British House Building Industry

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

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

May I begin by congratulating the Minister on her appointment? It is good to see her in her place at the Dispatch Box.

The house building market in the United Kingdom is highly oligopolistic, dominated by very few very large players, some of whom are extremely unresponsive to the needs of local communities, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) laid out so well in her speech. They can have an adverse impact on communities in the long term, but they can also have an adverse impact in the short term, while their houses are being built.

We had an example of that in Rayleigh on Monday morning. The schools came back, so clearly the traffic increased, but it was massively exacerbated by three contraflows all in operation at the same time on three different housing developments: Barratt David Wilson at Hullbridge, where a nearby key road called Watery Lane has been closed for many weeks because of the works; Countryside at Rawreth Lane in Rayleigh, which has a contraflow in place; and Silver City, a lesser known, smaller developer which has a contraflow on the London Road in Rayleigh. The cumulative effect, made worse by a road traffic accident that morning, was that the town was in effect gridlocked, and many of my constituents were extremely frustrated as they were simply trying to get to work.

I have remonstrated with the county council’s highways department for granting permits to work on the highway to all these developers at the same time. It has a strategic overview of the highways network, and I think it should look at that again. I have also contacted all the developers directly and encouraged them to get this work done as fast as possible and then get out of the way, and the responses have been instructive. The smallest, Silver City, has promised that it will be finished by the end of the week and that it will be off the highway network. Countryside, an Essex-based developer, has said that it will no longer operate its contraflow in the morning and evening rush hours, thus considerably easing the congestion.

Barratt David Wilson, the major national house builder, has been the least responsive of all. It has been on site since February, and my constituents in Hullbridge are just about sick and tired of it. As the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has pointed out, its chief executive, Mr David Thomas, is on a nice little earner. According to its 2018 annual report, he earned a total package of just shy of £3 million—some 20 times the salary the Prime Minister earns for the responsibility of running the country. I suspect that Mr David Thomas could not find Hullbridge in my constituency with a TomTom.

Barratt David Wilson has now, under pressure, contemplated extending the hours of its work to try to finish the job, but it still will not give me a firm date for when its works will be completed, Watery Lane can be reopened and it will get out of the way. In short, it is a bad neighbour in my constituency, and I think it is about time that this large, unresponsive, uncaring national house builder, run by a fat cat on £3 million a year, was held to account. My constituents deserve better than this, and these developers should put more people on the job, get the job done quicker and get off the roadway.

We are tight for time, but in my last minute I want to mention Sanctuary Housing, the largest housing association in my constituency. I had an Adjournment debate on 18 July about what is wrong with it, so I shall not reiterate it all now, suffice it to say that I had a meeting with its chief executive, Mr Craig Moule, and its outgoing chairman, Mr Jonathan Lander, yesterday. It was a deeply unsatisfactory meeting. Basically, it had promised to build 50 affordable houses a year, but it got nowhere near that. It had no clear plan or strategy to achieve the target. I am afraid the outgoing chairman of the board clearly did not take the meeting seriously. In fact, his attitude was patronising. If he had said, “I hear what you say, Mr Francois” one more time, I think I would have screamed.

There is a governance issue at Sanctuary. It is badly run and badly governed. It is not properly accountable to the tenants it serves, which is why it was slated by “Dispatches” a few months ago. My plea to the Minister is that we need tighter regulation of the registered social landlords market. Some of these are very large organisations indeed. They are not properly regulated by the Government, and Sanctuary is most certainly not properly regulated by its rather useless board.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Sanctuary Housing Group

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate and thus providing me with an important opportunity to try to hold the Sanctuary Housing Group, which I regard as a highly dysfunctional organisation, to account. As you will soon hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, my remarks have been born from over a decade of frustration in trying to deal with these people as a local MP. To put it bluntly, I have well and truly had enough.

To begin with, Sanctuary has consistently provided a poor maintenance service to many of my constituents over a period of many years. I have had numerous complaints from Sanctuary tenants about shoddy workmanship, missed appointments and a generally off-hand attitude towards them when they complain. To give just one example, a constituent contacted me a few years ago to complain about a broken lift in one of Sanctuary’s sheltered housing units. My constituent put it in an email:

“I’m writing to complain about the fact that our lift has not been working for the past 10 days, effectively trapping my disabled wife in our first-floor flat. Today, I spoke with the Scheme Manager, who advised me there is no confirmed date for when this problem will be resolved. He also advised me that the service company assessed the lift a month ago and advised Sanctuary of repairs that needed to be done, and the lift broke down three weeks after it was assessed… My wife has been trapped in the lift in her wheelchair six or more times. Sanctuary has known there are issues with the lift and has not responded adequately.”

That is but one example of the poor level of service that Sanctuary provides, but I could spend hours reading very many others into the record. The company’s record is so poor that in March this year it was the subject of an absolutely scathing Channel 4 “Dispatches” documentary entitled, “New Landlords from Hell”. To try to summarise a half-hour documentary in one sentence, I would say that the group’s record is truly shocking. In many instances, it shows a complete disregard for the welfare, or even the safety, of its tenants. Sanctuary’s so-called board of directors should watch the documentary and then hang their heads in shame. Anybody who wants to know more about this organisation should watch the programme. I suspect they will be appalled, just as I was, by what they see.

It is not as if Sanctuary is a small or under-resourced organisation. I have carefully read its latest annual report. It currently has total assets under management in the order of £4 billion. It is one of the largest registered social landlords in the United Kingdom, with about 100,000 properties currently under management. It is, supposedly, a not-for-profit organisation, yet it made an operating profit of just under £200 million, as recorded in its 2017-18 accounts. The group’s previous chief executive served for some 27 years, but has recently been replaced by a new chief executive, Craig Moule, whose total annual remuneration, including pension contributions and so on, is now in the order of half a million pounds.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

What?!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Yes. By comparison, the CEO of L&Q—London and Quadrant Housing Trust—earns about £350,000 in total, the CEO of the Peabody Trust is on about £279,000, and the CEO of Genesis Housing is on approximately £250,000.

Despite previously asking Sanctuary officials for a meeting, I have not yet been offered an audience with the new chief executive, which is a shame, because the first question I would like to ask him is: “How can you justify a salary over three times greater than that paid to the Prime Minister?” I cannot countenance how someone running, essentially, a public sector organisation could be paid such a vast amount for presiding over such chaos.

To give the Minister some idea of the history of all this, I first came across the group some years ago when Rochford District Council decided to transfer its social housing stock to a new registered social landlord established for the purpose, called Rochford Housing Association. The tenants voted in a ballot to transfer to the housing association, which was then shortly taken over by a regional housing association called Hereward, and then in turn by a national organisation, Sanctuary. So I have been dealing with RHA/Hereward/Sanctuary for over a decade as the local MP.

Crucially, the original manifesto for the transfer ballot contained a commitment to build up to 50 additional units of affordable housing a year to assist the council with addressing its housing waiting list. Specifically, the manifesto—I have a copy here, because I saved one—said the following under the heading, “New affordable housing to meet local housing needs”:

“Tenants and the Council have said they want to see new homes in the area for future generations and the Council is committed to working with Housing Associations to provide affordable housing to meet local needs.

Rochford Housing Association working with Hereward Housing will aim to provide at least 50 new affordable homes each year in the Rochford District.”

That was the promise to the tenants before they voted to transfer. Sanctuary took over that commitment when it absorbed Hereward and promised to honour it when that entity became part of its group, but it has come absolutely nowhere near doing so.

I have had multiple meetings with Sanctuary down the years to try to persuade it to honour that promise, not least to alleviate the considerable pressure on Rochford’s housing list, which has sometimes, unfortunately, meant that the council has had to place families, including those with young children, in highly unsuitable bed-and-breakfast accommodation in nearby Southend.

[Sir David Amess]

The salaries are absolutely obscene, just like those of senior members of the BBC. My right hon. Friend might be interested to know that someone in my office suffered under these people as a student. Does he agree that, as we look to build a new town somewhere in Essex, these are the last people we want to get their hands on anything we might pursue in meeting our housing needs?

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I will demonstrate, it is difficult, I am afraid, to believe anything that this group now says. As we have a Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister sitting on the Front Bench, I will take this opportunity to absolutely endorse my hon. Friend’s long-standing campaign for Southend to be made a city. I hope the Minister will take that back to the Department.

I have had a number of meetings with Sanctuary’s head of development, Mr Chris Cole, which have taken on an almost ritualistic aspect, with him repeatedly reading out a list of major housing developments that Sanctuary is either going to be involved with or to develop itself, hardly any of which—with the exception of some very small developments and one development at Canewdon—ever come to fruition.

Sanctuary absolutely assured me several years ago that, to make up its backlog, it would bid aggressively for the social housing component of three large developments in the Rochford District Council area known as Hall Road in Rochford, Rawreth Lane/London Road in Rayleigh, and Malyons Farm in Hullbridge. In each of those instances, despite the company’s £4 billion of assets, it underbid and did not secure the RSL element of any of those developments, which would have represented well over 100 houses in each of the three cases. Basically, Minister, these people talk a good game to your face, but then completely and utterly fail to put their money where their mouth is. That is totally unacceptable on their part.

Moreover, Sanctuary has acquired, or sought to acquire, a number of high-profile brownfield sites across the district, which it has been promising to build on for years. However, in the vast majority of cases, it has not laid one brick on top of another to this day. To take just one example, when I met Mr Cole on Friday 10 May in Sanctuary’s local offices in Rochford, he sought to assure me that Sanctuary was “actively on site” on the old Bullwood Hall Prison site, which was closed some years ago and is now a classic brownfield site. Sanctuary obtained planning permission to build there over a year ago. Quite by chance, and unluckily for Mr Cole, I visited the site the weekend prior to our meeting, and I was therefore amazed when Mr Cole attempted to persuade me that the company was actively building houses there. Even when I told him to his face that I knew it was not, because I had been there and seen that it was not, he still tried to tell me that it was. The Minister is shaking his head. I mention this vignette deliberately, because it is absolutely typical of the dismissive way in which Sanctuary treats elected representatives.

Let me say as an aside that I recently spoke to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who, for the avoidance of doubt, has not seen my speech and is not party to it. She mentioned to me in passing that she, too, had had unsatisfactory experiences with Sanctuary, but that unfortunately, because of its constitutional status—I shall say more about that in a minute—it was not subject to the remit of the Public Accounts Committee, the most powerful Committee in Parliament. That raises all sorts of governance issues, to which I shall return shortly.

Because of Sanctuary’s appalling record of not keeping to its commitments, the dispute came to a head several years ago when it agreed to sign a “deed of variation, determination and collaboration” via which it undertook to raise its game and make up the considerable backlog of houses to meet the original commitment of 50 a year. I have here a letter, dated 27 July 2016, from a lady called Emma Keegan, who was at that time Sanctuary’s local managing director. It states, clearly and unequivocally:

“At the forefront of Sanctuary’s commitment is to build homes in Rochford. Part of that is a contractually binding requirement for Sanctuary to deliver the 50 homes a year referred to in the original agreement. Taken over the ten years of the agreement, this will require Sanctuary to build 363 more homes. If we fail to do so the local Council will receive £10,000 for each new home below the target figure of 363, up to a maximum payment of £1 million. This reflects our confidence that we will make good this commitment. We have a development team focused solely on this ambition with commercial resources at their disposal.”

I submit to the Minister that that could not be any clearer, but Sanctuary never got anywhere near it. Time after time, it has failed to develop schemes and has given a whole litany of excuses, including desperately trying to blame Rochford District Council for not giving planning permission, suggesting that it was the council’s fault that the houses had not been built and the target—which, incidentally, was due to be met by March 2018, a year ago—had not been delivered.

When I met Sanctuary representatives in May, I raised that issue and was told quite forcefully by Chris Cole that Rochford District Council had “let us off’ the payment because the council had admitted that the planning delays were its own fault. I double-checked that with Mr Shaun Scrutton, the council’s managing director, at a meeting in his office on Friday 5 July. He categorically denied that Rochford had been responsible for any major planning delay and absolutely insisted that it intended to pursue Sanctuary for the outstanding amount and was considering legal action. He said to me, “I will be having a meeting with our legal team on Monday morning.” Both those men cannot be right, and, to put it mildly, one of them must at least be badly mistaken, as the two positions are poles apart.

Part of my purpose in initiating this debate was first to shame Sanctuary into coughing up the million quid that it owes my local council, and secondly, as well as arguing for the money, to argue that it should go on to build the affordable houses that it promised to build in the first place. In short, this is a housing association that, incredibly, seems reluctant to build houses, particularly if that will cost it any money. I read in the newspapers that we have a housing crisis in this country. With registered social housing landlords like Sanctuary, is it any wonder? Basically, these people are a joke, but one that is no longer funny, particularly for those who are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation as a result of their absolute indolence.

Let me give one further example. Sanctuary assured me that it would build up to 100 properties in a site in Rayleigh known as Timber Grove, and that it was actively acquiring the site for that purpose. When I double-checked a few days ago, it had still not bought the site, which has lain undeveloped effectively for several years. That is just another example of it being extremely difficult to believe anything that the company now says based on bitter experience of a decade of repeatedly broken promises; it is that bad.

That brings me on to my wider point about the regulation of housing associations. There are good and bad registered social landlords in this country; for instance, one of the other housing associations active in my constituency is a locally based one called Chelmer Housing Partnership or CHP. If I speak as I find, I personally do not recall ever receiving a single complaint from any of my constituents who are its tenants about the management of a CHP property, although in fairness, the very good new leader of Rochford District Council, Councillor Mike Steptoe, tells me anecdotally that he has had a few complaints about CHP, which has the RSL component at the new development at Hall Road that I mentioned a few minutes ago. In any event, it is a matter of fact that housing associations, some of whose chief executives are extremely well paid—far more than the Prime Minister—are not even subject to freedom of information requests. In short, they are neither fish nor fowl—neither wholly public nor wholly private—and that leads to serious questions about who is really in charge. Partly based on my experience with Sanctuary, I wish to raise with the Minister the serious question of the governance of the sector in general.

There is a lack of an effective regulator to hold housing association boards to account and to make sure their tenants receive the kind of service for which they pay their rent. I would, therefore, like to press the Minister specifically and ask him whether the Department has any proposals to change the governance of housing associations and, in particular, whether it has any plans to bring in any form of new regulator, perhaps focusing on governance and customer service, to try to keep housing associations up to the mark. For the avoidance of doubt, there are some very good registered social landlords in this country, but there are also some very bad ones, and Sanctuary is probably the worst of the entire lot.

This is a sorry tale of an extremely badly run organisation, which does not keep its word, which obfuscates and delays, treats publicly elected officials with open contempt, and threatens to bring its entire sector into disrepute. Just as Persimmon Homes has given the private house building sector something of a bad name in recent years—I do not believe the sector really deserves that and I note in passing that the new chief executive of Persimmon, David Jenkinson, is attempting to do something to address it—I believe that Sanctuary threatens to give the whole housing association sector in this country a bad name. That would be a shame, because many RSLs do very good work to provide decent, affordable homes for our constituents to live in, and it is important to put that on the record.

I very much hope therefore that when the board members of Sanctuary read this debate, as I suspect they may, they will take radical action to address their woeful underperformance. I hope they will sack the hopeless Mr Chris Cole and specifically agree to pay Rochford District Council the £1 million that they owe. I also hope they will redouble their efforts to build the affordable housing they promised to build all along and which my constituents so desperately need.

This rolling farce, perpetrated by a failed and broken organisation, has gone on long enough and we now need action, not words. I have known the Minister for years and, as he knows, I have high regard for him. I am sure he will take my constituents’ concerns very seriously—that would be in his nature—and I therefore look forward with considerable interest to his reply on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.

Tenant Fees Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Again, the right hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point. I should point out to him and to the House that Mr Speaker‘s selection of amendments is published as a provisional selection of amendments. It is then up to Mr Speaker which amendments he finally selects. That would be the normal course of action. I am unaware of a provisional selection of amendments having been published in relation to motion 4 today.

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

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you can well imagine, there may be a lot of interest in this House about the selection of amendments over the next few weeks, so this is not merely some esoteric question. Now, I have been here for only 18 years—I am a relative newbie—but the Speaker’s conference would have taken place this morning, and the usual practice is that a provisional selection of amendments is issued thereafter. As you say, it is provisional, but it can at least guide the House as to what is likely to be available for debate.

Now, today’s Bill was relatively uncontroversial. Being able to rent a home is important, but it was not as controversial as, say, some of last week’s debates, so it was not beyond the wit of man to work out that the debate on the Tenant Fees Bill would end early. The Speaker’s conference should have practically been able to foresee this situation. That being the case, why was no provisional selection of amendments issued in the normal way?

Southend Hospital

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir David Amess]

Right. Well, there seem to be rumours that, as a result of the plans being referred, there is a real danger that the extra money that we were promised might not materialise or that there could be repercussions for the services at Southend Hospital. I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to comment on that issue at the moment, but in this short debate I hope to set out some of my constituents’ concerns, and my own, about how best to support the world-class services at Southend Hospital and ensure that everyone in all four constituencies receives the best possible care.

Southend has always been absolutely at the top of cancer services generally. I will not delay the House by listing all the organisations that have had a hand in delivering cancer services there, but Southend has always been very highly regarded. From its gynaecology training coming top in the UK and its trauma and orthopaedic team being named training hospital of the year, to its world-leading practice standards for cancer care, Southend Hospital has lots to celebrate about its services and patient care. The radiotherapy department deserves particular mention in the light of its recent CHKS accreditation for its pioneering radiation treatment, as well as its high ratings from the Care Quality Commission. The centre has led the way in utilising highly focused and concentrated radiation treatment on tumours that reduces harm to surrounding organs. It has treated more than 1,700 patients this year and is a great example of the importance of investment in driving world-leading research and developing innovative treatments.

This is where the sting comes in. NHS figures show that 36% of Southend cancer patients wait eight weeks for treatment after their initial GP referral. The Minister may have an answer to this, but more than a third seems somewhat high—more than twice the national NHS target. It is vital that more be done to speed up referrals and avoid such unacceptable delays in treatment, which can cause so much worry for patients. With world-class care on their doorstep, our constituents deserve nothing less than fast access to the treatments that they most need. I would welcome any comments from the Minister about speeding up the process.

Southend Hospital is currently trialling a mobile stroke ambulance unit—a pioneering and innovative treatment service that allows specialists to travel directly to patients and treat them en route to the hospital. Data is still being analysed, but clinicians have reported great successes, with specialists being able to deliver life-saving thrombolysis treatment just 16 minutes after the patient alert. That is absolutely incredible. We all know that the sooner a stroke is treated, the more likely a good outcome. Treatment in the first few minutes can make all the difference, so getting patients to a specialist as quickly as possible is imperative. Not only have patient outcomes been improved, but the unit has shown great potential to alleviate pressure on A&E departments. Some 88% of patients in the trial were admitted directly to a specialist stroke unit, freeing up resources across the NHS.

The trial is due to end on 19 December, but so far there has been no confirmation that this pioneering service, which has been funded entirely by charitable donations, will continue. I believe that greater support is needed to ensure that the hospital can retain the mobile unit. More than 100,000 strokes occur each year in the UK, so it is essential for the NHS to use such innovative services to ensure that we can deliver the best care to patients in the shortest time. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is particularly interested in stroke care and in how it is delivered at Southend Hospital. I encourage the Minister to review the successes of the trial at Southend and to look into how such life-saving services can be offered to patients across the United Kingdom.

The critical issue of time in stroke care is a great concern for Southend. I appreciate that the Minister will be unable to comment on the STP’s proposed centralisation of stroke services in the constituency that I once represented—Basildon. However, maintaining the established stroke service infrastructure and keeping Southend as a centre of excellence is very important. Whatever the outcomes of reconfiguration, my constituents do not want to see the downgrading of the world-class stroke services in Southend, and patients put at risk.

There is a big issue about transport services, which I know is of great concern to my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend East and for Castle Point, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. While Southend Hospital is leading the way in many areas of care, transfer to specialist services is obviously important. Patients are currently transported to acute services across Essex through the treat-and- transfer model. Although that is working in ensuring that patients get access to the specialist treatment they need, a big concern for our constituents is the impact that an expansion to the model could have. Inter-hospital transfers affect not only the patient, but their carers or families. The costs incurred and difficulties experienced by patients and visitors travelling across services need to be taken into careful consideration. It is essential that the local transport services, whether public transport or community transport organisations, can provide the right support to patients and their families.

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

I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said about the mobile stroke unit. I encourage the Minister to look at the great success that it has been. As my hon. Friend knows, I have particularly focused on the transport issues. The East of England Ambulance Service, which would be the logical service to provide that transfer, is under great pressure as it is. Does my hon. Friend accept that if the whole of the STP is to stand up and be coherent, we must have clearer answers about exactly how the transfer of critically ill patients from one hospital to another would work in practice?

[Sir David Amess]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right; he is intuitive. We need greater clarity on this matter, and our constituents want reassurance and certainty.

I have outlined some of the successes of Southend Hospital, as well as the areas in which greater support and investment are needed. The hospital serves just under 340,000 people and, although challenged by the pressures on the system, has managed to lead the way in world-class care. Southend is becoming a hub of medical education and training, with both the gynaecology and trauma teams recognised as among the best in the country. Pioneering cancer and stroke care at the hospital is at the forefront of treatment innovation, but those excellent services cannot continue at such a standard without investment and support. I hope that the Minister will closely consider our constituents’ concerns, and I look forward to hearing from him what more the Government can do to ensure that Southend Hospital retains its world-class services. I would also be grateful for an update in due course from the Secretary of State, perhaps by letter, on the STP referral when that decision has been made. I look forward to working with the Department proactively on that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for their contributions. They have all raised points that I wanted to come to and I hope I can respond to them in my reply, because the subject is very important. As constituency MPs, whether a Minister or no, we all recognise the crucial importance of local healthcare systems and what they deliver for our constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West is well known as a passionate advocate for his constituents, and has been for many years, but he was also right to point to his distinguished service on the then Health Committee, a Committee that has always done so much to drive thought. He mentioned a number of issues and said he did not want to blow his own trumpet, but some of the issues that he raised are now mainstream issues, and that is hugely important.

My hon. Friend was right when he said in his opening remarks that he thought the NHS was the best health service in the world. I completely agree; that is right. He is also right, of course, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East, to say that it is the staff who drive the hospitals and the service for our constituents. As my hon. Friends did, I extend my thanks and those of everybody to those staff, and to everybody who works in the health service, whatever they do. They all contribute in a significant way. They also spoke of the role of volunteers, which was again right. I see the work that volunteers do in my local hospitals. People sometimes forget how that work contributes to the whole experience; it makes life easier for people at an extraordinarily stressful time. I also note with interest the comments made about the stars awards.

I had the chance to speak to Clare Panniker yesterday. She is clearly an impressive professional, driving change for the right reason, which is listening to clinicians and ensuring the best outcome for patients.

I wanted to make those remarks right at the start, and I will say a few words on the three issues that my hon. Friends have talked about—stroke, cancer, and transport and access. The national picture on stroke services is that there is a need to improve the quality of service provision and outcomes for all patients. It is well recognised that stroke is the fourth-biggest killer in the United Kingdom and a leading cause of disability. Although the 10-year national stroke strategy came to an end last year, a programme board was established in March 2018 to oversee the development of a new stroke plan. The fact that one has continued does not mean in any sense that the prioritisation has changed; indeed, that board is now chaired by NHS England’s medical director, Steve Powis, and by the chief executive of the Stroke Association.

To add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West said about specific local issues, we should also mention the importance of the national context. I absolutely understand some of the issues that he raised, and he is right to say that changes, and the rationale for changes, should be clinician-led rather than politician-led. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East acknowledged, that is actually what is happening with the transformation programme, which is why I understand the frustration of my hon. Friends. They will understand that it is impossible for me to comment on that in detail today due to the referral, but I give the guarantee that when the process has ended and the decisions have been made, all my hon. Friends—not only the three who are present, but others who are concerned—will of course be given sight of that recommendation and the chance to comment on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West has explained that he has a particular interest in transport. For the sake of clarity, it is important that I set out what has been agreed by the clinical commissioning group and what some of the alternative paths are, in response to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. On the transfer of patients, we all know that the CCGs have approved a treat-and-transfer model, whereby a small number of patients will receive initial treatment at their local A&E before being transferred to another hospital. Decisions on patient transfer will be made solely as clinical decisions and discussed with patients prior to transfer. Modelling by the CCG and clinicians suggests that, on average, 15 patients a day might be transferred from their A&E to a different site for clinical reasons and due to the proposed changes. It is a vital part of a joined-up service, especially where specialisation increases—the need for this may or may not increase. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, I encourage hon. Members to continue to press this matter with the STP once it is resolved, because I think it is vital.

[Mr Francois]

The critical thing we need to know is who will provide the service. The obvious answer is the East of England Ambulance Service, but it faces serious resource and capacity challenges. It is difficult for us to support this plan wholeheartedly until we are given definitive answers. Who will provide the service, and how will it work in practice?

[Mr Hammond]

There are three answers to that: critical cases, non-critical cases and transport for patients’ families and carers. Let me start with non-emergency transfers, which at the moment are provided through patient transfer services, as my right hon. Friend knows. They are available in Southend when medical conditions are such that patients require the skills or support of staff on or after the journey. He is absolutely right to say that critical cases, or those that do not fit into the first category, are provided by the East of England Ambulance Service. He will not be surprised to learn that, even in my short time as Minister, I have already been made aware of some of the issues with that service. Nor will he be surprised to hear that the Department is working with the relevant authorities to ensure that standards and resources are made available to bring the service up to the expected standard, and that ambulance response standards are met.

On patients’ families and carers, I understand—my hon. Friends will know better than I do—that there is a joint CCG-local council transport working group. It has been exploring a number of options to make transport easier, including, I understand, the creation of a shuttle service between hospitals in Southend, Basildon and Broomfield. Key to that endeavour will be the volunteers who we spoke about earlier and the expansion of volunteering.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West spoke a little about cancer services, and he will understand that the proposed new model maintains Southend as the specialist cancer centre. He was right to make the point that it meets the two-week standard for GP referrals, and that more than 1,700 patients have been treated this year, but he is equally right to say that the length of waiting times is indeed high. I reassure him that we are absolutely committed, as a Government, to increasing the levels of early diagnosis, and that a comprehensive plan is in place to drive down those waiting times. He is right to have that concern, which I share.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West talked about the new model of stroke provision. He will know that the idea is for people to be seen initially at their local A&E, where thrombolysis treatment will be provided should it be required, and then there will be a transfer to a specialist stroke unit at Basildon, should that be necessary. That will be a clinician-led decision and based on the confirmation of stroke. That hyper-acute stroke unit would give patients, in that critical first 72-hour period, the intensive nursing and therapy support they need to have the best chance of recovery and the best outcomes. Basildon has been selected for the specialist centre because its stroke services are co-located with the vascular, interventional radiology and cardiology teams; it therefore makes sense to have the service there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West raised the issue of the mobile stroke unit, and he is right to say that the trial is ongoing and not yet complete. I join him in thinking that this is really quite an exciting project. I look forward to seeing the results of the trial and the evaluation. We know that the project is separate from the STP, and therefore any decision to locate a permanent mobile stroke unit at Southend will be made at the local level, but I think the national implications of this trial will be exciting.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West said that he wanted to hear about future funding and whether there would be any delay. Any funding of course depends on local plans and on clinical support. I was going to read out a quote from Dr Paul Guyler just to reinforce the point that everything that is being done in this area is being led by clinicians, but as my hon. Friend has already made the point that Dr Guyler supports these things—his support is one of the drivers for the change—I will not delay us by reading that aloud. When a decision is made on a clinical basis, the Department and its arm’s length bodies are committed to ensuring that there is the investment available to deliver what is necessary and to make a real difference, but clearly that would depend on the plans and the outcome of the reconfiguration. My hon. Friend knows that I cannot say much about that now; none the less, I give him the commitment that I will speak to officials about this after the debate. If there is more to add at this stage, I will write to him and to my hon. Friends.

In the 30 seconds I have left, I want to say that this has been a short but fascinating debate. It shows that my hon. Friends recognise the contribution of professionals and what Southend Hospital does for their constituents. I appreciate that the potential changes to the local health services inspire impassioned debate—it is right that this is led by clinicians, and that the Government give it proper consideration.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Rail Services into Liverpool Street Station

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I asked for this Adjournment debate because my constituents are increasingly angry about the poor quality of service that they receive on the Abellio Greater Anglia-run line from Southend Victoria into Liverpool Street station. As the Minster is about to discover, after several years of dealing with this issue, I, too, am now angry on their behalf. I hope to demonstrate why Abellio provides such an unsatisfactory service to my constituents and suggest some ways forward.

Abellio Greater Anglia, which is part-Dutch and part-Japanese owned, has been providing the rail service on the Liverpool Street line for a number of years, and last year it won the competition to continue to run the franchise for another seven years. Unfortunately, it does not provide an efficient service. The latest data shows that more than one in every 10 Abellio trains arrives at its destination late, and the rolling stock is old, lacks air conditioning and suffers from a whole range of maintenance problems, meaning that trains are often cancelled or, at the very least, have carriages missing. Trains with carriages missing are often referred to in the industry as short trains. In simple terms, they normally have 12 carriages, but often, even in peak periods when capacity is most important, they are down to eight carriages, or even worse. That leads to overcrowding on the remaining carriages.

It is particularly galling for my constituents that for the past two years or so they have suffered regular disruption to their services on many weekends, and while travelling home late on certain weekday evenings, because of engineering works being carried out to renew overhead wires on the Liverpool Street to Southend line. On many weekends, bus replacement services have been required to help to transport commuters into London and back again, and the pattern has been repeated on weekday evenings. In addition, there is an unfortunate pattern of late trains being cancelled on weekday evenings. One evening a few weeks ago, when I was coming home late, I challenged one of the Abellio Greater Anglia customer service staff to explain why, yet again, a train had been cancelled. He said to me, “Sir, it’s because the company doesn’t want to pay the fines if the trains are late, so they prefer to cancel.” The company’s management has contested this point with me, but if even the company’s own frontline staff believe that that is what is going on, what kind of message does that send to frustrated customers?

Despite the frequent disruption to the service, Abellio has consistently refused to give any discount to commuters to acknowledge the inconvenience that they have suffered when travelling on the line. As a result, a number of commuters have established a Facebook group called “I travel with Greater Anglia…”. For the Minister’s edification, here is just a sample of a few comments that have appeared on the group in recent weeks. First, the

“07.23 Southend to LST turned up at Wickford with only 8 coaches. Did it lose some on the way given it wasn’t listed in the app or the board?!”

Secondly:

“Surely this group should be called ‘I *TRY TO* travel with “Greater” Anglia’?”

Thirdly:

“Thinking of changing the group’s name to ‘I travel with Greater Anglia rail replacement bus’ after today’s shower of a service”.

Finally:

“After announcing a 12 coach service only 8 turn up. These muppets can’t even get the announcements right!”

Customer satisfaction surveys carried out by the consumer organisation Which? show that in 2017 Abellio Greater Anglia ranked 20th out of 28 for commuter service, with a score of 45%, compared with a top score of 64%, and for off-peak leisure services it ranked 18th out of 28, with a customer score of 55%, compared with a top score of 70%. These dismal scores clearly show that Abellio customers, particularly its commuters, are very unhappy with the service that they receive from Abellio Greater Anglia.

I had some experience of this service myself recently while travelling home in the evening peak. I had taken the tube from Westminster to Stratford station and when I got to Stratford, passengers were already six deep on the platform because the previous train had been cancelled. The next train that pulled in heading towards Southend was half empty and stopped at the platform because there was a red signal. When passengers attempted to board the train, they were stopped by Abellio platform staff who insisted that this was not a scheduled stop and therefore people should not be allowed to board. This led to a great deal of frustration on the platform—that is putting it politely—which I witnessed myself. Despite this, the train doors remained closed while the train sat on the platform for several minutes and then eventually pulled away still half empty and still with passengers six deep on the platform. There was a degree of Anglo Saxon language on the platform at this point, though I hasten to say not from me.

The next train to come in, which was some 20 minutes delayed, was already nearly full and therefore when passengers were allowed to get on this train—because this was a scheduled stop—they were packed like sardines for most of the way home. This one anecdote shows the lack of common sense that is applied by Abellio’s management to the running of their railway.

In fairness, new modern rolling stock is to be introduced on the line from summer 2019. However, brand new trains are useful to the customer only if they are able to leave the depot to run on the line. They are no good to anybody, despite air conditioning, wi-fi and all the bells and whistles, if they are still stuck in the depot, because, yet again, the line is closed off, because, yet again, there are engineering works and customers have to take buses instead.

I recently held a meeting at the Conservative party conference with the senior management of Abellio to discuss these issues—I have been discussing those issues with them for three years. At that meeting, they explained to me that the engineering works that have caused so much disruption and frustration were now due to be extended from the current end date of late 2019-early 2020 to May 2021. That is another three years on top of the two years that we have already had. I pleaded with the management at least to offer my commuters, who pay £5,000 for a standard class season ticket from Rayleigh to Liverpool Street and back, some discount when they renew their tickets in January to acknowledge all the inconvenience that they have had to endure. As I put it to them, “Give them at least something back to show that you share their pain.” However, the company flatly refused to countenance that, partly, I believe, because it is highly geared and has extremely ambitious financial targets to meet.

I have, therefore, become completely exasperated by the company. It is now running a glorified bus service loosely disguised as a railway and my constituents have absolutely had enough of it. I have to tell the Minister that I have now completely lost confidence in the management of Abellio Greater Anglia, which seems to regard my constituents as an entirely captive market who can be provided with a shoddy service while continuing to increase their fares year on year. I have, therefore, come to the reluctant conclusion that the management are incapable of running the company properly and I am calling on Mr Jamie Burles, the managing director of Abellio Greater Anglia, to resign. In fairness to myself, I did tell him at the Conservative party conference last week that I would do that, and it is probably fair to say that he was not best pleased. I believe that only with new and reinvigorated management will the company improve its performance and begin to respect its customers as it should have been doing in the first place.

I also—and I told him this too—intend to send a copy of the Hansard of this debate to each one of Abellio’s corporate managers on its corporate board in the Netherlands, so that they are aware of what English Members of Parliament think of their railway company.

This brings me to Network Rail, which runs the track and infrastructure on the Liverpool Street line. As a constituency MP, I have had many years’ experience of dealing with Network Rail and, indeed, Railtrack previously. I have often found Network Rail to be bureaucratic, very slow moving and unresponsive. Never is this more so than with the re-wiring project, which it now wants to extend to May 2021, thus taking nearly five years to replace the overhead wires for some 30 miles of track. This is an utterly pathetic performance and is simply unacceptable. We are not trying to build a railway through the Himalayas and we managed to put a man on the moon in 1969, so why does it take five years to run a new wire between a series of gantries above a railway line? I believe that Network Rail has simply not put anything like enough resource into this project. It has had no sense of urgency whatever, and has done it in a piecemeal and underinvested fashion. That is why it has taken so very, very long.

One of the great problems with Network Rail is that it is not customer facing. It is the train operating companies that levy the ticket prices. Network Rail thus has no need whatever to be responsive to the travelling public. The organisation is large, bloated, bureaucratic and inefficient, and is providing an extremely poor service to my constituents. Moreover, the new chief executive of Network Rail, Mr Andrew Haines, is now being paid film star wages—many multiples of that which the Prime Minister receives—in order to run a massive, incompetent, failing bureaucracy.

Network Rail is in many ways reminiscent of a nationalised industry in the 1970s, when it used to take six months to get a new telephone installed by the old General Post Office. I was assured at a briefing dinner in the House of Commons several years ago that there would not need to be track closures and rail replacement buses when all this engineering work was undertaken on the line because Network Rail would use what is known as single track operation so that they could continue to run trains even at the weekends. This has proved to be completely untrue. I no longer have any faith whatever in the senior management of Network Rail, and as a result of my experience of dealing with them as a constituency MP over many years, I would not trust them with a Meccano set.

This brings me on to the disaster that was the introduction of the new timetable on much of our railway network several months ago, although—mercifully for my constituents—not on our line. I must say that I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State for Transport, who, prior to the introduction of the new timetable, did exactly what I would have done as a Minister. He called a meeting of senior executives of the railway industry, including Network Rail. Having gathered them together, he asked them if everything was in good order for the launch of the new timetable in a few weeks’ time. Unfortunately, as I understand it, not one of those highly paid executives had the moral courage to put their hand up at that meeting and admit that there were going to be serious problems. They sat there and did not tell anyone. This complete lack of professionalism meant that the Department was led to believe that the new timetable would be introduced successfully. After all, it had brought the heads of the industry—or their senior executives—in and asked them, and no one had said anything to the contrary. How can anyone run an industry if it is controlled by people like that?

Partly as a result of that fiasco, the Government introduced the rail review, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement earlier this afternoon. So in what I hope is a timely intervention, I would like the Rail Minister to regard my speech tonight as a submission to that review. I hope that I have been quick off the blocks.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe that renationalising the railways is the answer. In the 1980s and 1990s, before I was a Member of Parliament, I often commuted on the Southend to London Fenchurch Street line, which runs parallel to the Liverpool street line. It was run by the old British Rail and was widely known as the misery line. The clue is in the name. It had appalling punctuality, extremely old slam-door trains and frequent cancellations of services. I remember one winter going down to Laindon station from which I used to commute at about 8 am to catch the 8.05. It was a dreary, wet, dripping British winter Monday morning and the passengers were about six deep on the platform, which told me straight away that something was up.

Over the tannoy came an announcement that I have always remembered. The announcer said, “British Rail wish to apologise to customers on platform 1 who are waiting for the 8.05 service to London Fenchurch Street. This has been cancelled due to a points failure in the Shoeburyness depot area.” A great sigh went up along the platform. Then the announcer said, “Once again British Rail wish to apologise.” Then he paused and said, “Look, it is a Monday morning and we’ve cocked it up as usual. For what it’s worth, I’m really sorry.” There was a stunned silence on the platform, which was then followed by a large round of applause, because people could not think what else to do. That is my memory of the old British Rail , and I certainly do not want to go back to that.

To illustrate my point further, today the Fenchurch Street line, which is run by C2C, is one of the most successful and punctual lines in the country, with modern, comfortable, air-conditioned, wi-fi enabled trains. Renationalising the railways would put the network at the mercy of the Treasury every year, and I believe would lead to a lack of investment and inefficiency over time. Network Rail today shows us what a nationalised railway industry would be like, and as I think it is already a failure, I do not believe that nationalisation is the answer.

I think the better way would be to reunify train and track and recreate the old regional railway companies such as Great Eastern and Great Western, but crucially with both the trains and the rail infrastructure under one combined management as one company, so that the whole could be run as a properly integrated business. I believe that that would be far superior to the current unsatisfactory arrangements, in which lines of responsibility are unclear, everyone blames everyone else when something goes wrong, and there is obviously a clear lack of what the military would call command and control.

In summary, I am utterly exasperated about the lack of customer care from Abellio Greater Anglia, and I believe that the company needs new management and a fresh start. It must learn to respect its customers rather than treating them as cattle. I also remain highly critical of Network Rail, which I believe is highly bureaucratic and inefficient and is failing the travelling public. As a result, I believe Network Rail should be broken up and that train and track should be reunified in a series of regional railway companies as an outcome of the rail review. Other than that, I think everything is going swimmingly and I look forward with genuine interest on behalf of my constituents to the Minister’s reply.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) on securing the debate and giving us the opportunity to discuss train services into Liverpool Street. He has made a powerful and hard-hitting case on behalf of his constituents. It is a shame that there were not more people in the Chamber to hear it, but I know that he has a big social media following, not least from those of his constituents who are on the “I travel with Greater Anglia” Facebook page and its offshoots.

I would like to provide some information about the engineering works that have been taking place on the line to Southend, which, as we have heard, have clearly had a very negative impact on passengers in my right hon. Friend’s constituency. I will also touch on the important issues of fares and compensation, which he mentioned, and provide an update on the new trains that Greater Anglia has ordered and that are currently being built.

I recognise how important it is for my right hon. Friend’s constituents to have high-quality and reliable train services, so that they can get to work and go about their lives in a way that allows them to depend on the critical part of our national infrastructure that the railways represent. We are working closely as a Department with Network Rail and the train companies to drive down delays and cancellations, and we will support Network Rail and the wider industry in delivering significant improvements to the experience that passengers have of our railways.

The Department is following closely the significant upgrade project that Network Rail is currently delivering to replace the overhead line wire and equipment between Liverpool Street, Chelmsford and Southend Victoria. That, as my right hon. Friend knows, is a £46 million investment in our rail network. It started in 2014 and is due to be completed in 2020. It involves more than 500 structures being replaced and the installation of 128 km of overhead wire, and it is much needed. As he will know, the wiring system on his stretch of track was installed in the 1950s, nearly 70 years ago, and is in dire need of replacement. The current equipment is old, unreliable and prone to failure, and it is subject to sagging in hot temperatures. In recent years, there have been a number of highly disruptive de-wirements, as they are known, and more recently Network Rail has understandably had to impose speed restrictions in hot conditions as a result. Disruption caused by the failure of equipment leads to cancellations and delays, which impact the quality of service that passengers experience.

To minimise the overall time taken to complete that much-needed upgrade scheme, which would be a number of years longer if Network Rail only used weekends for the work, there have been some extensive periods of mid-week late evening blockades, with bus replacement services after 8.30 pm. Passenger numbers are generally lower during that period, as it is outside the conventional evening peak, so closing the line at that time helps to minimise overall passenger disruption.

I am aware that Greater Anglia has asked Network Rail to formally review its programme, to try to reduce the impact of that evening mid-week possession programme. It may be possible to focus the works more on weekends, but the decision on how best to manage that needs to be thought through carefully by both Network Rail and Greater Anglia. I understand that Network Rail and Greater Anglia are working together to get these works completed as soon as possible, with a view to having the works completed by early 2020 at the latest. In response to my right hon. Friend’s points, we expect Network Rail to commit enough resources to complete these works as soon as reasonably practicable. It has informed the Department that it now has a stretch target to complete the works by the end of 2019.

While negotiations for track access are ongoing, it is important to note that, whatever the outcome, the railway will only ever be closed for a set amount of time in total, and the question under discussion is largely one of how that time is spread out—the trade-off being greater passenger disruption if it is compressed.

[Mr Francois]

I thank my hon. Friend for his clear exposition. My constituents are not unreasonable people—they live in the real world. They know that the overhead work has to be done and that the infrastructure has to be upgraded. They accept that, but it is taking far too long. The evening possessions give Network Rail very little time on the track, so why not put far more resources in and put more men and women on the job during the weekend possessions and get it done quicker? That is what my constituents and I want.

[Joseph Johnson]

That is an entirely reasonable point of view. Network Rail has assured the Department that it is putting in the resources to get the job done as soon as is reasonably practicable, but on the back of the powerful points and the strong case my right hon. Friend has made on behalf of his constituents, I will write to Network Rail again to ensure that it is resourcing the project as it deserves.

I am aware that, as my right hon. Friend said, he has met Jamie Burles, the managing director of Greater Anglia, and asked that customers be given compensation in acknowledgement of the disruption that passengers have faced. I understand that Greater Anglia is now looking at whether there is a good-will gesture that might be practical, focusing in particular on those who have been affected by the adverse impact of the engineering works. Where customers are delayed outside the engineering works, Delay Repay compensation will of course apply as usual.

Officials from the Department are working with the operator, Greater Anglia, to see whether there is an affordable way to extend the compensation scheme so that it applies for a 15-minute delay rather than from the current 30-minute delay threshold. My right hon. Friend mentioned the Secretary of State’s statement earlier today, to which I am sure he listened carefully, in which the Secretary of State said that he wants Delay Repay 15 to be introduced in 2019—next year—on Greater Anglia. My right hon. Friend can take considerable credit for that development, and I hope that he will welcome it on behalf of his constituents.

The Government set the maximum amount by which regulated fares can rise. Train operators can choose to raise their fares by a lower amount, and there is no requirement for them always to use the maximum amount. We recognise the need to move away from RPI towards CPI, and the Secretary of State has written to the rail trade unions asking for their understanding and co-operation with this.

[Mr Francois]

What my hon. Friend says about the rate of fare increases is important. When I put precisely that point to Abellio, stating my understanding that, according to the RPI formula, the company can raise fares up to that limit but does not have to raise them to the limit if it does not want to, Abellio told me that, basically because of its contract and franchise agreement, it had no choice. I am not sure that is correct. Can my hon. Friend confirm that Abellio could levy a lower increase if it wanted?

[Joseph Johnson]

Yes, absolutely. I can confirm that the Government cap regulated fares, which account for about two thirds of fares on our railways, and it is up to the operator where to set fares below that cap.

The benefits of the franchise changes coming into place are part of a broad programme of benefits to franchises across the country. On the Greater Anglia network, the entire fleet of trains will be replaced by 2020, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, and an extensive programme of fleet refurbishment is under way. Greater Anglia has on order over 1,000 new carriages, and manufacturing and construction of the new carriages by Stadler and Bombardier in Derby is now well under way. The new trains will start to be rolled out across the network from the middle of next year and the full roll-out should be completed by the end of 2020. The new state-of-the-art trains will provide many more seats that are much needed on those busy services, and the modern trains will also provide an improved travelling environment with wi-fi, air conditioning and power sockets. The new trains will be more efficient, have faster acceleration and provide better customer information.

Although those trains are coming down the line in the future, I am clear that the current performance of Network Rail and Greater Anglia needs to improve. I recognise the strong points made by my right hon. Friend about the instances of poor performance he has experienced and those that his constituents have relayed to him through casework and in conversations. There have been a number of regrettable infrastructure and train failures over the summer, but it is fair to say that performance has been better more recently. The public performance measure for Greater Anglia stands at 89.3% for the four-week period to 18 September, which is only fractionally below its franchise target of about 91.3% for that period. Clearly, there is room for improvement, and the Department will monitor its progress in meeting public performance targets over the coming weeks.

In conclusion, I again thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to discuss services to Liverpool Street, and I appreciate the frustration that he and his constituents have been experiencing. Once the works are complete, we expect performance to improve on that part of the network, resulting in fewer cancellations and delays.

[Mr Francois]

May I intervene one last time to thank the Minister for what I regard as a considered and thoughtful reply? He has clearly listened to what I was saying, and I am delighted that he will write to Network Rail about providing more resources. I would, of course, be fascinated to see a copy of the reply, which I hope can be managed. The Minister gets it. I am really pleased that he gets it, and I look forward to working with him to try to make this difficult situation better. I am grateful.

[Joseph Johnson]

I have little more to add other than that we will be following up this issue closely with Network Rail and the train operators to ensure that my right hon. Friend gets the experience that he wants for his constituents on this important stretch of our network.

Question put and agreed to.

Gypsies and Travellers

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Age first. I call Sir David Amess.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this important Adjournment debate and, if I may say so, on introducing it so very ably. I also welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) who, in his characteristic style, put the point bluntly and clearly to the Minister that something really needs to be done.

I am here tonight because of the increasing number of representations that I have received from my constituents who want us to change the law. They believe in the democratic process. They have lobbied us by letter and by email. They have come to our surgeries and said, “You are elected as legislators. You people make laws. We want a change in the law and we are asking you democratically and peacefully to do something about it, but do not underestimate our level of frustration about the fact that nothing ever seems to get done about it.” This is a major issue, particularly in my county of Essex. I note that there are five Essex Members of Parliament in the Chamber this evening: my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West, for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), and me. Our excellent police, fire and crime commissioner, Mr Roger Hirst, also feels strongly about this issue and very much supports the change in the law that we are arguing for.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Iain Stewart.)

[Mr Francois]

There are, in fact, roughly 20 Members of Parliament in the Chamber tonight, which—as the Minister and the Whips will appreciate—is a pretty good turnout for a one-line Whip Monday. I think that we are all here for one common reason, which is that we have had enough. This has been going on for years. I am not trying to emulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, as this is my own particular contribution, but we have had enough.

Every spring and summer the cat and mouse game begins again. The illegal incursions begin, the council’s legal staff are put on alert and the police begin to patrol. But, of course, the Travellers know the law backwards; they know every loophole. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire said, we must acknowledge that some behave perfectly legally, but many unfortunately do not. The incursions begin on farmers’ fields, school playing fields, sports centres and increasingly—as the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) intimated—industrial units and business parks, all of which is illegal and none of which has permission. As well as the antisocial behaviour that often occurs, by the time the Travellers have moved on there are often considerable clean-up costs. For example, one incursion that lasted nearly a week in the Basildon Borough Council area a couple of years ago led to clean-up costs of approximately £10,000, which had to be borne by the council taxpayers of that authority, whose fault it absolutely was not.

Seeking redress through the courts can often take quite a long while. This often leads by constituents to believe that Travellers somehow see themselves above the law. It is a great part of my constituents’ frustration that there seems to be one law for the settled community and another law for the travelling community. In essence, this evening we are arguing for equality before the law—a fundamental principle of British justice going all the way back to Magna Carta. The police have a section 61 power to compel Travellers to move on from an illegal encampment, but there is no geographical definition of how far that movement has to be. They can literally move a few hundred yards down the road, re-encamp there, then the whole rigmarole starts all over again. That is how weak the power currently available to the police is. We need something far firmer to act as a real deterrent.

In fairness, the Government have realised the increasing frustration about this issue—not least given the three Adjournment debates on the subject secured by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire in the past few years—and launched a consultation some months ago on whether to change the law in relation to Travellers, and that consultation closed a few weeks ago. The Minister will be well aware that 59 of my Conservative colleagues, including several former Cabinet Ministers, wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ask him to adopt the Irish option. I make this plea tonight as a former Department for Communities and Local Government Minister myself. I saw discussions about this issue when I served in the Department, but I did not see what I would call any genuine determination to grip it and come up with a solution. It was left to us to propose one, which was, in fairness, one of the options included in the Government’s consultation.

What we are asking for, essentially, is what is known as the Irish option, based on the fact that in 2002 Ireland changed the law to make acts of deliberate trespass a criminal offence. Part of the knock-on effect of that is that we have had more Travellers coming from Ireland to England during the travelling season because the law is tougher in Ireland than it is here at present, so we are regarded as something of a soft touch. We should make deliberate acts of trespass a criminal offence. We are not talking about a couple of schoolboys cutting across the corner of a farmer’s field on the way home from school. Clearly, the police would have discretion, as with any other law, in how they applied this. We are talking about a deliberate act of trespass on land that Travellers do not own and do not have permission to be on. That would be regarded as a criminal offence and the police would therefore have a power to compel them to move on immediately. If they did not do so, they could be arrested, and their vehicles could be impounded—which, believe you me, would be a very powerful deterrent to the travelling community. That would go a long way towards addressing this problem, because it would give the police and local authorities, with whom they work closely, a real deterrent power to stop this menace occurring in our constituencies year after year.

Some people would say, “Well, this is too harsh”—that it in some way abrogates the Travellers’ human rights. I can understand that argument but I do not agree with it. What about the human rights of the settled community and the human rights of the council tax payers in our constituencies? Moreover, Ireland, when I last looked, was subject to the European convention on human rights, and it passed this law in 2002. If Ireland was able to do it under the ECHR, I see absolutely no reason why we cannot similarly do it under the ECHR in the United Kingdom.

This has been going on for years and years. Now, finally, the Government have acknowledged that there is a problem. Churchill once famously said that the first stage in dealing with any problem, no matter what its magnitude, is to admit that the problem exists. To be fair to the Government, they have admitted that there is a problem. The Minister knows how this place works and is a popular Member of this House—that is as much buttering up as I am going to do—but I would humbly advise him, having marched us all up to the top of the hill, not to march us all down again. There will be real anger in this place if, as a result of this consultation, the Government make some very minor tweak in the law as window-dressing but do not meaningfully address this problem such that we will see a real decrease in these incidents in the next two years. The Minister has a chance to do something that would be incredibly popular in the country and will also, in effect, fulfil a 2010 manifesto commitment. I really believe that now is the time to make everybody equal before the law, to stop this menace, and to defend the communities whom we are elected to represent.

[Ruth George]

rose—

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England)(Amendment) (Regulations) 2018

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 General Committees

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

Mine is a very brief contribution. Can I lend weight to the very good point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden? I, too, have some equestrian centres in my constituency, and I have received representations from them on exactly the same point. The Minister will know that the British Horse Society is quite exercised about this matter. I do not know how much he can say about that today, but will he undertake to take the point away and enter into discussions with the Valuation Office Agency to see whether something can be done to unpick that rather difficult and, I think, unintended consequence of the Government’s action?

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I had not intended to speak, but I am spurred to do so by my right hon. Friends the Members for Meriden and for Rayleigh and Wickford. I represent the Chelmsford equestrian centre, which has been to see me about this very point. The fact that three members of a fairly small Committee have raised this issue indicates that there is a serious problem. I am sure that the Minister did not come here fully briefed to talk about equestrian centres, but we would appreciate it if he could look into the issue and let us know about it in due course.

[Mr Francois]

And thus avert a major rebellion.

[The Chair]

If I were allowed to raise the issue, I would do so too.

[Rishi Sunak]

From my perspective, this has been a good and helpful debate. I was grateful to receive so many contributions which, to be honest, I did not expect at 9 o’clock on a Tuesday morning. I shall briefly turn to the various points raised, starting with those of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the schedule of fees, which is £200 for smaller businesses and £500 for larger ones. That approach was taken in the first instance for reasons of simplicity. He will know that HMRC’s penalty system is relatively complicated and works on a sliding scale as a percentage of the potentially lost revenue. The decision in this instance was to start with a simple, fixed system. On the £500 maximum penalty, I appreciate his point about that perhaps not being a huge amount for a large company and the Government are committed to reviewing the limits over time. In the short term, as he rightly pointed out, the limits are fixed in primary legislation—in the Enterprise Act 2016.

His second point was about the VOA’s capacity. In the first instance, I believe it is right for any agencies of the state to ensure that they make the best use of their resources and organise themselves as efficiently as possible for the benefit of all our constituents who work hard to pay the taxes that fund them. That said, the hon. Gentleman is right that with the introduction of a new system the appropriate capacity must be there to deliver the smooth transition we would all like to see. Part of the reason for the reforms to the business rates system is to reduce the volume of speculative appeals. As I mentioned, 70% of appeals under the previous system were denied in the end, so we clearly had the balance wrong. The new system should reduce the amount of burden for things that are, frankly, a waste of time for the VOA and, in time, the benefits of that will come through. In the short term, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I will hold the VOA to the strongest possible account for delivery against the targets and will shortly meet the agency’s director to discuss exactly that.

On his third point, NHS trusts are independent of my Department and of the Government in general, as he will be aware. That said, the scale of the challenge he talked about has reached my desk. I am monitoring it and am in discussions about it with the LGA. I think I agree with his broad point that if there are to be large transfers of financial resources between different parts of Government, it is appropriate that that is done through the Government and the normal matter of a spending review, with the priorities being worked out through Parliament rather than through ad hoc decisions of courts. We will keep the matter under review.

On the points raised by my right hon. Friends the Members for Meriden, for Rayleigh and Wickford and for Maldon, as I probably come from one of the most rural constituencies in the country—certainly among those in this room—I am personally aware of the issue with riding schools, spending, as I do, most of my Saturday mornings with my daughters at the Northallerton equestrian centre. I would be delighted to take up the issue directly with the VOA, to ensure that appropriate information flows properly between the various claimants and the VOA and to see whether there is a broader system issue that has not been picked up by the regulations.

[Mr Francois]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on a very polished debut? I knew today was going to be an interesting day when I went down to the Tea Room and found it in darkness—clearly the victim of a Russian cyber-attack. I am grateful that he said he would look into that point with the VOA, but I would like to charge him to do slightly more. When he has done so, will he write to members of the Committee, including the Chair, who obviously has an interest, to let us know whether it is possible to make any progress?

[Rishi Sunak]

I would be delighted to write to you, Mr Rosindell, and to other members of the Committee on that point. Before I confirm that, however, in the short term, I urge hon. Members to ensure that riding stables in their constituencies appeal to their local authorities for discretionary relief, as I have encouraged my auction marts and riding stables to do. The Chancellor announced a £325 million fund to deal with cases that were not captured by the other reliefs put in place around the time of the revaluation.

Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Alteration of Lists and Appeals) (England)(Amendment) Regulations 2018

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 General Committees

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

Mine is a very brief contribution. May I lend weight to the very good point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden? I, too, have some equestrian centres in my constituency, and I have received representations from them on exactly the same point. The Minister will know that the British Horse Society is quite exercised about this matter. I do not know how much he can say about that today, but will he undertake to take the point away and enter into discussions with the Valuation Office Agency to see whether something can be done to unpick that rather difficult and, I think, unintended consequence of the Government’s action?

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I had not intended to speak, but I am spurred to do so by my right hon. Friends the Members for Meriden and for Rayleigh and Wickford. I represent the Chelmsford equestrian centre, which has been to see me about this very point. The fact that three members of a fairly small Committee have raised this issue indicates that there is a serious problem. I am sure that the Minister did not come here fully briefed to talk about equestrian centres, but we would appreciate it if he looked into the issue and let us know about it in due course.

[Mr Francois]

And thus avert a major rebellion.

[The Chair]

If I were allowed to raise the issue, I would do so too.

[Rishi Sunak]

From my perspective, this has been a good and helpful debate. I was grateful to receive so many contributions, which, to be honest, I did not expect at 9 o’clock on a Tuesday morning. I shall briefly turn to the various points raised, starting with those of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the schedule of fees, which is £200 for smaller businesses and £500 for larger ones. That approach was taken in the first instance for reasons of simplicity. He will know that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’s penalty system is relatively complicated and works on a sliding scale as a percentage of the potentially lost revenue. The decision in this instance was to start with a simple, fixed system. On the £500 maximum penalty, I appreciate his point about that perhaps not being a huge amount for a large company and the Government are committed to reviewing the limits over time. In the short term, as he rightly pointed out, the limits are fixed in primary legislation—in the Enterprise Act 2016.

The hon. Gentleman’s second point was about the VOA’s capacity. In the first instance, I believe it is right for any agencies of the state to ensure that they make the best use of their resources and organise themselves as efficiently as possible for the benefit of all our constituents who work hard to pay the taxes that fund them. That said, the hon. Gentleman is right that with the introduction of a new system the appropriate capacity must be there to deliver the smooth transition we would all like to see. Part of the reason for the reforms to the business rates system is to reduce the volume of speculative appeals. As I mentioned, 70% of appeals under the previous system were denied in the end, so we clearly had the balance wrong. The new system should reduce the burden for things that are, frankly, a waste of time for the VOA and, in time, the benefits of that will come through. In the short term, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that I will hold the VOA to the strongest possible account for delivery against the targets and will shortly meet the agency’s director to discuss exactly that.

On the hon. Gentlemans third point, NHS trusts are independent of my Department and of the Government in general, as he will be aware. That said, the scale of the challenge he talked about has reached my desk. I am monitoring it and am in discussions about it with the LGA. I think I agree with his broad point that if there are to be large transfers of financial resources between different parts of Government, it is appropriate that that is done through the Government and the normal matter of a spending review, with the priorities being worked out through Parliament rather than through ad hoc decisions of courts. We will keep the matter under review.

On the points raised by my right hon. Friends the Members for Meriden, for Rayleigh and Wickford and for Maldon, as I probably come from one of the most rural constituencies in the country—certainly among those in this room—I am personally aware of the issue with riding schools, spending, as I do, most of my Saturday mornings with my daughters at the Northallerton equestrian centre. I would be delighted to take up the issue directly with the VOA, to ensure that appropriate information flows properly between the various claimants and the VOA and to see whether there is a broader system issue that has not been picked up by the regulations.

[Mr Francois]

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on a very polished debut? I knew today was going to be an interesting day when I went down to the Tea Room and found it in darkness—clearly the victim of a Russian cyber-attack. I am grateful that he said he would look into that point with the VOA, but I would like to charge him to do slightly more. When he has done so, will he write to members of the Committee, including the Chair, who obviously has an interest, to let us know whether it is possible to make any progress?

[Rishi Sunak]

I would be delighted to write to you, Mr Rosindell, and to other members of the Committee on that point. Before I confirm that, however, in the short term, I urge hon. Members to ensure that riding stables in their constituencies appeal to their local authorities for discretionary relief, as I have encouraged my auction marts and riding stables to do. The Chancellor announced a £325 million fund to deal with cases that were not captured by the other reliefs put in place around the time of the revaluation.