Valedictory Debate
Brooks Newmark Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
As many Members here have said, it really has been a privilege to serve in this House. I think of myself as a nine-year-old boy moving to this country and merging two families when my mum, who is from the South Bronx and had four children, married my step-dad, who lived in a very large English country house and had four children, and they had two children between them. We became a sort of Anglo-American version of “The Brady Bunch”, with me as the eldest. I really never dreamed I would be in this House today, and I do feel almost teary that I am leaving, but it has been a privilege.
Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
May I just say that I think it is a tragic waste that a guy of your ability is leaving this place, and it is our loss?
Mr Newmark
I thank my hon. Friend for his very kind comments, but I think that sometimes it is important that we put our families before ourselves, and that is a decision I have made.
My constituents have been amazing. Over the past 10 years, I have probably dealt with about 10,000 bits of correspondence. I particularly want to thank my constituents for their support over the past year, both to me and my family. My association has been fantastic. We fought some great campaigns. I particularly want to thank Jenny Jarvis, who was my first chairman, Roger Walters, Chris Siddall, who was my final chairman, and of course my agent Rikki Williams. We had some great times together, and I certainly enjoyed all my campaigns with them.
Unusually for an MP, I have not only got along with my association but actually got along with my councillors. I particularly want to thank Graham Butland, the leader of Braintree council, and David Finch, the leader of Essex county council. We have all worked very well as a team—my association and my district and county councillors. Finally, I would like to thank Paula Malone, my PA, for her support over the past 10 years.
It has been a long journey for me, from Bedford school in October 1973, when I joined the Young Conservatives, and Keith Joseph was my inspiration, to the Oxford Union, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) was my inspiration—I have known him for 35 years—to when I became chairman in Bermondsey, stood in Newcastle in ’97, and was finally selected, won and became the Member of Parliament for Braintree.
When we are selected, one of the things we all do is to get stuck into local campaigns. There are many campaigns that I have really got stuck into in Braintree, but I want to highlight just a few of them. For me, getting a community hospital there was one of the great success stories. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Alan Hurst, for the work that he did; I took on that mantle from him. Saving the postal depot at Halstead was a success. When we worked to build up the flood defences in Steeple Bumpstead, the village was torn as to where they should be, and working with both sides and pulling them together was something of an achievement. When there was the threat of 300 acres of solar panels in the north part of my patch, in Constable country, stopping those being built was a success story. I have had some not-success stories. I wanted to get the extension of the A120, which never happened, and a loop between Braintree and Witham, which also did not happen. But those are challenges for my successor, whoever he may be; I certainly hope it is a Conservative.
Supporting local community groups has also been important. I supported PARC—the play and resource centre—by running a marathon and raising £40,000 for it. I have worked with Braintree Rethink, the homeless charities Braintree Foyer and New Direction, and St Mary’s church in Bocking.
I served on the Science and Technology Committee for two years, on the Treasury Committee for four years, and in the Whips Office for five years, and I finally ended up as Minister for Civil Society.
Being an MP provides a great platform for things that you want to campaign on. One of the campaigns that I am most proud of is Women2Win. When I arrived here, we had only 17 female Members of Parliament. Exactly 10 years ago, with Baroness Jenkin, I founded Women2Win. At the last election we had 49 women MPs, and I certainly hope that at the next election we have more. I hope that next we can have a “50:50 by 2020” campaign whereby we get 50% women by 2020. I started the Million Jobs campaign to try to get more young people into work, and I thank the Chancellor for abolishing national insurance contributions for young people. I welcomed the seed enterprise investment scheme, which encourages venture capital, and I worked to protect the International Commission on Missing Persons, for which I got the support of the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks). I have also worked in Rwanda and Syria.
As I bring this chapter of public service to a close, I begin a new chapter of voluntary service. I shall work with Crisis, the homeless charity, and my own charity, A Partner in Education, doing primary education in Rwanda, and I shall spend time at Oxford.
I leave today a little sad. This has been an amazing experience. I have made many friends from all parties. I thank the staff and you, Mr Speaker, for the support you have given me, particularly over the past year. My constituents feel like a part of my family and it has been a privilege to serve them.
Finally, I thank my wife Lucy and my children Benjamin, Sam, Max, Lily and Zachary for the support they have given me over the years.
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Without question, the greatest privilege I have had during my 41 years in this House and throughout my life is to have represented the people of Tonbridge and Malling in one of the most beautiful and historic parts of our country. I make a mild apology to Members on both sides of the House that my constituency is a phonetical trap, given that, almost with exception, every town and village is pronounced differently from the way in which it is spelt. I am glad to say that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), with his intimate knowledge from his time as my Labour opponent, pronounced the name of my constituency impeccably when he spoke earlier.
I am also glad to see the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) in his place and I want to take this opportunity to thank him for the contribution he made as a Foreign Office Minister to establishing a sound and effective policy on arms export control for the British Government. I have been the Chairman of the Committees on Arms Export Controls for the whole of this Parliament, and we have been doing our utmost to secure adherence to the policy the right hon. Gentleman set down in 2000.
I want to address my top concerns as I leave the House. The most important responsibility we have in this House is the proper and effective scrutiny of the Government’s proposals for the future law of the land. I have to be blunt: on the scrutiny of both primary and secondary legislation, this House has had its position in relation to the Executive weakened very substantially in the time I have been here.
The previous Government, early on, introduced the automatic guillotining of all Bills without debate after Second Reading, which represents a huge erosion of the scrutiny powers of the House. I certainly wish to call on the next Government, and indeed on the next House, to revert to the previous position whereby there was no such automatic guillotining of Bills after Second Reading, but there was a reserve power under Standing Orders for the Government to introduce a guillotine motion to deal with a clear attempt to filibuster.
The position on secondary legislation—almost entirely unreported and unrecorded—is every bit as serious in my view. The reason why we have virtually no debates at all on negative resolution statutory instruments and that those on affirmative resolution statutory instruments are for 90 minutes only and non-amendable is of course that secondary legislation is supposed to be relatively non-substantial and non-controversial. That was only a convention, and I believe that the House made an enormous mistake by not giving it a firmer buttress.
The convention was absolutely adhered to, as I vividly recollect. As the housing Minister responsible for the right to buy Housing Bill in 1979, I asked for a particular order-making power and the first parliamentary counsel, who was responsible for the drafting, came back to me—very politely, but very firmly—and refused to enshrine the power in the Bill because it was too widely drafted. I call on the House to revert to the position in which the then convention that secondary legislation should essentially be confined to non-substantive and non-controversial matters is restored and made firm either in Standing Orders or by legislation.
To give an illustration of the existing width of the powers—
Mr Newmark
I am sure that my right hon. Friend would like some more time. I am very much enjoying his speech, and I am interested in hearing his next point.
Sir John Stanley
Mr Speaker, I understood that your latitude applied only to the opening speakers, not to those of us speaking subsequently, but I await your guidance.
I would tell my hon. Friend that under the so-called Henry VIII powers, Ministers now have an order-making power, which is defined as
“a delegated power which enables a Minister, by delegated legislation, to amend, modify or repeal an Act of Parliament”.
I suggest to the House that that is a very disturbing example of the far too wide use of secondary legislation.
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) that there is no problem on the issue of latitude. The time limit for Back Benchers is shorter, but the opportunity for interventions still exists.
Mr Newmark
I was not sure whether I was allowed a second intervention, Mr Speaker, but I wanted to make sure that my right hon. Friend could make as much progress as possible with his excellent speech.
Sir John Stanley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I am anxious not to be responsible for cutting anybody out of this debate.
I want to turn to my next very important point. I will not repeat what I said on 6 March in the debate on the private Member’s Bill, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. For me, there is a fundamental issue of principle, which I hope those elsewhere in the House might share. If the Government of the day lose a vote of confidence in this House—if only by one vote—the right to decide the future of the Government should lie absolutely with the people of this country, not with political leaders cobbling together a deal behind closed doors.
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). I served on his Administration Committee until a PowerPoint presentation on own-brand cookies led me to resign, as I could not cope with the excitement anymore.
I do not know how you slept last night, Mr Speaker, but I have to admit that I did not sleep very well. I knew this was going to be my last speech and I wanted to make it a great oration, but I have worked out that I am what I am—a son of the suburbs. We have heard all these statesmen speaking and people with vast experience, and it is no good my trying to do something I am not any good at. I remember in my by-election, Matthew Parris, the columnist, described me as the missing link. On the pictures of the ascent of man from ape to homo sapiens, I was somewhere in the middle apparently, stooping, with, in those days, an orange hairy chest, or beard, or whatever it was—rather like an orang-utan.
I have tried my best, and I could never have imagined, 18 years ago, standing here now as an MP. I had no ambitions to enter this place at all. It was sad circumstances that led me to being elected and find myself standing here. To represent the area I have always lived and worked in has been the greatest privilege indeed, and of course it has been an easy task to be an advocate for the area in Middlesex I represent. Nothing much has changed since the description I gave in my maiden speech, apart from the fact that RAF Uxbridge sadly has closed—although the Boundary Commission made sure I got RAF Northolt for the last five years. Equally, I feel privileged to have represented an area with such an impressive and proud history.
The job of an MP has changed over the years I have been here. I have attended weighty issues of state. Who could forget the Iraq debate, when I had to resign as Opposition Whip because I wanted to oppose the Government? That seems strange, as the Government was the other side, but there we are. That is what happened. I have also been involved in less weighty issues, but what others might call less important can still be just as important to many people and are often just as fascinating.
One reason why I have enjoyed this job—I hope I have not been bad at it—is that I find people, including constituents, colleagues and everybody else, fascinating. That is what makes the job good. Even when I was in the Whips Office, it was talking to colleagues that made it fun.
Mr Newmark
Does right hon. Friend agree that the camaraderie in the Whips Office is a unique experience that he and I had together? Once a Whip, always a Whip.
Sir John Randall
I agree, but I am not going to dwell on that. It is for my memoirs—luckily, I am not going to publish them!
I have been lucky in Hillingdon. The previous Member representing Ruislip Northwood was John Wilkinson, and today there is my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—and we have always got on. We may be political opponents, but we have become friends and we work together for our constituents in Hillingdon. I believe our constituents like and respect that and that they do not like too much adversarial stuff.
I sometimes think when I am watching a rugby match that people are putting everything into the game, but at the end of it, they shake hands and probably go and share a beer together. Some people outside the House probably do not realise that although we have our arguments and discussions that can sometimes get quite heated, we are basically on the same side, trying to help our people.
I have some great memories. I remember going to the smoking room, which was empty apart from Edward Heath and Tony Benn. They asked me to come and join them as they talked about Europe. Both opposed their own party’s particular view on the subject, and I was like a bystander, just listening to them. In many ways, that is how I feel my experience here has been. When I first came into this place, I described it as an “out of body experience”. It has been like a dream. I have a feeling that in six months’ time, waking up in a hospital bed somewhere, I might wonder whether it was all a dream. There might be no trace of anything that went on, no trace in Hansard or anywhere else.
It was sad that my father, Alec, never saw me elected to this place, but I was delighted that my mother did. She was an ardent royalist and was particularly proud of my role as Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household. The fact that I, the grandson of teachers and traders in Uxbridge, was travelling in a coach on a state occasion shows that it is possible to achieve a lot in this country, irrespective of background.
I look forward to engaging and training up my successor. I sometimes have a feeling that it is a bit like “Dr Who”, with MPs morphing into something else. I can already feel my hair getting a bit blonder and I seem to have found an encyclopaedic knowledge of Horace—we never know.
Finally, I would like to thank my long-serving secretary, Delma Beebe, who was with me from the start. She was sent to look after me and make sure I did not make too many mistakes. Luckily, I have not. I thank, too, my wife Kate, my sons Peter and David and my daughter Elizabeth, and, most of all, the people of my constituency for giving me this great opportunity to serve in the best place in the UK, serving the greatest country in the world.
Oral Answers to Questions
Brooks Newmark Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department's policies of the National Audit Office’s recent report on funding arrangements for the Big Society Network.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Brooks Newmark)
I take this report seriously. I am satisfied that the issues raised concerned adherence to process, and therefore do not feel that there are any implications for the policies of my Department.
Richard Burden
First, I welcome the Minister to his place. When it seems pretty clear that the National Audit Office had some pretty damning conclusions regarding the mismanagement of over £2 million of public money to the Big Society Network, and when, in my own constituency, the SWEET project, which got a big society award, ends up having money cut by the Government because it does precisely the innovation work that it got the award for in the first place, what exactly, in this day and age, does the big society mean? While he is at it, will the Minister look into the circumstances surrounding the cuts to the SWEET project?
Mr Newmark
I shall certainly look into that matter, as the hon. Gentleman has asked. We welcome the NAO’s report and have learned the lessons from this experience. There are no conclusions that the Cabinet Office did anything untoward in this regard. All the report says is that we did not adhere to the guidance we issued for this particular programme on a couple of points.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
None of us could let that go. Thanks to the National Audit Office’s report, we now know that the Government’s big society lies in tatters. We have since learned that the charity the Prime Minister personally launched at No. 10 Downing street is not only under investigation by the Charity Commission, but is under investigation for moving Cabinet Office funding to its parent company, which is chaired by a major Conservative party donor who also earned hefty consultancy fees from it. Was the Cabinet Secretary aware that Government funding was being transferred not to the thousands of legitimate charities in this country, but to the bank account of a Conservative party donor?
Mr Newmark
This allegation has been investigated by the grants manager, and appropriate action to recover any funds not spent in line with the grant agreement is being taken.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
2. What assessment he has made of the scope of the Charity Commission guidance on campaigning and political activity; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Brooks Newmark)
Charities play an important role in shaping Government policy. Indeed, Departments are working on the development and implementation of many our policies. However, it has long been the case that the law and Charity Commission guidance prohibits charities from party political campaigning and activities. I believe that that is the right position.
Charlie Elphicke
Does the Minister nevertheless agree that it would be right to return to the Charity Commission guidance of 2004, which ensured that charities focused on social justice and helping people in need on the front line, not on big marketing budgets and playing party politics?
Mr Newmark
The Charity Commission’s guidance is clear about what charities can and cannot do and reflects the commission’s view of the underlying law. The guidance was last reviewed in 2009. The Charity Commission has said that it keeps all its guidance under review to ensure that it remains relevant and up to date, but it has no immediate plans to amend its guidance on campaigning and political activity.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Since 1921 the Royal British Legion has undertaken political campaigns for the benefit of military veterans and their families. Will the charities Minister please affirm the right of charities to undertake political campaigning in line with their charitable objectives? If he cannot say that loud and clear, could he please get back to his knitting?
Mr Newmark
I take the hon. Lady’s point and I was expecting a question along those lines, so I have stitched together a response for her. Charities, with all their expertise, have long been at the forefront of helping to tackle some of the country’s biggest social challenges and have an important role to play in helping shape a Government policy, but they must stay out of party politics, which has been a long-standing requirement by charity law—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who is chuntering, saying that her party seeks to change the law?
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for tabling the question. Was it not the Leader of the Opposition who, when in government, commissioned the report that changed the Charity Commission guidelines, which are giving so many people so much concern?
Mr Newmark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I want to stick to the main point. Charities have enormous expertise and can contribute to shaping Government policy. I want to make it clear that political campaigning by charities is absolutely right, but it is important that they steer clear of party politics.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Over the past few weeks it has been absolutely embarrassing to see a number of Conservative MPs come out of the woodwork and attack some of this country’s best charities. Would it not be better for the Minister and his team to get behind those charities and allow them to comment and campaign on issues relating to their work?
Mr Newmark
As I have made clear time and again, and as somebody who has spent more than 30 years of his life in the voluntary and charity sector, I say that it is absolutely right that charities have the right to campaign on the issues that they feel strongly about. The only point I have been making is that they should steer clear of party politics. Campaigning is absolutely right and they must continue to do that.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
5. What progress he has made on providing support for social enterprises.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Brooks Newmark)
We are committed to supporting social enterprises, and we are leading the world in growing the social investment market to provide social enterprises with access to the finance and advice that they need. I am particularly pleased that we are working with Social Enterprise UK to deliver the first ever Social Saturday this Saturday to encourage more people to buy from social enterprises. I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituent Sebastian Huempfer, who yesterday won the Prime Minister’s Points of Light award for his work with soap recycling social enterprise CLEAN SL8.
Nicola Blackwood
Oxfordshire is a hotbed of social enterprise and tech expertise, as the Minister for Business and Enterprise discovered when he visited the outstanding social enterprise Oxford Launchpad at the Said Business School yesterday. Does the Minister for Civil Society agree that the middle-stage funding gap is acting as a barrier to UK social tech achieving its full potential, and that raising the cap on the social incubator fund is the right response to this problem?
Mr Newmark
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We are working closely with key stakeholders to ensure that social ventures can access the support and finance that they need throughout the different stages of development. Following the support provided through the social incubator fund, there are now a number of opportunities for social ventures to access support.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I see that you are wearing a slightly pinkish tie today, Mr Speaker, but pinkness seems to be absent from the Government Front Bench. Today is “wear it pink” day, which is the national campaign day for breast cancer.
Social enterprise is a very important sector and it is getting more important by the day. Has the Minister seen the wonderful picture of Mrs Thatcher’s face with Che Guevara’s beret, which launches the new manifesto for the social enterprise sector? That is important, because it marks the conjunction of social enterprise, social enterprise investment and crowdfunding. We would be very grateful if he put his weight behind it.
Mr Speaker
The image is visible in Westminster station and doubtless elsewhere, as I am sure the Minister is aware.
Mr Newmark
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When I was coming into Parliament, the image struck me as a cross-party approach to campaigning. We lead the way on social impact bonds. The UK is also leading the charge through the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, which contributes to the Government’s ambition to reform public services to ensure that they not only achieve maximum value for money but contribute to their local communities.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
7. What recent steps he has taken to remove barriers to small and medium-sized enterprises participating in government procurement.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Brooks Newmark)
Already?
As I have made abundantly clear, charities play an important role in shaping a Government policy, and indeed, with their expertise, they should be doing that. What I made absolutely clear was that charities should not get involved in party politics, because that is the law.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
T2. As part of our long-term economic plan, the Government have disposed of more than 1,250 properties since 2010. What is the Minister for the Cabinet Office doing to release more Government properties so that we can reduce costs and become more efficient?
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
T5. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Cheshire Community Development Trust on the work it does to help the people of Weaver Vale to get into work? Does he agree that that is exactly the sort of social action that should be used as a template to unite communities across the country?
Mr Newmark
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has highlighted the important work that Cheshire Community Development Trust does to support people in Weaver Vale. Through our social action work, we are supporting communities across the country to take a more active role in shaping their neighbourhoods and working together for the good of others.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
T4. On user satisfaction data, does the Minister accept that the Public Accounts Committee was right to say that the position is currently far short of the ambitions in the White Paper? How long will it be before user satisfaction data are published for all services and all providers?
Deregulation Bill
Brooks Newmark Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Wiggin
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
New clause 15 is all about safety. I want to see a fall in the number of deaths that take place every year as a result of rural accidents, as I am sure does every Member. I am passionate about the safety of those who use the countryside. My recent ten-minute rule Bill proposed greater detail in the recording of agricultural accidents. After discussions with the Health and Safety Executive, I am delighted that my proposals have been accepted. I must thank the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) for his support in discussions with the HSE.
I believe, however, that further measures are necessary. As a farmer, I am alarmed at the risks created by footpaths passing through fields or farmyards. A 21st-century farm is dangerous. Equipment is often operated at higher speeds, is incredibly heavy and has risky blind spots. Livestock can be unpredictable, territorial and easily provoked, for instance by a dog. The death of Roger Freeman, caused—or not—by a Brown Swiss bull in 2010, and the subsequent negligence trial, has brought the issue back into the public eye. To quote a letter from the Ramblers to me,
“The case has really highlighted the necessity to re-examine legislation around bulls being kept in fields with footpaths.”
Recently, I have been contacted by two constituents who have been unable to fulfil their role as parish footpath officers, for fear of their safety on local footpaths. My constituents report being chased from routes by dairy cows. They were particularly harassed when accompanied by a dog and describe the cattle as “extremely persistent and worrying.” Nobody—neither walkers nor farmers—should be placed in a position where their safety is at risk.
Equally, farmers cannot be placed in a position of responsibility for the safety of walkers among livestock. No farmer can say with complete confidence that their cattle would always be 100% safe, including if, for example, they had been stung by a wasp. Farmers are therefore incredibly vulnerable to claims of negligence in accidents where the only evidence is from the victim or hearsay. This pressure can foster resentment against those who use footpaths, creating an atmosphere of walkers versus farmers. Such a division can only be unhelpful. The priority for all must be safety.
Traditional rights of way cannot be held to be a greater priority than the safety of those using them. The risks are very real: 24 people have been killed by cattle in the past four years. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the issue. The right to walk in the countryside does not mean the right to die walking. We must therefore be flexible and allow alterations of rights of way to favour safer routes. Common sense on this issue must prevail.
I must also raise deep concerns about privacy and security in the countryside. One of the great pleasures of the British countryside is that it is free to be enjoyed by all. In this day and age, however, the access provided by footpaths is at odds with society’s fear of strangers. The privacy and security of a family home is something we treasure, yet both of those values must be sacrificed by those who have a footpath running through their home or garden. A footpath allows strangers to come on to their property and close to their family at any hour of the day or night. The feeling of security in one’s home is a luxury that most people take for granted. An Englishman’s home may be his castle, but for those with a footpath through their property, there is no security behind their walls.
The desire to protect one’s privacy and security is entirely legitimate and rational. It is natural to be wary of strangers. In January, the Intrusive Footpaths campaign undertook a survey of home owners’ experiences of footpaths. The results present a shocking picture. The IFC found that footpaths through private property have been the cause of two suicides, 12 nervous breakdowns and numerous cases of financially crippling disputes. Families affected in this way should be supported by appropriate legislation, not abandoned to cope with the consequences.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
I am listening to my hon. Friend, but Opposition Front Benchers are chuntering. Unfortunately, people who live in urban areas do not appreciate that people who live in rural areas have footpaths that go within 5 or 10 yards of their front doors. It puts enormous stress on people, particularly those who live by themselves, when strangers walk past their front door. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Minister takes note of the stresses put on families who feel that their privacy is being invaded? We are not talking about footpaths that are miles away from people’s front doors.
Bill Wiggin
My hon. Friend is right, and I am sure he will seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and share his expertise with the House. The key thing for Opposition Members to remember is that we are talking about not rights of way, but people killing themselves, or being seriously hurt or injured. That is what we are trying to avoid. We are trying to make sure that every person who walks or works in the countryside is safe.
No one should feel besieged in their own home. Rights of way should not affect someone’s right to safety. I am therefore asking again for flexibility, as I fear that if privacy is not considered as reasonable grounds for safely altering a footpath, more people’s lives will be plagued by intrusion. Common sense must again prevail.
I read with interest the 2010 “Stepping Forward” report by Natural England’s stakeholder working group on unrecorded rights of way. Although the group did not address the safety and privacy of routes, I believe that my new clause is in the spirit of its recommendations. The report praised surveyors for taking use of land into account in footpath diversions. In its evidence to the Bill Committee in February, the group indicated that it has discussed diversions in greater depth since 2010. In her evidence, Sarah Slade of the Country Land and Business Association emphasised her support for making people’s lives easier through diversions. My new clause is a natural progression from the group’s recommendations. I strongly believe that all interested parties would regret missing this opportunity to ease the risks and conflicts created by footpaths.
The stakeholder group’s guidance, which I suspect the Government hope to make statutory, will not overrule the tests that determine changes to footpath routes, so it is not equal to the task in hand. Nor will it deal with the standard objection of—please forgive the wording—“not substantially less convenient”, which is the excuse given when a footpath may be a few metres longer than it was previously. New statutory guidance may therefore help, but it will not solve the problem.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will be pleased to learn that members of my constituency Labour party and I took part yesterday in what we call, in a comradely fashion, a red ramble. We walked from the site of the battle of Newburn Ford to Wylam, the birthplace of the great engineer George Stephenson. We walked most of the way across the land of the Duke of Northumberland. Unfortunately, we did not see any red squirrels, but we enjoyed the unequalled beautiful countryside, and views of the Tyne. As we walked, we discussed the role of the Labour movement over hundreds of years in fighting for the right of public access, sometimes illegally, including in the mass trespass of Kinder Scout. I mention that to set out to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) the depth of feeling among Labour Members that causes us to oppose new clause 15.
In government, Labour has demonstrated that depth of feeling by long supporting public access to the countryside and the wider natural environment. In 1949, the post-war Labour Government passed into law a requirement to record public rights of way on a legally conclusive document known as the definitive map and statement. Labour’s 1987 manifesto for government outlined commitments not only to offer all people more freedom to explore the open countryside, but to strengthen the protection of our national heritage. The Countryside and Rights of Ways Act 2000 was one of the most successful and supported pieces of legislation in this area, and it strengthened and consolidated the aims of our original National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
Mr Newmark
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, but I do not think that any Government Member disputes the right to go about the open countryside; that argument was won a long time ago—congratulations on winning it. We are concerned about the right of individuals effectively to intrude on people’s private property and to get—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There can be only one intervention, and it should be a short intervention.
Mr Newmark
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are talking about the right of an individual to walk on someone’s property, and how to find a way forward, with local councils, on moving a path slightly, so that people can get to their destination.
Chi Onwurah
This is all about individuals’ rights to walk on private property, just as I walked over the Duke of Northumberland’s land yesterday. I do not want to belittle or trivialise cases in which property owners experience significant stress, but there are already powers that permit landowners and land managers to apply to a local authority to make an order to divert or close a public path that crosses their land, so additional legislation is not required.
Chi Onwurah
The Bill’s measures on this subject derive from the Natural England stakeholder working group. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that finding a consensus between users, landowners and local authorities, and between Ramblers and the Country Land and Business Association, is such an achievement that it should not be jeopardised. If he wants further proposals to be brought forward, he should work with the stakeholder working group to deliver consensus on them. It is imperative that the measures agreed by the working group are implemented as soon as possible. We do not want them to be jeopardised by the new clauses in the group, especially because those new clauses raise several important questions. For example, who would decide that a public right of way was intrusive? Why are the measures necessary when there are already powers that permit landowners to apply to a local authority, as I set out? Who would define what “limited circumstances” were?
A presumption in favour of a diversion would take powers away from local authorities and reduce the ability of communities to have a say. Is this in accordance with the localism agenda, which I thought all Members on the Government Benches agreed with? Local communities, through their local councils, should have the ability to shape their local area. We should support the rights of all to access the countryside and to maintain existing rights of way, especially as the local countryside offers our citizens benefits in terms of health, exercise and mental well-being.
Mr Newmark
I shall speak to new clauses 17, 18 and 19.
Many people up and down the country, especially in rural areas, face the daily personal stress and blight of their properties caused by highly intrusive public rights of way across their land, including the gardens of family homes and working farmyards, as well as commercial premises. The new clauses that I propose set out how local authorities should respond to requests to divert or extinguish rights of way, to applications under the right to apply introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, or negotiation under the new modification consent order process set out in paragraph 5 of schedule 7 to the Bill. Specifically, my new clauses 17, 18 and 19 address and amend sections 119, 118 and 116 respectively of the Highways Act 1980.
It might be helpful for the Minister to have a little context and background to my new clauses. The existence of public rights of way within private property raises several concerns, many of which have been highlighted to me by my constituents. Most important among them is the security of the family and property of the landowner, in particular the security of young children. Having in their backyard a public footpath that anyone can access is worrying for parents and impacts on the daily life of their families.
Mr Andrew Turner
Is my hon. Friend aware that people who own such footpaths can apply for them to be moved? I do not see why he is proposing an alternative method.
Mr Newmark
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) pointed out, there are issues of safety and security. This is not a subject that I knew anything about until it was raised with me by several constituents, who are extremely frustrated with the existing process designed to protect their family and property. That is what my new clauses are about.
Following on from this are concerns with potential infringements on the privacy of residents and their expectation of being able to relax without strangers appearing in the same contained space. Pathways across land can also reduce the value of the property. That, by the way, is probably the least of my concerns, but it has been raised by my constituents. Finally, farmyard operations put the public potentially at risk because of the limited space through which these routes pass.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I could accept what the hon. Gentleman says if he were referring to hustling, for example, but the fact that he does not seem to address is that many rights of way are very historic. When I was taken by my grandfather to the footpath that went from Esclusham Above to Esclusham Below, I did it in the knowledge that he went with his grandfather. Such rights are intrinsic in our rural areas. That is what we are frightened about.
Mr Newmark
Yes, yes. I am totally sympathetic with what the hon. Lady says. I am not trying to change historic rights of way. My intention is to create more flexibility in the system to allow paths that go right past people’s front doors and their gardens to be moved slightly. I am not looking to stop people’s access to those ancient rights of way.
In order to solve these problems, the owner of the land in question must seek an order to divert or extinguish the right of way through a modification consent order or an application for public path order. This guidance applies where a public right of way passes through a garden which forms part of the curtilage of a residential dwelling, a working farmyard or forestry yard, or other operational business or working industrial premises. The interests of the landowner must be weighed against the overall impact on the public as a whole—a point that Opposition Members emphasised—and the privacy, security and safety of the landowner are all considerations to which due weight should be given. Furthermore, if the public right of way is extinguished, it should be diverted elsewhere in order to reduce inconvenience to the public.
Now that I have laid out at least some of the rationale for my new clauses, let me touch briefly on each new clause in turn. New clause 17, entitled “Presumed diversion of intrusive public rights of way in limited circumstances”, amends section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 and facilitates statutory guidance to allow for the diversion of rights of way that pass through domestic or business premises on the grounds of privacy, safety or security. New clause 18, entitled “Presumed extinguishment of intrusive public rights of way in limited circumstances”, amends section 118 of the 1980 Act and facilitates statutory guidance to allow for the extinguishment of rights of way that pass through domestic or business premises on the grounds of privacy, safety or security if a diversion is not possible as the right of way provides access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise accessible. Finally, new clause 19, entitled “Presumed extinguishment of intrusive byways open to all traffic in limited circumstances”, is an amendment to section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 and creates a presumption that byways open to all traffic should be diverted so as not to pass through residential or business premises unless the byway does not impact on the privacy, safety or security of the premises or provides access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise accessible.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that although it is essential that we respect the ancient rights provided by footpaths and byways that the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) spoke about in her intervention, it is important that we also respect the privacy, safety and security of individuals and their property. That is the narrow path that I am trying to navigate. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that new clauses 17, 18 and 19 are drafted both to be reasonable to landowners and to respect the rights of individuals to have access to byways, especially if those byways provide access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise accessible. In this spirit I look forward to his response to new clauses 17, 18 and 19 as well as to new clause 15, which is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. I end by thanking my constituent Roger Duffin for raising this important issue and for his guidance in enabling me to draft a constructive solution to a sensitive problem.
Tom Brake
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) and for Braintree (Mr Newmark) for tabling their new clauses and allowing us to discuss the important topic of rights of way and the impact that these can have.
We recognise that all four amendments seek to address the issue of intrusive public rights of way. The Government have been giving very careful consideration to this, in discussion with the rights of way stakeholder working group. The work done by the group has been invaluable in pulling together the potentially divergent views of landowners and ramblers.
The Government acknowledge that for householders, farmers and others, an intrusive footpath can have a substantial impact on their quality of life or on their ability to run a business. We understand that while this is not a widespread problem, where it occurs it can cause severe difficulties, and in a significant number of cases people have been put through years of considerable inconvenience and stress, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire mentioned.
It is not clear to me whether my hon. Friend feels that his amendment would help prevent incidents involving dangerous cattle on footpaths, unless it is envisaged that the presumption that paths should not pass through other land where safety is an issue could be used to close or divert rights of way that run through fields where cattle are present. That would clearly be a radical and sweeping measure that could lead to the closure or diversion of innumerable rights of way with questionable justification. The issue of cattle attacks on public rights of way is being addressed separately by the Government, and there is no suggestion from any of the parties involved that primary legislation is required to sort out the problem to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. It is clear, however, that there has to be a change in the way in which both legislation and policy operate if people are to get a satisfactory hearing, and that is what the Government are doing in the Bill.
We very much sympathise with people’s genuine concerns about the problems that can arise from footpaths running through private gardens and farmyards and recognise that we need to find an acceptable solution, but we do not believe that these new clauses are the best way to go about this. Measures are already being developed that will make a significant difference to the way in which requests for diversions and extinguishments of rights of way will be dealt with by local authorities. We are working towards making effective the “right to apply” provisions in the Bill. That will enable a landowner to make a formal application for the diversion or extinguishment of a public right of way; with that will come the right to appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority rejects the application or fails to act on it, so local authorities will not be able simply to rebuff or ignore representations from a landowner, as they can at present. I hope that my hon. Friends will see that as a positive development.
Moreover, the right to apply will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem. That guidance has been developed in agreement with the rights of way stakeholder working group.
Mr Newmark
The Minister was actively listening and I appreciate his response, but I would ask him to be sensitive to the cost of appeal. Many of these people are not wealthy and it is important that we keep costs to an absolute minimum.
Tom Brake
Costs can be a significant issue, and the Government and local authorities will clearly want to ensure that they are kept to a minimum.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire asked whether the guidance would be statutory. This is a deregulation Bill, the purpose of which is to minimise the statutory burden rather than increase it. We believe that the combined effect of the right to apply and the guidance will have the desired effect, and we should see how the measures work out in practice before seeking to add to the legislative burden.
A draft of the guidance has been deposited in the House Library. We recognise that it needs further refinement and it remains open for comment. The rights of way reforms will also give local authorities more scope to deal with objections themselves, rather than having to submit every opposed order to the Secretary of State as at present. We believe that the provisions will make a significant difference, and until we see how well the “right to apply” provisions work alongside the new guidance, making further legislation would be premature. The new clauses would create new regulation where it may prove to be unnecessary and create more problems than they resolve.
The issue of intrusive public rights of way is emotive. I can appreciate why it arouses strong feelings and why those affected feel so strongly that something needs to be done. While putting the terms of a presumption on the face of the Act might seem like a way of making sure something happens, it carries a high risk that the presumption will not work as intended and, unlike the guidance, it would not be possible readily to make changes in response to unforeseen circumstances or to take account of new developments.
As the draft guidance on diversions and extinguishments has been developed by the stakeholder working group, there is a strong consensus around it, which means that it is far more likely to be complied with. We welcome the fact that a new working group is likely to be set up through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which will look at some of the other complex issues, such as green lanes—another very difficult issue to which to find a consensual solution. We firmly believe that solutions arrived at in that way, based on agreement and mutual interest, will result in less conflict and less need for enforcement in the long run.
The proposed new clauses also do not strike the correct balance between public and private interests, which is critical to the agreement reached on the guidance by the stakeholder working group. Legislative solutions imposed without a consensus tend to result in more disputes and legal challenges and there is no stakeholder consensus around the legislative changes proposed here. The new clauses would be quite a fundamental change to the current legislative status quo, which should not be made in the absence of either public consultation or stakeholder agreement, so I regret that I must urge my hon. Friends not to press their amendments.
Business of the House
Brooks Newmark Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
That was a bit of a “Bah, humbug!” moment at the end, unfortunately. In all those respects we do not need to make new year’s resolutions, since they are part of our common practice and custom.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
As you are aware, Mr Speaker, I have been calling for several weeks for a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment on the planning regulations for solar PV panels in rural locations. As the Leader of the House will know, in rural north Essex—the northern part of my constituency—more than 300 acres of solar PV panels are being planned, which will affect the villages of Liston, Belchamps, Foxearth and Twinstead. The matter is a continued aggravation to my constituents and they would very much appreciate a debate on this important issue.
Mr Speaker
Frankly, I cannot say that I was much aware of the hon. Gentleman’s current preoccupation, but I assure him that I am now.
Christmas Adjournment
Brooks Newmark Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the idea that we could have a runway for Heathrow, but I think we are about 180 miles away. That is a long way away, but I understand his sentiments.
Returning to the A30/A303, from Exeter to Honiton the A30 is all dualled. It then goes from Honiton to the Somerset border, where it is not dualled. As it gets towards the Somerset border it splits off, with one part going on to Yeovil and the A30 carries on and goes into the A303. I want to see this part dualled in particular, and not just because it is in my constituency. Believe it or not, I am not just making a plea for my constituency, because it then travels up through Somerset and into Wiltshire. Of course, it passes by some rather interesting stones—I think they are called Stonehenge. How to pass them—whether we should build a tunnel and so on—has always been a thorny problem.
I think that, in all, nine sections of the A30/A303 need to be dualled. As a Government, we need to start picking up and running with these individual schemes. The greater the amount of dual carriageway on the road, the more we will have a second arterial route into the west country. Devon and Cornwall in particular, and Somerset too, rely a lot on tourism. Our businesses are hugely affected by the speed of travel. If the M5 is blocked, there is just carnage because traffic cannot get through.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
I was not expecting to intervene, but as my mother-in-law lives along the A303—not that I necessarily want to rush to get to my mother-in-law’s—I know the road has congestion points that create huge tailbacks, particularly leading back from Stonehenge towards London. I sympathise with my hon. Friend, and I am, of course, very much looking forward to seeing my mother-in-law on Boxing day.
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. On this occasion, it being Christmas, I am sure he will be delighted to see his mother-in-law. To be serious, he is absolutely right. Travelling the A30 down into Cornwall, one finds large tailbacks on every long stretch of non-dualled road, but on short non-dualled roads, there is always much less of a tailback. I hope we will get a dual carriageway, tunnel or something past Stonehenge, but if not, at least a lot more dualling on the road would speed up the process. The other day, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced a pipeline of funding, so I asked him to turn on the tap. I am looking forward to the tap being turned on and that road being built.
On a third constituency matter, Feniton is a village on the outskirts of Honiton that was flooded many times last year and which has been under threat this year, yet several planning applications have been made for 200 homes in the village. These proposed homes have been refused by the district and parish councils, and the local population oppose them hugely because the infrastructure is not there. These homes will create more surface run-off and cause more flooding. I want the Planning Inspectorate to consider that point. I understand that the planning Minister is issuing guidance to planning inspectors to ensure that the infrastructure of a village or town is taken into consideration when appeal decisions are being looked at. It is imperative that this matter be treated in that way, because Feniton could be swamped by these homes and the infrastructure—the roads, the sewerage system and the schools—would be overloaded.
On a general point about flooding throughout my constituency, we are on an alert even as we speak. We must learn the lessons of flooding. No, we cannot stop it raining, and no we cannot stop flooding, but we can ensure that our rivers and tributaries are dredged and we can enable more local management of waterways so that the people who know exactly when the rivers are too high, when sluices need to be opened and when drainage points are blocked can do that work. The result would be a lot less flooding. It is good that the Government are negotiating Flood Re with the insurance companies. That means that my constituents should be able to get insurance at a reasonable cost. I also want to emphasise the fact that sometimes the Environment Agency’s flood-prevention schemes can be very expensive, but local people could help bring that about and do a lot of self-help.
On a final issue, we are about to agree yet another reform of the common agricultural policy. Under the new settlement, money will be taken for so-called capping or modulation, although we do not know whether it will be 9%, 12% or 15%; we are waiting for the Government to say exactly how much. I make this plea: we must make good use of the money we take from farmers and put in place good environmental schemes that will help not only agriculture, but the environment, grasslands and hills, such as those in Devon.
Mr Newmark
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me another bite at the cherry.
Last Friday, I met my local farmers, and they raised with me a good question about the modulation that my hon. Friend could put to the Secretary of State or Ministers. According to many farmers, 15% is an extraordinarily high figure, and some justification for why it is not 9% or 9.5%, as in other EU countries, would be useful.
Neil Parish
I had better be quick because, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are looking me very sternly.
Yes, 15% is very high. We must use this modulated money to put in place environmental schemes that are necessary. We must not take money from farmers unless we know exactly what we are going to do with it. In the end, the family farms in Devon and across the country are important, not only to farming, but to the countryside itself.
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Deputy Speaker a happy Christmas. I also thank all the staff throughout this building for their good work this year and wish them a happy Christmas.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
I want to begin, rather than end, my speech by wishing all the staff of the House, and the police, a happy Christmas. They serve all of us here in Parliament extremely well, and I hope that they will have a relaxing Christmas holiday and a happy new year.
I also want to thank certain groups in my constituency which I know will be working very hard over Christmas. The Salvation Army does a tremendous job in looking after the homeless, not just in Braintree but, I believe, in all our constituencies, and Braintree Foyer looks after young people very well when they have nowhere to go. Then there are the church groups, which serve our food banks incredibly well. As we know from our recent debate on the subject, the use of food banks has increased—there is no denying that—and many of the church groups in our communities are playing a leading role in that regard.
Let me now issue a plea to everyone in my constituency, and to all who are listening here. Many elderly people will be alone this Christmas, and if someone can spend just one or two hours with an elderly person, it will make a very big difference to that person at this very important time of the year.
I promised that I would be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will be, but I want to raise one constituency issue. I want to talk about two aspects of infrastructure, the first being trains. Unfortunately, we in Braintree are not well served by trains. There is a main line to Witham and then onwards, and there is a branch line from Witham to Braintree. As a branch line, we only get one train an hour. That causes enormous problems, and ever since I became a candidate in 1999—long before I was an MP—I was calling for a loop to be put in between Braintree and Witham because that will allow more people to travel along that line rather than waiting the one hour, as they have to, or getting in their cars.
The big problem is that Braintree has grown enormously even in the past 15 years that I have lived in the area. As a result, when people get on the train at Braintree they find that it is already at capacity, so by the time it reaches Cressing or White Notley, let us say, on the way to Witham it is often totally full. That creates huge problems, and one way to alleviate that pressure is to build a loop between Braintree and Witham.
I ask Greater Anglia and Abellio, who are the controllers of the train line, to think about these three Cs: capacity, cancellations and communication. With capacity, the issue is that the trains are often full at peak times, as I have mentioned, so it would be very useful for them to think about investing in that loop which I and others have been asking for. That will take people off the roads and on to the trains, and as they will be using the train services more, it will make the loop more economically viable.
The second C is cancellations. In the past month or so there have been three cancellations of the 6.45 am train. If someone is planning to catch a train at Cressing and they have a meeting in London that morning, and the 6.45 am train is cancelled and they do not know about it in advance, they have a big problem. The bigger problem is that, unfortunately, Greater Anglia has not put on any other services, such as a bus service, to take them to Witham, and it might not even inform passengers that there is a problem.
That brings me to my third C: communication. It is very important that Greater Anglia communicates with passengers, explaining that there is a problem, rather than passengers simply standing on the platform and seeing the train whizz past them. That can be extremely frustrating if they have a morning meeting in London or elsewhere.
I therefore ask Abellio and Greater Anglia to think about those three issues of capacity, dealing with cancellations with care and efficiency, and communicating with passengers. That is extremely important. They should think seriously about building a loop between Braintree and Cressing, because I think that will deal with a lot of the problems they face. I know from having talked to Braintree district council and Essex county council that they would be willing to put in some money to try to get this loop between Braintree and Cressing, as would local businesses. So again I make my plea to Abellio and Greater Anglia to think about building this loop, and perhaps the Secretary of State for Transport—the ex-Chief Whip and my ex-boss—will also consider that plea of mine.
My second infrastructure point is to do with the A120, and it relates very much to something my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) was saying. Drivers come up the M11, let us say, and then get on to the A120 at Stansted and have a beautiful two and three-lane highway all the way to Braintree, but when they get to Braintree they hit Galleys corner, which is known as cholesterol corner for two reasons: first, because of the KFC, the McDonald’s and the other fast food outlets that are located there, and secondly, because a major traffic blockage forms there.
While I appreciate that when the new Secretary of State took up his post he generously gave us a little over £300,000 to deal with the little pinch-point at Galleys corner, unfortunately that only dealt with a tiny piece of the problem. What we really need to do is dual the road the eight or nine miles between Braintree and Marks Tey in order to alleviate the blockage. I want Members to imagine a fast road that goes all the way from London through to Stansted and then on to Braintree, and then suddenly it stops. For eight or nine miles, there is a single-lane carriageway, the A12, to Marks Tey, at which point the road becomes the A120, and a dual carriageway, again, and continues all the way to Harwich.
Alleviating the pinch-points along this transnational, perhaps trans-European, network is important. Many groups in Braintree have campaigned for this to happen, including the Braintree business council, the Braintree business forum, Councillor Siddall, who is in charge of businesses on Braintree district council, and my friend Malcolm Hobbs. They have all have campaigned for the dualling of the road.
I do not deny that this would be an expensive project. It could cost up to £300 million, which is an enormous amount. However, time is money, and if people are stuck in their cars, that can be expensive for them. There are local groups in Braintree that are willing to invest in the project, and we could form a public-private partnership to achieve this. Essex county council, Braintree district council and various local businesses have all said that they would put in some money to alleviate the problem.
I make a direct plea to the Secretary of State for Transport and even to the Chancellor himself, who has been extremely generous in giving money to other infrastructure projects around the country, to alleviate this minor road block by putting some money into this project. It would create jobs locally and alleviate pressure and blight in several areas.
I shall leave the House with those two thoughts: a rail loop between Braintree and Witham, and the dualling of the road between Braintree and Marks Tey. Achieving those two goals would make me very happy and, more importantly, it would make my constituents who are trying to use the roads and public transport very happy. I shall also take this opportunity to wish everyone, including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a happy Christmas and new year.
Business of the House
Brooks Newmark Excerpts(11 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady will know—I have said this in the House, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—that we are in negotiations with the Association of British Insurers. She will have noted in the Queen’s Speech the intention to introduce legislation relating to the water industry. The Government are clear that we will take the necessary legislative provisions in this Session not only to support reform of the water industry, but to give it greater resilience, promote competition and provide the framework for flood insurance in the future.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
The Government are to be congratulated on a number of the large infrastructure projects that they are proposing, but a number of choke points on the road transport network, including one on the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey, stop the flow of traffic. The choke points cost time and, as we know, time is money. There are a number of choke points throughout the country. If we want to improve the flow of traffic, it would be worth the Government’s time to listen to Members of the House on where those choke points are. Perhaps the Transport Minister can come to the House to make a statement on how he will address them.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend reminds me that debates in the House are a good opportunity for Members to make those points, not least through Adjournment debates. I recall that my first Adjournment debate in the House in 1997 related to the rebuilding of the A14, which, as he and I know because it is in our region, is as yet unfinished. I hope the coalition Government will finally make that happen, but I know perfectly well the road connection to which he refers. I have no doubt that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), understands the problem very well, even if decisions on it might be led more locally through the local enterprise partnership.