, he will move the goalposts, so the next category of vehicles will no longer be ULEZ compliant, until all petrol and diesel cars are not compliant and are therefore charged. The Mayor of London has not ruled that out, and I firmly believe that it will happen. This is not the end, but the beginning.

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend said earlier that it is one thing when Kent MPs co-operate with London MPs; it is another when Essex MPs join in too. Does he agree that TfL has effectively been bankrupt for years and is kept going only with central Government subsidy? While the Mayor pays lip service to air quality, this is a tax grab, pure and simple. It is not about air quality; it is about money.

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend from across the river is absolutely right. I am delighted that Essex MPs and Kent MPs have been working together on this. All MPs who have an inch of fairness about them have been doing so. It speaks volumes that not a single Labour Back Bencher has turned up. They are intimidated. When I speak to Labour MPs privately about the policy, they despair. That is why they are not present. They have no comeback and no answer, and they do not want to be here, embarrassed by this policy, which is supported by the leadership of the Labour party.

I will make one final point. For a party that claims that it wants to look after the poorest in society, this policy will do exactly the opposite: it will hit the poorest the most. It will not hit the rich, powerful and wealthy; it will hit people who have vehicles that are quite old and that they cannot afford to upgrade, and small businesses that have two or three non-compliant vehicles and are therefore unable to upgrade them. The charge will hit people who cannot afford to pay it, and who will therefore despair and contact their Members of Parliament. Scores of them have done so on a weekly basis, desperately trying to work out what on earth they can do about a policy that they have no control over—no vote over, in the case of people Dartford—and simply cannot afford.

This is a cruel form of taxation on people in the south-east. It is something that the Labour party should be thoroughly ashamed of. They should be thoroughly ashamed of their London Mayor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I confess that I had not originally planned to speak in this debate, but as not a single Labour or Lib Dem Back Bencher has put in to speak, I will make a few points in lieu of them.

The ULEZ zone affects outer London, stretching out towards the county of Essex, in some cases well past the M25. Many of my constituents and people who live in Essex will be affected by the imposition of the charge, and, because they do not live in Greater London, they cannot vote Mayor Khan out of office or vote anyone else into office. For them it really is a case of taxation without representation, which is one reason I feel strongly about it, and even more so after having heard excellent speeches on the topic by my Conservative colleagues this afternoon.

The Mayor says the issue is about air quality, but it is not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) made perfectly clear, the studies and detailed scientific analysis show that the effect of the ULEZ on air quality will be marginal at best. Everybody knows the truth. It is not about air quality. That is the fig leaf that Mayor Khan is using to justify it. It is about money, because TfL is effectively bankrupt and has been for some years. He is therefore trying to use the charge to fill a black hole. It is perfectly obvious what he is up to, and I think every Londoner in their heart of hearts knows that.

The charge will add to the other problems that the Mayor has introduced such as the road closures and road narrowing measures in London, which serve to create more pollution on an increasingly congested number of remaining roads, because the traffic has to go somewhere. Such measures make London one of the worst cities in which to drive.

As has already been made plain, not everyone can take public transport. If people need tools or equipment for work, they have no choice other than to drive. People in the public sector will be affected, including Met police officers and NHS workers who have to drive into London to work in hospitals. I declare an interest: my wife will be one of those affected. It will also affect people in the private sector such as tradespeople going about their work trying to get to and from their place of business. All of those people will have their lives made more difficult by Mayor Khan. Let us be honest: he does not like cars and he does not seem to like car drivers, either.

A black cabbie said to me a few weeks ago, “I’ve been doing this job for over 30 years and I have never known the traffic in London to be as bad as it is now. Between all the road closures and the roadworks it is virtually impossible to get anywhere and it is about time someone raised it in Parliament.” Well, Bill—I think that was his name—now they have. Bill the cabbie was absolutely right. It is becoming incredibly difficult to drive across our capital city because there are so few arteries that we can take. If there is an accident or heavy roadworks on one of the arteries, that whole part of London an rapidly grind to a halt.

[Theresa Villiers]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Francois]

In return for earlier, I am glad to.

[Theresa Villiers]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in an age when we are trying to become a more productive economy, it is madness to make it more difficult to get around our capital city, which generates so much of our GDP? That is crazy.

[Mr Francois]

Yes. Perhaps it is a function of my age, but I can remember a time when the fastest way to get across London was to hop in a cab. It is certainly not that way now. We have about half the number of black cab drivers that we had prior to the pandemic, which is a fantastic drop-off, bearing in mind that it takes an average of three or four years to do the knowledge and get a green badge. Many of them have given up. From talking to them or to friends of people who have given up, we find that many have done so partly because of their age—that was an effect of the pandemic—but that many others have given up because it is so difficult to get across London. It is just too stressful a way to earn a living. That is why sometimes people can wait quite a long while to get a black cab in London. There are far fewer around than there were. If anybody knows about the challenges of driving across London, I would suggest that black cab drivers are well-placed to comment.

One of the other great problems is roadworks, which have a great effect on air quality. One of the most frustrating things about modern life, is it not, is spending ages in a car crawling ever so slowly forward toward the lights to get through that contraflow, only to finally make it through the lights and drive past a perfectly coned-off big hole in the ground with absolutely no one in sight doing any work on it at all? How many people get wound up by that?

We have had a proliferation of roadworks in my county of Essex. We are the roadworks capital of the UK. In a recently recorded 12-month period, we had 77,000 roadworks of one kind or another. I cannot blame that on Mayor Khan. I could talk about the utility companies or Essex County Council’s highways, but there is just too much to say. I have launched a “Can the Cones” campaign, which the Minister kindly agreed to meet me about in March. One thing he was looking at was lane rental—not ULEZ—which involves making contractors pay by the day to dig up roads. In the parts of the country where that has been brought in, contractors, funnily enough, tend to get the job done much quicker. Perhaps in the Minister’s reply he could spare a moment to say where he has got to on that.

Essex County Council, I am pleased to say, has come around to the idea and is working on a joint scheme with Suffolk to introduce it. The reason why it is so important is that as communities have grown historically, we have tended to find that most of the utilities have been laid on a very limited number of roads, and those are the ones that get dug up again and again. They would be ideal candidates for which to bring in some form of lane rental.

I thank the House for its forbearance, and I would summarise the issue as follows: ULEZ is going to be, if it is introduced—I hope the Mayor might yet relent—a tax on ordinary, hard-working men and people of this country, who will be penalised £12.50 a day for having the temerity to want to go to work to earn money and put food on their family’s plates. That is what Mayor Khan is doing. The whole bit about air quality is complete camouflage. It is not about that; it is about the money. For that reason, the petitioners are right: rather than the cars, it is ULEZ that should be scrapped.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank the other hon. Members who have contributed. It is unusual to see the Tory party all in solidarity with one another. Everyone agreed with one another, which is not something we often see in the House.

[Mr Francois]

We can’t talk to the Labour party; they’re not here.

[Gill Furniss]

Air pollution is a serious yet solvable problem. The Government’s figures estimate that between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths are attributed to air pollution each year, or between 80 and 100 deaths each and every day. Three years ago, nine-year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah became the first person to have air pollution listed as a cause of death by the coroner. That heartbreaking case demonstrates the urgency with which we must tackle air pollution.

Currently, the UK air quality limit stands at 20 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic metre of air, which is four times higher than the World Health Organisation’s target of 5 micrograms. The Government are only committed to reducing the limit to 10 micrograms as late as 2040. Sadly, the World Health Organisation guidelines for air pollution continue to be missed across London.

Transport is a leading cause of air pollution, estimated to contribute 35% of nitrogen oxide pollution and 13% of PM_2.5 pollution in 2021. Those stark figures must not be ignored, and we need action from the Government to address the problem. The fact is that many local authorities have had little choice but to implement clean air zones because of the years of inaction on air pollution at a national level. The Government require local authorities to take steps to improve air quality, but this Government’s inaction on the main sources of air pollution means that local authorities are left with few options to clean up their air. Given the funding and powers available to local authorities, clean air zones are, in practice, one of the only viable mechanisms available to them to meet their legal requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I tend to agree with my hon. Friend. The Mayor put the idea of an expanded ULEZ in his manifesto, but it was not the expanded zone that we see today, which was only delivered by the votes of the Labour party, the Lib Dems and the Greens in the London Assembly. They voted to extend it right to the outer borders of Greater London, rather than what the Mayor of London had proposed in his manifesto.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough shouted at me from a sedentary position that whatever we are providing for the bus sector is still not enough. I would love her to tell me how much more we should put in. When I speak to Labour politicians at the moment, none of them can tell me. They have no plan. They are just an opportunistic Opposition. This Government have put more than ever before into the bus network. We have capped prices for working people, which is something the Labour party never did when it was in office. Right up and down the country we have put in the new bus service operators grant of 22p per kilometre, which now includes electric buses—something that was not the case just a few years ago. We remain committed to an end date for non-zero emission buses, and that consultation will be reported on soon.

[Mr Francois]

We have concentrated mainly on roads in this debate, but as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) introduced the topic, does the Minister agree with the simple proposition that our rail network would run much more efficiently if the rail unions stopped going on strike?

[Mr Holden]

I have to agree with my right hon. Friend. I was attacking on so many different fronts that I forgot to mention the elephant in the room, which is the continuing rail strikes by people who have been incredibly financially supportive of the Labour party over the years.

Although there is a huge amount more to be done, we can be proud that air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010. Emissions of fine particulate matter have fallen by 10%; transport emissions of nitrous oxide have fallen by 32%, overall nitrogen oxide by 45% and sulphur dioxide by 73%. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough might criticise a reduction of three quarters in the amount of sulphur dioxide and wish that we could go further. I want to go further too, which is why we are phasing out internal combustion engine vehicles. If she wants to go further, would she outline exactly how far and fast she would like to go?

The only statutory air quality limit that the UK is currently not hitting as fast as we would like is for nitrogen dioxide around our road network, but we are making massive progress there. Around 72% of the road transport emissions of nitrogen oxides comes from diesel cars and vans, which we are phasing out. If we are going to introduce a ULEZ across Greater London requiring £250 million of capital cost, which is going to be phased out anyway because of the fact that we will be moving, in pretty short order, towards electric vehicles, particularly in smaller areas, it seems to be particularly targeted—I think the Conservative speakers really picked this up—on those who use second-hand cars and who, because they cannot afford to buy new vehicles, will be running those cars for a long time. It is particularly pernicious to put those people at the front of the list.

Sir Richard Shepherd

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for introducing so ably this very important debate, which has been graced by a number of wonderful tributes to Sir Richard Shepherd that I cannot hope to match. All I would say is that in my 20 years in the House—I am one of the most junior Members to contribute this evening—I came to regard Richard Shepherd as a man of infinite principle combined with charm and good humour. That is not a bad thing to say about any Member of Parliament from any party in the House. He never wavered in his belief that one day the United Kingdom would become master again of its own destiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone will understand what I am about to say: if Richard Shepherd had been here on 29 March 2019, he would have been a Spartan too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

No one has yet mentioned Richard Shepherd’s passionate defence of the rights of this place and the Members of this place. I well remember, before the days when we had automatic timetable motions—new Members will not be able to imagine that there could have been such days, when we did not have timetable motions and the Government had to introduce a so-called guillotine motion if they wanted to curtail the debate on any Bill or, indeed, any matter—that Richard Shepherd used to sit there, on the second Bench below the Gangway, and oppose and speak against and vote against and force a vote upon every single guillotine motion that the Government brought in. That had quite an effect. It was hard to believe then that he was in fact such a charming, passionate gentleman.

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this timely debate, which the Backbench Business Committee should be commended for granting so early in the new year and which was so ably introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin).

To start as I mean to go on, I fear that the European skies are now darkening, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the winter weather. Perhaps I might explain why. When I was enjoying war studies at King’s under Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman many years ago, I learned that during the cold war the Soviets often referred to the concept of the correlation of forces—effectively a comparison of strengths and weaknesses, both political and military, between opposing blocs. If we adopt that conceptual approach, at least for the purposes of this debate, what does the current coalition of forces look like, specifically between NATO and Russia, particularly when viewed from Moscow?

Without wishing to be unkind, the United States has an ageing President with isolationist tendencies whose popularity is now waning barely a year into the job. In addition, only a year ago the American Parliament, Congress, was stormed by its own citizens—admittedly in bizarre circumstances, but it was overwhelmed nevertheless. The United States, once the proud leader of the western democracies and advocate of the Pax Americana, now seems increasingly absorbed by its own internal divisions—more worried by the politics of identity than those of global security.

The growing obsession of the American strategic community with China may arguably be unwelcome in Beijing, but I suspect that it is very welcome in Moscow. As just one simple example of that, despite the presidential election being 14 months ago, and regardless of the UK traditionally being America’s strongest and most consistent ally in NATO, the United States has still not formally appointed a new ambassador to the Court of St James’s to replace the popular and charismatic Woody Johnson. Do we really believe that these signals just go completely unnoticed elsewhere?

How about some of the other major NATO allies—how are they perceived in the east? For many years during the cold war when the Berlin wall was up, the German armed forces were highly operationally capable, held at high readiness and poised to vigorously resist any incursion by Warsaw pact forces across the inner German border. Today, despite the wall having come down, Germany’s armed forces are a shadow of their former selves, with severe equipment problems and worryingly low levels of operational availability. Politically, the long-standing and relatively stable Merkel era is now over. The former German Chancellor, a fluent Russian speaker, who reportedly had a strong personal relationship with President Putin, has now been replaced by a new and inexperienced traffic light coalition, including a pacifist Green party drag anchor that is unlikely to countenance any meaningful German military reform. Moreover, Germany continues selfishly to pursue a “beggar thy neighbour” energy policy sympathetic to Nord Stream 2, making it potentially even easier for Russia to deploy the gas weapon.

France, another key NATO member, with high readiness and military capabilities analogous to those of the UK—including, crucially, its own independent nuclear deterrent—is largely absorbed with the forthcoming presidential election this spring. The outcome of that election is highly uncertain, but some of the candidates, such as Éric Zemmour, who in 2013 declared Vladimir Putin as his own man of the year, worry me.

Overall, NATO, the most successful defensive alliance in history, which the Soviet Union once respected and even feared, has recently been defeated in Afghanistan, much as its Soviet forebears were many years ago. Despite all the emphasis on satellite technology, multi-domain operations, artificial intelligence, the integrating operating concept and all the other buzzword bingo that peppers the MOD’s lexicon these days, NATO was still defeated for all the world to see. Indeed, for all its supposedly dazzling advanced technology, NATO was ultimately run out of town by “a bunch of country boys” without an ability to fight credibly in four of the five established domains—space, cyber, air or sea—and armed mainly with AK-47s, Motorola radios and RPGs.

That outcome has surely not gone unnoticed in Moscow or Beijing, nor indeed in Tehran. While the west indulges in paralysis by analysis, the Russians build more tanks, tactical and strategic aircraft and hypersonic missiles and renew their nuclear arsenal. As the Defence Committee, on which I serve, has highlighted many times before, we need to be spending more on defence in this country, not less. Moreover, weighed down with covid-related debt and with international gas spot prices now at near record levels, and despite frequent entreaties from the United States as the leader of the alliance, the majority of NATO members still do not meet even the basic target of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence, with Germany at only around 1.7% this year, and Spain barely at even 1%.

Given all that, the correlation of forces is now moving in Moscow’s favour, at least in its eyes, and that smacks of opportunity. The recent presentation of a draft security treaty by Russia to western nations—primarily to the United States—has to be seen in that context. Accompanied by the overt pressure on Ukraine, which does not possess an article 5 guarantee, were that treaty to succeed, the next step will probably be to exert pressure on countries, some of which contain significant ethnic Russian minority populations which do possess such a guarantee, and that probably means the Baltic states, with the obvious aim of dividing and ultimately breaking NATO in the process. I sincerely hope that we are not going to be told, perhaps some months or years from now, even from that famous Dispatch Box, that Estonia is, after all,

“a far away country…of whom we know nothing”.

That is exactly what the Russians want.

Russians traditionally admire strength and despise weakness, and what they now perceive is a weakened NATO lacking in resolve to assert its democratic right to collective self-defence. The next few weeks are likely to be very telling in that respect. I still hope and believe that President Biden, who as a young senator actively supported Britain during the 1982 Falklands war, can recover his leadership role and, with support from European NATO allies, face down any potential Russian incursion into the heart of Ukraine and, indeed, any further adventurism elsewhere.

History tells us again and again that appeasement does not work and that countries that wish to remain free have consistently to assert the right to defend themselves against potential aggression. I say as the proud son of a D-day veteran who fought the Nazis, as did the Russian people, that we forget that lesson at our peril. Or to quote the Prime Minister’s other hero, Pericles of Athens, and I am looking directly at the Minister:

“Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.”

The House has been unanimous today that we must retain that courage, and I hope we do because Pericles’s lesson holds true, two and a half millennia on.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Roadworks: Rayleigh

Mark Francois Excerpts

Friday 13th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you and Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate on a subject that, as you will see, is of pressing importance to many of my constituents.

It is good to see the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), at the Dispatch Box to reply for Her Majesty’s Government. I have known him for many years. Ironically, I lobbied him very recently about the atrocious performance of Abellio Greater Anglia on the Southend to Liverpool Street line. However, as today’s debate is about roadworks, I will concentrate my remarks on those—but the rail line is not getting any better.

Let me give the background. Last autumn, Essex County Council’s Essex Highways granted three property developers, Barratt David Wilson, Countryside Properties and Silver City Estates, permission to begin digging up the roads in and around Rayleigh, all at the same time, in some cases on the day that schools resumed after the summer holidays. Unsurprisingly, that led to traffic chaos in and around Rayleigh, including in nearby Hullbridge. As the local MP, I had to intervene repeatedly with Essex Highways and all three developers to try to sort the situation out. Crucially, this included Countryside agreeing to lift its contraflows during the morning and evening rush hour on Rawreth Lane, and Barratt David Wilson working 24/7 in Hullbridge to finish the job.

After an autumn of severe disruption, the works finally concluded, and I held a summit in my Westminster office with Essex Highways, the developers, local councillors and residents’ groups, at which we all faithfully agreed that this could never be allowed to happen again. Crucially, we agreed that when further planned works took place in Rayleigh in the following year, it would be necessary to separate the works, and ideally lift the contraflows during morning and evening peaks, and during the school run, to make the situation liveable for local residents, even if it took longer to complete the works as a result.

However, a further meeting took place at Rochford Hundred golf club in February this year, at which Essex Highways and the developers agreed a new schedule of works, to commence in March, principally on the A129, London Road—a single carriageway that is one of the principal arteries in and out of Rayleigh. It now transpires that Essex Highways officers granted Silver City permission to work throughout March, seven days a week, from 7 am to 7 pm, with contraflows in place throughout that time—that is, they were not to be lifted during the morning and evening peak and the school run, as was previously suggested.

Moreover, Countryside was then told that it could work for three months on its much larger site from early April to late June, again from 7 am to 7 pm. In other words, the developers would be able to dig up one of the primary arteries in and out of Rayleigh for 12 hours every day for four months. Thereafter, Barratt David Wilson would begin work off Rawreth Lane to construct a new major roundabout. Some of that work can be undertaken offline, but there will still be weeks of disruption when the roundabout is connected to the main carriageway. Yet again, that work is permitted to be carried out from 7 am to 7 pm. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare that I am a resident in the Rawreth Lane area.

I am afraid to say that part of this has occurred because of a total lack of effective oversight by Essex Highways, which has clearly reneged on the commitments it gave me in my Westminster office prior to Christmas. Moreover, there appears to be an unhealthily cosy relationship between the highways officers and the developers, much of it based on first-name terms, with the county council failing my constituents in its regulatory duties to oversee the roadworks effectively.

As a result of those decisions, Silver City began its work early in March and, to cut a long story short, my constituents have gone up the wall. There have been extremely long tailbacks trying to get in and out of Rayleigh during the rush hour and the school run, with some constituents reporting journeys that would normally take about 15 minutes now taking well over an hour each way. In some cases, it is even worse. Businesses have suffered, with one small dance school having been put in real financial jeopardy because parents have cancelled lessons. Medical appointments have also been missed and children’s education has been interrupted.

No one undertook any strategic communications to warn my constituents of these four months of impending chaos until I posted a video on Wednesday evening on my Facebook page to explain to my constituents exactly what is going on. The Minister might like to know that that post has since been viewed by more than 24,000 people. Aside from perhaps coronavirus, this is currently the overwhelming topic of conversation in Rayleigh. Many residents have left comments, of which the following four stood out. Mr A said:

“Well done Mark. And thanks for the best efforts possible. It’s a shame it’s all about the fast profit for fat cat companies in construction, and the quick buck and fast turn over in more council tax, etc. Than the thought of others losing out from struggles to get to work or schools.”

Mr P said it is an

“Absolute joke of a system. How can we get them out of a job? It’s the only thing they will listen to. Enough is enough—crazy when a five minute journey takes 40 minutes.”

Ms B said:

“It’s completely unacceptable that these two works run consecutively. That in itself should not happen. Developers should be inconvenienced, not existing residents and our livelihoods…Developers in this situation should be forced to work nights irrespective of cost to them. As per usual, why is it the general public that appear to have more common sense than the idiots that make decisions”?

Lastly, Ms C said:

“24/7 working is a fantastic ethic to implement. Silver City should cover the cost for overtime or be fined if they don’t complete by a certain timeframe. I live on Little Wheatley Chase”—

one of the local roads—

“and I can tell you…the workmen don’t seem to be in any rush! Lots of cups of tea…smoking…slowly walking up and down whilst cars sit in queues. It is very distressing.”

There have been some instances of residents abusing the workmen. For the avoidance of doubt, I completely deprecate that behaviour, but that does give some idea of how frustrated local people have become. Yet again, I have had to intervene on behalf of my constituents to try to sort out this mess, which I was faithfully promised by Essex Highways would never happen again. In the last week I have had meetings in Westminster with the managing director of Silver City, the new corporate chief executive of Countryside and County Councillor Kevin Bentley, the current deputy leader of Essex County Council and cabinet member for infrastructure, including roads.

I asked both Silver City and Countryside if they would consider lifting the contraflows during the rush hour in order to make the disruption more bearable. I also asked Countryside, whose work site is a couple of hundred yards away from any inhabited dwelling, if it would consider working 24/7—as, indeed, Barratt David Wilson did in Hullbridge last year—in order to try to accelerate the works as much as possible. I regret to inform the Minister and the House that neither has been forthcoming. In the case of Silver City Estates, which is based in Rochford, I received a two-paragraph email, written with the grammar of an eight-year-old, effectively saying that it intended to carry on regardless. The company is clearly only interested in its own profits, and obviously does not give a damn about my constituents, who I hope would not want to buy its houses in return. This is the two-paragraph memo—I am ripping it up to show the House what I think of Silver City Estates.

Countryside, conversely, has written me several charming letters, admittedly saying that it would look into all this, but not actually promising to do anything at all. Given my experience of dealing with developers over nearly 20 years as an MP, particularly last autumn and this spring, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that they generally do not give a damn about the disruption they cause to local communities, and that all they are really interested in is maintaining at least a 20% profit margin on house sales while keeping construction costs, including for labour and roadworks, to an absolute minimum.

I know that the Minister is not responsible for housing, but I think that one of the reasons that almost any major housing development in this country is met with hordes of placard-waving local residents is that they have come to realise the utterly hard-nosed attitude of the developers and the local traffic chaos that is likely to result if and when the houses are actually built. In fairness, that is a challenge for the whole house building industry, not just the three companies that I have highlighted today, but I throw it out there none the less, and will be interested to see whether any of the developers have the moral courage to reply.

When I met Councillor Kevin Bentley two days ago, he agreed that the situation was unacceptable and said that he would look again at Essex County Council’s process for giving consent to these proposals—not least as I understand that Essex County Council has not yet signed Countryside’s permits to legally allow it to commence the work. In other words, it has agreed in principle, but has not formally permitted it. County Councillor Bentley has now agreed to review the situation to see if the proposals can be altered, and I am very grateful to him for doing so. Silver City is clearly beyond the pale, but I do hope that Countryside might yet be reasonable, perhaps encouraged by Essex County Council, and might yet adopt some of the mitigating proposals that I have recommended before its work commences on the London Road in April. I shall certainly be keeping up the pressure on it to do so.

One thing that I have learned from this whole debacle is that the regulation of roadworks in this country is a mess. One of the great frustrations in modern life is queuing for ages to get through a contraflow on the highway to then discover that there is no one actually working on the site in the first place. The whole process is massively weighted in favour of the developers and the utility companies, at the clear expense of local residents and motorists. Indeed, Councillor Bentley has told me frankly that he would like to see the law changed to give highways authorities much greater powers to limit how and when people should be able to dig up the roads.

By sheer chance, after 19 years in this place, for the first time ever I got a placing in the private Members’ Bill ballot this year, and my Control of Roadworks Bill is now due for its Second Reading on Friday 12 June. I plan to publish a draft Bill—for consultation with interested parties in May—designed to materially speed up roadworks in this country and to fine heavily those who do not comply. I very much hope that Ministers in the Department for Transport might look favourably on this initiative, and see it as an opportunity to help to address one of the great banes of our everyday lives. I very much hope that the Minister will carry back to the Department my genuine desire to try to improve the situation for all concerned, and to promote a sense of urgency among anyone who tries to dig up our roads.

In summary, I had honestly hoped that lessons had been learnt from the chaos last autumn and that I would never again need to intervene like this. Nevertheless, now that these problems have arisen once again, I have sought to raise them in the House of Commons and, in so doing, to reflect the extreme frustration of many of my constituents at the whole way that this has been badly maladministered. I hope that County Councillor Kevin Bentley will now indeed act proactively to help sort this mess out, and that Countryside, and Barratt David Wilson after it, will adopt a more co-operative approach, even if it costs them money.

Finally, I hope to get legislation on to the statute book to codify the regulation of roadworks, which is currently spread across multiple pieces of legislation, into one clear and simple Bill that everyone can follow. That will be designed to ensure that when people do unfortunately have to dig up the roads, they will do so with a sense of urgency, rather than complacency, and with a determination to respect the local communities within which they are working. I earnestly hope that the Minister can offer me some comfort that in that aspiration I might yet receive Government support. Thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for securing the debate. Having recently had a number of meetings with him about his constituents’ concerns about their rail service, I am pleased that this debate is about the roads. I am quite sure that, following his speech, members and officers of Essex County Council will take a much more pragmatic and hands-on approach to the issues he has raised.

I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing a private Member’s Bill—it is a lottery that I have won previously—and on the thoughts, views and ideas that he is clearly giving towards how the impact of roadworks on congestion can be reduced. I promise that my Department will work with him constructively on his Bill, and I look forward to seeing a draft in due course.

We all use our highways to travel every day, and how we manage them has a direct impact on everyone’s lives. Congestion, with all its causes, and the condition of our roads are recurring themes that the Government hear about regularly, so it is a clear focus of attention for my colleagues in the Department for Transport. That focus is only going to become more important as, over the coming years, the number of roadworks will increase as a result of new housing developments and in order to deliver the Government’s commitment that full-fibre and gigabit broadband will be available for every home and business across the UK as soon as possible. That will involve digging up a lot of roads.

We all want out road network to be improved, and my right hon. Friend will be pleased to have heard the commitment in Wednesday’s Budget that £2.5 billion will be available to fix potholes and to resurface roads in England over the next five years. We know that there will continue to be roadworks, but that does not mean that they should last any longer than is needed. We all want the services provided by utility companies, and we want them to maintain and improve their infrastructure, but we also know that there are over 2 million roadworks taking place in England each year, and that these result in about £4 billion of congestion costs. That is a nut that it is worth trying to crack.

There is a great deal of scope for works to be planned, managed and co-ordinated more effectively, and for the public to be told about when works are happening and warned about the impact they might have on their journeys. That is why the Government have taken a number of actions in recent years. We have invested over £10 million in the new street manager digital service, which will transform the planning, management and communication of roadworks. This new service will be used by all local authorities and utility companies from 1 April this year. From July we plan to publish open data on live and planned works for technology and sat-nav companies and app developers to develop products for road users so that they, in turn, can plan their journeys more effectively.

Street Manager will deliver many benefits, including data that can be used to monitor performance. It will support greater co-ordination, forward planning and more joint works. All local authorities, utility companies and their contractors will be able to have a single view of the street and visibility of the whole network, to plan and co-ordinate works for the benefit of road users. We also have a commitment to continue improving the service to ensure that it continues to meet users’ needs.

Street works permit schemes have been available for local authorities to operate since 2007. Those have proved to be a very effective way of managing and co-ordinating works. Authorities that operate schemes have also seen that road user satisfaction is much improved. We have strongly encouraged all authorities to introduce schemes, and almost every authority now has a scheme in place. Essex County Council has operated a scheme since 2015. We will continue to ensure that all authorities have schemes in place, and as a result, there will be greater consistency for the industry and benefits for all road users.

We will shortly publish an updated technical specification for reinstatements, which will improve quality and performance. Reinstatements are needed after works have been completed. That update will be the first since 2010, and it will support and allow greater innovation and improve quality and performance.

We announced in 2019 that local authorities can introduce lane rental schemes, which allow authorities to charge utilities up to £2,500 per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. That is normally around 5% of the authority’s network. Charges encourage companies to move the location of their works, carry them out at less busy times, complete them as soon as possible or carry out joint works, which can attract discounts or charges that can be waived. Any surplus revenue can be spent by the authority on ways of reducing the impact of works on congestion. Two schemes are operating at the moment in Kent and on Transport for London’s network. Authorities that want to set up schemes can bid to the Secretary of State for approval, and we have issued bidding guidance on how they can do that.

We will continue our work and plan to look at other aspects of how to regulate roadworks, to see whether further improvements to those schemes can be made. For example, works start and stop notices at weekends, which are needed to give real-time updates to road users, do not need to be sent until 10 am the following Monday, and overrun charges do not currently apply at weekends. An amendment to legislation following a period of consultation, including within Government, would be needed to resolve that—indeed, my right hon. Friend might choose to look at that in his private Member’s Bill. The Department is amazingly sympathetic to the issue and will consider that, as well as other specific problems.

[Mr Francois]

I have only been a Member of Parliament for 19 years, but I have learned when not to look a gift horse in the mouth. If there is a lacuna in the current legislation, I would be pleased to talk to the Minister and his colleagues about how I might genuinely be able to help them address it.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Private Members’ Bills on a Friday—some people think they are not worth a hoot, but we can achieve some great things.

On the issue of fines and penalties, a range of criminal penalties are already in place, covering, for example, safety and compliance with permits. Local authorities can also issue overrun charges of up to £10,000 per day for works that are not completed in time. I know that Essex County Council is using those powers. In the last year, 513 charges were issued for overrunning works, imposing charges of just under £500,000. We are not convinced of the need to raise those limits any further, but the powers do exist.

I understand that the situation in my right hon. Friend’s constituency mirrors the experience of many others, but I also understand that Essex County Council is using the powers available to it and that it is working with developers and utility companies to co-ordinate works and ensure that they are completed as soon as possible or that work is done during off-peak times or school holidays, to minimise the impact on local road users.

To conclude, I thank my right hon. Friend for the way he has gone about this debate, for his positive contribution —as positive as it can be in the circumstances— and for quite rightly being demanding on behalf of his constituents. I hope and expect that we will all see improvements in the way that works are planned and managed as a result of Street Manager, greater use of permit schemes and the other reforms we are taking forward, and perhaps his private Member’s Bill will add to that.

Question put and agreed to.

East Midlands Rail Franchise

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. Is the franchising system in disarray? Of course it is not. If we look at what has happened to our railways over the past 25 years, we see unprecedented passenger growth. We now have more people travelling on our railways and more services run on our railways, and at a greater level of safety than ever before. The franchising system has been a key ingredient in that delivery. Do I think the franchising system is over? Absolutely not. I think we need to look at how it will evolve in future, and that is what the Williams review is doing. Franchising has helped get the system from A to B, reversing years of decline. We now need to see what system we will have as we take it through to the next stage.

Stagecoach knew that its bid was non-compliant—it acknowledged that to the Department. The hon. Gentleman asked about litigation. The Government are completely confident that the bid was evaluated and decided fairly. It is business as usual in the awarding of a franchise on our rail network. He asked whether the decision on the east coast main line was payback. That question is absolute nonsense. This is an entirely separate matter. The bid was won on merit by the strongest bidder. It offered the best bid, with new trains and more services, including more Sunday services and more early and late services. It was won on merit. If a company chooses to bid non-compliantly, that is its fault.

With regard to passing the costs on to the private sector, that is also nonsense, because these are private sector pension schemes. The rail operating companies have a section of the rail pension scheme. Their trustees will meet the Pensions Regulator to discuss that. Is this a question of the Government seeking to remove responsibility? No, this is a private matter and the trustees will be dealing with that in their own way.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether I have met the trade unions. I have met the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and ASLEF, and on this occasion I have written to them to highlight the award today.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Williams said in his recent speech that the franchise system in effect is already broken, and today’s announcement proves it. Abellio is hopeless. The Minister will recall an Adjournment debate he had with a number of MPs a couple of months ago—the business of the House had collapsed early so lots of us piled in. I think six or seven Members from Essex, whose constituents suffer that company every day, got up and told him, one after the other, how utterly useless that company is. We have been waiting for years for new trains from Abellio, yet still they do not turn up. It is Dutch-Japanese owned and it does not give a monkey’s about the passengers. I am sorry, but this is a massive mistake and yet another Grayling cock-up.

[Andrew Jones]

I do not agree with anything my right hon. Friend has just said. That Adjournment debate was very enjoyable; we had many discussions because there were so many interventions. The core of the debate, which was secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), was about the introduction of the Delay Repay 15 offer for customers, which went live on 1 April and has been widely welcomed by passengers on the line. Indeed, on 1 April, I went to stations in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex, and I met passengers, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and the rail operating company, and the arrival of DR15 was widely welcomed. The key thing that people were looking for was the consistent delivery of a timetable, so the requirement to pay any form of compensation would not be necessary. That is, of course, at the heart of the Government’s CP6—control period 6—investment. We are investing £48 billion over the next five years to modernise and upgrade our railway to make sure that we can deliver the network and services that passengers rightly expect. Is Abellio a failing provider? No.

[Mr Francois]

Ask my constituents.

[Andrew Jones]

I have looked at the measures in terms of performance data and customer satisfaction. I recognise that we have had frustrations across our rail network over a number of years and that we had very poor performance last May, but I do not accept that Abellio is a failing performer. It operates 6,000 trains in the UK each day. The service is improving in all areas—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is doing an awful lot of chuntering using fairly robust language, as he normally does—or as he has taken to doing recently. The point remains that we are delivering a network that is operating at the best that it has operated for a significant number of years. It has turned around decades of under-investment and underperformance. We are now seeing a network carrying more people with a higher level of safety than at any point in British history and this franchise award takes that further.

Transport Infrastructure: Essex

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transport infrastructure in Essex.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for having granted this debate, and to his office for having worked with me, as they understood the background to why this debate has been called. I also put on the record my thanks to two colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and for Colchester (Will Quince), for joining and supporting today’s debate. There is a great deal of interest in this issue not just from constituents across the county of Essex, but from colleagues and representatives from Essex County Council, who have joined us today.

Transport infrastructure across Essex is an issue of major importance. As the Minister knows, I have secured a number of Adjournment debates on the topic and asked one or two parliamentary questions about it. I suspect that in his office and his Department, there might be some filing cabinets containing much correspondence on a number of issues, and about Essex in particular. I have no doubt that, when being briefed by officials for this debate, he had a peek into those filing cabinets and so is well prepared to deal with the questions and issues that will come up.

The debate is about emphasising the need to progress infrastructure across the county of Essex, and addressing some of the serious questions that need answering about how we do so. Before going into details about specific transportation schemes across Essex and projects that need to be progressed, it is important to give the Minister an overview of the economy of Essex. That will demonstrate why investment in transport infrastructure—which naturally brings a return on investment back to the county and to the country—matters so much, and why we need Government support and intervention to ensure that we keep Essex moving and have the right factors and catalysts driving those projects.

The economy of the county of Essex, including the unitary authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock, is dynamic and innovative. The House has constantly heard that where Essex leads, others follow; that is because we are a county of entrepreneurs, who have seen our county throughout the good times and the bad. I think all Members present who represent Essex have seen some of those good times and bad times. Over the past decade there has been a 25% increase in the number of enterprises across Essex. In 2010, when I became a Member of Parliament, that number stood at 61,540. By 2018 it had risen to 77,365. That is a phenomenal level of growth, and I do not think anybody can say it has just happened automatically; it has happened because of the dynamic nature of our county, and because of the risk takers and entrepreneurs who believe in the county of Essex and seek to invest in it. It has also happened despite our crumbling, inadequate and poor infrastructure, so we can speculate on how much more investment Essex would have seen if we had received infrastructure investment as well.

We have highly skilled firms in Essex. We are fortunate enough to have business groups, including the brilliant Essex chamber of commerce, which champions many businesses across a range of sectors. The Minister will be aware of an organisation that I established and chair, the Essex Business, Transport and Infrastructure Forum—it is a mouthful, so we call it EBTIF. When I established it, we worked with business and the Essex chamber of commerce to engage directly with the Government to highlight the importance of infrastructure investment in our great county, which will be a recurring theme in this debate, and certainly in my remarks today.

The Essex chamber of commerce has an outstanding record. It is proactive, both in mobilising business and in engaging Government. Just this week we met the Housing Minister to speak about transport and housing. We also met the Secretary of State for Transport in the past month, which I am going to come on to when I talk about specific schemes. I invite the Minister to come to one of EBTIF’s meetings and to visit our county, to sit in our traffic jams and see our infrastructure so that he will appreciate the nature of the challenge across the county, even more than he already does from the filing cabinets full of correspondence.

Of course, it is not only individuals who depend on our transport sector, but businesses and everyone else. Essex has a strong advanced manufacturing and engineering sector that employs over 50,000 people in over 4,200 companies. We are host to a range of household names across the constituencies of all right hon. and hon. Members present, including BAE Systems, Teledyne e2v, Fläkt Woods in Colchester, and Crittall in Witham. We have a high-tech cluster; we specialise in life sciences, renewable energies, aerospace, defence, security, biotech, digitech—you name it, we have it going on.

We also have a vibrant agricultural and food production sector. In the county of Essex, farming alone is worth over £400 million to our economy and employs over 8,000 people. We have the famous Wilkin & Sons, Wicks Manor, and Shaken Udder Milkshakes, which is based in my constituency. All those businesses are testaments to Essex. If the Minister would like some more statistics, I can tell him that we produce every year enough wheat to make 1.3 billion loaves of bread, enough barley to make 280 million pints of beer, and 150 million eggs. We also grow outdoor vegetables on 5,000 acres of land, so roads and transport are important to us.

On top of that, we are attracting more and more businesses and professionals across the finance and insurance sectors; we have 66,000 professionals in Essex, so it is important that we continue to grow and support them. We have a dynamic academic and educational sector, with Writtle University College, Anglia Ruskin University and the University of Essex—my former university—with its knowledge gateway. It is an outstanding university with a first-class international reputation.

We have so much going on in the areas of multi-modality connectivity and logistics. We have over 1,000 acres of port-adjacent, tri-modally connected logistics and distribution sites, which are the backbone of our economy, and we are connected by road, rail, sea and air to global markets. We have four major seaports—London Gateway, Tilbury, Harwich and Purfleet—with a fifth major port, Felixstowe, just over the border in Suffolk. There are also six port-side rail freight terminals and three key tri-modal logistic sites at London Gateway and the London distribution park. Of course, we also have our airports: Stansted, which is the UK’s third largest air freight hub by capacity, and Southend airport. Those airports are not just growing, but experiencing considerable passenger growth and, in the case of Stansted, benefiting from private sector investment to the tune of £600 million. Essex is also connected to Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports through our connections to the infamous M25.

However, we need to ensure that our roads keep traffic moving. One statistic says it all: it is not surprising to learn that Essex is the local authority with the second-highest traffic level in the country, with 9.68 billion vehicle miles in 2017 alone. That is 2 billion miles more than in 1997, and if the unitary authorities of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea are included, the greater Essex area has the highest traffic level by distance, with 11.2 billion miles. To put that into perspective, it is equivalent to the distance from Earth to interstellar space, so it is fair to say that we in Essex spend a lot of our time on the roads.

Despite Essex’s strategic location, the importance of ports, airports, roads and rail, and the work of our businesses and local authorities—I pay tribute to my colleagues in Essex County Council, who have put Essex’s transport infrastructure at the heart of their policy making and the representations they bring to Westminster through us, their Members of Parliament—our transport infrastructure, especially our roads, is at capacity. Our roads have reached their limits and it is beyond a joke.

It is important that we grow and take strategic advantage of our location and boost our global trade links—of course it is—but there has to be a recognition in Government that we are being held back by key parts of our strategic infrastructure that are no longer fit for purpose. They need new and urgent investment to boost the economy not only of Essex, but of the country.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate, which is very important to the people of Essex. She is absolutely right to highlight the infrastructure challenges we face, particularly on our road network. She is right to say that Essex County Council, and in particular Councillor Kevin Bentley—he is the deputy leader and looks after infrastructure for the county—have been struggling manfully in trying to cope with all this. The Minister must understand that our main arterial routes—the A13, the A127 and the A12—are bursting at the seams. The Government want more house building in south Essex and the rest of the county. I make it plain to the Minister that he has to pay for the infrastructure if he wants those houses built. If the Government will not come up with the money, for instance to make the A127 the M127, they can forget their housing targets.

EU Exit Preparations: Ferry Contracts

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I spoke earlier about the systemic procurement failures in the Department for Transport. It is clear there is a common thread between the systemic failure in the privatisation and procurement of probation services and the man who is now in charge at the Department for Transport, who is sitting here lackadaisically thinking everything is okay in the world and he is doing a fine job. I am sorry but that is not the case and that is not how it is seen in the wider country.

I will now return to some questions raised in the Chamber that have still not had satisfactory answers. The permanent secretary at the Department for Transport told the PAC that the Department had awarded Seaborne the contract before Arklow confirmed its backing. So the Transport Secretary needs to be able to provide further clarity on that. We return to the question: where were the written guarantees that he was supposedly assured about from Arklow before it walked away? It is shameful that it turns out that as far as we know no written guarantees were given by Arklow, yet when it walked away some of the most hard Brexiteers, the right-wing Brexiteers, said it was an Irish conspiracy because Arklow is an Irish company. That is shameful. It was the Department for Transport not doing its due diligence

Additionally, the director general at the Department for Transport said that it was no longer possible to complete procurement and operation for any large amount of further capacity across the channel before the end of March by either sea or rail. Can the Secretary of State explain that? Can he explain how the sudden £33 million settlement with Eurotunnel, if it is going to provide all these vital services at the end of March, stacks up against the fact that the previous argument was that the Department no longer had time to be able to source those additional services?

In relation to Seaborne Freight, the Secretary of State said that

“we have spent no money on this contract.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 619.]

I ask him once again if he could please spell out the real financial implications of that award to Seaborne Freight and the handling of the direct negotiations.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

At the risk of being called a Government nark—which I am not often called at the moment—I want to ask the hon. Gentleman this question. If this emergency debate is so important to Scottish National party Members, where are they?

[Alan Brown]

I feel as though I have more friends in here than I would have down the pub on a Friday night. This is a really good turnout for the SNP. There are only 35 of us, so this is a good turnout. But wait a minute—I do not understand that intervention. Once we discount the Parliamentary Private Secretaries and Government Front Benchers, how many Conservative Back Benchers are in the Chamber? How many are rushing to speak in this debate and to defend the Government’s handling of this? That is the question that the right hon. Gentleman wants to ask himself.

[Alan Brown]

That is a fair point—[Interruption.] It is also being pointed out that there are no Scottish Tories here—those Scottish Tories who stand up for Scotland and do such a good job with their independent leading voices. Well, where are they?

[Mr Francois]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alan Brown]

I will give way once more.

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. Through him, I wanted to respond to the Labour gentleman sitting at the back there—[Hon. Members: “He’s SNP as well.”] Oh, I am so sorry. That means there are about 13 of them. I do apologise. Most members of the ERG are, as I speak, working towards how our country can be free, so they are otherwise engaged—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I must say that we started some of our planning well before then. However, it is certainly the case that last summer, as we saw the progress in the negotiations, the Government stepped up their preparations for no deal, as any responsible Government should. It is quite extraordinary that the Labour party seems to believe that we can just wave a wand and take no deal off the table. We have voted to leave the European Union, and we will either leave the European Union with a deal or without a deal, or we will reverse Brexit. Those are the only three options.

[Mr Francois]

It is right that Government did indeed step up their no-deal preparations, as my right hon. Friend has quite rightly told the House, but one of the points of debate has been the speed at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been prepared to release funding to individual Departments to facilitate those preparations. Does my right hon. Friend think it would be helpful in future if the Chancellor were to lean forward a bit more to ensure that all preparations are fully funded in good time?

[Chris Grayling]

I will leave my right hon. Friend to make his point, because I do not want to start debating discussions within the Government.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun asked why we started this procurement when we did. As I have said, we and the national health service had been preparing for disruption at the ports lasting approximately six weeks after exit day. However, based on the negotiations, on comments coming from Brussels and on what we saw happening on the other side of the channel, the analysts changed that assumption late last autumn and recommended that Government prepare for a longer period of disruption.

At that point, the Department of Health and Social Care rightly highlighted the fact that that would put significant pressures on their stockpiles of drugs. The Government therefore collectively decided following discussions in Cabinet Committees to go to the ferry industry to secure capacity to guarantee the delivery of drugs to this country in the event of a no-deal Brexit. That was a collective decision, and it was the right decision. We talked to all the current ferry operators working across the North sea and the English channel, plus any other operator with tangible plans to do so. That is where the procurement came from.