British Rail (Southern Region) (Hansard, 26 January 1984)

I wish to raise the subject of British Rail services in the southern region.

Under this heading it would be only too easy for me to catalogue the long list of complaints from those obliged to use the railway daily to get to and from their work about the service provided, such as that in southern region's central division last year only 56 per cent. of peak time evening trains actually ran to time, that 23 per cent. were anything over five minutes late, or the complaints of lack of information to passengers when trains are cancelled, or of missed connections. With all this my hon. Friend must be all too familiar.

My purpose is rather to express the anger felt by very large numbers of British Rail's regular daily customers in many parts of the southern region over the curtailment of peak period services under the new timetable that British Rail intends to introduce next. May, and especially to draw attention to the utter inadequacy of the so-called consultations that have preceded it. The complaints spring particularly from the central division, within the triangle roughly defined by London, Chichester and Eastbourne, and from the south-east division, covering Kent and part of east Sussex.

In preparing my case I have received valuable help from the transport users' consultative committee, whose members are amazed by the manner in which British Rail has set about this exercise. I have also had discussions with southern region's deputy general manager and with the chief passenger manager. I appreciate their problems, not all of their own making. I appreciate that they have to work within certain financial constraints, though I would have thought they would increase their share of the commuter market by improving peak period services, not by making them worse. I applaud them for going all-out to capture the bulk of the growing London-Gatwick market, but not for doing so at the expense of their regular daily travellers.

In giving some examples, I start with my own constituency. In 1981 three peak period through trains ran from Reigate to London bridge. Suddenly, at only five days' notice, they were withdrawn, so that extensive resignalling and track-laying work could be undertaken. The promise was given that they would be restored in 1984, when this work was completed. Indeed, I have a letter from southern region's general manager assuring me that if work on the two schemes progresses to schedule, every consideration will be given to restoring the three trains concerned without waiting until the new timetable in 1984.

Many other peak period trains passing through east Croydon were affected, and British Rail produced a special leaflet promising "a better, modern railway" in 1984. What sad reading this leaflet makes today. Of those three Reigate-London bridge trains, only one is restored, and that at a time too late to help most London bridge commuters. A through train is added to Victoria, but on BR's own figures the numbers using this from Reigate will be about 16.

A similarly sad tale comes from Dorking, where two morning fast trains to Victoria—trains so popular that often there is standing room only—are to be withdrawn completely. Slower trains are substituted, turning a 1165 36-minute journey into one of 52. Even worse hit are commuters from Canterbury west to Charing Cross. For them a peak journey time of 91 minutes is extended to 123.

These are but stray examples. Commuter services on other principal routes are curtailed too. Fifteen minute frequencies are reduced to 20, 20 minute frequencies to 30; more changes become necessary to get to and from work, with more risk of missed connections. "A better, modern railway" indeed!

Then what about BR's flagrant breach of faith over the closure of Coulsdon north station last October, for which consent was obtained from the Secretary of State on the clear promise to provide nine Victoria trains, morning and evening, from nearby Smitham? These promised services ran erratically for three weeks, then two were withdrawn. Now, under the new timetable, they are further reduced to four trains in the morning rush, and three in the evening. The chairman of London's TUCC rightly describes this as an unprecedented disregard for the public inquiry procedure laid down by the 1962 Act.

I come to the fundamental question of consultation, which, in the preparation of this new timetable, has been almost non-existent. I do not know whether the top management of BR understands how basic the pattern of commuter rail services is to many people's lives. For example, four peak period trains used to run each morning from Earlswood, in my constituency, to Victoria, so that many who needed to travel daily to Victoria bought houses there. If they had needed to get to London bridge, they would probably have gone somewhere else. Yet suddenly, at the start of this month, they learn—not by published statement but through press leaks—that from May they are to get only one direct train to Victoria and two to London bridge. When they raise their voices in protest they are told that they are too late.

BR is under a statutory obligation to consult two groups, the transport users' consultative committees and the county councils. Let us consider how the relevant TUCC was "consulted" in this case. The first notice that some strategic changes would take effect in May 1984 was given early in 1983. In September, BR met the TUCC and gave incomplete information on changes to be made to the central division services. Not until last November was the TUCC sent the entire proposed timetable, yet the management of BR tells me that it was in November that it had to be sent to the printers. Two days ago the secretary to the TUCC told me that it had still not been given details of the new south-east division suburban services, though it would seem that they are now being set in type. Is there not something quaintly old fashioned about a timetable to take effect in May being sent to the printers in November? BR's adverts tell us that this is the age of the train. Someone should tell BR that this is also the age of computer type-setting.

Meanwhile, county councils were "consulted" in the same way, but under cover of confidentiality, which means that they had no way of discovering commuters' reaction to the proposals. British Rail tells me that it also "consulted" the various commuter associations, but again on the apparent understanding that its proposals were not communicated to the local press. The bizarre reason 1166 offered for this is that publicity might frighten other commuters lower down the line. Again, the customer learns nothing until the changes are a fait accompli.

I put it to the Minister that there must be a better way than this for British Rail to establish the real needs of its daily customers. As a process of so-called "consultation", it is a farce. Is it too much to ask British Rail to reveal its proposals, openly and fully, at least four weeks in advance of final decisions being taken and the timetables being sent for printing? Why not publish them in London in The Standard and in local papers too? If it also published the changing commuter patterns revealed by its three-yearly origin-destination surveys, discussion of what would be the most popular, and therefore profitable, peak period services would be properly informed.

British Rail must stop shutting its customers out of the consultation process. I urge the Minister to take steps to ensure that rail commuters are treated with greater consideration in future.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) told the House about the rail services in his constituency. I understand the concern that his constituents and other British Rail passengers feel if the level of service that they have been used to is changed, and I am sure that they will be grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern in their interest and for raising this matter.

However, I should make it clear at the outset that the level of service on routes, and the timetabling of services, are matters entirely for the British Railways Board. Ministers have no power to intervene. Nevertheless, I shall take the opportunity to draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the chairman of British Rail.

The Government have set broad strategic objectives for the Railways Board. That is our principal task. We have made it clear that we consider that an efficient railway has a vital role to play in the transport system, and that we fully recognise the social value of rail services. That is reflected in the large public service obligation grant paid by the Government to British Rail to support those passenger services that cannot be operated on a commercial basis and that will continue to require subsidy. This year the cash limit on the PSO grant is £865 million—a substantial sum by any reckoning. About one third of that is likely to go to support services in London and the south-east.

Press reaction to the changes proposed for May 1984 has perhaps left some people with the impression that a completely new and radically reduced service is planned. In fact British Rail plans a reduction in loaded train miles over the entire passenger network of less than 1 per cent. In London and the south-east, where the main impact of the changes fall, the reduction is only 2 per cent.

What are the reasons for the changes? British Rail says that they are a response to changes in travel patterns, which in turn reflect changes in population and employment in the south-east. The Railways Board has also described the changes in the 1984 timetable for southern region as a further stage in its response to the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, whose report on London and south-east commuter services published in October 1980 urged a review of all services to avoid duplication and to ensure that the best use was made of the resources available.

1167 The initial aim, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) set British Rail in 1981—it is still appropriate today—was broadly to maintain the present extent of services, while adjusting service levels to changes in demand, and to meet as far as possible customers' preferences. Against this background, it seems inevitable that some services need to be adjusted—both peak and off-peak. Services have been reduced where demand has fallen and where, in BR's view, the existing service frequently no longer provides value for money. Elsewhere, where demand is high or likely to increase, improvements are planned.

I have already explained that the level of service on routes is something for the Railways Board to decide, using its judgment of market demand. I know that my hon. Friend had a meeting earlier this week with the deputy general manager of BR's Southern Region. I am sure he will have been able to answer many of my hon. Friend's questions, and provide examples of how services have been adjusted to respond to market conditions or to get a more efficient use of resources through alternative routeing or connections.

Perhaps the main improvements in the southern region is the introduction in May this year of a new non-stop 15-minute interval rail-air link service between Victoria and Gatwick. The coaches used will be specially adapted mark II coaches providing a high quality service designed to maximise BR's share of the expanding traffic through Gatwick airport.

It may be helpful if I outline some of the service changes that will take place in my hon. Friend's constituency. I know that not all of them will be welcome, but, equally, the news is not all bad, and perhaps we should view the matter in the round. I shall discuss Redhill, Horley, Reigate, and the points made by my hon. Friend about Coulsdon north station.

At present more than 200 trains a day stop at Redhill. By any reckoning, that is a lot of trains. In the peak hours there will be several service alterations, but British Rail is confident that the revised service will be enough to meet the demand. Off-peak, the through services to London will be reduced from five trains an hour to approximately one every 15 minutes—with respect, that is hardly a poor service. That is a consequence of revisions to the Gatwick service, which will provide the improved service that I mentioned. Many people will welcome that improvement. In addition, Redhill will continue to be served by trains which terminate at east Croydon.

Horley will retain its existing pattern of peak services. It will lose one off-peak service an hour to London, but BR will restore the half-hourly off-peak service to Redhill. I understand that Horley residents' association told Surrey county council that it was satisfied with the proposals.

I come to the position of Reigate last because the situation here is more complicated. When British Rail began the Brighton line resignalling scheme in 1981 it withdrew three trains which previously ran from Reigate to London bridge in the morning peak, to which my hon. Friend referred specifically. I understand that when the new timetable takes effect in May, Reigate will have two through trains to London in the morning peak—one to Victoria and one to London bridge. In the evening peak there will be three through trains, all from London bridge. I am told by British Rail that when the three morning peak hour services to London bridge were withdrawn in 1981, 1168 it undertook to consider reinstatement of all three services by 1984. I understand that the deputy general manager of southern region wrote to my hon. Friend on 20 October 1981. My hon. Friend said that promises were given and broken. I hope that he will not mind if I refresh his memory. The letter said: I can assure you that if work on the two schemes"— that is, Victoria and Brighton line schemes— progresses to schedule, every consideration will be given to restoring the three trains concerned without waiting until the new timetable in May 1984. However, in revising the timetable British Rail has concluded after due consideration that to reinstate all three services would not be the most appropriate use of its resources. It believes that the alternatives available still provide an adequate service for Reigate commuters. These are, of course, operating decisions for BR and ones in which it would not be right for the Government to intervene directly. The good news—again it is British Rail's decision, not the Government's—is that Reigate will benefit from a new hourly off-peak service through to Charing Cross. My hon. Friend can rest assured about that. I also repeat the assurance I gave earlier that the points he made will be drawn to the attention of those responsible in the railway.

My hon. Friend raised the question of consultation on service changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is also in the Chamber. I know that the matter causes him concern as well, and he has suggested that it should be brought to the attention of British Rail. I have undertaken to do that. He believes that the timetable should be discussed with Members of Parliament as it affects their constituencies.

It may be helpful if I explain. The process of revising a timetable is a long one and it involves consultation with transport users' consultative committees, county councils and commuter groups. I understand that in most cases the county councils consult district councils and often even parish councils. It is a two-stage process. As soon as it can, British Rail circulates plans for routes and service frequencies. In the case of the 1984 timetable for southern region this was done on 24 June 1983. The counties in turn circulate the information to district and parish councils, but until the flesh of actual timings is put on, as well as route specifications, it is difficult for local authorities to make detailed comments about connections with bus services and the like.

The second stage is to circulate draft timings for the services, but it takes BR some time to develop its proposals to this degree of detail; in this case these were not available until September 1983. So there is not a great deal of time for further detailed consultation before the timetable plans have to be firmed up by British Rail. Again I take note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate about the timescale to cover printing and so on. I shall discuss that point with the board. However, suggestions come up as a result of such consultation and BR takes account of the suggestions. In the case of the 1984 timetable I understand that a number of very useful suggestions were made during the consultation and the original proposals were amended to take account of them.

I hope that what I have said and what my hon. Friend has heard from the deputy general manager of BR's southern region illustrates how the 1984 timetable has developed in response to changes in demand. By 1169 improving the match between supply and demand BR will be able to improve the efficiency in its operation, making room for improved standards of service and new investment, and reduce the cost to the taxpayer. As I have made clear, however, I am by no means complacent and I must draw the attention of the House to the quite proper division between the responsibilities of BR and those of Government.

Substantial investment is taking place in the southern region, designed to improve services on the commuter network. Smaller scale investment also takes place all the time to improve information facilities for passengers, to improve standards of cleaning trains and to carry out improvements to stations and station facilities, all of which are important for the customer.

1170 In replying to my hon. Friend I have tried to put the 1984 timetable into the broader context of the railway passenger business, operated within the framework of the broad strategic objectives set by the Government and in accordance with the board's own target of good quality service to its customers at less cost to the taxpayer. BR's chairman has said that the task for BR in 1984 is to win the confidence of more and more customers". Inevitably, this means adjustment, balancing improved services for one lot of customers with some lessening of service elsewhere to make room for that and to reflect changes in demand. My hon. Friend may be assured that that is a continuing process and I am sure that in the light of what he has said today BR will continue to consider the points that concern his constituents.