Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Eric Ollerenshaw Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I will not: I am going to make some progress.

There is no question of changing the existing regime governing access to land at the surface and down to the depths of 300 metres. Extending the depth limit would not improve landowners’ enjoyment of their land or achieve any increase in the level of protection.

On new clause 19(i) and amendments 78, 79, 80 and 81, the Government have been clear that communities hosting shale gas developments should share in the benefits that are created. The shale industry is at a nascent stage. We will need more exploration to go ahead before knowing exactly how communities will benefit. At this stage, we need to ensure that schemes are flexible. A voluntary scheme offers a multitude of benefits to communities when compared with a statutory system, enabling schemes to be tailored to communities’ needs. Any statutory scheme might not be suitable for every situation, and would be more difficult in future.

The industry, represented by UK Onshore Oil and Gas—UKOOG—has already committed to the community benefits charter, which will provide significant benefits to affected communities. Industry will pay £100,000 per hydraulically fractured well site at exploratory stage to communities, and 1% of revenue if it successfully goes into production.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

Does the Minister yet have a definition of “community” in this instance?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend has raised that issue before and I hope that we will hear from him later. As he will be aware, we believe that that question is best decided later, when we have a charter in place that will address the issue.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Eric Ollerenshaw Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I will not detain the House for long, so that remaining Members get a chance to speak. I have just a few points to raise, as many issues have been dealt with exhaustively. My hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Charles Hendry) and for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) spoke about gas storage. As I understand it, enough applications for gas storage have already been approved, but they have not been carried through. I raise the matter because Halite in my constituency has made an application for gas storage. It has been turned down three times—once by the previous Government and twice by this Government. It is now on its fourth application. I just want to underline the fact that we in the area are against that permission being granted, and I have the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace). This is to do not with gas storage in the future but with the issue of approvals. The application from Preesall in Lancashire has not been approved and has been turned down three times. I just wanted to put the record straight on that.

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) mentioned the matter of neighbourhood planning and raised some very sensible points. He and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) talked about the ability locally to influence not just the number of houses but the style of houses. I wish I was in the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and able to get approval for a few more bungalows, so that older people could downsize but stay in the villages where they have always lived. I hope that the Bill delivers some real power to neighbourhood planning, as local people need a say in the type of housing required.

As Members expect, my main point is to do with clauses 38 to 40 in part 5 on geothermal energy—or fracking. Clause 38 (1) says:

“A person has the right to use deep-level land in any way for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy.”

As I understand it, the Government are trying to win popular support for fracking. To have such a clause in the Bill will act as a red rag to a bull. That subsection is reinforced by clause 39 (3), which says:

“The right of use includes the right to leave deep-level land in a different condition from the condition it was in before an exercise of the right of use (including by leaving any infrastructure of substance in the land).”

Whoever secures such a right can leave whatever they want below the land. As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said, a system already exists for securing such rights—people could argue their case before the courts. We are now removing that right. Some Members, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), for whom I have a great deal of respect, are telling me that there is nothing new in that, citing the example of the coal industry. Come to parts of Lancashire and see the ravages of the coal industry and coal mining in terms of subsidence and the fall in housing values, and tell me about support. If there are Members who believe in the issue and wish to win the political and community argument, I suggest that fewer references are made to the depredations of coal.

Unlike the hon. Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Angus, I have no ideological argument against shale, but what many of us in Lancashire have said about winning the debate is that, unlike coal and other massive developments, there should be a real return for the people most affected. A number of Members, across parties, have been trying extremely hard to get that message across. To some extent, there has been some give. The references that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State made to a sovereign wealth fund, which some of us argued for on behalf of Lancashire but which has now become a sovereign wealth fund for the north—I have some views about Yorkshire sharing in anything that we produce—shows that there has been movement.

The argument is that it is the people most affected and closest to the operation, not just the Chancellor and the companies, who should get the long-term dividend from the operation. However, the Bill does not define the payment scheme. Clause 41(1) states:

“The Secretary of State may, by regulations, require relevant energy undertakings”

to make payments. I know that that is the terminology we use in the construction of Bills and laws, but the Government are trying to win an argument about the need to develop shale as rapidly as possible. I buy some of those arguments. I buy the argument on the need to replace coal, and the argument that renewables will not certainly exist in the quantities we need to fill the gap. I buy the argument that gas may lower carbon emissions for the time being. However, I do not believe that clauses such as those in such a complicated Bill will win anybody over in my part of Lancashire. People will not have the confidence that their concerns are being dealt with effectively until Ministers come forward and explain the situation.

Whatever happens with fracking—the security of the aquifers and the rest of it—it will, at the very minimum, cause disruption. I have argued long and hard in the House. I understand that Ministers are beginning to listen, but currently their argument is back to front. They should have come forward with much more definite answers. What are the returns for people in Lancashire who will be putting up with that new industry? Currently, I am not able to support that part of the Bill.

[Mr Hayes]

I hope I can persuade my hon. Friend to support the Bill on this basis: as a result of the arguments he and others have made, including the arguments made by Opposition Members during my speech, I will be happy to convene a meeting with Members who have concerns about the community interest in the exploitation of shale. We have debated that in the House and I have spoken about it. I am more than happy to ask the Department of Energy and Climate Change to convene such a meeting. I hope, on that basis, that my hon. Friend will change his mind about supporting the Bill.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I am grateful to the Minister, but with great respect—I have great respect for him as a Minister—we have had meetings and more meetings, and I have to go back to Lancashire and explain to people what the Bill means. As I have said, I understand the terminology we use, but when it comes to my support for the Bill, I am not convinced tonight that I have a definite figure for the benefit for Lancashire.

Road Investment Strategy

Eric Ollerenshaw Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend raised that issue in an Adjournment debate a few weeks ago. It was framed as a debate about congestion problems in the midlands, but I know that they affect his constituency specifically. He has often made the case for improvements to road infrastructure. I hope that some of the announcements that I have made today will lead to some improvements, but we will no doubt have to go further.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I, too, welcome the £41 million for the improvement of the bottlenecks on the A585 into and out of Fleetwood. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that builds on his announcement last year of £5 million for Lancashire county council to fill in potholes and the £111 million that was announced in 2011 to complete the M6-Heysham link road around Lancaster? Does he agree that in my part of Lancashire, we are finally beginning to make up for the 13 years of neglect by the previous Government?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is right about levels of investment, not only in his constituency but elsewhere in that area. That is a marked change in the way transport infrastructure is addressed by the Government, and I hope that that continues whichever Government are in office—it certainly will under this Government.

Local Bus Services

Eric Ollerenshaw Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I join other hon. Members in thanking the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for what he did on concessionary fares. We all acknowledge the success of that. Many people in my constituency could benefit from it.

My constituency is extremely large, with two urban centres at each end and a large rural bit in between. Fleetwood is Britain’s biggest town without a mainline railway. A modernised tram system has been completed there, but many Fleetwood residents cannot travel on it because the subsidy has been removed by Labour-controlled Lancashire county council. I want to come back to that in a minute.

Clearly, buses are key, particularly in the rural areas of my constituency. Hon. Members have talked about technology. In many rural areas in my constituency, people cannot even find a timetable for the very few buses that run. That is incredible in the 21st century. I have some sympathy with the motion because of the need to bring in technology to get the modal shift we want.

Hon. Members have talked about the needs of the young, the old and the disabled. That is even more true for the young, old or disabled people and the shift workers who live in one of the villages in my constituency and who rely on the one or two buses that do run. The problem is—I mentioned technology—knowing when the bus is coming, as people do in London, what the cost is and where the bus is going. Therefore, people do not use the buses.

How will we achieve the shift? The key to the London revolution—I pay tribute to Ken Livingstone, who realised this at the beginning—was to transfer people from private cars to buses. Not just the elderly and the subsidised but everyone else in London can see when the bus is coming at most stops and can use the Oyster card.

To be fair—Labour Members did not mention this—Boris Johnson, a Conservative Mayor, continued that bus revolution, brought in an integrated transport system through the Oyster card and brought overground mainline train services into that system. He has continued to work on that. Therefore, the system has developed and there has been success, but as hon. Members have said, that is down to the powers that existed in London, which were taken away from other areas. In that regard, as I say, I have a lot of sympathy with the motion.

I am grateful for what the Secretary of State said about the need to look at common-sense solutions, as the Chancellor has done in relation to Greater Manchester. I hope that other areas will come forward with proposals and are given some of those powers so we can get something moving. The bus service is the easiest way of transferring people from private to public vehicles. It is the most flexible method, and it provides the way in which the biggest increases can be seen. I support that, but I have a problem when it comes to supporting the motion.

Between December 2013 and January 2014, Labour-controlled Lancashire county council proposed to cut £4 million from subsidies, thus removing evening and Sunday bus services such as the 2C from Knott End to Poulton, the 40 from Lancaster to Preston, the 42 from Lancaster to Blackpool, the 74 from Blackpool to Fleetwood, the 82 from Fleetwood to Poulton, the 84 from Fleetwood to Blackpool, the 86 from Knott End to Fleetwood—and so it goes on. That was done by a Labour-controlled council. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State’s secret meeting this morning was attended by Councillor John Fillis, Lancashire county council’s transport member, and that it discussed the 89 from Lancaster to Knott End, the 7 from the Marsh estate on the edge of Lancaster to the centre of the city, the 10 from the Ridge estate to Lancaster, and the 81A and 81B from Lancaster to Wray, Caton or Hornby. All those routes are critically important to shift workers.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see the irony of his walking through the Lobbies to make massive cuts to his local council’s budgets and then criticising it for making cuts?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Does the hon. Lady not see the irony of proposing a motion which suggests that other councils should be

“able to make use of London-style powers”,

but contains not one cent of financial commitment? How would the Oyster cards be paid for? What about the massive amount that would have to be invested in machinery? This is pie in the sky. It is great pie in the sky, but money would have to be found from somewhere to pay for it. What would Lancashire do if such a system were introduced? How could the county council deal with it, given that it already wants to cut bus services?

Following a massive campaign led mostly by the parish councils but also by— obviously—myself, along with members of every political party except Labour, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), the county council has withdrawn its original proposal. However, it will now review each bus route separately.

I acknowledge that there is a problem with the use of rural buses, partly because of the inability to invest in technology, and I share the dream of rural bus services becoming like those in London,. However, a party less than six months away from a general election is not prepared to say how it would make the initial huge investment. If we agreed to the motion, would we be expected to pay for it by means of increased fares or increased borrowing, or to ask county or city councils to introduce even more cuts? Where is the finance to support this scheme? Although I have massive sympathy for it, I prefer the Secretary of State’s step-by-step approach. It will enable us to do what we should have done years ago and start to introduce a bit more regulation, but, before we do so, let us make clear how we will pay for it.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Eric Ollerenshaw Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). Perhaps, for once, we will vote in the same Lobby. I want to express my gratitude and that of other Government Members from the north to the Labour leaders of the great cities of the north for the impact that they have had on the shadow Front-Bench team over the past few months.

Last year, my neighbours and hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) sat down with Virgin Trains to consider the possibility of providing a direct train from London to Blackpool, with a stop at Poulton station, to assist the regeneration of Blackpool and Fylde. That would have an impact on my constituents in Fleetwood and on the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North. Virgin said that it could put on two direct trains a day to Blackpool, which would have changed the whole situation. However, when we got to Network Rail, we were told that no room existed on the west coast main line for those direct trains. The capacity issue is having an impact now—not in a few years time. It has prevented those trains from running.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the point that he is making applies equally to Shrewsbury, which has had similar problems in getting a path down the network?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I agree absolutely with the Minister.

To be fair, the amendment recognises the need for extra capacity from the north to the south. I am grateful to the supporters of the amendment for that. I accept their criticism of the fact that the project does not start in Manchester or Leeds. That makes it a funny hybrid amendment, but perhaps a hybrid amendment to a hybrid Bill is fitting. The amendment then seems to say that everything can be done with the existing line. As I have pointed out, that line is already at capacity. As hon. Members from across the House have mentioned, the last time we attempted to upgrade the west coast main line, there were more than 10 years of overruns and we had different figures for the costs, which were about £10 billion. As people who use that line know, it is still not finished. If anybody was travelling on Saturday night, as I was, they would know that there are still more problems around Watford. In the summer there had to be improvements north of Warrington, which again caused delays on the line. It is simply impossible.

Other hon. Members have mentioned a suggestion that I made a couple of years ago about having double-decker trains, but apparently that is not practical given the bridge situation and so on. Those things have been considered, and we are left with a need for a new line. If we are going to build a new line, presumably it must be the latest development; I am sure that we—except for the enthusiasts, perhaps—would not want to build a line with steam trains on it at the moment.

I will oppose the amendment and support the Bill, even though I represent Lancaster and Fleetwood, which is not directly affected by this issue. Interestingly, if we consider High Speed 1 and the new Javelin trains that go from King’s Cross to Folkestone and use the high-speed line and transfer at Ashford to the normal “classical” line as I think it is referred to, I can see that there could be massive improvements in terms of the impact on stations north of Manchester, and indeed north of Crewe if we get there in the short term. We will enjoy those benefits because we will have trains travelling on both lines and improved connectivity.

For me the biggest reason for HS2, which has been mentioned by other Members, is the coalition Government’s promise when we got elected to do something about the widening north-south divide. That divide got wider and wider in the 13 years before we were elected and we said that we were going to do something about it. We have started to do something, and I accept that railways are not everything. We have started to do something about roads, and for the first time we have an M6 link road around Lancaster to Heysham. A scheme promised in the 1930s is now being built by this Government. The extension of broadband will be massively important in the north-west, but we must also deal with railway capacity, and it seems to me that there is no available alternative but this project.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said that we should not go ahead with this scheme and compared it with London, but I find amazing the argument used by some that in London we can spend £6 billion on Thameslink—still not finished, by the way—and £15 billion on Crossrail 1. We are now proposing to spend £16 billion on Crossrail 2, and apparently those projects will have massive impacts on the London economy. Great, they will, but then I am told by some hon. Members that a high-speed line to the north will have minimal impact in terms of regeneration. What is good for one city is good for other cities and beyond, and we must rebalance the situation in terms of spend and connectivity.

As many Members have said, we need this debate literally to get moving at high speed, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said—I totally agree—we should not delay the Bill, which is what this hybrid amendment seems to be about. We should support the Bill and then go on to debate High Speed 3 to Glasgow and Edinburgh, and possibly High Speed 4 to Cardiff, and get on with truly uniting this Kingdom.

Access to Ports

Eric Ollerenshaw Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I will not detain the Chamber long. I welcome the report from my constituency’s point of view. The Chair of the Select Committee will know the areas I will talk about, given her previous distinguished career as leader of Lancashire county council, as will the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), given the geographical position of his constituency.

The key line for me in the report was:

“Ports are national assets, often out of the limelight, but essential to the economic well being of the nation.”

That needs to be said again and again. I am making an appeal on behalf of the smaller ports. There is talk in the report of a national strategy, which I think is a sensible, common-sense, positive push forward, but part and parcel of that must be the inclusion of Britain’s smaller ports. The Select Committee Chair made reference to coastal shipping and all that goes with it, and the smaller ports have a key part to play in that. As I will try to suggest, they have a particular part to play in any emergencies at our major ports. I will come to that point in a moment.

On a more positive note, I noticed in paragraph 7 on page 8 a reference to the problems of getting to Heysham port, which is just outside my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), because of the lack of a link road from the M6. That has been an issue since 1938; I am sure the Chair of the Select Committee will remember from her time as leader of Lancashire county council the constant pressure for such a link.

As we speak, the diggers are in and work on the road is moving along. That work started only a few months ago and, interestingly enough, the mere fact that it has started is already attracting businesses to the area. Distribution businesses are looking at setting up along the road, and the container companies in the port are delighted and considering expanding. Something planned in Lancashire for more than 80 years is finally coming to pass, which is a plus.

I have two smaller ports in my constituency. Glasson dock, run by the Lancaster Port Commission, is a very small dock on the estuary of the River Lune that can take ships of up to 3,000 tonnes. It is at the end of the Lancaster canal system, so it has a freshwater and a seawater wharf; it is quite an interesting area. The little, busy port is well run by the Lancaster Port Commission. It is mainly dependent on Glasson Grain Ltd, which imports, in smaller ships, feed ingredients that are converted to animal feed for the agricultural areas in my constituency and in Lancashire more widely. On top of that, a weekly boat takes cargo to and from the Isle of Man. Glasson dock is quite a successfully run private port.

The Committee talks about access. Glasson dock is not a strategic port, so it is not controlled by the Highways Agency; it falls under Lancashire county council. I ask for the Committee’s patience while I make yet another appeal concerning the B5290, the road that goes into Glasson dock. A sign on the road states that it is liable to flooding, and it does flood. There is huge pressure from the port and the people who live in the village of Glasson Dock to get that road re-done. It has been left in a deplorable state, yet wagon after wagon of animal feed comes out of the port, keeping that commercial entity going. Despite that plea, Glasson dock is a very successful example, I would argue, of a functioning smaller port that can add something to the wider ports strategy, if there is to be one.

My main concern—I am sure hon. Members will understand why—is about the much larger Fleetwood port. It has declined over the years, first with the downturn in the fishing industry and more recently when Stena Line stopped sailings between Fleetwood and Larne in 2010, because the boats were getting too old and it was too expensive to replace them and because of the problems in getting in and out of Fleetwood that resulted from the tidal system.

We now have this huge great empty space, still owned by Associated British Ports. There has been lots of talk over the years about the possibility of reviving Fleetwood as a support system for supplying new wind farms, and we hope that something might come of that. There has even been talk recently of its becoming a centre if fracking develops. Believe it or not, fracking might be possible in the Irish sea, and Fleetwood would be in a strategic position for that.

There is a reference in the report to dredging, which I thought quite interesting. One of the key issues to do with whether Fleetwood could ever be revived is the cost to ABP of continual dredging. ABP is running down that operation, so there is some dredging, but it is not as deep as it was. The worry is, therefore, that the port will eventually silt up. I note that the report states in paragraph 21 on page 12:

“The Mersey Dock and Harbour Board successfully bid for money from the Regional Growth Fund to dredge the Mersey so that the port of Liverpool could accommodate larger ships.”

The Government stated that that was “an exceptional case”. I am sure that they have to say that all the time, and as a local constituency MP I could argue that Fleetwood is an exceptional case. If the regional growth fund, perhaps through the local enterprise partnership, made that decision, why should not the Lancashire LEP decide that a grant should be made available to keep Fleetwood port properly dredged for the time when there is demand for it?

Colleagues will understand why my old antagonist in the Greater London authority, Ken Livingstone, is not someone I would praise to the hills, and I am not doing so now. However, I remember his constant determination to protect the 10 redundant Thames river wharves. I sat on the London Development Agency for a while, and there was constant pressure to redevelop those wharves into housing. However, there was a kind of rule that we could not touch them, because the Mayor did not want to touch them. During the Olympics, some of those wharves were revived for the delivery and removal of building materials and we have seen the development of a more extensive river service, so the protection of those wharves turned out to be extremely important.

I support the Select Committee’s proposal for a national ports strategy. Surely as part of that we have to look at all the smaller ports that may one day be important back-up. If Liverpool port is to expand—hopefully, it will—and is dredged to let in the big cruise ships, what happens if the Mersey is blocked one day by an emergency? Where is the sea traffic going to go? There is nowhere along that stretch of coast: Heysham and Barrow are already extremely full, so we need an emergency contingency plan. That is why support is required to preserve smaller ports such as Fleetwood—there may be others across the country—that do not currently excite the market but one day might. However, if the capital resources are not supplied and entry to and from the port, both seaward and landward, is simply left to die, such ports will be useless in future. I argue that they do have a future, and that that should be recognised in whatever grant system is available.

I want to finish by talking about the access to Fleetwood. Fish processing is thriving, alongside the Freeport retail centre and all kinds of other things, but there are problems with road access, which is the responsibility of the Highways Agency, all the way through to the port. Despite my meeting with the Highways Agency last year, there are still great big signs all the way down the M55 saying “Ferry”, “Ferry”, “Ferry”—but the ferry has not been there for four years. God love the agency, because it has promised to blank those parts out, but we are still waiting four years down the line. It does not help the look of Fleetwood to have such big signs pointing to a redundant port.

The ports I have been discussing should be included in a strategy—and yes, we need a strategy. Who knows when Fleetwood port will be revived? I obviously hope that it will be sooner rather than later, but even if “sooner” is a bit later, in spring or winter—the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) knows the terminology far better than I do—in the short term there must still be a back-up for emergencies. If there is an emergency in Liverpool, I would argue that Fleetwood is a really good back-up port.

High-speed Rail

Eric Ollerenshaw Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

There is no doubt that Wales will benefit from HS2. North Wales, in particular, will benefit from the proposals in Sir David’s latest report to build the line faster further north, because Crewe is a major interchange that serves north Wales.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

If I understand the Secretary of State’s announcement correctly, high-speed rail will get nearer to Lancashire earlier, which obviously is a good thing. What implications does that have for earlier planning for an HS3 that goes beyond Manchester and Leeds?

[Mr McLoughlin]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I think that that is a debate for another occasion. He is right that HS2 will have a major impact on the cities it serves and that we will have to go further as a result.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eric Ollerenshaw Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Hammond]

The Thameslink programme will be completed in 2018 and will, as the hon. Lady knows, provide a minimum of two trains per hour all day to stations on the Catford loop. That will be supplemented by additional standards and services under the Southeastern franchise, at least in peak periods. The detailed specification for those additional services will be determined nearer the time.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

Millions of people will be travelling long distances to see family and friends over the coming days. All key transport operators have contingency plans in place to deal with disruption if the weather deteriorates. As in previous winters, the Government are monitoring road salt supplies on a regular basis. The current stocks are robust, totalling 1.7 million tonnes

As we head into Christmas, I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the anti-drink-drive campaign that we launched earlier this month. It reminds drivers of the snowballing consequences that can await those who get behind the wheel after drinking, including job loss, a criminal record and prison. Our message this Christmas is simple: if you’re going to drink, don’t drive.

May I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues, to wish you and all the members of staff a merry Christmas and a contented new year?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Labour-run Lancashire county council is purporting to cut its subsidised bus routes by 50%, which means that most of the villages and outlying council estates in Lancaster will have no buses in the evenings or on Sundays. Is it not about time for a serious review of the need to maintain vital bus services for rural and difficult-to-reach areas?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. The truth is that, while we have seen a huge amount of growth in the railways, more people are using buses every single day, particularly in rural areas and rural communities, which rely on bus services. My hon. Friend raises important issues and his ideas certainly merit further consideration.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Eric Ollerenshaw Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Gillan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but the Government recently produced the new business case, and I believe that there is doubt over the timing used for Edinburgh to London. I have been informed by a commentator that they failed to take into account the new rolling stock and the existing time savings from improvements being made to the line. I stand to be corrected—perhaps the Minister can tell us—but I believe that there has been an error in the calculation.

I would like the Bill to refer to Scotland, because it is important that a definite intent be put in the Bill. It would send a good message to Scotland, at a time when we are trying to keep this United Kingdom together, in the teeth of opposition from the nationalist parties, and I think it should be in the Bill simply for that reason.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

I sympathise with the spirit of my right hon. Friend’s amendments, and obviously many of us who support HS2 hope it will go through to Glasgow and Edinburgh and cannot understand why we do not start building from there now. But be that as it may, I am a bit worried because her amendment 18 would remove the “at least”. I read “at least” to mean that HS2 could stop at more stations. Were we to accept her amendment 18 and then her amendment 13, which would add the words

“and one or more towns or cities in Scotland”,

it would leave out everything between Manchester and Glasgow as a potential stop on a high-speed line to Glasgow. That is my understanding of her amendments.

[Mrs Gillan]

My amendments are intended to probe the Government’s intention. I believe that they should have made provision to include more stops on the line. For example, I would have thought that between Manchester and elsewhere, there could have been other stops giving greater benefit to some of the areas that will be destroyed by the line.

I tabled an amendment in Committee, and it must have struck a chord, because the official Opposition have tabled something very similar, and I am delighted to say that the Government, in an attempt to hug the Opposition closer, have now signed up to it and it has become a Government amendment. I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on her victory. One of the major problems is with the connectivity of HS2. If it is not fully connected and integrated into our transport system, it will be the white elephant that so many of us believe it will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

It is a pleasure to be called in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) who has obviously thought the issue through. Some of his proposals are quite interesting, but the fact of the matter is that the success of privatisation and competition means that we will need the capacity—we might need the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions on top of HS2.

I will support amendment 17, and I thank Ministers for finally including the Y route in the Bill. Two years ago when this scheme was first suggested, there was a great debate between Ministers and civil servants about whether we should build a line just to Birmingham, and a separate one to Manchester and Leeds. I am really grateful to Ministers that the Bill includes London to Birmingham, East Midlands, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester. I would of course suggest that the left side of the Y could be built faster and quicker, and would be far better, and I agree with the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) that we need to look seriously at the connection. International business men and foreign tourists will want to get on trains in Europe, bypass London and go straight beyond Manchester on to the spur to get to central, rural Lancashire and see the delights available. The sooner we can get that done, the better.

[Mrs Gillan]

If HS2 is going to be built, will my hon. Friend support my suggestion that it is started in the north? That would enable the Howard Davies commission to report, we could look at airport capacity in the south, and my hon. Friend would get his wish much quicker because connectivity among northern cities could be established.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I always thought that was my suggestion, but never mind. I do not know how the engineering will be done—I assume it will start in many different points and I agree with my right hon. Friend. One of my earliest interventions in a debate on this issue—two years ago, I think—was to suggest that we start construction now in Glasgow and Edinburgh, while the southern counties make up their minds which back garden HS2 is going to go through.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Is not the fact of the matter that the real bottleneck is Birmingham? If we follow the suggestion that we start the project from the north, Birmingham will become an absolute nonsense in terms of railway transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing us back to reality—[Interruption.] Sorry, he is my hon. Friend, soon to be right hon. Friend.

We must be serious on capacity. I and fellow Lancashire Members have been fighting for some time for a direct train service from London Euston to Blackpool. We had the agreement of Virgin, and a cross-party group was involved, including me, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden). We thought we were there, but only a month ago, Network Rail said, “We cannot put on two direct trains per day from Euston to Blackpool because the line cannot cope.”

[Mr Straw]

I confirm what the hon. Gentleman says, although I would much prefer all trains to turn right at Preston to go to Blackburn. The truth is we all have an interest in the prosperity of Lancashire as a whole. I would like the line to start from the north, but all the economic arguments say that it should start from the south. Does he accept that the benefit of the reduction in journey time to Preston is one of the best in the plans for the area? The journey time is improved by 44 minutes—it is cut to an hour and a half—which will have a dramatic impact not only on Preston and central Lancashire, but on the whole county.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Lancaster is not on the line yet—it might be eventually, and I might stand here in future asking for a stop there—but we will reap the benefit, as the right hon. Gentleman says. The spur line that will be built means that high-speed trains will enter the normal west coast main line just above Wigan. We will enjoy the benefits of that service, which will be fantastic for the economy of our area.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), the previous Minister. I congratulate him on his incredible speech and I am grateful for the support he has provided all the way through the process to get the Bill right.

Another issue is the north-south balance. People in some areas of the north ask why we are spending that money. I am grateful for what appears to be an outbreak of political consensus. Some Government Members and some northern Members were worried that the consensus would break down, but from what right hon. and hon. Opposition Members have said today, it looks like the consensus is restored, for which I am grateful.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I, too, am pleased to hear of consensus. Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the comments of the shadow Chancellor, who says that the money would be better spent on roads, cross-country rail, affordable houses, hospitals and schools rather on important and essential infrastructure for our children and grandchildren?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I am tempted to go down that line, but, given the outbreak of consensus, I will stick with that. To be fair, northern MPs of every party have sat on the all-party parliamentary group on rail in the north, and fought together to get the northern hub from the Government—an £800 million completed deal. They have fought together for electrification of the connection between Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield. Southern and London MPs should realise that, on the current system, I can get to London quicker than I can get to Birmingham, Sheffield or Leeds. That must be ridiculous in the 21st century. The Bill is part and parcel of such connectivity.

[Mr Betts]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, in parts of the north such as Sheffield, the consensus has never broken. We have always been firmly in favour in principle. The city’s MPs, the city council—unanimously —and the chamber of commerce, and the local enterprise partnership support high-speed rail as a matter of principle.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I would assume nothing less, having worked with the hon. Gentleman and fellow northern MPs to get that extra investment. To be fair, the Government have delivered in the non-high speed section across the piece. In my small patch, they have agreed to electrification from Blackpool to Preston. Only a few months ago, nearly £1 million was spent on Lancaster station to enable trains to turn round. All those improvements are happening as I speak. They are all part of the connectivity in the Bill, which provides preparatory expenditure for the

“network referred to in subsection (1)”

and expenditure on the network that

“connects with the existing railway transport network.”

For me, and for parts of the north where the high-speed rail will not reach, that is the key to our support for the Bill.

I am grateful for the cross-party support, but some hon. Members rightly have concerns in their constituencies. I ask them to look at the proposals in the context of the north-south situation. Currently, it seems to my constituents that, when London demands something, things suddenly happen. Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but Crossrail cost £16 billion, and nearly £6 billion has been spent on Thameslink—we will take its second-class trains, which will apparently be marvellous for us.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

If only it were so easy for London! It has taken 14 years to get investment on the Liverpool street east coast line. I am very grateful to Ministers for it, but it was not provided instantly.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

That could be a benefit of having a Conservative London Mayor. From my perspective in Lancashire, I see that the Olympics cost £9 billion; there are continual tube upgrades; I do not know how much is spent on subsidising bus fares in London; HS1 into London cost £6 billion; we are immediately talking about Crossrail 2. I am not complaining—they are all marvellous things.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s broadcast on behalf of the Lancashire national party. Perhaps there will be a letter to Scotland asking to come and join us. Do not the spend on high-speed rail and the debate it generates pale into insignificance compared with the money we spend in the blink of an eye on nuclear weapons? At the very least, the spend on high-speed rail will leave something tangible in the country. That cannot be said of some of our spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I assumed we were already joined to Scotland. That could be an exaggeration—[Laughter.] For some of my constituents, it is not an exaggeration.

For coalition Members, one key thing was to rebalance the economy of this country. For me, high-speed rail is a key part of that. I am grateful for Ministers’ work in getting us this far on the Y shape. I wish we were already into a third high-speed rail or whatever, but High Speed 2 is fundamental to our commitment to deliver a rebalanced economy between the regions and London. I will support the Bill tonight.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

A number of amendments in the group deal with the extension of HS2 to Scotland. Unsurprisingly, I shall concentrate my remarks on the case for the building of HS2 and the benefits it will bring to Scotland and my city of Edinburgh.

It is patently clear that the improvement to the railway system that HS2 will deliver will benefit Scotland. At the moment, we suffer from capacity problems further south on the rail network. Unless something is done to deal with them, as rail demand increases, journey times and railway services to Scotland will be affected. We will obviously benefit from the reduction of 45 minutes that will be brought about by HS2, and I hope that further reductions will be achieved in the fullness of time.

We will also benefit from the way in which HS2 will help to rebalance the economy towards the north of Britain. The development of HS2 will lead to a reduction in the pressure for growth in domestic air travel, which will have other advantages. Extending high-speed rail to the points proposed by HS2 and beyond will also improve the business case for high-speed. All the evidence suggests that the business case for the improvements further south will be strengthened by extending HS2 to the points currently provided for and beyond to Scotland as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Eric Ollerenshaw Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

We are the most pro-cycling Government ever. If the hon. Lady does not believe that, she should look at some of the comments from the cycling groups, who have warmly welcomed the huge investment—the record investment—that has taken place under this Government. That is a real step change in cycling, and I would have thought that she welcomed it rather than criticise it.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

T4. Will the Minister confirm that northern commuters on the trans-Pennine routes are still in line to benefit from the promised 40 extra carriages, and will he continue to look into increasing capacity on those northern commuter routes?

[Mr Burns]

I am delighted to confirm that commuters on the trans-Pennine express are in line to benefit from increased capacity provided by the extra 40 carriages to be introduced on the Manchester to Scotland route and the reallocation of diesel trains. The new electric trains are scheduled to enter passenger service between December 2013 and May 2014. I have no doubt that this will bring benefit to my hon. Friend’s constituents and others along the line of route.