Great Eastern Main Line

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Setting aside the usual form, Mr Turner, it is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I hope, in this short Adjournment debate, to outline the case for investment in the Great Eastern main line.

I know that you are aware of the possibilities in East Anglia, Mr Turner—you have some knowledge of the area—but just to recap, we have in Norwich one of the largest agglomerations of scientific research and development in the country; just down the road from Ipswich, in Martlesham, we have the largest European centre of research and development in software; and we have the largest port in Britain in Felixstowe. Up and down the line we have centres of engineering and technical excellence that complement the amazing growth of Cambridge in our next-door county. Taken together, the counties of this region comprise the second largest contributor to the United Kingdom Exchequer of all UK regions and, indeed, it is one of only two regions that make a net contribution to Her Majesty’s Treasury. This region is already contributing significantly to British growth, jobs and prosperity, but herein lies the problem.

Although we are contributing significantly and growing—indeed, we grew throughout the recession—there is so much more that we could do, if only we had decent infrastructure connections. That is the miracle of East Anglia. It is not so much that all this is going on, but that we have achieved it with the oldest carriages, one of the slowest lines and some of the most expensive tickets for people going to Chelmsford, Colchester, Ipswich and Norwich. All that has been achieved, despite the lack of both a motorway and that critical train line.

That is the context of the Chancellor’s visit to Norwich this time last year, when we proposed to him a significant upgrade in railway infrastructure. He commissioned a task force, which I was happy to serve on, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). That task force was able to bring together critical elements that had been lacking so far, including a broad, robust engineering research project into what was needed to bring additional services, improved reliability and increased speed to the London to Norwich line. We developed such a study to the demanding criteria of the Department for Transport. That is the basis of the report, which was delivered to the Chancellor last week.

In short, the proposal is for an investment in infrastructure of approximately £476 million, allied with a commitment that the 2016 franchise include investment in new rolling stock, not just for the inter-city carriages going all the way to Norwich, but for the suburban and commuter lines that run in between Essex and London and some running between Ipswich and London. Taken together, that new rolling stock and investment in infrastructure will add the capacity, speed and reliability improvements that we need so desperately on our line. At the conclusion of that investment, we would have new rolling stock running at 60 minutes, or just under, to Ipswich and 90 minutes to Norwich, and three services an hour to Norwich and four to Ipswich, with much better reliability than commuters have, sadly, had to put up with recently.

This is a bold proposal, but not extravagant. We are not asking for High Speed 4, but we are asking for a decent railway that will take commuters and business people and travellers reliably, comfortably, safely and quickly between the world’s financial capital and our great regional centres. That is the basis of our demand. We expect to be able to produce in return a potential economic delivery of £4.5 billion, which is almost 10 times the amount of the original investment by the Department, should that be secured—one of the highest gross value added scores achieved by any rail project or proposal yet put before the Treasury.

People may ask, “If this is so blindingly obvious, given the huge economic return, why has it not happened before?” It has not happened so far because the region has lacked the political purpose to be able to deliver such a project. That is what is new. We have brought together local authorities, both district and county, and the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, and the Essex LEP. I should like to put on the record the excellent way the New Anglia LEP has co-ordinated the proposals and the excellent drive it is currently giving to Norfolk and Suffolk, which is delivering real benefits for our counties.

We also brought together all the region’s Members of Parliament. That, too, is different. There was not previously the drive—crucially, a cross-party drive— from representatives in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex that now exists. Our beloved coalition colleague, the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright), has joined us here and we also had helpful interventions from our colleague, the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell). This has been a cross-party job, with all of us working together—councils, businesses and MPs—to put a coherent case for our constituents. If this investment is secured, we can deliver increased prosperity and more jobs— 10,000 more in my constituency—for our constituents. Most importantly, those will be high-value jobs, with people investing in high-value businesses in Ipswich, Norwich, Colchester and up and down the line. That is exciting.

I ask the Minister to confirm that she has seen the report and understands what we are asking for, and that she is going to lobby the Treasury for what is possibly one of the most exciting rail projects on her Department’s desk.

Although I have said that this is a cross-party arrangement, we have had a difficult time getting coherence from Labour party representatives in the region. The candidate for Norwich South favours full renationalisation of the railways. The candidate for Norwich North proposes that public bodies be allowed to bid for rail franchises, as Opposition Front Benchers have suggested; however, it is sad to see that the Opposition are not represented in this debate on an important matter for our region. That prompts me to conclude that if there were to be a Labour Government and significant legislative change, everything we are proposing would not just be put at risk: it would not happen. The project has to start in 2016—we have one window in control period five and at the beginning of control period six—if we are to succeed in getting new rolling stock ahead of the implementation of disability regulations in 2020.

We have to get this investment now. I know that both the Chancellor and the Department, which we have talked to, understand, yet the noises we hear from Labour suggest that they would first want to undertake a massive reorganisation of the rail industry. Frankly, if they do they will be unable to commit to a new franchise being let in 2016, nor to the kind of investment that is needed. Has the Minister received any representations from Opposition Front Benchers about this project? Do they support it and regard it as valuable? The candidate for my seat has said, in a cavalier fashion, that he cannot believe that a future Labour Government would go back on any proposals accepted by this coalition Government. I am sure the shadow Chancellor would be interested to know about the costed proposal that has been dumped in his lap, but, frankly, we have not heard about that from Opposition Front Benchers either. We accept that it is a large amount of money. It is a significant piece of investment, but it is not extravagant and it is needed. For true cross-party support on this, we need to have not only the commitment of this Government—they have been most helpful in allowing us to bring forward these proposals—but the cast-iron commitment of the shadow Chancellor that he would carry forward this investment, should there be a Labour Government in 2015. We do not only need that; we need the cast-iron commitment of the shadow Transport Secretary that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the rail industry, which would make all this impossible.

I raise those points only because they are the one fly in the ointment, and it is a wonderful ointment. It will make a significant difference to our region and to Norwich, Ipswich and towns in Essex. It will allow us to release our full potential as a key driver of the British economy. Most importantly to us as Members of Parliament representing mixed constituencies, it will give opportunities for jobs and prosperity to people who have so far been left behind, not just by previous Governments, but by previous representatives in our seats. That is why it is so important to us to achieve the investment now, for the good of our constituencies, our region and our people.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

It is a great shame, but it does not surprise me.

The Government will now be asking Network Rail how to progress the detailed development of the case that has been eloquently made for the line-speed changes, using the funding provided in the current rail investment strategy, to fund the best-value-for-money elements for completion by 2019. The opportunity for shorter journey times will be included in the development of the franchise to 2016, which is to be awarded from October of that year onwards. That could lead to bidders for the new franchise being asked specifically in their proposals how to address the requirements set out in the “Norwich in 90” report, in particular the totemic achievement of the 90-minute travel time. We propose to publish the consultation for the next East Anglia franchise on 1 December 2014, so it is an important time for anyone who wants to make further representations. In future franchise competitions, we expect bidders to give weight to both financial and quality considerations of rolling stock, focusing on passengers.

It is an exciting time for the rail industry across the UK. I heartily welcome the report, which represents an excellent forensic analysis of what can be unlocked with relatively small investment. I look forward to working with colleagues in taking the recommendations forward.

[Ben Gummer]

Does the Minister agree that letting the franchise in 2016 is a critical moment for ordering new rolling stock? If that were delayed, the report’s contents could not be delivered.

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that the new franchising timetable that my Department has put in place is running like clockwork—like a punctual train—so we anticipate that we will stick to the timetable.

A14 (Tolling Proposals)

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Of course, Mr Leigh. Thank you; I intend to speak for only a minute or two. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for giving me a little time, and the Minister for allowing me to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate.

Today there was another fall in the joblessness figures in Ipswich, which is a sign of a vibrant and important economy. Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire have a larger economy than Scotland’s. They are a vibrant part of the country, which has not fallen into recession and which is powering private sector-led innovative economic growth. That is a good thing, and the Government, for once, are investing in that success.

We are always bereft of infrastructure in the east of England. The A11 work that was promised many times by the previous Government is now delivered. The previous Government spoke at length about the A14. We are grateful for the Government’s consideration, and understand the financial pressure on the Treasury. We are also grateful for the fact that much has already been done to make the tolling proposals more reasonable than we feared.

Let us, however, be straight about the reason for what is happening: it is because Cambridge is such a remarkable success. We do not begrudge Cambridge that; it is part of the economic success story of the region. However, we in Ipswich, where many hauliers are based, are effectively being asked to pay a congestion charge for Cambridge, and that is wrong. It is wrong for economic success, which is more fragile in east Suffolk, to be impeded by Cambridge’s wild and ever growing success. We ask the Minister to reconsider alternative schemes that would put the cost on to the main users and the main reasons for the congestion, which do not include the hauliers of Ipswich, Felixstowe and east Suffolk.

Southampton will receive an electric spine under the Government’s bold infrastructure plans. The new Thamesport will receive road upgrades and an electrified link. However, Felixstowe, the largest container port in the country, does not, unlike Immingham, have an electric link by rail. In addition to our not having such a link, our principal route into the country will be tolled. That will be a double disadvantage for the country’s largest container port—the fourth largest in the world. It will have a significant impact on my constituents, many of whom are employed in the shipping industry. It may turn our joblessness figures in the other direction.

Rail 2020

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

When Thomas Telford was invited at the end of his career to help with the engineering of some new railway projects, the inventor of this country’s modern road network declined the offer, not because he did not admire railway engineering and the extraordinary speeds that these amazing new machines could achieve—he admired them very much—but because he understood that the railway itself had a necessary monopoly that the road did not. Part of the attraction of the road to Thomas Telford was that once it was built, it allowed someone to travel at any time they pleased in their chosen method of transport, but the railway, for all its brilliance, did not.

That is not to say that the railway is not a useful or brilliant invention. It has been central to the progress and advancement of our country and all developed countries across the world. However, the railway has an intrinsic problem—this is recognised by Sir Roy McNulty’s report, the various commissions instigated by the Department for Transport and, indeed, the Transport Committee report—namely its inability to get the market to work in the normal, functioning way that it would elsewhere.

The interesting thing about the railway is that, over time, it has found different competitors. Despite the fact that its technology is intrinsically the same as that it began with 200 years ago, it continues to compete with road—over the past 50 or 60 years it has competed with it on speed—and increasingly with flight. Rail, as well as its regulation and franchising arrangements, must therefore be seen in its wider context as a competitor with other modes of transport around the country.

It is important to understand why the Government are progressing with the reprivatisation and refranchising of various lines. Ideology is important and has been brought up by several Opposition Members, but privatisation has worked not because of ideology but because it is the most practical and pragmatic way of getting the railways to work. In fact, the entire railway system, which was instigated by the Victorians and which spread around the world to America, France and elsewhere, was a product of private enterprise.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Gummer]

I will in a moment.

The system would not be with us today were it not for the massive investments—many of which failed as a result of the risk of capitalism—that made this extraordinary invention possible. Before I allow the hon. Lady to intervene, I recall that in a previous debate she told me about the efficiency of the German railway system, but when I reminded her afterwards that it is now a private system she could not believe it. One of the reasons this country is having to rebuild the railway network is the decades of underinvestment. That is not necessarily a product of various Governments; it is the natural result of a nationalised system whose control rests in the Treasury’s hands.

[Caroline Lucas]

On that very point, there is still significant state involvement in German railways. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the fact that 60% of Britain’s rail operators are owned by European state rail arms? Our high rail fares are being used to subsidise rail services in Germany and beyond, which seems crazy to me.

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Lady did not admit to the role of the private sector when I spoke to her about German railways. Of course, there is a role for the state—that is what we are discussing. Any railway has a necessary monopoly: only one train can travel at a time and it has to be owned by somebody. Unlike road, it is not possible for two trains to travel on the same track at the same time, so the state has to intervene at some point in order to regulate and subsidise, as it does with road travel.

We have seen the results of privatisation since 1995. Rail travel has increased by 133%. It is at a higher rate than in the 1920s in absolute numbers. Rail freight has also increased to a point that would have been impossible to imagine in the 1960s and 1970s.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is raising, yet again, a correlation, not a cause and effect. Railway usage has gone up despite privatisation, not because of it.

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Gentleman is a marvel of this House and is respected deeply by many Members on both sides of the House. However, he must see that the graphs of declining rail use up to 1995, for both freight and passenger, were turned on their heads after privatisation. That is not just a correlative effect, but a causal one.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s history lesson. He is right that the early railways were pioneered by private enterprise. However, by the time they were nationalised, many of them were in a dire state. That was the case not just in this country, but around the world. Rail passenger numbers went down after the war because there was a rise in car ownership and because of the development of road transport. The reason Germany has good railways is that a British civil servant planned the system after the second world war.

[Ben Gummer]

This is an interesting parlour game and we should pursue it at greater length outside the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is right that the railways were on their knees after the war. That was partly a result of the war and partly a result of the rise of the car.

It is interesting that this necessary monopoly that was challenged profoundly in the second half of the 20th century is now able to compete successfully with motor vehicles and planes, precisely because of the investment from the private sector. As a result of that investment, the subsidy per passenger kilometre has gone down considerably since privatisation, even though the total subsidy has gone up.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

My hon. Friend is making an important argument. It has been argued that the decline of the railways was caused by the success of the car. However, car ownership in this country has accelerated since 1995. The increase in passenger numbers therefore shows that privatisation has had a huge positive effect on the railways.

[Ben Gummer]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I will come on in a second to the link between his constituency and mine.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ben Gummer]

I will give way in a while, if I may.

The Government are continuing a strategy. There are, rightly, arguments about whether the franchising process was got exactly right, but to my mind, John Major’s privatisation of the railways was one of his most significant acts. It has transformed the way in which—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but they ignore the fact that we now have some of the safest railways in Europe, second only to Luxembourg, which we did not have before privatisation.

[Alison Seabeck]

indicated dissent.

[Ben Gummer]

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she should listen to the facts. We have the fastest rate of passenger growth in Europe. We have the safest railways in Europe after Luxembourg. That is the result of privatisation, which has made a significant difference.

The ideologues are the Opposition Members, including the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, who espouse the ideology that dare not speak its name. She wants gradually to bring the railways back into public ownership and undo the extraordinary progress that has been made.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman has a very selective view of history. He obviously does not remember—perhaps he was still at school—the period between privatisation and the effective renationalisation of Network Rail, when there were a number of tragic rail accidents in this country because of the inefficient way in which privatisation was carried out and the lack of investment. He must take into account that the effective renationalisation of Network Rail was how the investment was got right.

[Ben Gummer]

I am giving a bit of history because it does inform our discussion of the franchise process, which is the core of the report. I am not going to start trading statistics, but over the period of Railtrack, rail safety improved and we were going up the European safety league table. The reason so much money had to be invested—very successfully with private help—was the years of underinvestment by a series of Governments, Conservative among them. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention on that point, not least because the facts on the safety of the rail network under privatisation speak for themselves.

How do we get this franchise system to work so that rail companies can compete with their natural competitors, the motorways and the airlines? I plead with the Government to do as much as they can. I know that the advice they have had recently has been to shorten slightly the long franchises that have been planned, but the longer the franchise rail companies can get, the better their ability to invest in rolling stock, customer service and improving the capacity and punctuality of their services.

Those of my constituents who have had the misfortune of having to commute on the Ipswich to London line for a long time will say that the best improvements they have seen were under the first franchise—as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree—which was quite long and had the loosest possible terms. It allowed the then Anglia franchisee to put maximum efforts into improving performance. The last Government did many good things in rail, but one of the bad things was to have far too tight a control over the franchises, stipulating to the dot and comma how the services should be delivered. Unsurprisingly, the bidders for those franchises went in at the lowest possible price, bidding on the specification provided by the Government, and the improvement in service flattened and, in some cases, reversed. We need as loose a franchise framework as possible, and as long as possible so that the private sector can invest as fully as possible in the services without being second-guessed by the doubtless otherwise brilliant officials at the Department for Transport.

We need to see other improvements, and I am glad that the Committee recommended them in its report. We need transparency in subsidy. The system is still not good enough at identifying where subsidy goes. I have tried to understand how much subsidy goes in to the great eastern main line. Network Rail and the Office for Rail Regulation are not good at disaggregating subsidy in sufficient granular detail. I have questioned them about control period 5, but it is almost impossible to get a decent idea of the quantity of subsidy or public investment we are likely to get in our line, which makes it very difficult for us, as public representatives, to fight for our constituents.

Transparency is also important for the way in which the franchise system develops. When privatisation was introduced, there was only one profit-making line in the UK and there are now many that turn a surplus. Effectively—and I know that the Minister disagrees with me slightly on the detail of this—fare income is transferred from one part of the country to another. Roughly £30 of the £74 standard fare ticket from Ipswich to London is paid in premium which is moved, effectively, to those parts of the country that need a subsidy. That is unfair on my constituents, especially those who are paid the same bad wages that some people in subsidised areas are paid. They rightly demand a social subsidy so that they can get their rail service for less than they would otherwise.

If a lot of our fare income is being moved to other parts of the country, it makes it difficult for us to get the investment we need. We should have more transparency about how the premiums are moved so that we can achieve some sort of parity for investment.

I turn now to a discussion of the east of England, and I know that the Minister has a constituency interest there and, therefore, a profound knowledge of the area. Only two regions of England outside London are net contributors to the UK Exchequer: the south-east and the east. Since the 19th century, the eastern region has suffered some of the worst levels of investment. Historically, there has been a poor level of investment in the main line from London to Norwich, with hand-me-down carriages and levels of service that other parts of the country have long forgotten about. The region has contributed to the UK economy in the past five or 10 years, but investment is needed for that contribution to continue. The region is not demanding new motorways or A roads, but investment is required for people to able to get from London, Ipswich and Norwich to the midlands. That would lead to growth that would make a significant contribution to the UK economy.

We are profoundly grateful for the investment that has occurred in the past few years. It was promised for many years, but not delivered. We will soon have a direct line between Felixstowe and Nuneaton, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). Thereafter, I hope we will have a direct line from Nuneaton to Coventry. I hope—the Minister will speak on this later—that there will be a new bypass loop north of the Minister’s constituency of Chelmsford, which would release capacity and improve performance between London and Norwich. All of these plans, in addition to Ely North junction, have been long promised and long talked about. They are at last being delivered, and for that we are very grateful. However, we need new trains on the new track; not now, not immediately or in the next few years, but within the new franchise that will be set in 2016. We need the new trains that have been provided to the rest of the country and have been denied to us. Whenever the rest of the country is finished with a new train, it is passed on to East Anglia. That is no longer good enough.

[Mr Simon Burns]

indicated dissent.

[Ben Gummer]

Well, it has been true since the 19th century. I hope that at some point we will get the new trains that will release the economic potential in Ipswich and Norwich that has so long been denied to my constituents and their forefathers.

We are making good progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) is now able to say that the railways are in a good place, something that would have been unutterable 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago. We need investment to continue, we need to release the power of the private sector and we need to be able to continue the miracle of rail privatisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

And passengers faced some of the highest fares in Europe, as well as often bewildering pricing structures. The Minister says, “Under your Government” from a sedentary position, but that is precisely why we commissioned McNulty to look at how to achieve efficiencies.

The Committee’s recommendations on financial transparency, fares and ticketing reform and devolution were welcome, but implementation has been delayed by a Department that seems to have been overtaken by problems of its own creation. In the past year, we have witnessed the collapse of the franchising system, which has cost the taxpayer at least £55 million. Those are the direct costs; that figure does not cover the fall in orders that is hurting the supply chain or the uncertainty that still hangs over the industry, nor does it reflect the damage that has been inflicted on the Government’s own efficiency plans—both points well highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman).

The Government intend to find £3.5 billion of industry cost reductions by 2019. An annexe to the “Rail 2020” report states that while

“Some of the savings are already in Network Rail’s plans, most of the rest have to be secured by passenger train operators and their suppliers…via the next generation of franchises.”

Does the Minister accept that analysis? If he does, what does he believe the cost to the taxpayer will be in deferred efficiencies, owing to the much extended delays to the franchising programme?

Against that background, Ministers have taken the politically motivated decision to make the privatisation of East Coast their top priority. At the same time as they are agreeing lucrative extensions for private operators, at great cost to the taxpayer—for example, it was recently reported in the trade press that the c2c contract extension came in £17 million over budget—for ideological reasons the Government are disrupting the one stable part of the network. Since the last private operator walked away, East Coast has returned £640 million to the taxpayer and invested £40 million in the service; it makes the second highest contribution of any operator to the Treasury; and it has significantly improved passenger services.

East Coast provides an interesting test of the Government’s commitment to openness. Despite Ministers’ stated intention to improve transparency, they are trying to have it both ways when it comes to East Coast. The Government cannot both laud the Office of Rail Regulation’s breakdown of the industry’s finances, as they did in the formal response to the “Rail 2020” report, and dismiss the figures that show East Coast to be most efficient operator. It is simply not credible.

The Government have even invented a new measure to bolster the comparison between Virgin Trains’ and East Coast’s premium payments while conveniently ignoring subsidy going the other way. As the net payment figures show, East Coast comfortably paid more to the Treasury over the past three years, but Ministers have tried to give the opposite impression. It is not policy led by evidence—it is just the opposite—from a Government determined to push through privatisation, which will not benefit the railways or passengers.

We have seen no progress on fares and ticketing either. The Government’s review was originally due to be published in May, but we are now told that it will be published at some point in the summer. The Minister will surely appreciate the irony when he next lectures East Coast on punctuality. I hope that the review will now bring forward serious proposals for reform, because at present passengers often find it difficult to secure the cheapest tickets, especially from automatic ticketing machines. The definition of peak and off-peak is not always obvious, and as a consequence some passengers find themselves with huge bills through no fault of their own.

Passengers also rightly feel aggrieved when they have to use a replacement bus service but are not entitled to compensation, regardless of the inconvenience to their journey. Those are the sorts of issues that the fares and ticketing review should be looking at. The Transport Committee was right to call for so-called super-peak tickets to be ruled out. They would penalise those commuters who have no choice but to travel at peak times. I urge the Minister to go further than he had done previously and rule out granting train operating companies the right to redefine peak time periods. I also ask him to give the House a categorical assurance that operators will not be given additional powers to price commuters out of peak time periods.

[Ben Gummer]

There is a technical problem with the hon. Lady’s suggestion. Currently, with the Government setting peak times, we end up with the ridiculous situation that people leaving London to go to Ipswich, Norwich or Chelmsford in the morning are on empty trains and paying £74, but if they are going into London they are of course on packed trains and paying £74. The Government have set the peak time rules for many years, so the franchisee cannot make an elastic arrangement to encourage people to take the train when it is empty and discourage them when it is full. I suggest that that is in the commuter’s interests.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I suggest that the people who stand to suffer as a result of that are those who have no choice about when to travel. If people have a choice, they will not travel on peak trains. Those who have no choice will be stung by having to pay whatever price is asked.

As the McNulty report put it, we have a fare structure that is complex, often appears illogical and is hard for the uninitiated, or even the initiated, to understand. The answer is not new, unreasonable super-peak fares. We fully support the development of smart ticketing schemes, a policy closely linked to the devolution agenda. Transport for London and Centro have demonstrated how strong local transport authorities can successfully introduce smart card schemes, making rail and other forms of public transport more convenient for everyday use. We believe that regional partnerships are best placed to introduce new schemes, drive forward integration with other modes of transport and decide their own priorities for developing local rail services.

However, the pattern of dither and delay from the Department for Transport is also affecting the devolution agenda. Were it not for its extensions to the Northern Rail and TransPennine franchises, we could have seen an earlier decision on devolution, with the new settlement starting next year. We want to see an ambitious model of genuine devolution, learning from the success of continental models, that can be extended to other areas, including the west midlands.

Unfortunately, we have already seen some reductions in local facilities. Although they are not as high profile as the cuts to passenger services we have seen in the past, we are concerned about ticket office closures, especially as some seem to be going ahead by stealth, using the McNulty review as cover. Last year, leaked e-mails from the Department for Transport revealed that Ministers had decided to approve closures and let train operating companies take the blame. That was an unacceptable way for closure decisions to be taken. I hope that Ministers will take note of the Campaign for Better Transport’s “Going Local” report, which drew together evidence from London Overground and Merseyrail. The evidence suggested that staffed stations and ticket offices led to increased passenger numbers, lower levels of fare evasion and increased passenger satisfaction.

There are simply better ways to save money than closing ticket offices. Of course we need more efficient railways. Network Rail has delivered substantial efficiency savings since Labour ended the disaster that was Railtrack, and the rolling programme of electrification, which the last Government committed to, will help reduce operating costs.

However, as McNulty helps to establish, although technology can bring about savings, the greatest challenge is fragmentation. Privatisation has left us a system with a 40% efficiency gap as measured against European comparators. Fragmentation has built in additional unnecessary costs at every level and we need a serious debate about how they can be addressed. On the Government’s response, it is too early to quantify properly the impact of alliancing and there are real concerns over the accountability of the Rail Delivery Group, which must not be used as an excuse to diminish ministerial responsibility.

We must also be alive to the danger that through alliancing, non-dominant operators will be excluded from decision making. That is especially true in the case of freight operators—a danger acknowledged by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). If there are increased disputes over access rights, that will only generate a higher administrative burden for the regulator.

To conclude, I should say that the Government have tied themselves so closely to the stalled franchising system that they have left the industry in stasis. Awards are being extended for up to four years at a massive cost to the taxpayer, on top of the £51 million net payment that the Government made to operators in the last financial year. The paralysis caused by the collapse of franchising has hit the supply chain’s order books, threatening jobs and skills. Ministers have made restoring franchising a point of political pride, even to the extent of privatising the successful east coast service, instead of seriously examining alternatives. That is what Labour is committed to doing, and why we are conducting a thorough review of the rail industry that is not hampered by ideological baggage.

The “Rail 2020” report made some useful recommendations for reform, but it also noted that there could be a case for structural changes. In the light of the franchising fiasco, we should seriously examine the alternatives, instead of remaining ideologically wedded to the failed models of the past.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will take that as one of many bids we will receive. I am very keen to invest in infrastructure for the long term, and various local authorities are putting forward a number of schemes. They will all be assessed and judged, and decisions will be made in the light of the resources available.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

T4. The Minister and the Secretary of State will know that the world’s largest financial centre is connected by the great eastern main line to some of the leading centres of research and development in the country, yet commuters and travellers can expect to use rolling stock that was unsuitable for travellers on the west coast main line 10 years ago. The Government have invested heavily in infrastructure. When will they be able to invest in rolling stock, too?

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr Simon Burns)]

As my hon. Friend says, there is considerable interest in upgrading the rolling stock in East Anglia, and of course I have a particular interest too. My ministerial colleagues—I stress that—are currently considering what might be included in the specification for the interim franchise that will run to 2016, and our priority is, as always, improving passenger satisfaction as well as obtaining value for money for the taxpayer.

West Coast Main Line

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Monday 15th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

That is not what the last Secretary of State who sat in the Cabinet for the Labour party said, and it is not what I want to happen.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

May I say how pleased I am by the candour and assured manner with which the Secretary of State has dealt with this matter? He will be aware of the enormous importance that travellers, commuters and businesses in the eastern region attach to the letting of the new 15-year franchise. He received a delegation from me and my hon. Friends the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) and for Witham (Priti Patel) with great enthusiasm. Can he give any assurances that the programme and timetable for that franchise will not slip as a result of the decision that he has notified to the House?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It certainly should not slip. I can say to my hon. Friend that the recommendations that he and a number of colleagues have made to me have been fed into the process, and will I hope be reflected in the franchise when it is finally awarded.

Rail (East Anglia)

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Bone.

[Priti Patel]

A timely entry!

[Ben Gummer]

Very timely. It is a great privilege to be able to contribute to the debate. I apologise for having come to it a little late; it clashed with a sitting of the Select Committee on Justice.

This is a very important week for the railway in East Anglia.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the launch that took place yesterday at Liverpool Street station showed the sense of purpose of all the MPs of East Anglia in putting their names to a new manifesto, and does he think that that should be taken very seriously by the Department for Transport when it is considering our overall national transport strategy?

[Ben Gummer]

I agree. My hon. Friend will know and I am sure that you, Mr Bone, will know very well that that sense of purpose is unusual in the east of England. When first the railway was driven up to Norwich, the good people of Norwich tried very hard to ensure that it did not go through Ipswich. They preferred a route that went via Cambridge. In the end, they got something approaching both. At that time, the town and the city were at war with each other for the privilege of having the railway. Happily, sense prevailed, but such was the animosity during that period—there is a serious point to this—that the quality of the infrastructure laid down suffered; investment was not forthcoming because there was no political direction to facilitate the backing required. That is why only two lines go between Chelmsford and Ipswich and then from Ipswich to Norwich. The result of that and the rather substandard nature of the track itself in places is that it has never fulfilled the desires and wishes even of the Victorian builders. We have constantly had to catch up since in terms of infrastructure improvements.

We start, therefore, from the position of having a poor railway in our region. It has had running repairs and second-hand rolling stock at every point; it has never had new rolling stock, apart from at its inception in the 1830s and 1840s. That is why all of us coming together as Members of Parliament, county councils, borough councils and local enterprise partnerships across the region is so important. We have established that sense of purpose with a view to obtaining what is a rather modest amount of investment compared with other infrastructure projects across the country.

I impress on my right hon. Friend the Minister both our unity and the fact that what we are asking for is very small compared with the release of economic growth and the possibilities for jobs and prosperity that the investment would give our region. I was not here earlier in the debate, but I am sure that the issue has been brought up. All of us have a vision not just for the railway, but for our region as a whole. It should be the California of Europe. It has a knowledge base that is certainly comparable with that in California, if not greater. It is a place where people want to live; it is a very attractive place in which to live and work. It is also close to the largest finance centre in the world. There is no reason at all why the eastern region should not achieve double-digit growth.

The reason why we are so keen to see that growth is that it will unlock potential for our constituents, especially those in certain areas. In our region—you, Mr Bone, will see this in your own constituency—there are significant pockets of severe deprivation, some of which are in my constituency. If we are to offer the people living there the opportunities that the Government are keen to extend to larger areas of deprivation in London and the north and in the nations of Scotland and Wales, we should also consider areas that may be smaller but suffer from similar levels of deprivation and require the assistance that the Government can provide in terms of investment.

[George Freeman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as the importance of the commuter lines down to London, the regional links, not least between Ipswich, Cambridge and Norwich, are very important? We could combine Cambridge’s bioscience and digital and Norwich’s agricultural science, cleantech and food and medical science with Ipswich’s wonderful West Suffolk college and the Martlesham BT digital centre of excellence. If we put those together, we would build a very powerful triangle of innovation, to the benefit of all the villages and towns in the area.

[Ben Gummer]

I entirely agree. It is remarkable—a wonder—to see what has been achieved in Cambridge. It is remarkable also to see what is happening in Norwich—20 years of life science investment and innovation coming right. That is why it is so exciting to see some of the incipient projects in Ipswich. I was at University Campus Suffolk a few weeks ago to hear about some of the joint research projects that it is undertaking with significant universities around the country. It is a brand-new university—the youngest in the country—and it is already doing exciting advanced research. Some of the research, as my hon. Friend will know, involves geriatric science and the life sciences connected with that.

In Ipswich, there is an incipient life sciences industry, based around the largest software research centre in the country—Martlesham, just outside Ipswich, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). Together with a very significantly growing food and drink sector and a large tourism sector in the county as a whole, it should contribute to remarkable growth, which could be released to the UK economy. East Anglia is already one of only two regions that are net contributors to the UK economy. Its contribution could be made even more significant.

[Elizabeth Truss]

We hope soon to get the Cambridge Flyer extended to King’s Lynn and Norwich. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there was a train like the Cambridge Flyer to Ipswich—the Ipswich Flyer—it would help to drive growth in a similar way to what we have seen in Cambridge?

[Ben Gummer]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I remind the Chamber and people who may have arrived late that the winding-up speeches are to start in about a minute’s time. The hon. Gentleman might like to bear that in mind.

[Ben Gummer]

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Bone. I am glad that I have no more than a minute left to contribute to the debate.

I will make one final point because I agree with every point my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) made. It is important that the line from Ipswich should benefit towns nearby, such as Colchester, and continue across the east-west link, from Cambridge to Bedford and thence to Oxford, creating an arc of knowledge across the country.

The Minister knows that travellers in East Anglia pay some of highest premiums in the railway industry. That money goes out of the region to subsidise loss-making lines elsewhere. We need to retain some of that money to invest in our area. It is only right that our constituents— not only the fortunate and well-off, but those who lack opportunities—can retain a bit more of that investment in our area, so that we can improve our rail links and make the contribution to our local, national and European economy that we aspire to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

Thank you for that steer, Mr Bone.

Later this month, we will publish our high-level output specification, to cover what we want the rail industry to deliver in the 2014-to-2019 period. Some of the larger headline schemes are likely to be directly mentioned in the statement, but most of the projects needed to deliver the general outputs that we will set in that statement will not be explicitly listed, so the July statement will not have all the answers on exactly how the benefits of rail improvements will be shared around the country. It will be followed by an industry process to decide which upgrades are needed to deliver the specified outputs, overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation. I assure hon. Members that careful consideration will be given to the points made about the Ely North junction and other improvements today. I should mention that this HLOS statement, like the last one, is likely to contain certain general funding pots that are to be made available over the five-year period, which could be used to support various different schemes around the country, including in East Anglia.

The forthcoming long franchise for Greater Anglia will be important in answering the questions we have heard today. We are granting a longer, more flexible franchise, because we believe that that will give the train operator a stronger incentive to invest in the improvements passengers want, including better trains and stations. We expect the next Greater Anglia franchise to start in the summer of 2014, and to last for up to 15 years. Our reforms to franchising put passenger satisfaction and service quality at the heart of the outputs that we require train operators to deliver. We will work closely with bidders and Network Rail to see how we can maximise the opportunity to integrate decision making more effectively between track and train management—that is another aspiration in the prospectus—and we will also require the next franchisee to introduce ITSO smart ticketing across the franchise.

[Ben Gummer]

Will the Minister reflect on a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo)—that in essence rail travel has not really changed for the past 50 years? The long franchise gives a tenderer a fantastic opportunity to have a rethink about passengers and how the railway experience works, and to do some innovative things. That can be managed only in the 15-year context that the Government are setting.

[Mrs Villiers]

I agree that a long franchise can give many more opportunities for a train operator to innovate, and for us to draw private sector investment into the railways.

We will launch a public consultation on the next Greater Anglia franchise later this year. A detailed business case will be developed, and, drawing on the results of the consultation, we are likely to appraise a range of improvement options. As to what goes into the franchise, I emphasise that we have no plans to remove daytime passenger services from the Felixstowe branch line, which was a matter of importance to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal. Although Hutchison Ports has proposed the change, it has an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to fund the required infrastructure upgrades.

We have heard many other aspirations: there are the half-hourly services called for by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, and the specific service changes called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell). Decisions on those will be made only after the consultation has taken place, but I shall ensure that this debate is fed into the process.

Bletchley-Oxford Rail Link

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Westminster Hall

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. My comments are primarily about passenger services, but the freight side is equally valuable in putting together the strategic network for the country.

This area’s economic strengths lie in key growth sectors for the future, such as high-value-added, science-based research and development, precision engineering and, especially, automotive engineering—Red Bull Formula 1 is located in my constituency and won this year’s constructors’ championship—pharmaceutical and life science research and development, green technology and low-carbon services and products. All those things are attractive to inward investment, and I believe that a fast, reliable public transport corridor that links them together and to the rest of the United Kingdom, as well as to the population centres from which they will draw their work force, will help to generate up to 12,000 new jobs.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important matter before the House and the Minister. The largest software development centre in Europe is just outside Ipswich, and it would be a great help to link that to other centres of excellence at Cambridge and Oxford. The line between Felixstowe, Ipswich and Cambridge has already been built, and it will be improved thanks to this Government’s investment.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful for that intervention, which again illustrates the arc of economic growth that runs from east to west. The western section of the line will be instrumental in opening up the second phase of development eastwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Villiers]

Certainly I will. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who is sitting beside my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), often berates me for not committing sufficient funding to rail infrastructure outside the south-east. The reality is that the Government must consider carefully where taxpayer funding will deliver the greatest economic benefits. Whether we are talking about deprivation in the south-east or in the north, that is a crucial issue that we need to consider to take the difficult decisions on where to prioritise funding. We do not at all assume that everywhere in the south-east is prosperous. We know that improving our transport infrastructure in both the south and the north can deliver major benefits in quality of life, jobs and growth. That is why we are seeking to roll out a major programme of investment that helps the whole country.

The consortium has funded much of the cost of its work on the project to date, steadily developing its plans so that they stand on an equal footing with projects being proposed by the rail industry nationally in the IIP. The consortium has also explored ways for local authorities to use the forecast economic growth to fund part of the building costs if the project gets the go-ahead. That could make the project much more affordable, as we have heard. If we can agree to provide some funding for east-west rail as part of CP5, we may look to the consortium to make good on those local contributions on which it has been working so hard.

[Ben Gummer]

Certainly many of us will welcome the tone of the Minister’s statement, which is exciting. In the mix is the Greater Anglia franchise, which I know she is working on and which will start in 2014. A component of that will be infrastructure improvements. As much of this line falls within that franchise area, I wonder whether it would be possible to draw within the franchise a need for the new holder to invest in it as part of the franchise.

[Mrs Villiers]

Time constraints prevent me from going into the detail of what might be included in CP5 for the Greater Anglia area, but I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s campaign to improve the infrastructure there. That will be considered very seriously as part of both the HLOS process and the refranchising process.

Different ways of delivering the project have been carefully assessed by the consortium, with each one being tested for efficiency. I welcome, for example, its work on finding a lower-cost approach to planning consents, with a mix of permitted development rights and local authority planning permission.

The Government are already working on projects that could benefit the east-west rail corridor. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South said, the route between Oxford and Bicester Town, as well as being part of the east-west rail project, is being upgraded under the Chiltern Evergreen 3 programme. That will deliver new train services between Oxford and London Marylebone by 2014. Our agreement with Chiltern Railways includes funding the cost of strengthening the bridges and improving the tunnel, which will ensure that that section is capable of accommodating possible traffic resulting from east-west rail. Chiltern has planned its improvements so that the section is ready for a further upgrade of track and signals. Again, if east-west rail happens, that will be necessary.

My hon. Friend was brave enough to mention HS2. If HS2 goes ahead along the preferred route put forward for consultation, that could co-exist with east-west rail; there would be some synergies, potentially. The preferred route for HS2 would run parallel to east-west rail, between Quainton and Claydon. The operation of HS2 could free up busy parts of the west coast main line, including Milton Keynes, enabling new regional and local services to be run. That could improve the business case for east-west rail by providing space for more long-distance connecting journeys.

On my hon. Friend’s proposal for an HS2 station, I can assure him that we are considering with great care all the consultation responses, including all those that have proposed new stations. He proposed that we should fast-track east-west rail and deliver it by the end of the Parliament. I see that as quite an ambitious goal, but I will take it on board in discussions in the run-up to the growth review.

I think that the consortium is right to concentrate on the western section of the route. The case for reinstating the central section between Bedford and Cambridge is less developed. However, it is generally accepted that if the western section gets the go-ahead, that will be the time for more substantial work to see whether we cannot take forward the rest of the project at some future point.

The railways are experiencing a renaissance in 21st-century Britain. More people are travelling by train than at any time since the 1920s. Despite a deficit as serious as any in our peacetime history, we are undertaking the biggest programme of rail upgrades since the Victorian era. In the days before privatisation, projects on the scale of east-west rail to reopen lines closed years previously would have been scarcely conceivable. Now, they are not just conceivable, but credible and even realistic. However, despite—

Rail Investment

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I do know the geography of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency; I enjoyed going there to campaign against him when he was elected at a by-election. [Laughter.]

The good news for the hon. Gentleman is that Crossrail will draw away some of the traffic that is using the services on which his constituents rely, and the electrification of the First Great Western main line commuter services will also provide them with additional capacity, faster services and greater reliability.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

From his own experience, the Secretary of State will know that the London-Ipswich-Norwich line could qualify as a heritage line; it has hand-me-downs that are not deemed fit for the west coast main line. To be fair, I must add that that situation has obtained for 150 years. Would it be good for us to be included within the IEP, so that for once we would get new rolling stock—fresh, not second hand?

[Mr Hammond]

The question of brand-new rolling stock versus cascaded rolling stock depends ultimately on the business case that can be made. It is expected that some brand-new rolling stock will be deployed on the Greater Anglia franchise. I cannot tell my hon. Friend that that will necessarily be used on the London-Ipswich-Norwich line, but it is expected that there will be some new rolling stock in that franchise.

Transport (Investment)

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Travel times and potential journey savings are one of the key factors that the current model takes into account. The M54-M6 toll link is in the group of schemes that will be reassessed, because the Department needs to reassure itself that the value-for-money case for the scheme still applies.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

I am delighted that funding for “Ipswich—Transport Fit for the 21st Century” is being brought forward, a decision on which the previous Administration dithered, and I thank the Secretary of State for having regard to my many letters to him on the matter. Will he describe in greater detail the hurdles over which the county council now needs to leap to achieve funding in January?

[Mr Hammond]

The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), will be in Ipswich tomorrow to examine the scheme, when there will no doubt be an opportunity to discuss those issues with the promoters. Of course, the promoters will need to obtain any necessary planning and other statutory consents to allow schemes to go ahead. We will engage with the local authority promoters to ensure that any unnecessary cost has been squeezed out of the scheme and that every opportunity to secure supporting non-public-source funding has been explored and exhausted. By doing that, we will ensure that the total pool of schemes that we can support is as large as possible and that the economic benefits to the economy as a whole are as great as possible. We will undertake that work with the local authority promoters as a matter of urgency.

Inter-city Express Programme

Ben Gummer Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Villiers]

I am saying that we have to carry out a very careful assessment of what the right outcome is for this programme, and what the right way is to address the problem of the ageing InterCity 125 fleet. That is what the Government are doing at the moment.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

One thing was omitted from the original planned routes for the implementation of IEP, and that is the inclusion of the London-Norwich line, to the great disappointment of the people who live along it. The problem is that the rolling stock is not only ageing, as is that of the high-speed train fleet, but actually the cast-offs from the main lines to the north-east and north-west. If the routes are to be renegotiated, I hope that the line will be included, but I have to say that this is a lunatic way to procure trains. We heard about the Austin Allegro, famously specified by civil servants. I would not like this to be a similar instance of specification by civil servants that is not suitable for industry.

[Mrs Villiers]

Many parts of the network would like to have extra capacity, and I shall take my hon. Friend’s concerns on board as a representation. Regarding additional projects of that sort, it clearly all depends on what proves to be affordable, but we intend to learn lessons for the procurement process from the experience of the IEP.

As regards reappraisal of the original IEP concept, the Department has listened with great care to the ideas put forward by Agility on how to improve the value for money of its proposition, and I would like to put on record our sincere thanks to Agility for the diligent and constructive work that it has done, in contributing to both the Foster review and the re-evaluation process that followed. I am very aware that the issue is taken seriously in Japan.