Speaking on Tuesday (21 May), Cllr Kent said: “Our own poll over the past few months has made it perfectly clear we do not want any more crossings in our borough.”

But he added: “I’ve only had a chance to have a quick look at the consultation documents. There is no None of the above, but there is an ‘Other’ option.

“When Thurrock Council puts in its response, it will be under that Other option.”

The online consultation can be reached quickly through the council’s home page (www.thurrock.gov.uk) and offers opportunities for people to make their views known.

Cllr Kent said: “Over recent weeks there have been several other developments which seem to support our main point – it’s not that we don’t want a new crossing, it’s that neither we, nor our country needs one.

“With plans for a crossing in east London, talk about strategic links to the strange Boris Island airport, and investment at the current choke points – free-flow tolls at Dartford and at least some investment at Junction 30 – is a new crossing really necessary?

“All I want is a sensible discussion; one that takes all the options into consideration, not some sort of ad hoc debate which concentrates on various headline-grabbing schemes – to get that, everyone needs to tick the ‘Other’ box and say why.”

He added that in the coming days, Thurrock Council’s transport team would be examining all the government’s documents – it would be impossible to come up with a detailed engineering and costed counter argument to the proposals at this stage.”

He said: “It’s all very well having a consultation about lines on a map that won’t appear as roads on the ground for ten years or more if it simply suggests a major infrastructure project.

“But, as I have been saying for months now, what is badly needed is investment now, especially at Junction 30, to release Thurrock’s own growth agenda.

“The minister was at Tilbury this morning – he knows what is needed and it isn’t just lines and arrows on a map. That means blight for Thurrock people’s homes; that means uncertainty for Thurrock’s businesses; and it poses the question: have all the options been considered, including no new crossing?”

Leader of the Conservatives Cllr Phil Anderson said “There were no elections in Thurrock this year, and so like last year Labour still have a majority and will be running the council again.

“The role of the Conservatives in opposition is simple. We will bring ideas to the table to drive the council forward; we will support good ideas for Thurrock regardless of where they came from; but we will challenge what we think are bad decisions by Labour.

“The council has scrutiny committees which are responsible for this, and I have always been clear these should be chaired by the opposition – having Labour chairs is like marking your own homework.

“Labour leader John Kent often talks about wanting ‘grown-up politics’. It’s time for him to show he means it and give the key scrutiny roles to the opposition.”

My Lords, asylum seekers sometimes wait years for a decision and delays are increasing. As we have heard, that leaves genuine refugees in limbo and makes it harder to send failed cases home. We currently have a shambolic situation whereby 300,000 people are trapped in the immigration asylum backlog, with 90,000 cases being written off so far or given effective amnesty because papers have been lost in some cases. I know the Minister will tell us that the Government are making organisational changes, but can he say something about the specific practical actions that are being taken to deal with the problem? Does he recognise that the dramatic cut in the number of staff at UK Border Agency has contributed to this backlog?

Earl Attlee (Whip, House of Lords; Conservative)

My Lords, I do not recognise some of the figures the noble Baroness has quoted. My information is that the expenditure on asylum support has gone down, as I said, from £1.2 billion in 2003 to below £300 million now. I accept that there is a problem in dealing with the legacy backlog, but the Question is about asylum seekers’ ability to work. The more we can reduce unfounded asylum claims, the better we can properly determine the genuine applicants and look after them properly.

Mr Metcalfe said:

“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Walker, and to speak in this important and timely debate.

Why is a debate on educating tomorrow’s engineers important, and worthy of a report by the Select Committee on Science and Technology? There is no doubt that the country faces huge challenges. None is greater than the economic challenge; and our future is by no means certain, so we need to carve out a new future for our nation—one that is not based just on financial and other service-based industries, which perhaps we have come to rely on too much. They are valuable industries, but we need to rebalance our economy.

We need also to recognise that we will not return to the heavy metal-bashing industries of the past and that we need to play to our strengths; perhaps we had forgotten what they were. For too long, we abandoned—or at the very least undervalued—our skilled industrial and engineering heritage, in favour of other sectors. The time has come for that to change, and I hope that the report will instigate and support that change.

What lies behind the Government’s reforms in education must be widely and generally welcomed. There is a deep-seated belief that we need to give young people the best possible opportunities and skills to enable them to get access to the jobs that will exist in future. Some of the reforms that we considered will achieve that. We may collectively have underestimated the value of engineering, but let us not undersell ourselves.

As the Committee Chairman, Andrew Miller, said, engineering and manufacturing are still hugely important to the country. They are also important to me personally in my constituency. The UK is home to more than 500,000 engineering companies, employing, as we heard, 5.4 million people, of whom 2.3 million would consider themselves to be skilled engineers. That accounts for 8% of the work force. As we heard, it accounts for one fifth of GDP and half of all our exports, and turns over £1.15 trillion. We should not underestimate the importance of the sector, but we sometimes do, and we therefore seem to have created an ever-widening skills gap, which has consequences for the economy and for the rebalancing of our national wealth.

Stephen Mosley (City of Chester, Conservative)

I am the co-chairman of the parliamentary ICT forum, and one of the things that companies always tell us is that the No. 1 thing they look for when considering investing in any country is not tax or any such factor but whether the skills that they need are available where they are thinking of locating a factory or development lab. The report ties into that.

Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock, Conservative)

My hon. Friend is right. Skills are a major factor when people are deciding where to invest. Something that I found surprising, or perhaps even shocking, was that when the CBI conducted a survey of companies, it found that 42%, across all sectors, reported a skills gap when recruiting. That skills gap is as true in my local context as it is nationally.

South Basildon and East Thurrock has a long and rich industrial heritage, and I shall, if I may, blow my constituency’s trumpet for a moment. For example, one in 10 of the world’s large tractors are built in Basildon, at Case New Holland, generating £7 billion of exports. The personal IED-blockers that our servicemen wear in Afghanistan are built, designed and programmed in Basildon by Selex. Gardner Aerospace is a medium-sized engineering firm, employing more than 200 staff in my constituency. It is a tier 1 supplier to Airbus—there is not an Airbus A380 that flies without a part made in Basildon—and it competes with firms in cheaper-cost-base countries such as India and China, and why is it able to compete? Because of its quality and because it delivers on time.

Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central, Labour)

Given the excellence of the Airbus-producing manufacturer in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, has that impacted at all on his ideas about the virtue or otherwise of the European single market?

Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock, Conservative)

“That is probably a debate for another day. There is no doubt, when we export 50% of our goods to Europe, that it is an important customer of ours, and I would not want to do anything to undermine that, but what does undermine that company’s ability to prosper and grow is the lack of skilled engineers in the wider work force. When I recently visited the company, I was told that although it is managing to recruit apprentices to train up to support its current work base, if it were to be offered a new large contract, it could not go out into the economy and recruit enough engineers to expand, even though we can compete with low-cost-base countries. That demonstrates why it is so important that we bridge that skills gap.

While I am blowing my own constituency’s trumpet, let me say that it is also home to Ford’s research and development facility at Dunton. The facility employs some 4,000 designers, engineers and technicians. For these companies to prosper, we need to bridge that skills gap, so what can be done?

First, we need to change our attitudes towards engineering as a career. We all need to work harder at promoting engineering as the rewarding, well-compensated profession that it is. It is a profession that shapes the world that we live in, and too many people do not understand that. Certainly, too many young people do not understand it. They are not aware of the role of engineering—how it shapes the world that they touch and experience every day. Even when they understand that and have a positive attitude towards it, that does not necessarily translate into wider participation, so we must have a change. We must find a way to engage with young people and show them that they have a role to play in engineering. That starts in schools, but there are concerns, as we have heard, that some of the changes that have been made to our education system will not necessarily support that.

There are concerns that the curriculum changes will do little to inspire people to take up STEM subjects: science, technology, engineering and maths. There is concern that with design and technology no longer being compulsory, people will not be able to take their enthusiasm for that subject further. I look forward to being corrected if that is not the case. One of the issues that I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to address particularly is whether the EBacc is likely to encourage schools to concentrate on the five core subjects, rather than offering a broader education that might include exposure to engineering. Concern is also expressed that the new TechBacc does not receive the same recognition as the EBacc. Again, if that could be addressed, I would be most grateful.

There are concerns, as we heard from the Chairman of the Select Committee, that the changes to and perceived downgrading of the engineering diploma could send the wrong message. I am sure that that is not the Government’s aim. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I believe that the Government’s changes to education are designed to give people all the skills that they need to make the most of the potential that they have.

There are plenty of positives, and I will try to touch on them, although I do not want to detain hon. Members too long. One of the things that I welcome most is the university technical colleges—I would certainly welcome one in my constituency. They are a fantastic way of

giving young people skills and inspiring them into potentially interesting and well-rewarded careers. My only concern about the university technical college programme is that not enough people will have access to it. I think that they are fantastic and would support them wholeheartedly. I would love to see an engineering and logistics university technical college in Basildon.

I am very pleased that, through an initiative funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Government are creating a network of more than 25,000 STEM professionals and academics who can go into schools to support STEM education and promote STEM careers. I understand that the Government are also part-funding STEM clubs. The hope is that 80% of secondary schools will have one of those clubs by 2015. I have seen how some of the clubs work in my own constituency when they are supported by industry as well. They are fantastic; they really do get people excited.

Both the private sector and the voluntary sector have a role to play, as I have seen locally. The power generation company npower runs programmes that involve people going out into schools and showing young people the practical application of engineering. Network Rail produces support material. JCB, as we have heard, sponsors a UTC. Businesses such as Ford and Selex in my constituency support the engineering and STEM clubs. There are initiatives such as “We Made It!” and Primary Engineer, which is fantastic, because we cannot start encouraging people to be interested in engineering young enough. Primary Engineer is a project that works with key stage 1 and key stage 2 pupils, getting them to design vehicles that they can then test in a competition. It allows them to look at the engineering solution to certain problems. It is fantastic to see in practice.

Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston, Labour)

I add to the hon. Gentleman’s list the Rolls-Royce awards. This year’s winner is a primary school from Belfast. It is an inspiring project that the youngsters and teachers have been engaged in, but the key there was the partnership between the company and the school to bring the technical expertise that was outside the school into the classroom.

Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock, Conservative)

Absolutely, and that leads me to my next point beautifully. All those things are brilliant, and to see them in action is fantastic. My concern is that what is happening is not systematic enough. We are not getting it into every school, and not every pupil or student has access to it. One of the recommendations in the Select Committee report—I was delighted that the Government accepted it without amendment—was that all the learned societies, professional engineering institutions and trade bodies should oblige their members to go into schools, in a systematic way, to promote engineering and technology. Even if it was just for one day a year, if each of those engineers could go into schools across the whole school body, it could have a significant impact.

As a result of some of the initiatives, we are beginning to see an improvement in the uptake of engineering and particularly in the number of engineering apprentices and apprenticeships in our economy. Today, just before I came here, I had some very good news. DP World, which is constructing the London Gateway container port down at Shell Haven in my constituency, will on Monday announce the creation of six new engineering apprenticeships to support the engineering activity that takes place on that site. To see £1.5 billion invested in south Essex is great, but the engineering feat—the reclamation of the land and then the handling of millions of containers—is a fantastic sight and something that will, we hope, excite those six potential engineers.

In conclusion, there are some fantastic organisations and companies throughout our country doing some great things to inspire the next generation of engineers, but we must do more. We face a lack of skills and a shortage of aspiration to give people those skills, but those problems are not insurmountable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that engineers are the real revolutionaries, the ones who take society forward, who create the technologies and the structures which carry us into new worlds.”

Although progress is being made and the general thrust of what the Government are trying to achieve is welcome, we must do all that we can to ensure that engineers can continue to take our society forward and continue to forge a future that will meet our increasingly complex needs. I hope that the Government will revisit our report, take it in the spirit in which it is meant and use it to achieve our shared and combined goal of creating a broader uptake of engineering across our whole society.

YT understands that the probe into Tilbury councillor Claire Baldwin has been led by Epping Forest District Council and centres on property in the Loughton area.

The investigation was exclusively revealed by the Thurrock Gazette and has led to the Thurrock Conservatives calling for an inquiry into the investigation.

Mr Howitt said: “David Amess, MP for Southend West; John Baron, MP for Basildon and Billericay; James Duddridge, MP for Rochford & Southend East; Robert Halfon, MP for Harlow; Bernard Jenkin, MP for Harwich & Essex North; Stephen Metcalfe, MP for Basildon South & Thurrock East; Priti Patel, MP for Witham and John Whittingdale, MP for Maldon went against their own Government on their Queen’s Speech.

Labour’s Essex Euro MP Richard Howitt added:

“This is a display of unbelievable disloyalty and a further big blow to David Cameron’s authority.

“The vote of no confidence in their leader shows Tory MPs out-of-touch and a Tory Prime Minister out-of-control.”

Colin Churchman, a former Conservative mayor, issued a public statement, distributed to local councillors, MPs and the media calling on Thurrock Conservative leader Cllr Phil Anderson to mount an investigation into a councillor.

Mr Churchman believes a councillor has acted inappropriately in planning matters.

However, within hours of the Mr Churchman’s statement being issued, Head of Legal & Democratic Services and the authority’s Monitoring Officer, Fiona Taylor, issued her own statement which read: “A mass circulated email making certain allegations against a Member of Thurrock Council. I can confirm this complaint was fully investigated and not upheld both on original assessment and review – including the full involvement of the statutory Independent Person under the Localism Act 2011 who also recommended it should not be upheld.”

The People’s Pledge ran a ballot in the Thurrock constituency last year that showed that 89% of local voters favoured the holding of an EU referendum. The constituency was chosen by the People’s Pledge because Ms Doyle Price had voted in the House of Commons in October 2011 against holding a referendum.

The Thurrock MP then abstained on May 14 against an amendment to the Queen’s speech, proposed by Basildon and Billericay MP, John Baron, condemning the government for having failed to introduce legislation stipulating that the British people must be given the chance to vote on whether we stay in or leave the EU. 131 MPs of all parties, including 115 Tories, supported John Baron’s amendment.

David Cameron, back in January, promised rhetorically that he would hold a referendum should the Conservatives win the next general election. Mr Baron’s amendment was intended to commit whatever political party wins the next general election to consult the electorate on this issue.

People’s Pledge campaign director Stuart Coster comments: “Yet again, Jackie Doyle Price has failed to vote to give the people of Thurrock and the rest of the UK the chance to have their say on the EU. It is incredible that she has done this given that the People’s Pledge Thurrock ballot demonstrated overwhelming support for a referendum. I suspect many local voters will take Ms Doyle Price’s voting record on this issue into consideration when deciding who to support at the next general election.”

Jackie Doyle Price only won at the last election in this constituency by 92 votes.

The EU issue will surface again in July when a Private Members Bill will be presented committing the next government to hold an in-out referendum. On this occasion, the current government will be whipping its MPs to support his measure while the Labour and Liberal Democrat leaderships, at this stage, are saying they will instruct their MPs to vote against the measure.

They are the School Transport Consultation (for ages eight to 11) which runs until 2 July, and the School Transport Consultation (for post-16) which will close a little earlier on 18 June.

Details of both consultations are available online at the council’s website (www.thurrock.gov.uk) and following the links to the consultation page.

The aim of the younger age group consultation is to look at whether the council should withdraw transport for pupils in the age group who live less than three miles from their school – unless families receive certain income-related benefits.

The council has reviewed the services it provides or buys, especially in those areas that are discretionary such as children who live less than three miles from their school and those who require transport to attend faith schools.

For some time, Thurrock has voluntarily extended its transport service above the level required by law – for example transport is currently offered from two miles.

The council is now looking at whether it can continue to do so while promising to carry out its legal responsibilities.

Thurrock is also considering whether to withdraw or reduce funding to faith schools or introduce new charges for transport to faith schools from September 2014.

The consultation for the post-16 group looks two options – whether the council should withdraw its subsidy for post-16 transport and encourage students to take up the offer of a discounted bus pass with effect from September 2013 or whether, in certain cases, it should increase charges to cover the full cost.

At Tuesday’s meeting of Thurrock Council’s Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee the last hurdle for the multi-million pound scheme for 22 new flats, a supermarket and a new two deck public car park was cleared.

The Council’s Cabinet had already sanctioned the sell-off of part of the site to developers for £350,000 and its planning committee had approved the overall scheme, which will be built in the town centre on the King Street car park and an adjacent derelict plot.

However, local councillor Shane Hebb successfully called in the sell-off for further consideration by the scrutiny committee, when he revealed the Council had received other bids for the site.

On Tuesday evening he told the committee: “The King Street site is right in the heart of Stanford; a prime regeneration site – a decision will leave either a legacy to be proud of, or one to frown on. I recognise that there are good intentions behind this proposed sale; however, I have felt the need to call it in.

“Stanford residents and the community forum are working hard on a neighbourhood plan, and a key part of that plan will be ideas for this site. To sell it now undermines this process.

“As a Council, we want to encourage residents to engage in shaping their communities – what message does it send to the people of Thurrock to sell this site so prematurely?

“Secondly, I do not feel this sale as proposed represents best value for Thurrock. Financially, £350,000 is a derisory sum for a site that has panning permission for 22 flats. £350,000 is the value of a family home in Stanford; not a large block of flats. I am aware of the importance of the non-financial value to be achieved through the sale, namely the potential regeneration through the implementation of the agreed planning permission for flats and a supermarket.

“Whilst these plans meet all the necessary standards for planning permission, in my opinion it is not an adequate plan for our town. It should not be assumed that just because the first idea to come forward was acceptable in strict planning terms, that it is automatically the right thing to do for Stanford. The Council controls the land and can view things differently.

“We are told, of course, that this plan is the only plan. Indeed the Cabinet report states ‘no approaches have been received from other developers wishing to develop the site.’

“I have today received emails from a different developer who is interested in the site. A developer who has been in contact with officers who was prepared to pay £350,000 or perhaps more for this site, and who has been overlooked.

“This new developer may have better plans for the area, and may be prepared to pay a higher sum to implement them. Selling the site to them may achieve better value overall than a rushed sale now. In truth, we don’t really know, because we haven’t even looked at it. The fact is this committee cannot have confidence that the proposed sale represents best value.”

Cllr Hebb was supported by Terry Piccolo, chair of the Stanford Forum, who questioned the scheme’s validity and saw it as damaging the town, saying it would not increase local trade.

“You are not going to stop people leaving the town to shop, that just doesn’t hold water,” said Mr Piccolo who compared the size of the proposed new store to others in the region.

He said local residents were not opposed to town centre development, but they wanted “something meaningful.” He also detailed progress on the neighbourhood being drawn up in conjunction with residents, but conceded it would not be ready for up to two years.

Cllr Hebb concluded by saying: “If at the end of the process it is clear flats and a supermarket is the right option for Stanford, I would be willing to support it. Right now, today, we cannot be sure this is the right offer, and I urge you to refer this decision to the full council for a decision.

“We only get one opportunity to sell King Street car park. Let’s make sure we get the best result, not just an acceptable one.”

After a lengthy period of questions to officers and representatives of the developers, councillors debated the issue, with Cllr Phil Anderson saying: “We have never offered this site on the open market and never invited any offers.

“In crude terms we are saying the developers will make £1.6m profit while the Council that owns the land will make £350,000. Is that a fair split?

“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity and in straight stewardship of funds we can’t show we have got best value.

“I think we ought to look at it again.”

Committee chairman Cllr Richard Speight summed up, detailing the process that had been gone through and saying that he was concerned that the Council would be taking a big risk if they delayed.

He established with estates officer Ian Rydings that proposals to purchase and develop the site had been received as far back as 1996 but none had come to fruition until the current proposal.

He said: “Is the threat to Stanford’s regeneration too big a risk to take. I’m on the side of getting things moving, the time to regenerate is now, not in five years time because of other developments such as London Gateway. This is a most crucial time for Stanford.”

In the end councillors voted 4-2 in favour of rejecting Cllr Hebb’s call-in and his motion to delay sale for up to six months, with Cllrs Wendy Curtis, Terry Hipsey and Martin Healy joining Cllr Speight and Cllrs Anderson and Charlie Key supporting Cllr Hebb.

Cllr Key had summed up his dilemma by saying: “I’m not saying this is the best value for the site, I’m not saying it isn’t , I’m just not sure we have had the best information.”

Homesteads Councillor James Halden said “Oliver has always been extremely polite and earnest in his dealings with me, and I did send him a short message last week to personally wish him well.”

When asked what this means for the department, Cllr Halden said “In the last three months we have seen a director go, and a cabinet member go. Both of whom insisted that we were on the way up. This is to the backdrop of multimillion pound overspends, and the 3rd worst ratings for access to good primary schools in the nation. The only way to improve a problem to admit a problem exists.

Former Labour Home Secretary John Reid said this when he acknowledged that the home office was “not fit for purpose”. I’ve said it for over a year now and I’m saying it again, Thurrock needs a new start and accept the state this department is in. It needs a new education revolution and start freeing schools from the red tape of this council.”

Looking ahead, Cllr Halden said “While I’m sure there will still be disagreements to be had, I will work with whoever takes on the mantle on the Labour benches to achieve the cross party target of having every school as good or better. This will start as I prepare to give evidence to the Thurrock education commission next week, where I will be repeating my policy – shrink the council, release money to the schools, and help foster independence from this big brother council.”

The petition was set up a few weeks ago on the Thurrock Council website and since then has gained several hundred signatures.

Ms Billington said:

“I welcome the campaign to establish an O2 venue at the State Cinema and look forward to seeing progress when the council pursues this option.

“I hope O2 is encouraged to look at the feasibility of the idea. What started on Twitter and Facebook is growing in strength as more and more residents support the idea. It shows there is great enthusiasm in Thurrock to make Grays a dynamic town centre and that many people want to use this historic building in a way that will benefit the community and bring in visitors.

“There are many ideas about the best way to make the State Cinema a thriving venue. Any that are respectful of the building’s heritage and creative about its use should be considered.

“I have signed the petition to ensure councillors at least have to discuss the idea of O2 establishing a venue there, and I encourage others who care about the town centre and the cinema to do the same.”

Jackie said, “clearly there is something not right with a regime which half of all offenders leave prison and commit fresh crimes which see them locked up again within a year. Of course our prison regime is about punishment, but it is about rehabilitation too. It is bad for public safety that criminals are simply released into the community simply to reoffend.

That is why I welcome Chris Grayling’s determination to reform the probation regime. We will only break the cycle of reoffending if we properly supervise offenders when they have been released. Rehabilitation isn’t working. We will not build a safer society until we fix it.”

A report compiled by the Taxpayers’ Alliance shows that in 2010/11, 10 council staff received a six figure package. In 2011/12, this had risen to 14. The number, which represents almost £2 million in pay, pension contributions and one pay-off, is higher than equivalent figures for Barking (10 staff) and Southend – who have just 7. These figures follow a damning report in February showing staff being paid more than £50,000 per year was up over 50%.

Conservative spokesman for finance Cllr Barry Johnson said “For the second time in 3 months I am stunned at the latest council pay figures. Less than 10 councils increased their number of top earners by more than Thurrock, and we’re now in the top 40 councils nationally for most staff paid over £100,000.”

“Labour run Thurrock was exposed in February’s for the massive increase in staff earning over £50,000, this latest news shows continues to show how out of control top pay is under Labour.”

Cllr Johnson added “No doubt Labour will trot out the same old excuses about ‘cost of living pay increases’ and ‘redundancy payments’ but the truth is clear both salaries and the number of the highest paid are going up. Labour show no leadership on this and are happy to be spoon fed reports about pay rather than challenging them. They seem to forget that spending money on highly paid members of staff means increased Council Tax or cuts to staff who are on the frontline of service delivery.”