Category: London

Paul Stephenson – 2011 Resignation Statement from the Met Police

The statement made by Sir Paul Stephenson, the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, on 17 July 2011.

I have this afternoon informed the Palace, Home Secretary and the Mayor of my intention to resign as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service.

I have taken this decision as a consequence of the ongoing speculation and accusations relating to the Met’s links with News International at a senior level and in particular in relation to Mr Neil Wallis who as you know was arrested in connection with Operation Weeting last week.

Firstly, I want to say what an enormous privilege it has been for me to lead this great organisation that is the Met. The recent example of the heroism and bravery of Met officers in chasing armed suspects, involving the shooting of one of my officers, is typical; but is in danger of being eclipsed by the ongoing debate about relationships between senior officers and the media. This can never be right.

Crime levels in the Met are at a ten year low. You have seen the Met at its glorious and unobtrusive best on the occasion of the royal wedding; the professional and restrained approach to unexpected levels of violence in recent student demonstrations; the vital ongoing work to secure the safety of the capital from terrorism; the reductions in homicide; and continuing increased levels of confidence as the jewel in our crown of Safer Neighbourhoods Teams serve the needs of Londoners.

I am deeply proud of the achievements of the Met since I became Commissioner.

Let me turn to phone hacking and my relationship with Neil Wallis. I want to put the record straight.

I met Mr Wallis in 2006. The purpose of that meeting was, as with other journalists, to represent the context of policing and to better inform the public debate carried out through the media on policing issues.

I had no knowledge of, or involvement in, the original investigation into phone hacking in 2006 that successfully led to the conviction and imprisonment of two men. I had no reason to believe this was anything other than a successful investigation. I was unaware that there were any other documents in our possession of the nature that have now emerged.

I have acknowledged the statement by John Yates that if he had known then what he knows now he would have made different decisions.

My relationship with Mr Wallis continued over the following years and the frequency of our meetings is a matter of public record. The record clearly accords with my description of the relationship as one maintained for professional purposes and an acquaintance.

In 2009 the Met entered into a contractual arrangement with Neil Wallis, terminating in 2010. I played no role in the letting or management of that contract.

I have heard suggestions that we must have suspected the alleged involvement of Mr Wallis in phone hacking. Let me say unequivocally that I did not and had no reason to have done so. I do not occupy a position in the world of journalism; I had no knowledge of the extent of this disgraceful practice and the repugnant nature of the selection of victims that is now emerging; nor of its apparent reach into senior levels. I saw senior figures from News International providing evidence that the misbehaviour was confined to a rogue few and not known about at the top.

One can only wonder about the motives of those within the newspaper industry or beyond, who now claim that they did know but kept quiet. Though mine and the Met’s current severe discomfort is a consequence of those few that did speak out, I am grateful to them for doing so, giving us the opportunity to right the wrong done to victims – and here I think most of those especially vulnerable people who deserved so much better from us all.

Now let me turn to the suspicion that the contractual relationship with Mr Wallis was somehow kept secret. The contracting of Mr Wallis only became of relevance when his name became linked with the new investigation into phone hacking. I recognise that the interests of transparency might have made earlier disclosure of this information desirable. However my priority, despite the embarrassment it might cause, has been to maintain the integrity of Operation Weeting. To make it public would have immediately tainted him and potentially compromised any future Operation Weeting action.

Now let me turn to the reported displeasure of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary of the relationship with Mr Wallis.

The reasons for not having told them are two fold. Firstly, I repeat my earlier comments of having at the time no reason for considering the contractual relationship to be a matter of concern. Unlike Mr Coulson, Mr Wallis had not resigned from News of the World or, to the best of my knowledge been in any way associated with the original phone hacking investigation.

Secondly, once Mr Wallis’s name did become associated with Operation Weeting, I did not want to compromise the Prime Minister in any way by revealing or discussing a potential suspect who clearly had a close relationship with Mr Coulson. I am aware of the many political exchanges in relation to Mr Coulson’s previous employment – I believe it would have been extraordinarily clumsy of me to have exposed the Prime Minister, or by association the Home Secretary, to any accusation, however unfair, as a consequence of them being in possession of operational information in this regard. Similarly, the Mayor. Because of the individuals involved, their positions and relationships, these were I believe unique circumstances.

Consequently, we informed the Chair of the MPA, Mr Malthouse, of the Met’s contractual arrangements with Mr Wallis on the morning of the latter’s arrest. It is our practice not to release the names of suspects under arrest, making it difficult to make public details of the arrangements prior to Mr Wallis’s release the same day. The timing of the MPA Committee that I appeared before at 2pm that day was most unfortunate.

Now let me briefly deal with the recent story in relation to my use of Champney’s facilities. There has been no impropriety and I am extremely happy with what I did and the reasons for it – to do everything possible to return to running the Met full time, significantly ahead of medical, family and friends’ advice. The attempt to represent this in a negative way is both cynical and disappointing.

I thought it necessary to provide this lengthy and detailed account of my position on aspects of the current media questions and speculation concerning my conduct. I do this to provide the backcloth to the main purpose of this statement.

There are a great number of things I value as part of my professional life – very high in this list are my reputation for judgement and integrity.

On judgement: running a large and overwhelmingly successful organisation like the Met must be dependent to a great extent on others providing the right information and assurances. I could reiterate that I had no reason to doubt the original investigation into phone hacking or be aware of the documents and information in our possession and only recently provided by News International. I could point to the many other successes of the Met. I could point to the long history of how and why the relationship between the Met and media has developed a way of doing business that has brought real benefits but perhaps runs the risk of misinterpretation or worse. In this particular regard it is clear to me that the current furore marks a point in time, a need to learn and change.

However, as Commissioner I carry ultimate responsibility for the position we find ourselves in. With hindsight, I wish we had judged some matters involved in this affair differently. I didn’t and that’s it.

I do not believe this on its own would be a matter for me to consider my position as Commissioner.

However, the issue of my integrity is different. Let me state clearly, I and the people who know me know that my integrity is completely intact. I may wish we had done some things differently, but I will not lose sleep over my personal integrity.

Nevertheless, I must accept that the intense media coverage, questions, commentary and indeed allegations, as demonstrated by this weekend’s attempt to misrepresent my arrangements for my recovery from illness, not only provide excessive distraction both for myself and colleagues, but are likely to continue for some time. In particular the Public Inquiry must take time, with even the first part scheduled not to report within a year. A year in which the Met must face not only the enormous challenges that are the staple diet of this incredible organisation, but also the Olympics.

This is not a 12 months that can afford any doubts about the Commissioner of the Met, I have seen at first hand the distractions for this organisation when the story becomes about the leaders as opposed to what we do as a service. I was always clear that I would never allow that. We the Met cannot afford this – not this year.

If I stayed I know that the Inquiry outcomes would reaffirm my personal integrity. But time is short before we face the enormous challenge of policing the Olympics – this is not the time for ongoing speculation about the security of the position of the Commissioner. Even a small chance that that there could be a change of leadership must be avoided.

Therefore, although I have received continued personal support from both the Home Secretary and the Mayor, I have with great sadness informed both of my intention to resign. This will allow time for the appointment of my successor and for that person to take a firm hold of the helm of this great organisation and steer it through the great challenges and necessary change ahead, unencumbered by the current controversy. I will miss many things, but most of all it will be the overwhelming majority of honest, hard working professionals who it has been such a great pleasure to lead.

August 10, 2022
Ed Balls – 2010 Comments on Proposed Cuts to the Met Police

The comments made by Ed Balls, the then Shadow Home Secretary, on 22 December 2010.

Sir Paul [Stephenson, Metropolitan Police Commissioner] is absolutely right to air his concerns about the funding cuts and unprecedented challenges the Metropolitan Police faces. Like police chiefs across the country Sir Paul has been put in an impossible position by a Conservative Home Secretary who failed to fight the corner of the police in the spending review.

House of Commons Library figures show that the Met faces a real terms cut in government funding of over £330m in just two years. That’s a cut of over 15 per cent – most of which is in the year of the Olympics – and with more cuts to come in the two years after that.

Ramming through cuts to policing of this speed and scale at a time of rising public protest on our streets, an ongoing terror threat and the security challenge of the 2012 Olympics is a reckless and dangerous gamble by this Conservative led government. It will undermine the fight against crime across the capital and take unnecessary risks with national security and the safety of our communities.

It’s time the Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May and the Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson started standing up for our police.

August 10, 2022
Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Right to Buy-Back in London

The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 9 August 2022.

For more than 40 years, London’s precious council homes have been disappearing into the private sector, often never to be replaced. As Mayor I have maintained a relentless focus on stemming the tide and replenishing London’s social housing stock.

I am proud that, thanks to my interventions, we have brought council homebuilding back up to levels not seen since the 1970s and I’m hugely encouraged by the enthusiasm I see from boroughs across London for building new council homes and using my Right to Buy-back scheme to return homes to public ownership.

These homes were built for the public good and it has been painful to watch them disappear into private portfolios. Returning these homes to public ownership is a key part of my plan to build a better London for everyone – a city that is greener, fairer and more prosperous for all.

August 9, 2022
Eddie Hughes – July 2022 Update to Grenfell Residents

The letter sent by Eddie Hughes, the Minister for Rough Sleeping and Housing, to residents in the area of Grenfell Tower on July 2022.

Letter (in .pdf format)

August 5, 2022
Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Expanding ULEZ

The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 29 July 2022.

The health of Londoners across the capital is being damaged by air pollution and I’m doing all I can to improve it. This data shows how important it is to take bold action that benefits all Londoners. If the zone is expanded, five million people living in the outer boroughs would also be able to breathe cleaner, less polluted air and this is why I’ve been consulting on expanding the ULEZ London-wide.

Deadly air pollution contributes to children developing stunted lungs, asthma and a whole host of other health issues and new research has shown that it also puts people at increased risk of developing dementia. We need to act now to protect the most vulnerable from the worst consequences of toxic air and build a safer, fairer, greener and more prosperous city for everyone.

August 3, 2022
Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Tree Planting Projects in London

The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 28 July 2022.

The extreme temperatures and fires that raged across the capital last week laid bare how vulnerable London is to the effects of climate change, which is why today I’ve pledged a further £3.1m for a mass tree-planting package to help limit the impacts of the climate emergency and the ecological crisis. These additional street trees and improvements to green spaces are targeted in areas where they’re most needed and will improve resilience of neighbourhoods in our city.

The climate emergency is the biggest global threat we face today and we know that it doesn’t impact all Londoners equally, with communities suffering poverty, deprivation and health inequalities more likely to experience the worst effects of flooding, overheating and poor quality air. As Mayor, I will continue my bold action to preserve and increase tree coverage across the capital as we build a better, greener and more sustainable London for everyone.

August 3, 2022
Sadiq Khan – 2022 Statement on TFL Funding (July 2022)

The statement made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 28 July 2022.

Today, the Government has given TfL a short-term extension to the current emergency funding deal until 3rd August 2022. This is only necessary as the Government shared the long overdue draft proposal for a funding settlement to TfL late last Friday, and it’s right that time is taken to thoroughly scrutinise the offer and understand it’s impact on Londoners and TfL services.

This is a £10bn transport authority that is crucial to supporting jobs and economic growth across the country. TfL must consider if this draft proposal provides the funding needed in order to avoid having to make painful cuts, and it’s in no one’s interest to have conditions attached to this funding deal that come at a cost – damaging TfL, unfairly punishing Londoners and our economic recovery.

August 3, 2022
Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on County Lines Gangs

The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 27 July 2022.

It’s vital that we support young people and keep them safe from exploitation by criminal gangs.

I am determined to ensure we provide an escape route for young Londoners who feel trapped and I’m pleased the Rescue and Response programme is working to break the chain of criminality that holds some of our most vulnerable young men, women, girls and boys hostage.

Thanks to this programme, more than 450 young people have benefited from positive opportunities to help change their lives for the better and divert them away from exploitation by criminal gangs.

I know we’re only scratching the surface of a major national issue that is still driving violence in London and across the country, but that is why I will continue to invest record amounts in programmes that intervene in the key moments in a person’s life, to divert them away from crime and build a safer London for everyone.

August 3, 2022
William Harcourt – 1884 Statement on the Explosion at Victoria Station

The statement made by William Harcourt, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 28 February 1884.

Sir, last night, at Charing Cross Station, in consequence of the information that had been received, the clerks particularly observed and searched the luggage there. That was about half-past 11 o’clock at night. I had better, perhaps, read the words of the Report on the matter which I have had from the police— 11.30 P.M. yesterday.—James Chamberlain, second cloak-room clerk, when looking over the stored luggage, lifted up a shabby black American-leather portmanteau, two feet by twelve inches, and finding that the weight of the contents was all on one side, he became suspicious, and opened the portmanteau with a duplicate key, finding, on the right hand side, well covered by some newspapers, a quantity of dirty white-looking cakes of an oily nature, four inches by two inches, packed closely around a tin box in the centre, the box being about four inches square, and the edges hermetically sealed with black sealing wax, and parts of an old pair of trousers pushed in between to fill up the space. The left-hand well only contained half an old coat, torn down the middle of the back. This having been discovered, the box and the material were sent to be examined by Colonel Majendie. I have seen it myself to-day. The tin box was about 6 or 8 inches square. It was a small japanned tin box. It appears it contained a clock—one of the ordinary small clocks that are to be seen in the shops—of American manufacture. It had arranged behind it a small pistol, which was so arranged that by the clock-work it should explode a cap. In proximity to this was placed a cake of a species of dynamite which is unknown in this country, and which is not used here, nor manufactured here, called Atlas Powder. In that cake of dynamite were six of the detonators for exploding dynamite, and loosely arranged round the box, in the portmanteau, were 40 of these cakes, amounting to about 20 lb. weight of dynamite. It appeared that the clock-work had let off the pistol, but the cap had missed fire, in the midst of this dynamite. It is a remarkable circumstance that Colonel Majendie has discovered, at the Victoria Station, in a state of semi-fusion, but quite sufficient to identify it, a mainspring of an exactly similar clock, so there cannot be smallest doubt that the two attempts were made identically in the same way. This dynamite was deposited at the Charing Cross Station on the same night as the explosion at Victoria Station, and the ticket on the portmanteau shows that it was deposited between 7 and 9 on Monday the 25th instant.

Since I came to the House I received the following Report from the police:— Mr. Hart, of the Great Western Railway, has just called on me to say that a portmanteau has been found at their station, containing what appears to be similar cakes of dynamite to that found at Charing Cross, and a clock-work arrangement, which, from the description, appears to be the same as that at Charing Cross. So that there are clearly three deposits of this character, all evidently of the same sorts, and olearly with the same object. The most significant part of the matter, as I have already stated, is that the explosive used is one which is not known, or manufactured, or used in commerce in this country. It is one with which, unfortunately, I am very familiar, because it has been discovered many times in connection with attempted explosions—some of which succeeded, and some did not—at Glasgow, at Liverpool, and in London. It is a ligneous composition of dynamite. Is is manufactured, as we know, in America, and, as far as Colonel Majendie knows, it has never been seen here except in connection with these explosions in this country.

August 2, 2022
Andrew MacKinlay – 1994 Speech on Fenchurch Street Station

The speech made by Andrew MacKinlay, the Labour MP for Thurrock, in the House of Commons on 17 March 1994. The speech was made at 05:15.

I begin the debate which I have initiated on the impact on the commuters of the closure of Fenchurch Street station and Limehouse station for seven weeks this summer by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, its servants and its officers for detaining them at this unearthly hour. I extend that apology to the Minister and to his colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who, on a personal level, are always courteous. Nevertheless, I shall not hesitate to criticise the Government and their stewardship of our railway network as it affects east London and Essex, despite the fact that the Minister has always been courteous and helpful to me about constituency matters.

The fact that Back-Benchers have to raise important issues at ridiculous hours of the day and night reflects the imbalance of the way in which we do things in this House. Before I depart from the House, my ambition is that the balance between Government business and BackBenchers’ debates will have been altered. Government business should be held in the middle of the night and Back-Benchers’ initiatives should be held during the day. I have already been in the Palace for 21 hours, working on parliamentary business. It is absurd that we hold these debate so late when the Minister, like me, has a full diary for the day ahead.

Having got that point off my chest, I state clearly that I do not question the urgent need for the resignalling works on the line that goes from Fenchurch Street to Southend, via my constituency of Thurrock and the constituency of Basildon; nor do I minimise the urgent need for Fenchurch Street station and other stations along that line to be refurbished and for the track to be renewed. Indeed, that work is long overdue, but I question whether, to complete those works, it is necessary to close Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations for seven weeks from 22 July. Had the Government and managers of Network SouthEast been alive to the decay of the London-Tilbury-Southend and Great Eastern lines and their stations, those closures would not have been necessary. They are a direct consequence of years of neglect and indifference by the Secretary of State and his predecessors under this Administration.

My constituents will suffer enormous additional delay and inconvenience as a result of that neglect. The impact will be quite awful for the thousands of commuters who travel from East Tilbury, Tilbury, Grays and, to a lesser extent, South Ockendon stations. They would wish me to place on record their considerable irritation at the inconvenience that they face this summer. The problem is not exclusive to my constituency but will affect thousands of commuters from Essex and east London, Southend, Shoeburyness, Basildon, Pitsea, Upminster, Dagenham Dock and particularly Barking. Some 19,000 commuters a day use Barking station and there is already considerable congestion and problems for commuters interlining from that station on their way to work in London.

When Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations close this summer, Network SouthEast intends that the bulk of commuters travelling from Essex will disembark at Barking and join the already heavily used, if not overloaded, District and Metropolitan underground lines from Barking. Commuters who normally interline with the docklands light railway at Limehouse station will have an additional problem to get to their place of work in the new docklands development area.

The closures will affect not only travellers to Barking but commuters living in Barking. Had my late colleague Jo Richardson still been with us, I am sure that she would have participated in this debate because of the enormous impact that the closure of Fenchurch Street station will have on the Barking and Dagenham constituents. I regret that no other hon. Members whose constituents will be affected by the closures are in the Chamber. In fairness, the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) is indisposed. He takes a keen interest in transport matters, having been a former Transport Secretary, and is also my chairman on the Transport Select Committee. I am sure that, had it been possible, he would have been here tonight. The inescapable fact remains, however, that there are Essex Conservative Members who should have been here tonight to speak up for their commuters, who will be greatly disadvantaged by the closures.

I have been a consistent and unashamed critic, not just of the Government and their transport policy, but of the managers of Network SouthEast, who do not respond as they should to the interests of commuters. They make cosmetic efforts to recognise those interests, but I am not satisfied that they properly champion consumers’ interests in their dealings with the Government. Were they to fulfil the spirit of their duties as line managers they would join me in criticising the Government for their chronic underfunding of the lines, which in turn has led to the chaos of one of London’s oldest mainline stations being closed for seven weeks in the summer.

The managers make some attempt to acknowledge the interests of commuters. Just this morning, they issued commuters with a glossy brochure entitled, “LTS Newsline: Customer Newsletter”. The banner headline reads: Station to shut for seven weeks”. The second page of the document is headed: LTS moves towards shadow franchise”. It goes on: The senior management team headed by Chris KinchinSmith, divisional director of LTS, has already expressed its initial willingness to mount a bid for the line, providing the terms of the franchise are acceptable. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that during the tortuous debates on rail privatisation, in the House and in the Select Committee, we were assured both by the Minister and by the chairman of British Rail that line managers who might be contemplating putting in a bid for a franchise should keep that interest separate from their operational role. Mr. Kinchin-Smith and his colleagues, in a document paid for by commuters through their fares, are flagging up an interest in bidding for a franchise—that clearly runs contrary to the spirit of those undertakings. I hope that the Minister will accept that, and that his Department will tick off people who are mixing up their responsibilities in this way.

Another sign that the legitimate interests of commuters are being ignored is the lack of facilities for the travelling public. The document also tells commuters that no toilets will be available for their use at Barking station, the main inter-line station, which is due to accommodate a great many more travellers this summer. That is symptomatic of the decay of the line and its understaffing by Network SouthEast and it is wholly unacceptable. It is not unreasonable to say that the line and its passengers must be properly looked after. It is a very bad state of affairs if they cannot provide WCs for commuters.

I move to the central issue of the debate—the closure of the Fenchurch Street main line station. Mr. Chris Kinchin-Smith says: We know this work will cause severe disruption for many of our customers”. My word, he can say that again; it is the understatement of the year. He then argues that the temporary closure of Fenchurch Street station is essential.

As I have said, I have no way of testing whether it is essential or unavoidable now, but it could have been avoided had there been proper funding and planning of the refurbishment and restoration of the line in previous years. The Government and the line management failed to acknowledge that, despite the fact that I and other Labour Members have been drawing attention to the problems of the misery line for a number of years.

The management’s document says that the station will be closed when many passengers take their holiday. That is very kind of them, but the fact that the work will be carried out in July or August will not greatly reduce the irritation to customers. We are not a town that has a “holiday week”. Thurrock does not close down and nor does Essex. In the south-east of England, in modern times, holidays straddle the summer months. It is of no great consolation to us that the work will be conducted in the summer and it is nonsense to suggest that that is any great concession to the fare-paying customers.

In their document, the managers of network SouthEast also say: We are working closely with London Underground”. I am not sure that that is so. Dear old London Underground has been told there about the closure of Fenchurch Street and Limehouse station and has to live with it.

In the past 24 hours, I have corresponded with the senior public affairs executive of London Underground. She replied: The eastern section of the District Line is currently operating the optimum level of service possible and therefore additional trains can not be provided by the line — that is the District line— during the 7 week closure period.”. The management of London Underground are in no position significantly to abate the problems of commuters from Essex; nor can they do anything to affect the impact on the existing underground customers who will also suffer through increased congestion on already overcrowded underground trains.

I also criticise the management because their glossy and expensive document does not give much time or attention to the problems that will be faced exclusively by my constituents on the Tilbury loop line. The section headed, “Your Questions Answered”, contains hardly any reference to mitigating the problems for my constituents, apart from telling us that present proposals include the Tilbury line and that all stopping services will terminate at Barking with onward travel by tube. It then gives us the good news that LTS tickets will be valid on the underground.

I have been fighting a continuing battle with Network SouthEast about its penalty fares scheme and how it relates to the closure of Fenchurch Street. I support the principle of the penalty fare scheme, but the management of Network SouthEast on the London-Tilbury-Southend line have been unable to maintain the ticket machines so that honest fare-paying passengers can purchase a ticket and avoid the embarrassment of having to defend their position when an inspector gets on the train. It is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs when, night after night on the main concourse of Fenchurch Street station, it is impossible, unless one has the exact fare, to purchase a ticket for use on that line. If Fenchurch Street station is to be refurbished, I hope that the management are able to get their act together. Apparently the machines there are supposed to be self-replenishing in change, but they do not self-replenish and the management seem incapable of arranging for people to empty them and fill them up with change.

The situation gets worse. If more people have to change at Barking on to London Underground, which is also introducing a penalty fares scheme from the beginning of this financial year, it makes it even more imperative that passengers are able to purchase a ticket or permit to travel at stations in Essex. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and ensure that the management of London Underground and Network SouthEast understand that that is a reasonable expectation and demand by the commuters in view of the penalty fares policy.

I want to ask the Minister some questions. First, what compensation will commuters who are disadvantaged by the lengthy closure of Fenchurch Street station receive? They do not have a good service at the present time. Despite what the management say, the journeys are still erratic in terms of punctuality. Their problems will be compounded. I guess that the vast majority of commuters from Essex will have each day an additional three quarters of an hour travelling time, at least, to their place of work in London as a result of the closure. That is not fair when one bears in mind that commuters from Southend, if travelling only on the LTS line, pay £1,912 per annum for their season ticket. If they are travelling LTS and Great Eastern, the season ticket costs £2,056 per annum. In my constituency, commuters from Tilbury pay £1,564 per annum. At that price, bearing in mind the problems that they will experience this summer, they are entitled to a rebate. I hope that the Minister will consider that matter and make the appropriate recommendation to the management of Network SouthEast.

Secondly, is the Minister able to give me an assurance that when the work is complete following the closure of Fenchurch Street and Limehouse stations, there will be no further hiatus for commuters from Essex? I ask that because I have no confidence about the frankness of the management of Network SouthEast. For example, they did not mention the possibility of this closure until it was almost unavoidable. They must have known about it a year or two ago, but they did not tell us. I have a deep suspicion that there will be further closures of stations along the LTS line in the coming months or perhaps the next two years. If I am wrong, I would welcome that correction and reassurance from the Minister.

Thirdly, after significant sums of public money have been spent on refurbishing the LTS line and Fenchurch Street station, will the station be fully used to the advantage of the Essex commuters? Each evening, commuters wanting to get back to Essex are faced with the absurd irritation of having to look at the clock and decide whether to head for Fenchurch Street station or Liverpool Street station. About halfway through the evening, Fenchurch Street is closed and those travelling to Essex must use Liverpool Street.

Fenchurch Street is a mainline station. It services my constituents on the Tilbury loop, and many others who want to get to towns between London and Southend. I do not think it unreasonable to expect those people to be able to board a train at Fenchurch Street throughout the evening. I hope that, following the expenditure on Fenchurch street, that problem will be remedied and a proper service will be restored.

Although I have tempered my remarks, I hope that the Minister will understand why I legitimately accuse the Government of neglecting the line. They are, to a large extent, to blame for the problems that will be experienced this summer by my constituents and by people living throughout Essex and in east London. Some of the blame must lie with the management of Network SouthEast but, putting that aside, I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will have a further meeting with the management to establish whether the work can be completed without closing the station.

I feel that, although it might be inconvenient and involve some additional cost to Network SouthEast, the work could be completed in the middle of the night and over a series of weekends. It might take a good deal longer, but the disadvantage to computers would be a good deal less. I suspect that a seven-week closure of Fenchurch Street station is the easy way out for the management, rather than being truly unavoidable. I hope that the Minister will investigate that.

I also hope that the Minister will establish whether it will be possible to increase capacity on London Underground during the closure of Fenchurch Street—assuming that it goes ahead—and that he will ensure that passengers can purchase tickets from properly maintained machines, both on that line and throughout the Network SouthEast area. That is not happening now. Finally, I hope that commuters will be told about any other anticipated problems months, if not years, in advance, rather than those problems’ being sprung on them with the minimum notice.

I expect the Minister to say that Network SouthEast has consulted local Members of Parliament, because that is what Network SouthEast told me today. It is true that Mr. Kinchin-Smith has invited me to meet him, and I look forward to arranging a mutually convenient date. What he has never done, however, is write to me, as a Member of Parliament, saying, “We have a problem: we are going to have to close Fenchurch Street station, which will affect your commuters.” All I got was a press release, some weeks weeks ago—not even a letter. I do not protest about that discourtesy on my own behalf, but I am protesting on behalf of my constituents and other commuters from Essex. It shows the way in which the management of the line treat their customers.

I hope that we will receive some reassurance from the Minister and that, as a consequence, the enormous chaos will be avoided for commuters this summer.

July 30, 2022