§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
§ 12.4 am
§ Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford)I am grateful to the House, and to you Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise a matter of great constituency interest and concern. I am grateful, too, for the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), who is here in his capacity as Under-Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that he will reply favourably to the points I shall make. I am also grateful for the presence of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), who, I hope, will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because he wishes to speak in support of what I have to say.
I wish to refer to the effects of the cancellation by British Rail in June 1981 of the 59 minutes past midnight service which went from Charing Cross to Gillingham via London Bridge, passing through and stopping at Dartford. The consequences of the decision to cancel this service were both significant and immediate for many of my constituents. It had severe ramifications for job opportunities in certain disciplines in London. It caused many people to give up jobs which they had held successfully and happily for years. They could not get back to their homes because their shift or night work finished after the new departure time of the last train.
Along with other hon. Members from South London and Kent I have attempted to persuade British Rail to reinstate the 59 minutes past midnight service because its removal has acted as a deterrent to those who work in the police and for the civil authorities in transport undertakings and in cinemas, theatres and restaurants. Indeed, many of the servants of the House find it difficult to get home when we sit late. Those who by the nature of their jobs work long hours have told me bitterly of their difficulties.
More important, the inability to secure transport home acts as a deterrent to those who find themselves on the labour market and who otherwise might be prepared to work in one or other of the occupations I have listed. Cases of real hardship brought about by the elimination of that train service have been put to me. I have been told of transport workers who sleep in their offices or require their friends to put them up during the week, of persons who have become unemployed and of Dartfordians who are reluctant to enter the West End in the evening because they fear that they will not be able to get home.
The decision to eliminate the late service was wrong. The social consequences have been enormous. The financial consequences in terms of the cost of benefit to those who become unemployed outweigh strongly the £55 per day that British Rail claims that it costs to run the service.
Constituents who used the service confirmed that it was well used on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, fully used on Friday and packed out on Saturday and Sunday. After some time British Rail agreed to a slight change which took effect on 17 May, namely, to retime the 1 minute past midnight last train to depart at 10 minutes past midnight on a daily basis. While I welcome that change, it means that there is still a difference of 49 minutes between the last departure in the old timetable and in the new one.
1202 British Rail informed me on 4 May 1982 that it would cost £20,000 a year to maintain the last train as I wish it to be. The evidence that I have received shows that, because the service was so well used, there must be other considerations that motivated British Rail to terminate the service.
The angle that worries me most about the decision to cancel is its effect on the willingness of my constituents to go to London to find jobs. British Rail's attitude is unhelpful and deplorable. I raise the matter in debate hoping that my hon. Friend will request British Rail to consider the urgent reinstatement of the 59 minutes past midnight service—a service that is valued by me and my constituents.
I place on record my thanks to my constituent, Mr. Beechils, of Dartford, who first raised the matter with me last November, to Mr. Bob Newlyn, the manager of the south-east division of British Rail, and to the people of Dartford who in their generous and concerned way have petitioned me to bring the matter to the attention of the House—which I have great pleasure in doing tonight.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean)Do I understand that the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) has the agreement of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) to intervene?
§ Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich, East)I have been involved in this campaign to reinstate the 00–59 service to Dartford for about six months and I pay tribute to the determination and perseverance of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), who has conducted the campaign over the whole of that period. I also congratulate him on achieving this Adjournment Debate and thank him for his courtesy in giving me the opportunity to support his representations.
I became involved because many of my constituents living at Thamesmead and Abbey Wood are in the same situation as the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Dartford. My representations are also supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who would have been here but as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he made a small intervention in the Greater London Council (Money) Bill earlier this evening.
The position at Thamesmead is a matter of anxiety because it is a new town development. Large numbers of people have been brought out of central London and rehoused at Thamesmead. Many are workers who have to return to central London where they work and some are shift workers in the entertainment industry and essential public services, having to carry out their duties late at night and early in the morning. They depend heavily on the 00–59 train service to Dartford to get home.
As the hon. Member for Dartford said, one might have understood British Rail's attitude if it could claim that the service was poorly used and that there was no justification for continuing it. However, that is not the case. We have provided British Rail with the names of over 50 people who were regular travellers on that train, and would be regular travellers if it is reinstated.
One of the many letters that I received from the general manager of British Rail (Southern) accepts that it was a popular service. In a letter dated 18 March he said that 1203
it is accepted that the aforementioned train particularly at weekends was popular".However, the letter continues to the effect thata majority of the passengers were travelling for entertainment purposes and therefore are in a position to re-schedule their arrangements in order to catch the present 23.59 service.I do not accept that, and British Rail has amended its view. Even if it were right, it betrays a strange view of British Rail's responsibilities. It seems to suggest that travellers should fit in with the needs of the service, whereas I was brought up to believe that the service exists to meet the needs of the travelling public.British Rail has moved to some extent. As the hon. Member for Dartford told the House, it has delayed the 23.59 service to 10 minutes past midnight specifically to meet the needs of people spending some time in central London for entertainment purposes. That is a small step in the right direction, but it does not meet the needs of shift workers. It would not have met the needs of hon. Members if we had been trying to get home by public transport after tonight's debate.
The final suggestion that I have had from British Rail is puzzling, because it has said that it will re-schedule the 00.54 service by delaying it to two minutes past 1 am. The only trouble is that that service goes to Orpington, and I have not yet discovered how people wanting to go to Thamesmead, Abbey Wood or Dartford will in any way be helped by a late train going to Orpington.
I am sure that Orpington is a very nice place to visit in the early hours of the morning, but even the rolling drunkard will not go to Thamesmead, Abbey Wood or Dartford via Orpington at that time in the morning. I am slightly puzzled why Orpington should be specially favoured with this sort of service when Dartford is not.
The hon. Member for Dartford reported British Rail's view about the cost of reinstating this late-night service. I agree that £20,000 is a lot of money. We all understand the problems with which British Rail is faced. One of the most sensible suggestions from our constituents is that British Rail should thin out its late-night service to Dartford to an hourly basis, should delay the 11.27 service to 11.59 and the existing 11.59 to 00.59, so that shift workers who were clearly dependent on that late-night train would still have an opportunity of getting home.
On all the evidence, there is clearly an established need for such a service, and I very much hope that the Minister will use his influence to try to persuade British Rail, despite its difficulties, to meet a proven need for this late-night service.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre)I am sure that the people of north-west Kent who use British Rail's services from London to Dartford and north-west Kent will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) for his diligent concern in their interest and for raising this matter. I can understand the anxiety that he and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) have expressed about the difficulties experienced by some of their constituents as a result of changes to the late-night rail services from London.
But at the outset I should make it clear that the timetabling of rail services is entirely the responsibility of the British Railways board and—I hope both hon. Members understand this—Ministers have no powers to 1204 intervene. However, I have been in touch with the board about this matter. It has explained the background to its decision that the last train of the day to Dartford and Gillingham should leave Charing Cross not later than 12.10.
Hon. Members, are probably familiar with this background, but 1 think that it would be useful to remember that the board originally decided to discontinue the 12.59 train from Charing Cross as part of a package of service reductions that it introduced in 1981. This package of service reductions was one of the actions the board took in response to one of the main recommendations in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's inquiry on the London commuter services. It recommended that the board should take action to adjust services to demand in order to save costs.
The then Secretary of State accepted that some service cuts were necessary, but he made his view clear that in searching for cost reductions the board should look for the changes that were least harmful to the interests of its customers.
None the less, there were complaints about the cuts that the board introduced, especially about the earlier times of last trains from the main London terminals. People working late and theatregoers were not happy with these. I understand from the board that it took heed of these complaints and reinstated some of the late-night services. I believe it was as part of this process that as from last month it arranged for the last train from Charing Cross to Dartford to depart at the later time of 12.10 rather than 11.59. But I understand that the board considers—both hon. Members referred to this—that the additional cost of about £20,000 per year to reinstate the 12.59 train would not be justified, given its financial constraints.
Those constraints stem from the total amount of revenue that the board receives in the form of fares receipts and subsidy set against the cost of running the railway. Clearly it is for the board to do its utmost to increase the level of receipts by vigorous marketing of its services, and to cut costs by improving efficiency and productivity. We fully support the board in the great efforts that it is making to improve productivity.
As to the level of subsidy, that is a matter for the Government, since they decide the financial framework within which the board must operate. The subsidy is not given for individual services but is in the form of the public service obligation grant paid to the board for the passenger railway.
It is important to appreciate the amount of the grant and the extent to which we have increased it. Last year. at a time of great pressure on public expenditure, the ceiling on the level of the public service obligation grant was increased by £110 million in recognition of the exceptionally difficult trading conditions facing the board that year.
That brought the grant paid by central Government to £749 million—more than £2 million a day. The ceiling for 1982 has been set at £804 million—a slight reduction in real terms on the exceptional 1981 level but still some £100 million higher, again in real terms, than the grant for 1980.
It is clear from those figures that our support for the railways is strong. We have shown flexibility towards its financial difficulties. We shall continue our support in order to offer the railways the real prospect of a healthy future.
1205 However, that future must also depend on the willingness of railwaymen to play their part. The Government cannot simply give an open-ended commitment to providing any level of support that might be required. We must take account of the interests of to taxpayer. Although we accept that socially necessary rail passenger services need subsidy, we are concerned that taxpayers should not suffer as a result of having to support them.
It is against that background that jointly with the board we have launched an urgent review of rail finances. The review is being undertaken by a small, independent committee chaired by Sir David Serpell.
In its report, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission said that the quality of service could be improved without an increase in costs. That is a highly relevant observation to the points raised in the debate and I know that the board is fully aware of it. However, achieving improvements without increasing costs depends on both sides of the railway industry working together. It is not in the hands of the Government alone to create the future for the railways. That is something that both sides of the railway industry have to achieve together.
The British Railways Board's struggle for better productivity through more modern and efficient working practices is central to the future of the railways and must be fully supported by all those with the best interests of the railway industry at heart. The problems facing the board in pursuing its aims are for it to resolve with the work force. I am sure that with a reasonable measure of good will those problems could be solved without an unnecessary and damaging strike.
It is often argued that increasing investment would solve all the problems facing the railways. However, it certainly makes no sense for anyone to press for substantial increases in investment if the equipment is not to be used efficiently, or even stands idle in sidings.
I emphasise that the London commuter network already receives nearly a quarter of all British Rail's investment. That enables the board to undertake a substantial programme of modernisation. Major investment schemes include, first, the London Bridge resignalling which was completed in November 1976 at a cost of about £45 million. That scheme has been of direct benefit to the services to Dartford and north-west Kent.
Secondly, the electrification of Great Northern suburban services was opened in March 1978 at a cost of about £90 million.
Thirdly, the electrification of the Bedford-St. Pancras services was completed in 1982 at a cost of about £150 million. Thirty brand new one-man electric trains have been built and are ready for use, but they stand idle in sidings because of a dispute over manning arrangements.
Fourthly, the Victoria resignalling and track modernisation scheme is to be completed in 1984 at a cost about £50 million.
Fifthly, the resignalling and track modernisation of the London—Brighton line is to be completed in 1987 at a cost of about £50 million.
1206 Sixthly, a rolling programme for the construction of some 200 electric multiple units per year, costing about £40 million a year, most of which are for London's commuter network.
Seventhly, the board has a programme for refurbishing the existing EMU fleet by the mid-1990s.
The scale of this investment in the commuter network is not immediately apparent to everyone because the investment tends to be in big lumps, with individual lines rather than the whole system receiving the benefits. But in practice the investment in track and signalling leads to significant improvements in reliability and punctuality. I understand, for example, that the board estimates that the completion of the London Bridge resignalling scheme resulted in a 10 per cent. improvement in the punctuality of the services that it covers.
But investment has to be paid for. It should be recognised that greatly increasing the level of investment in the London commuter network would mean either higher fares or an increased requirement for Government support, which would mean a greater burden on the taxpayer. Taxpayers already give nearly £1 billion a year to the railways as a whole. The Government have kept their side of the bargain through investment in rolling stock, track and signalling. But all that has not been matched by the work force adopting modern working practices.
On the contrary, as I have said, we see costly new trains, designed for one-man operation lying unused because of the unions' insistence that they have a two-man crew. We see rigid adherence to working methods that were agreed in 1919. Instead of such wasteful confrontations, the efforts of the British Railways Board and the help of the Government need to be combined with the active support of the work force in achieving better productivity. This is the only way the future of the industry can be assured.
In replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford and to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Bottomley) my intention has been to set out the broad context within which the board makes its decisions on the planning of passenger services. As I have made clear, the Government provide the board with very substantial support for the operation of those services. This support has been substantially increased since 1980. The services are benefiting from substantial investment.
Improvement of the services now depends on the two sides of the railways industry working together to generate the necessary resources by improving productivity. If this could be achieved, the board would be better placed to take positive action on the many important points that have been raised by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East in the debate. I hope, therefore, that that co-operation will be forthcoming in the interests of the commuter passengers about whom my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have spoken to such effect.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Twelve o'clock.