Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
284
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
0
As currently published
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | MP | Bognor Regis and Littlehampton | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
Not yet retrieved from the register. Parliament's register page
The one county that the Secretary of State did not mention in her very long list is West Sussex, which has been waiting through two and a half years of dither and delay. Will she take this opportunity to tell me the plan for West Sussex?
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{79413C6E-1A22-46A6-B394-4A0C709B7A65}"> </QNum></strong> To continue the conversation on the ORR, as shadow Rail Minister, I am struck by the fact that in the Railways Bill, the role of the ORR is significantly downgraded, but in this Bill, the balance seems to tip the other way. What is the right balance to make sure both that the ORR has the independence we talked about and that we get the right results for consumers and road users? <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> I worked at the ORR back in the day—
I used to work at RAC. <em><strong>Steve Gooding:</strong></em> As somebody who worked there, I think there are two key things: one is independence, and the other is capability. We are talking specifically about growing and making sure that the ORR has the requisite capability to undertake the tricky and, in a way, very public task of setting that. It would need to build that up. As you say, a lot of the expertise in the ORR today is on railways. Yes, that is engineering, construction and all that, but I would certainly like to see a significant strengthening in the capability of the ORR around some of the specific things about this project and its relationship with the existing crossing. <em><strong>Edmund King:</strong></em> I agree. I believe the ORR is looking to bring in new skills, particularly in economic regulation and the broader issues, which will be needed. There are similarities between road and rail, but there are also differences and some of the consequences in regulation are quite different, so it will need to be beefed up.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{ECE26A25-546F-47FB-ACAA-17ED6F122184}"> </QNum></strong> This is predominantly for Mr Whelan, but Ben and Declan, if you wish to weigh in, please do. For the M6, have the economic and operational outcomes that have been delivered over the last 20 years been what was envisaged? On the role of the ORR, does the regulation outlined in the Bill provide sufficient certainty for private investors? <em><strong>Michael Whelan:</strong></em> In terms of economic benefits, the best way to look at the M6 toll is to consider the fact that 50,000 vehicles use it every day. If it was not there, the M6 and surrounding network would be quite a mess. As a result of the M6 toll, we have seen significant investment into the region. Numerous businesses have invested in logistics sites up and down that corridor—for example, there is a massive Amazon site near us. That also creates jobs for the region. I will not go through it all; please refer to the pre-reading that I know you all have. In terms of part 7 of the Bill, which we are specifically interested in, as we see it, as it is an existing road, the ORR regulations do not apply. If they were to apply, that would have a significant impact on our concession agreement, on investors and, in particular, on lenders, who have all invested into the roads. Having this conversation is important, but for us it is a separate issue. <em><strong>Declan Pang:</strong></em> On the RAB model in particular, we are supportive of any measures that will be brought forward to increase road building and capacity, and efforts in that regard. We think that RAB gives some certainty to the market around providing investment opportunities. In addition to my comments around the stakeholder group, the ORR has been heavily weighted towards rail regulation and currently has a much smaller role in highways monitoring. As a proportion of what it does as an organisation, its role from a roads perspective is smaller than the rail element, and that is probably reflected in its level of engagement with the sector as it stands. The Bill would reflect quite a significant change in its level of responsibility, and we would want to be sure about the capability and capacity for it to take on that responsibility. <em><strong>Ben Garratt:</strong></em> I want to expand on something Michael said about the wider benefits. Understandably, the logistics sector invests where there is transport capacity and junctions, from where it can then access the rest of the country. Particular parts of the road and rail network have a lot of logistics clustered around them. It is also about having good journey times between large conurbations. We can definitely see, in other parts of the country, what we would say is artificially less logistics investment than there should have been, because of transport constraints in parts of the network. It particularly affects the north-west, where it is more of a rail issue. A lack of capacity on the west coast main line leads to more modern logistics being clustered further south than maybe it otherwise would be. There is a real economic benefit for the country in getting the capacity right.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{88ADAA3B-40DD-467C-8591-8DC6B6663F00}"> </QNum></strong> I will build on some of what the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, said about tipping points. My question is to both of you, so please feel free to answer in whichever order you prefer. The shadow Minister was referring to things such as fuel duty, I am acutely conscious that the cost base of the lower Thames crossing project is going up and is as yet unknown, and we do not know what the toll will be. In a situation such as we have at the moment, where diesel is at £2 a litre and the sustainable version another 50p on top of that, costs are going right up not only for <span id="34" class="column-number" data-column-number="34"></span>the build, but for the corporate budgets of the haulage companies and for everyday individuals, who have to manage their household budgets. If the cost goes up to a level beyond the right balance of pricing that is commercially viable for the operator, or absorbable for the family or the business, what happens? At the moment, I am worried about a white elephant across the Thames. In such circumstances, in the end all the costs would get absorbed by the taxpayer and this model goes up in smoke. I am keen to hear from you how concerned I should be about that and what alternative models there are elsewhere. <em><strong>Ben Hopkinson:</strong></em> The ultimate backstop is the Exchequer. Already the Exchequer has had to bear the cost of bringing the lower Thames crossing through planning. I think it is expected to spend about £3.1 billion on the lower Thames crossing even before private investment is brought in. If we have a circumstance where the toll is not paying back what is necessary and the private body that has financed the road falls into difficulty, the Bill states that the Exchequer is able to top up or provide payments, guarantees or low-cost loans. The backstop is therefore ultimately the taxpayer, combined with higher charges for motorists on the road.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{8C01C96A-294C-499D-B146-17B600702EE1}"> </QNum></strong> Should we put in greater stipulations on how costs are incurred? This goes back to some of what the shadow Minister was talking about, that the Bill should stipulate that the road is not overspecified—although safety should remain absolutely paramount—while things such as the use of sustainable diesel are not a necessary part of the Bill. Should that be in the Bill? <em><strong>Ben Hopkinson:</strong></em> I am not sure if that would be an appropriate thing for the Bill itself, but trying to make the project as low-cost as possible will definitely be appropriate as we go on to construction and working with National Highways and whatever private company wins the contract. That will be about ensuring that the Office of Rail and Road is set up properly to oversee the costs that are being put through. <em><strong>Sam Dumitriu:</strong></em> It is worth remembering, however, that the families who may pay higher tolls to cross either the Dartford crossing or the lower Thames crossing, in the absence of a lower Thames crossing bear very high costs, too, as does freight traffic between two of our major ports. The crossing is crucial to the whole wider freight economy—there are really big problems there. I think it is worth remembering that the projects should be made a priority and that, ultimately, they need to get built.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{F8D31A12-28F6-4A3E-A79C-4BFACBD17F77}"> </QNum></strong> Ben just said he did not think that we should be stipulating cost-effectiveness in the Bill—I am paraphrasing, to be fair. My challenge back to that is: why not? If I sit and look at the effectiveness of regulation in other sectors, I come from the private sector—
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{7BEC0E8A-CC8C-4E5A-AD82-684988770D81}"> </QNum></strong> I want to come back to the question of hydrotreated vegetable oil. Mr Palmer, you suggested that there was parity/comparability in costs between white diesel and HVO. I have spent a little time in the last few minutes looking at Google, Claude and ChatGPT, and not one of those sources suggests that is the case unless you count HVO being 10% to 30% more expensive as comparable. So I want to push back and ask you to be more precise on the additional cost base of using HVO in construction across the course of this project, both to date and in your estimates going forward. <em><strong>Matt Palmer:</strong></em> In construction in the UK, about two thirds of our constructors use HVO as standard. For a project, you will find that a number of constructors bid with HVO—it is just in the costs. That is the case with lower Thames crossing. Two thirds of our contractors bid with HVO.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{707A838B-368C-42B8-96DF-83A24A9343B5}"> </QNum></strong> That is comparing yourself to another contractor. That is not what I am asking. I am asking about what your costs are of white diesel versus HVO—a completely different comparison. <em><strong>Matt Palmer:</strong></em> But we have never—what I am saying is that we went to market and asked them to build us a project. They did that with HVO as the base bid. We did not see the cost with diesel.
<strong>Q</strong><strong><QNum HRSContentId="{34AB40CF-B26A-4B3E-B2A5-F78C87B37D50}"> </QNum></strong> Okay. So when you said that the costs were comparable, you did not know whether that was the case, because you had not actually gone to market with that. <em><strong>Matt Palmer:</strong></em> We did not go out with a diesel-based product because the market typically comes forward with an HVO product.