Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Newmark]

I am trying to stick to Mr Deputy Speaker’s instruction to keep roughly to 10 minutes.

Time and again, Labour Members talk about borrowing. Page 22 of the Red Book shows us that public sector net borrowing is coming down annually. That is the point. Labour Members look at the gross figure, but the important thing is that we are bringing borrowing down annually. In 2015, it will go down to £90 billion. It will then go down to £75 billion next year. Hopefully, by 2018-19 we shall be in some sort of surplus.

It is also important to look at cyclically adjusted net borrowing, which is also decreasing—we will be showing a surplus in 2018-19. The borrowing figure has been and is a problem. Are Opposition Members right to point out that the gross figure is growing? Absolutely. The point is that we are tackling the deficit to bring down the annual amount of borrowing. That is what the Government have done very well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In June 2010, we were told that we had to have an emergency Budget. Even at that stage, one of the strange things about that was that many of the measures were so un-emergency that they did not have to come in until the following January. To a large extent, the emergency Budget was a political statement about where the incoming Government wanted to go. Today’s Budget is a political statement as well, from a Government who are trying to convey the impression that they have solved the country’s economic problems and that there will be no need for many more harsh decisions or much more austerity as they want people to think it is safe to vote for them. It is therefore a highly political Budget.

Not only is this a political Budget but the Chancellor, optimistically I would suggest, seems to be planning not just for the election that is about to happen but for 2020. His predictions for spending show severe cuts in the first part of the next Parliament then a sudden uplift towards the end, just before another general election. Even the OBR says that that is very strange and that this is a “rollercoaster” of spending. It is not justified, I would suggest, by anything other than its politics.

The people of this country deserve something better than a Budget that will, as the Chancellor hopes, make people feel good when a lot of the underlying issues have not been resolved. Some of those people were badly affected by some of the things we were told were absolutely essential back in 2010 and will find it pretty galling to be told now that things are perhaps better when they are still suffering. At that time, we were told that we would have to cut disability benefits by 20%—people wonder why the disabled in this country are so angry, so upset and so worried. That was the prospectus put before them then.

One of the main things the Chancellor wanted to talk about today was the tax threshold, but we have to ask over and over again what that means for the low-paid. Between 17% and 20% of people in employment are already earning below the tax threshold and further rises in it do absolutely nothing for them. What is the Government’s proposal to help those low-paid people? There does not appear to be anything and there is a considerable fear that those low-paid earners will end up paying for this constant increase in the tax threshold, perhaps through a VAT increase, which they will have to pay for even though they gain no benefit from it. Even if people fully endorse the argument about the tax threshold, there should be provision for the low-paid as well so that at the very least they are provided for.

That point and some of the speeches we have heard show the fundamental differences between the Government and the Labour Opposition. Members have said how important it is that people can keep hold of their own money. Tax is basically a bad word for them and they want as little of it as possible. The problem is that that has consequences that are felt in the real world. If taxation is reduced, spending must be reduced unless taxation is being increased somewhere else, which brings us back to the question of VAT. If we want a society in which we provide good quality services and in which people are not anxious about things such as how their parents will be cared for or how they will encounter the care system in their old age, it has to be paid for. If anyone believes that the answer is to cut taxes they should be open and honest and say what impact that will have on services.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that when certain taxes are cut, the overall take by the Exchequer increases, as has been demonstrated over the past five years?

[Sheila Gilmore]

We have heard the argument that if we reduce taxes, we get more revenue in. Of course, it is usually heard in relation to the 50p rate of tax, but that was a very poor example. It hardly had any effect, and so many people made their own arrangements before and after the announcement was made on reducing the rate again that we cannot tell what really happened.

It is important that we should have a discussion about the kind of values we want and the kind of society we want to live in. There has been a similar debate north of the border, where we have a Government who are trying to suggest that, although they do not necessarily want to cut taxes, it is possible to have fantastic services without ever putting up taxes. That will also leave the public confused about what can really be achieved.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend accept that if the Government consistently put up tax allowances while putting wages down, tax revenues are going to fall? Does she agree that that is why we are nearly bankrupt?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Tax revenues have been falling, and the whole issue about low wages is extremely important.

We have had discussions in the House about zero-hours contracts. I think it was the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) who said today that Labour had done nothing about them for 13 years. I was not a Member of this House at that time, but I was a local councillor for much of that period and I met people constantly in that role. In all honesty, I do not recall people raising the issue in the way that they have been doing more recently.

Zero-hours contracts are a growing phenomenon, and they are still under-reported. I mention them on some of the literature that I give out when I am door-knocking, and a couple of the people I have spoken to in the past few days have looked at that literature and said, “What are zero-hours contracts?” When I explained, they said, “Oh yes, that’s what my son had when he was working for a pizza house.” Another man said, “Oh yes, that’s what happened to my son. The other day, he called and asked me to pick him up from work because he had gone in, only to be told to go home again because there was not enough work for him. They could do that under the terms of his contract.” Those people might not have known the term “zero-hours contract”, but they certainly recognised the conditions involved.

These issues are a matter of concern for young people. Unemployment is not falling as it should be. It is still, in the words of most commentators, “stubbornly high”, and we need to do something to address the problem. Also, earnings for younger people have not risen. The Government are proud of saying that average household incomes are beginning to rise again. Those in the oldest age group have done the best, and people in the middle are beginning to do a bit better, but young people are still doing significantly less well. That is a serious matter and we should be giving it greater consideration.

Many young people have a string of temporary jobs. They are in and out of jobs even when there is work available, which is very frustrating. One constituent told me that her son had worked for Royal Mail for three months at Christmas. He knew that it was a temporary job and he was told that there was no further work afterwards. He signed up with an agency that handled temping work, and he was phoned up a few weeks after Christmas and asked whether he was interested in a “call-on job”—a zero-hours contract, effectively—with Royal Mail, no less. So apparently there was no proper job on offer, but Royal Mail had none the less asked the agency to take on someone on those terms. How much better would it be for that young man if he could get a proper job that paid him a proper wage and in which he could learn a skill? We must do something for our young people. We must not sit back in apparent complacency and say that there is not a problem.

Infrastructure Bill [Lords]

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

This Bill covers a wide range of topics, some of which do not affect Scotland, but those that relate to energy most certainly do, and it is those areas on which I shall concentrate my remarks.

Part 4 of the Bill opens with provisions relating to community energy. By and large, we support the efforts to allow communities or community groups to buy a stake in renewable energy facilities in or close offshore to their communities.

I hope that those provisions will lead to more communities taking a stake in such important facilities—indeed, some community organisations are already making efforts to raise funds to invest in local renewable energy—and to greater involvement and acceptance of renewable generation. Should the Bill succeed, I hope it will lead to alternative visions of how we deal with off-gas grid properties, which are so often left out of the thinking on energy costs and energy efficiency.

I also hope that more community involvement will encourage energy companies to consider the wider interests of the community when proposing new developments, such as encouraging economic regeneration by supporting other businesses or by looking at ways in which they can help to deliver better broadband services to allow businesses to prosper.

I also note that amendments are proposed to the Petroleum Act 1998 that are designed to implement the recommendations of the Wood review to maximise offshore oil and gas extraction. I would disagree strongly with the Minister on what should be done with oil and gas revenue, but we are inclined to support the relevant parts of the Bill because both the Scottish Government and the UK Government strongly endorsed the Wood review.

Unfortunately, there are other aspects of the Bill with which we do not agree. New clauses were introduced in the other place relating to the process of hydraulic fracking. I have raised my concerns and asked specific questions on this matter at least twice in this House but have yet to have a clear answer, so I will try again—third time lucky, but I am not holding my breath.

In his introduction to the debate the Minister said that oil and gas was a reserved matter. That is true, but, unfortunately, the clauses on fracking cut across Scottish land law as well, which is very much a devolved matter. Given that the Smith commission proposed the devolution of those proposals to Scotland, it strikes me that now is the right time to do that. We should get all these provisions in one place while fracking is still at a very early stage. If we do not do that, it will be much more difficult to deal with it at a later stage. I should make it clear at the outset that I do not support fracking. Although we have heard much about its potential, I note that even in Denton, Texas, the very home of fracking, a recent referendum voted to end it. Other states in the US are turning against it because of environmental concerns. We should take note of such concerns, because if there are concerns about the impact of fracking in the wide open spaces of the American west, how many more would there be in densely populated islands such as these?

I wish to concentrate today on some specific questions relating to the process of fracking. Although development is at an early stage in Scotland, it is already causing a great deal of public concern. A large area of central Scotland, stretching through to my own constituency in Angus, has been identified as having potential for shale gas extraction. Much of the power over such developments lies with the Westminster Government rather than the Scottish Parliament. Westminster has the power to grant licences under the Petroleum Act to search for and develop shale gas, while local authorities and the Scottish Parliament have powers in respect of planning, which clearly give them some powers to restrict fracking. In his opening statement, the shadow Minister made the point that the Scottish Government have not introduced a moratorium. My understanding is that it is very difficult to do that, because planning is initially carried out at local authority level, and any such moratorium or attempt to put in standard conditions would lead to judicial review and endless litigation. It would be much simpler if all the powers relating to fracking were in one place. In that instance, the Scottish Government could take action by refusing the licences.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he agrees with the Smith commission’s proposals, as I do. Does he accept that the Scottish Government could, if they wished, issue planning guidance that would prevent fracking, as they have in relation to nuclear power?

[Mr Weir]

My simple answer is no. If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have heard me say that nuclear is completely different. Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 gave the powers directly to Scottish Ministers, so the situation is not the same.

The UK Government seem determined to have fracking. The changes proposed by the Bill remove the right of landowners to object to fracking under their properties. It has been reported that the UK Government are funding the British Geological Survey to carry out investigative boreholes to demonstrate the viability of fracking. Will the Minister confirm whether that is true?

Interestingly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in his autumn statement last week to give, in effect, a sovereign wealth fund for fracking to north-east England. I note that, for many years, he refused even to consider such a thing for Scotland’s oil and gas. That has not gone unnoticed in Scotland.

As well as giving the right to grant licences to persons seeking to explore for shale oil, the Petroleum Act provides, in section 7:

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 shall apply (in England and Wales and Scotland) for the purpose of enabling a person holding a licence under this Part of this Act to acquire such ancillary rights as may be required for the exercise of the rights granted by the licence.”

The 1966 Act includes the right to

“enter upon land and to sink boreholes in the land for the purpose of searching for and getting petroleum”

and to use the land for such specific purposes as erecting buildings and laying pipes, and ancillary rights. The right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) made the point that there is no right to enter on to land—there is no such right in the Bill, but there is in the 1966 Act. The definition of petroleum in the Petroleum Act includes natural gas. There is a right in other regulations under which people can enter on to land. The ancillary rights laid down cover such rights as lowering the surface, the conveyance of gas or oil, and the right to occupy the surface of the property, among other things.

That illustrates the confusion and difficulty resulting from planning law, the Bill and the 1998 Act. Those are extensive rights for the licence holder. Rightly, under the 1966 Act, those ancillary rights need to be set out by a court if agreement cannot be reached with the landowner. That right is being taken away by the Bill. No longer would that disagreement have to go before a court—those doing the fracking will have an automatic right to frack.

I am not clear where planning law is involved in fracking. If someone has a UK Government lease to seek shale gas in a specific part of Angus, would they be entitled to go on to ground to do so even if the landowner objected? Do those rights override planning permission, or would people still need planning permission from the local authority? If so, where does the landowner stand? Is his only right to object to the planning permission?

There is a further difficulty. In any event, the planning process could cover only the area in which there is infrastructure for boring, but it will be very difficult to be sure where or how far any drilling into adjoining land will go until such time as the operation gets under way. Planning permission will not cover that. At most, it will cover the infrastructure for starting the bore. What happens once the hole is bored? What happens when the bore follows the gas deposits? No one knows where it will go once it has started. That is the difficulty.

The Scottish Government have powers over planning in Scotland and have taken a much more cautious approach to fracking than the UK Government have taken. They have called in the application from Dart Energy in Falkirk, and have introduced changes in planning guidelines for unconventional oil and gas. Another Member has made the point that the Scottish Government have confirmed that, for the first time, the concept of buffer zones should be applied to all proposals. They have asked for the additional requirement to prepare risk assessments to ensure a transparent and evidence-based approach for assessing the acceptability of proposed buffer zones. They have made it explicit that buffer zones will be assessed by the planning authority and statutory consultees, with a strong expectation that planning permission will be refused if they are unacceptable. They have ensured that operators are up front about their plans, and that communities are consulted on all unconventional gas developments, including close involvement in the risk assessment process. As an Opposition Member said, the Scottish Government require a fresh planning application and public consultation if permission had not been sought for hydraulic fracturing but developers subsequently intended to undertake the process. As the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) has said, the Scottish Government have also convened an expert scientific panel to review the scientific evidence on fracking.

I believe that all powers relating to fracking, and indeed everything else, should be moved from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament. The Smith commission recommended that powers over onshore oil and gas should be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. The political parties in Scotland agree on that, at least. It would be right and proper if all aspects, including planning and licensing, were dealt with in Scotland. That would reflect the views of the communities of Scotland where fracking might take place.

As I have said, fracking is at an early stage. Now is the time to transfer those powers. If we do not transfer the powers now, and if we wait until a Bill is prepared in the next Parliament after a general election, the transfer of the powers will, with the best will in the world, be at least a year down the line. A lot can happen in fracking in a year. We have the opportunity to have a proper look and ensure we do it right from the beginning, rather than transfer the powers in the middle of the process when it could be too late to stop some of those developments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

I do understand that the death toll on this road is continuing to rise, and I also understand the delays that travellers are enduring as a result of congestion. I know that my hon. Friend has previously made this case, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson). The Department is conscious of that and of the need to do more across a whole range of roads, but he can be assured that the powerful case they have both made will not fall on deaf ears.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

7. How many of the shortlisted bidders for the inter-city east coast franchise are wholly or partly foreign-owned.

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

Three bidding companies are taking part in the competition for the inter-city east coast franchise, one of which is partly foreign-owned.

[Sheila Gilmore]

When I last asked the Transport Secretary about this issue on 8 May, he said that the reason Directly Operated Railways would be at a disadvantage and therefore could not take part in the competition was that it was funded through the taxpayer, yet both parts of Keolis-Eurostar are currently majority-owned by the French and UK Governments. What is it about that state-owned company that gives it an edge over our own state-owned company?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I just remember and call to mind the words of the last Transport Secretary under the previous Labour Government, who said that he did

“not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]

I agree with those words, which he used when he was last in this office and had responsibility for this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I have indeed travelled on that section of the M1 and it does seem to go on for ever. However, I am assured by the Highways Agency that doing the work in this way will incur a time saving of two thirds compared with doing it in stages. When we do such work, which includes replacement of steel central barriers with concrete ones, it improves repair time and over the long term will certainly improve road performance.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

T2. East Coast’s current operator, Directly Operated Railways, was barred from bidding for the east coast franchise. The Secretary of State presumably welcomes the bid from Eurostar-Keolis, which is largely owned by French state railways. Is it not time to change policy and to allow Directly Operated Railways to bid for franchises?

[Mr McLoughlin]

There are a number of reasons why it would not be right to allow that to happen, not least because it would be funded directly through the taxpayer. That would put Directly Operated Railways at a great disadvantage compared with other companies in the private sector. The east coast and west coast franchises cannot be compared as they are very different, not least because, at the moment, East Coast runs 155 services a day compared with the 324 services on the west coast line.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Infrastructure projects in the UK appear to follow a pattern, as I have experienced with our trams project in Edinburgh. The trams project, when we consider the size of the spend as a proportion of Edinburgh’s economy, is probably quite similar to HS2 in the UK.

We often start with questions, and this is what happened with the trams in Edinburgh. Why do not we have the things, such as trams, that they have in Europe? Why are we so far behind? Why do we build new housing developments on the edge of the city that do not have good transport links? Why are we suggesting regenerating our riverfront and docks area without putting in good transport? Why have we built a huge office park on the edge of the city when there are not good transport links? Surely they should have gone in first.

Once the project is proposed, it all gets a lot more complicated. At that point, it begins to suffer from almost going into stasis as people say, “No, not that bit,” or, “Yes we want it, but we do not want it to follow that route.” It was interesting that a lot of people in Edinburgh seemed to rediscover how wonderful our bus services were, whereas previously they had not been so complimentary. So that people could say that they did not need trams, the argument became that we had a splendid bus service so the project would be a total waste of money and we could do everything with what we had already.

Sometimes such projects do not go ahead and, sadly, our tram project has been truncated. Trams are running in the city, but they are not yet carrying passengers because they are being tested. Within the next month, they will be fully operational but on a much shorter route than was originally planned. At that point, we end up asking why Edinburgh and the UK are so bad at running such capital projects. It is not always the case that every detail is right, but if we do not go ahead with such investment we will rue it when people turn around and ask why things were not done and why the UK is so pathetic at getting people on board with such projects.

Of course, HS2 is not coming to Scotland at this stage. I would be happy to see something being built from the north, and, of course, if we wanted to start in Edinburgh I would be happy to see that. HS2 will have an advantage for Scotland and Edinburgh. Even with the first phase, journey speeds will be cut by half an hour, and they will be cut by more subsequently. That is important because a city such as Edinburgh wants business and investment. We want people to come to a place where there is development space and a well-educated work force that is ready to be employed. We want to encourage those people to think that they can make those fast links with the rest of the UK and, of course, with London. I would much prefer that linkage to be by train, not by plane, and to stop the unnecessary environmental damage that is caused to a small country such as the UK by people taking internal flights.

There is a strong economic advantage to my city and to Scotland in going ahead with this project. It is not necessarily perfect, but if we are not careful we will end up in the position that we have been in far too often before, when, in the face of all the argumentation, people get cold feet, they retreat, and another 20 years go by before another set of politicians starts to ask why the country does not have a high-speed rail network.

High-speed Rail

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

Indeed I will. We are committed to providing brand new rolling stock for the east coast main line: one of the biggest orders placed for the railways has been signed off by the Government. I am delighted we have done that.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Sir David Higgins stresses the importance of existing lines and HS2 working together. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the current plans for trains from Scotland to Birmingham and London to bypass Manchester and Leeds? Is this an opportunity to reconsider the possibility of linking them up?

[Mr McLoughlin]

It is essential that all these suggestions are considered. HS2 will fundamentally change capacity on our railway lines. It will give us many more opportunities not just for passenger numbers, but for more freight. In the past 10 years, there has been a 60% increase in freight. The issue of capacity is what is holding back a further increase. The west coast main line is the busiest railway line in Europe. An increase in capacity will free up a lot of other services and opportunities.

Flooding: Transport Disruption

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr McLoughlin]

I understand the points my hon. Friend is making. There are a few things we need to do. First and foremost, we need to reassure people that the south-west is open for business and that the road network overall is working well. This morning, I had a meeting with the country’s main coach operators about their laying on extra services, which they are doing, and as we approach next week’s half-term holiday, and the Easter break as well, people and businesses in the south-west want to get the message out clearly that they are open for business and that the south-west is not a closed area; and certainly the road network gives us that option.

On alternative routes, I want to see the Dawlish route reconnected as soon as possible—Network Rail estimates it will take six weeks, once it starts construction properly, to re-establish the line—but my hon. Friend is right that we should look at the lines that have been closed. It is not the fault of this Government, or even the last Government, that they are closed. Since 1965, successive Governments have seen development take place over some of these lines.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in praising the work of East Coast staff who dealt with customers stranded on the Yorkshire moors last night.

When the Secretary of State and his team give figures on the late running of East Coast trains, will they attempt to differentiate in respect of the weather problems over the past two years—they have not occurred only this month—and will they not blame East Coast for them?

[Mr McLoughlin]

There can be many reasons for train delays, and sometimes they are completely outside the control of Network Rail or the rail operators. I readily accept that point. Some of the problems faced by operators, even leaving aside exceptional storms, are completely outside their control.

High Speed 2

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which I think is the first to be held under the new arrangement whereby this debate in Westminster Hall is allocated by that Committee rather than through the mysterious balloting that normally takes place. I am grateful to the Committee for listening to and granting my request.

I also thank the large number of people who have raised this issue with me since the debate was announced. All did so in polite and civilised terms, even if they disagreed with the perspective they thought I was going to take. I would not like to suggest that I have read every one of the more than 400 e-mails that I have received on this subject down to the very last detail, but I have reflected on the key points that people raised and hope that they will appreciate that I have attempted to do so. It is important to look at this subject as calmly and respectfully as we can, because these sorts of plans and projects always arouse strong emotions. Those who are in favour of the development need to be as robust in our defence of it as those who oppose it are in their arguments.

When phase 1 is complete the journey time from Scotland to London could be cut by half an hour—that might not sound a lot, but it is an important reduction—because trains will be travelling at a higher speed for the first part of the journey before connecting on to conventional lines. When phase 2 is complete, journey time could be reduced to around three and a half hours, which would be a significant gain. However, my support for HS2 is not simply about cutting journey times from Scotland. I think that the project is in the national interest. The fundamental underpinning of that view is the need to grow our economy throughout the United Kingdom, and improved connectivity is a crucial part of achieving that. It is particularly important for the midlands, the north and Scotland: we need to distribute our centres of manufacturing and service industries throughout the country, and improved connectivity is the key to doing that.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Does she accept that, however important the increased improvement in journey times is, the most crucial justification for high-speed rail in this country is capacity?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and will be coming on to that issue. The underlying purpose, I would argue, is to be able to distribute our investment in our economy more generally, and connectivity is important to that. We have seen, for example, what has happened in Salford with the development of Media City and the BBC’s sometimes apparently painful move up there, which some people obviously felt meant going to the end of the world. That development led not merely to one large company moving part of its operations out of the south-east, but to supporting media industries locating in Salford deliberately because of the bigger pool there.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I apologise, Sir Edward, that I will have to leave before the debate ends, but I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important subject to the House for debate this morning. Although the debate is predominantly about the economic benefits of HS2, does she accept that there are also environmental benefits? If as a result it means that, for further-flung destinations in Scotland and the north of England people are less likely to use air travel, and for areas nearer to London people are less likely to use the roads, there will be green benefits for our economy too.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I accept my hon. Friend’s point about green benefits in the long term, certainly in terms of air travel, although that will not necessarily be the case in the short term, as people will constantly argue.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I am not going to attack the hon. Lady aggressively on this matter, but she is making the point that she wants to see economic benefits spread throughout the country, so does she not agree that it would have been more sensible to look at connectivity between northern cities and with Scotland well in advance of running yet another line between Birmingham and London, especially as we do not even know yet whether that line will connect well or properly with HS1, or with Heathrow, Gatwick or wherever it is decided that our future airport capacity will be in the south-east? Does she agree that the project would have been better started in the north?

[Sheila Gilmore]

The right hon. Lady will not be surprised that I do not entirely agree with her view. We have to remember, for example, that the lines between cities across the north are already being electrified, quite separately from HS2.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I will shortly, but I want to complete my argument about why, if we want to grow regional economies, we need to improve connectivity and why that is not possible within the existing rail network. There has been a huge growth in rail over the past 20 years, and there is limited spare capacity. Investment in existing lines has been increased and, we acknowledge, that investment is continuing under this Government, but—this is perhaps the point that the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) wished to make—the ability to make further improvements is decreasing because of the limits on capacity. If we decide that we are going to build new lines in various places, we may as well think about the high-speed line now.

[Mr MacNeil]

Did I understand the hon. Lady’s response to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) correctly as implying that, as a Scottish Member, she would prefer to have high-speed rail starting in London rather than in Scotland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

Personally, I would like to see it starting at both ends. I would be interested to learn the proposals of the Scottish Government to assist in achieving that within the powers that they have.

A number of objections are made to the arguments about capacity. Some people argue that the high rate of growth in long-distance travel—it has been about 4.8% a year—will not continue, but that is unlikely, given the patterns we have seen. The factors that are pushing people away from their cars and on to trains—high petrol prices and congested roads—are unlikely to change any time soon. Any type of sustained economic growth, which we all say we want, is likely to push demand for long-distance travel up further, not reduce it. On top of that, there are the predictions for growth in our population, which are now well established.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Since the hon. Lady agrees that High Speed 2 is about capacity not speed, what assessment has she made of the difference in cost between going at high speed across floodplains, with tunnelling and the like through and across environmentally sensitive areas, versus the cost of going at a slightly lower speed around the problematic natural areas within England and Scotland that the HS2 link will have to go through?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, but if we are to make a serious step change in our rail investment, this scheme is the appropriate route to take.

The other point that some people have raised about capacity is that some inter-city trains operating at peak times—those operating in and out of Euston, for example—are not actually full and we should use that capacity before building a new line. However, on present patterns, it is likely that that capacity will be used up by the time the new line is built. London Midland trains, for example, which serve many commuter towns on the west coast main line, are already full to bursting and room must be created for trains to serve those destinations. Upgrading the west coast main line would be difficult and disruptive and would not provide the other benefits.

Some people have argued that HS2 would not release useful capacity around Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Existing services will still be needed in some places, but those trains will be able to stop at intermediate stations. The lines will remain and the trains will be able to stop at more intermediate stations without holding up longer-distance travellers, giving a substantial boost to regional connectivity. For example, stations between Coventry and Birmingham New Street would stand to gain more services.

We could tackle commuter demand at the southern end of the west coast main line by building more cross-rails. One is being built at the moment and another is planned. I am not saying that those schemes are not helpful, but if such an approach continues it will exacerbate many of the problems created by London’s dominance and would not help economic growth in other parts of the country. People often suggest that other schemes could achieve that, but no one has come up with firm proposals in which we can have confidence. The main transport corridor between Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool—the trans-Pennine route—is already being electrified and will provide that greater connectivity, which is good. This is not a matter of either/or.

The other argument that is often raised is that the business case is not sufficiently strong. Perhaps one of the biggest arguments is about the use of time and the value that is placed on that. People say that in the modern age people can work on trains so there is not the same value to be gained from speeding up journey times, but that does not make up for the fact that it is even more valuable if staff can arrive at their destination and return in a shorter time. Although the cost-benefit ratio is low compared with smaller projects—some people have suggested that road bypasses have a much higher cost-benefit ratio—we cannot build a whole network with small projects. As large projects go, HS2 is relatively good value for money.

There are wider economic benefits that are not always captured in the business case. One argument that I have already addressed but want to talk about a bit more is that HS2 will be a disbenefit to the midlands, the north and other parts of the UK. Examples sometimes cited from Europe are that high-speed rail there has not benefited the places to which it goes. What matters is whether the project connects significant population centres.

[Mr Simon Burns]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s generosity in giving way. I suggest that she does not need to go overseas to Europe to see the benefits of high-speed rail. All she needs to do is to look at the benefits that HS1 has brought to Kent and London.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The right hon. Gentleman’s experience and knowledge is valuable to this debate. Not all examples are of linking large conurbations with others. In some, the benefits may be spread around the country.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend’s speech is extremely welcome. I have never accepted the argument that building HS2 will somehow be a disadvantage to the north or the midlands. By that logic, if we tore up our motorways and existing rail lines, we would be more prosperous. The central point that I am interested in is the economic benefits of HS2—this responds to the point that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) made and that the Scottish National party tries to make—and the need for HS2 to go to London because of decentralisation. This country is the most centralised in the western world and decentralisation will come from London. That is why the route must be built as suggested. London’s property prices show that the country cannot sustain that level of centralisation. That is the crucial benefit of HS2.

[Sheila Gilmore]

There is no doubt about current centralisation and the pull factors. Some opponents of HS2 say that it would increase centralisation in London, but I argue the opposite. The pull factors towards the south-east exist despite the disadvantages of London—high property prices, lack of land for development, long travel times to work from not far away, and so on. I am seriously worried that we are seeing more of that than we have for some time. As the population is pulled in that direction, it increases even more as people who move to work in the financial services sector and other sectors require other public and private services to support them, so London’s population becomes more and more dense. If we genuinely want to decentralise our economy, we must think about that seriously.

Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Scotland have competitive advantages over London in terms of population, availability of land to develop, relatively cheap housing and a lower cost of living. The service sectors that are already in many of those places and are powerful there would benefit from better access and could grow and develop to the advantage of all of us in the UK.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Labour leaders of our great northern cities cannot all be wrong in that regard?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly agree that their views should be listened to and that they have their cities’ best interests at heart. They want them to develop and widen. Of course there will be an environmental impact and I understand people’s concern about that. It is never easy to develop such projects. It would be foolish to say that there will be no disruption or environmental damage, but on balance the country must weigh up the benefits. We must accept, as we have done and will continue to do, that enabling the country to develop as we want and in a much more balanced way means that we must take that on board, while always trying to mitigate the environmental problems.

[Mrs Gillan]

Is the hon. Lady telling the Chamber that sacrificing homes, businesses, ancient woodland and the area of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency is a price worth paying for HS2?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly hope that there will be as much mitigation as possible. Any other option, and even expanding some existing rail lines, would also cause damage and loss of housing, because when lines were built there was development around them, so it is difficult to expand them.

If we are serious about expanding our economy, we must find a way to improve capacity because I firmly believe that it will increase. We have to move forward with the project as quickly as possible. There would be regret if in future we looked back and asked, “Why did we not do it 10 or 20 years ago?” This is our opportunity to grow and distribute our economy throughout the UK.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I have the right to impose a time limit, but I think we should be all right for the time being, if Members are aware of the clock. I shall start by calling Cheryl Gillan, who, I am sure, will be considerate to other people.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I will try to be considerate, Sir Edward, but as you know, this project has a very deleterious effect on my constituency. I am grateful to be called by you, first of all, and to have the opportunity to put some points from the position of Chesham and Amersham.

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on obtaining the debate. She has shown interest in this railway for some time, although I have to say that I am not sure it is a priority for her constituents, as 92% of all Scottish rail journeys begin and end in Scotland. As I understand it, some flagship improvements to the Edinburgh-Glasgow route have already been cut by £350 million. I have to say that if she is interested in the issue, she has failed to acknowledge that her constituents and anybody else travelling from Scotland will have years of disruption at Euston station. If she looks carefully at the plans for Euston station and where the long-distance trains from Scotland arrive, she will see that there will be fewer platforms and reduced services for many years, so her constituents and many people in Scotland will face a lot of disruption at the end of their journey if the project goes ahead.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Perhaps I should just point out that most of my constituents—although not necessarily all the people from Scotland—will be travelling to Kings Cross.

[Mrs Gillan]

I am sure that most of the hon. Lady’s constituents will be travelling to Kings Cross, but plenty of people from Scotland travel to Euston. As she does not appear to want the route built to Scotland immediately, nor to want the northern routes to be constructed first, she can rest assured that there will be a lot of disruption right across the network as the project develops. I was surprised that she did not ask for the line to be built from Scotland to England, because there is to be a referendum in Scotland and, as I have always said, if we want Scotland to remain as part of the United Kingdom, connectivity to the rest of the United Kingdom is really important. Despite any differing views about HS2, I think that most people in the Chamber would agree that we want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), on securing the debate, because it is important that we continue to advance the economic case for High Speed 2 as part of the wider case. I assure the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) that I am not speaking as part of any lobby, and I have not been asked by anybody else to come here. I have simply come to express what I think is important for my constituents, for my city and for Scotland and Great Britain as a whole.

From a Scottish perspective, support for high-speed rail continues to be almost universal. One or two people oppose it, but the vast majority of interest groups across different sectors support it. The Scottish Government are united with the other political parties in Scotland in supporting HS2. The Scottish partnership group for high-speed rail has a wide range of supporters, including the major local authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow, CBI Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Scottish Enterprise, the Scottish TUC, Transform Scotland—an environmentally focused transport organisation—and the local transport networks. There is wide public support as well.

Those organisations clearly set out the case for high-speed rail in the UK and the benefits that it will provide to Scotland. To me, those seem self-evident, although others do not agree. There are numerous arguments, and it is not right to single out one issue as the priority, whether it be speed, capacity or modal shift, because they are all important. HS2 will provide faster journey times, increase capacity and promote modal shift from air and road to rail, and it will support and benefit businesses not only in Scotland but in the rest of the UK. All those factors together make a powerful case for HS2.

We have heard the argument that instead of spreading economic benefits throughout the country, HS2 will suck economic activity into London. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) has pointed out, if we took that argument to its logical extreme, we would have to tear up all the existing roads and railways. Presumably, if we were to return to the days of toll roads with a turnpike every few miles and highwaymen along the road to stop us getting anywhere, it would lead to wonderful economic benefits for the rest of the country. I take that argument to its extreme to highlight the folly of the suggestion that HS2 will suck economic activity into London. Supporters of HS2 cannot simply assert that, however; we must give examples of the economic benefits that will result from the project, and recognise that some cities and some parts of the country might lose out from HS2 if it were not done in the right way. The answer is not to say “No HS2”, but to address the problems of areas that might suffer genuine negative economic consequences if high-speed rail is not introduced in the right way.

Let me outline the powerful case for HS2 from a Scottish perspective. Scotland has an important tourist industry, and many tourists come to Scotland not only by rail connections, but by road and air. Anyone who travels regularly on the routes from Scotland to the south will know that the passenger trains are already pretty busy, so tourism might be further enhanced by better, faster trains with improved capacity. Again, it is a question of people’s choices. London is and always will be a major tourist hub, and visitors to London increasingly go on to visit other places. They have to decide whether to go on, for example, to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester or somewhere on the continent of Europe. If the choice is between travelling to other destinations in the UK on relatively slow routes, and travelling in Europe using better rail routes or improved air connections, visitors may well choose not to travel within the UK but to go elsewhere. The tourist industry, therefore, strongly supports HS2.

HS2 also has business consequences. It is not simply a question of speed, because modern technology allows people to work together without necessarily all being in the same place at the same time. Nevertheless, we still need to produce things that must be transported, and we still need to have business meetings, so people make choices based on the accessibility of locations to head offices and other sites of economic activity. A business that is well connected to a major economic hub—in reality, that will often be London—has a much better chance of being successful than one that is not easily accessible.

In addition to improving connections to London, it is important to improve connectivity between other cities and regions in the UK. We have heard about the benefits of faster links between cities such as Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham, and I have another example of how regional economies might benefit from high-speed rail. In Edinburgh and the south-east and east of Scotland, the strong renewables sector is an important and growing part of the economy. There is also a strong renewables cluster around the north-east of England, but although there are some connections between the two, I get the impression that they do not work together as much as they could to achieve maximum benefit. Who knows where high-speed rail might go in the future? Increased connectivity between the east of Scotland and the north-east of England would benefit that potential regional economy.

Edinburgh, in particular, has an international, outward-based economy, which depends on good air links as well as rail links. HS2 would allow travellers the option of using airports further south by providing direct links to Scotland.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that even after the recession, the financial services sector remains an important part of Edinburgh’s economy, accounting for 11% of employment in the city? Does he agree that good connectivity is essential to sustain that industry and ensure that headquarters and major offices are retained in Edinburgh, rather than being drawn to other places?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to come to that important point, so I will not repeat what she has said. As I suggested, high-speed rail stations can be important hubs and promoters of economic activity, and it will be up to local governments, communities and businesses to make the most of the opportunities that those connections offer. They will have to choose whether to view high-speed rail as a benefit, or as something that will suck prosperity away from their economy.

At the start of the railway age, towns reacted in all sorts of ways to new railway lines. Some towns chose deliberately to keep the railways away and avoid building stations, but they soon started to campaign for branch lines to reach their communities. I believe that some communities close to the route of HS1 regret choosing not to have a station and reap the benefits that we now see. That emphasises the fact that communities across the country must take the opportunities that arise from HS2, because if they do not, they will not get the benefits.

There is a question about whether HS2 could damage the economic position of certain parts of the country. If HS2 does not go from London to the midlands, the north and Scotland, those parts of the country are in great danger of becoming worse off as a result of economic developments elsewhere. If there are improved transport links from London to elsewhere in Europe and the world, but no such links going further north, those of us from communities further north will be relatively worse off. In addition to the high-speed services from London to Brussels and Paris, operators are planning direct high-speed services all the way from London to Cologne and Frankfurt, for example. If people and businesses in London have access to that high-speed link, but we are relatively worse off further north, our economic position is likely to be damaged. That is why I strongly support the argument for high-speed routes reaching Scotland as early as possible.

It would be damaging if we had the development of high speed to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and York, but did not take further the benefits of those connections and faster services. That is why I welcomed the announcement from the UK and Scottish Governments a few months ago of a study to look at ways to ensure that high-speed rail reaches further north to Glasgow and the rest of Scotland. I understand that the parameters for the study laid out by the Department for Transport state that all options should be considered. That could include new lines, upgrading existing lines or a combination of both. I am interested in hearing from the Minister an update on that study of the lines and connections from the end of HS2, as currently planned, on to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Inter-City Rail Investment

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to take place. I cannot help but reflect that, should our predecessors of 40 years ago walk in here today, they would be surprised to see the extent of the interest across the House in rail investment. We might disagree on some of the mechanisms for achieving it, but there is now a high level of agreement that this is the way forward. This follows a period in which, sadly, we were diverted towards the wrong future, and I hope that we are now heading towards the right one.

Regrettably, some decisions are still going the wrong way. For example, the Scottish Government have chosen to build a new road bridge across the Forth, connecting Fife and Edinburgh, without any new rail connection. That is a missed opportunity. We had an opportunity to put in some sort of double-decker bridge; there are ways to build both road and rail together, if we did indeed want more road capacity. We are going to regret this decision in the not-so-distant future. The building has started, so the bridge is, unfortunately, going to go ahead, but I think that within months of it opening the call will be, “What on earth did you do that for when the congestion in the area and the car drive into the city are going to get worse and the rail link would have been a fantastic advantage?” Of course, we do have a rail bridge, of considerable antiquity. It is an iconic piece of rail architecture for the whole UK, but it does act as a bottleneck on a journey that more and more people want to make, in a way that they did not before. Even in a general atmosphere where railways have come back into their own, we are at times in danger of making the wrong decision.

I wish to discuss the mechanisms and the Government’s decision to re-privatise inter-city services on the east coast main line, because that is having an impact on investment on other inter-city routes. I have raised this matter previously and I do not apologise for doing so again, because it is important; I have not yet been given any clear answers from Ministers, so I am going to ask some of the same questions.

I wish to make some brief remarks on High Speed 2 and public investment in inter-city rail generally. There are different views across the House on HS2, but those of us who support it must deal with the danger of a perception that it will not have any benefits for the rest of the network. HS2 will enhance capacity on other key routes: trains will continue on the classic network to serve other destinations; space will be freed up for services to smaller towns and cities; and, providing high-speed platforms are properly integrated into existing stations, people across the country will have access to high-speed trains. We need that form of travel, in both directions. I understand the fear about the pull to the south-east, but that pull is happening in any case, for all sorts of other reasons, not least the lack of employment in the north. We need to address that, but not grasping the nettle is the wrong way to go.

Futurologists from 40 or 50 years ago might well have thought that people would not need to travel now because they would be able to talk to each other by all sorts of new mechanisms, and indeed they can. I used to tease my husband, who works in IT, in the academic community, which has always been quite far ahead on things such as networking, by asking him why he needed to travel to conferences and to London because he could do everything by video conferencing. I asked why on earth he was going yet again. Of course, as I pointed out to him when I thought about it, people cannot have conference dinners by video conferencing. That is not an entirely facetious point to make, because, as we all know from our party conferences, when people meet at events what goes on outwith the main setting in terms of networking, catching up with people and having those debates and conversations is hugely important. Human communication has not been supplanted by all the technology at our fingertips.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is making a sensible point. Does she agree that trains also provide opportunities for human interaction, business talk, discussion and work to be done? Trains are wonderful things in that respect.

[Sheila Gilmore]

They certainly do provide those opportunities, but occasionally I hear more about other people’s business on the train than I want to know. For that reason, I am glad to see more quiet coaches. When my father used to complain about people talking on mobile phones on the train, I used to think that he was being an old fusspot. However, I have to say that although it is good to have some sort of business interaction on the train, it would be nice not to have it right in my ear when I am trying to work. Interestingly, on the east coast main line, the quiet coaches are now the most popular and most booked up of all the coaches. That suggests that I am not in a minority on the matter. It is true to say that we can do a lot of work on trains that we cannot do flying.

[Alison Seabeck]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is perhaps a case for a business class on some of these long-distance trains, rather than a first class?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I suspect that the quiet coach operates to a large extent as a business class. Perhaps operators should consider expanding the number of those coaches. Many people want to use that time on the train—whether it is two hours, three hours or more—productively, even if they are only recharging their batteries and reading a book or whatever. If we are serious about the environmental advantages of rail over air, we need to make that journey as productive and as comfortable as we can, and also to speed it up. The big advantage of HS2 in Scotland would be a cut in journey times, even without the high speed rails reaching us. The city centre to city centre advantage of HS2 is huge, and it works both ways. For example, 11% of employment in Edinburgh, even after the recession, is in the financial service sector. The links from Edinburgh to other financial centres are important. If we are to continue to be the headquarters of some very important financial institutions, rather than a sub-office of somewhere else, it is just as important that people can come to us as it is that we can go to them.

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Lady mentions HS2, so I ask this question in a spirit of genuine inquiry, because I only know the figures for Newcastle. How much will HS2 enable trains from Edinburgh to save time? Does she think a similar time could be saved by investing in the straight and relatively flat current east coast main line, as referred to by the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins)?

[Sheila Gilmore]

My understanding is that when phase 2 is in place, we could save a full hour—perhaps slightly more—of the journey time. As we are talking about a long time scale, I am not averse in any way to looking at ways of improving the speed on existing rails. One thing East Coast has done, which is helpful, is introduce a train that leaves Edinburgh early in the morning and arrives in London at a time that allows people to attend meetings. It does that by having fewer stops, so there is always a trade off. By only stopping at Newcastle and then coming straight through, it has shaved off time. The only downside is that the train departs very early in the morning. We are privileged here in the House of Commons. As we go through until 10 pm on a Monday night, we do not start work at 10 am, which would be difficult.

Leaving aside the whole HS2 debate, we welcome the fact that intercity lines in other parts of the country are receiving significant public investment for electrification, new rolling stock and so forth. Of course, it is important to emphasise that all that investment is public and coming from the taxpayer. That fact was reinforced last month when the Office for National Statistics announced that it would reclassify Network Rail as a central Government body from September. That is an acknowledgement that it is not outwith the Government.

Part of the promise of privatisation was that it would generate investment, but it has not done so. We must be realistic about that. What about the level of private investment in other inter-city routes following the Government’s decision to prioritise the franchise competition for the east coast? I am sure that Members will remember that under the Government’s initial franchising timetable, a new contract for the west coast main line was due to start in October 2012, with Great Western starting in April 2013 and east coast in December 2013.

After the debacle of the west coast bidding process, a new timetable was announced last March. The east coast main line, which was previously last in the queue of those big franchises, was brought forward so that it would be let before April 2015. As the Government accepted the recommendations of the reports produced after what happened with west coast that only one major franchise should be dealt with at a time, that was only made possible by giving the current operator of the west coast main line—Virgin—a four-and-a-half-year franchise extension to April 2017. The operator of the Great Western line, First, was given a two-and-a-half year extension to September 2015. That is 77 months of extensions between the two operators.

Ministers who prioritised the east coast franchise and justified it by referring to the Brown review are presumably reiterating their belief that competition in the bidding process should drive private investment. Although franchise competition might achieve that, franchise extensions clearly do not. The Government have lost any bargaining chip they had in the process. Having made that set of decisions, they had no option but to negotiate with the existing operators. The only bargaining chip Ministers could use would be to threaten to call in East Coast’s parent company, Directly Operated Railways. The operators know the Government’s reluctance to do that and the very fact that they want to extract the east coast franchise from DOR shows that, quid pro quo, they would not want to put the other routes into DOR’s hands. That means that competition is effectively absent.

The companies have no incentive to invest during the remaining time for which they are operating the routes and have every incentive to demand significant subsidies. The extensions are likely to cost us, the taxpayers, dearly. In 2011-12, Virgin paid the Department a premium of £165 million and First Great Western paid £110 million. Will the Minister confirm that following the agreement of the extensions, payments of such an order are unlikely to be made? Perhaps he could confirm what sort of payments he anticipates. Will the Minister also confirm that apart from the roll-out of wi-fi on First Great Western, which we would have expected from any operator, the two extensions offer no improvement for passengers?

My key contention is that if the east coast franchise had not been prioritised, those extensions would not have been necessary and the competitions for the west coast and Great Western franchises could have been held much sooner had the Government wanted to pursue them.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Does that not illustrate that the determination to re-privatise the east coast main line is driven by dogma, not reality?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I think that it is. I do not propose to reiterate all that has been said by so many of my Opposition colleagues in several of the debates we have had on this subject about how East Coast has performed. Given the history, it is particularly frustrating. As I have campaigned on the issue and talked to people about it, I have found that the levels of support we get are extremely high.

People who are not politicians and who are not involved in the debate at that level are baffled as to why, when the east coast main line has already been through two difficult franchising periods, this should be happening in that way. Given what we have learnt, they ask, “Why are we doing this if it is working well? If it is working well, why not leave it in place and see what happens?” As I have said, that would not necessarily have prevented the Government proceeding with other franchises, if that is what they were determined to do—some people would certainly have preferred it if they had not been. It seems particularly perverse to pick this one. That is what many members of the public feel, and not just those who travel on the line regularly.

There is a lot of concern about how this will work out. If East Coast had been performing badly in the public sector, it would have made sense. An imperative to turn it around might have trumped the disadvantages of negotiating extensions on the west coast main line and the Great Western main line. But East Coast was and is performing well, and that defence is simply not available to Ministers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady, who says that there is no excuse. She will of course want to point out that, in terms of punctuality, the east coast main line is the worst performing long-distance franchise and that it has been so for at least the last year.

[Sheila Gilmore]

It is quite clear from the figures on punctuality that the problems East Coast has faced have been substantially about track and weather. A previous speaker referred to the problems with the lines, particularly in the Peterborough area, over the past couple of years. Those problems need to be addressed well in advance of any other changes. If we discount those problems, I do not think that anybody in the rail industry is suggesting that that has been due to the operator.

My contention is that we have reduced our ability to get improvements on other important lines and that that is regrettable at a time when there is real support and appetite for rail investment, and for good reasons. That has given us an opportunity to move ahead with this and perhaps make up for past mistakes. It seems to me to have been an opportunity missed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sheila Gilmore Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I know that my hon. Friend was disappointed that the scheme in Bournemouth was not included in the recent tranche of 25 pinchpoint jam-busting schemes. When Bournemouth is promoted to the premiership, it will be even more important that disappointed away fans do not have to go into Bournemouth on their way home, as the Cherries continue to advance through the tables.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

One of my biggest postbags in recent weeks has been from a campaign called “time to cross”, which is a campaign on behalf of pedestrians—the vast majority of people travel on foot. What are the Government doing to support that campaign and to ensure safety for us all, but particularly for the young and the old?

[Mr Goodwill]

Highways authorities use the speed of 1.2 metres per second for people crossing the road, although we understand that many elderly or disabled people may need longer. It is possible for local authorities to extend the time. The use of puffin crossings, rather than pelican crossings, allows sensors to be fitted that allow people more time. In parts of London, the use of countdowns on lights has also helped.