§ Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)I have already pursued all the points that I wish to make with the Minister and with British Rail. Let me make it clear at the outset that I am not criticising or attacking British Rail. I do, however, criticise some aspects of Government policy: in my view, the Government fail to recognise the importance of public investment in the railway system—and, indeed, in public transport generally. There is a much better case for subsidising rail and bus services than they believe.
What I have to say is relevant not only to transport but to energy. Investment in public transport should commend itself to a Government who claim to be interested in the environment, as it is one of the best ways of dealing with some of our environmental problems.
Let me deal first with rail connections with the Channel tunnel, and services to the north-west as a whole. The service on the west coast line, which was the first long-distance rail network in the country to be electrified, does not remotely match that on the east coast. Prior to electrification, the service from London to York took two hours, whereas the best service journey from London to Preston takes about two hours 40 minutes. I accept that that is partly because junctions and curves restrict speed, but investment is needed to achieve the standard of service that the north-west deserves.
The north-west deserves not second best but the best. It has a large population and is a major manufacturing region. The Minister should take account of the important fact that since 1979 jobs in manufacturing in the north-west have declined by 30 per cent. Investment and output are also down by more than 30 per cent. in real terms. One of the reasons for that is that the north-west does not have the road and rail communications necessary to encourage investment.
The Channel tunnel offers British Rail one of the best opportunities for investment and improvement in services that it has had this century. However, it is restrained by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which restricts public investment in international services using the Channel tunnel. The Government should review that section.
There is a case for a link for passengers and freight that bypasses west London to the west coast main line and the Channel tunnel. The proposed links with Euston and King's Cross are second best and are not an acceptable solution.
Lancashire county council is concerned about those issues. In a letter dated 12 March, Brian Hill, its chief executive, said:
The passenger proposals underestimate the likely demand for Channel Tunnel services and, as a consequence, fail to provide the North West, and Lancashire in particular, with the level of service which is justified, and the freight proposals fail to acknowledge existing freight terminal facilities in the County and ignore the County Council's call for a freight depot in central Lancashire, and do not provide sufficient details about the services which will be provided when the Channel Tunnel opens.That letter refers to British Rail's proposals under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act, which it had to publish last year. The county council's views are right, and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about those important proposals.1363 The Channel tunnel offers us an opportunity to get freight off the roads and on to the railways. Even if rail freight were to increase by 50 per cent., road freight would decrease by only 5 per cent. The current growth in road freight is 5 per cent., so it will be extremely difficult even to stand still.
All people who use roads know that, even if the Government meet the proposed investment in the roads programme, there will still be major traffic problems well into the next century unless we get some of the long-distance freight back on the railways. If the north-west is to have jobs and a future as a manufacturing region, which is so important to the future of this nation, we need rail investment to encourage people to use railways.
I and many colleagues have long campaigned for the link to Manchester airport. In a letter dated 17 August, Greater Manchester passenger transport authority confirms that the former Secretary of State indicated that it should be operational by 1993. I hope that that timetable is adhered to and that the rail link is operating by that date. I hope that the Minister will agree that, although the link improves the service from the north side of Manchester airport to the airport, we need to consider whether there should be rail access from the south side of Manchester airport for people who use that great international airport.
It would be wrong for me not to welcome some of the improvements made by British Rail to local services in the north-west in recent years. The improvements to some stations in Lancashire, in co-operation with Lancashire county council, are most welcome, although only last week, while travelling on the line, I saw that there had been damage to some of the new panels of the shelters. The shelters cost a considerable sum and it is a matter of great regret to me, to Lancashire county council, to British Rail and, I am sure, to the Minister that money has been wasted in that way.
Another example of a change for the better is the Windsor link, which has improved services between the north and south of Manchester. The Roses line, which runs from Preston, through Bradford and on to Leeds, was opened only about six years ago. Next month, it will provide an hourly service, which shows the potential for development of that line.
There is a case for electrification of some of the services within the region. It is ludicrous that Blackpool, one of the major tourist resorts of this country, does not have an electrified service. The line from Preston to Manchester should also be electrified, and there is a strong case for electrification of the Roses line. There is tremendous potential in linking east and west, and there could be an electrified service from Blackpool via Preston, Burnley and Bradford to Leeds. The Minister should consider that seriously, If that scheme were carried out, it would be stupid not to include the electrification of the east Lancashire line to Colne.
Another matter of concern to north-east Lancashire, part of which I represent, and especially to Burnley and Pendle, has been the service to Manchester. At present, one has to go to Blackburn and change for a train to Manchester, which takes a considerable time and is not a satisfactory solution. A link could be provided by going through Yorkshire, which would not involve great new investment in line, but only a small spur. That would give us a more direct and speedy service which would attract 1364 people. At present, few people from Burnley, Nelson or Colne use the rail service to Manchester because it is too slow and inefficient. Electrification of those services would bring about considerable improvement and benefits, and is worthy of consideration.
I know that the Minister will say that he and the Secretary of State are prepared to consider any case for electrification from British Rail if it can meet the Government's criteria and if it can justify it to the Government. The purpose of this debate is to say to the Minister that the Government's criteria are not satisfactory and that Government policy should change to enable British Rail to consider the electrification and development of services in a more positive light under new Government guidelines.
The removal of staff from stations is another important matter. I have here a letter from Sir Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail, dated 26 February. He says that, at Burnley Central station,
a single member of staff can encompass ticket issuing as part of his duties and a permanent booking clerk's position will no longer be a feature of Burnley Central.That is not acceptable to me, to Burnley borough council or to those who use the station. We want staffing levels not only to be maintained but to be improved. When we do away with staff, whether on buses or on railway stations, we discourage elderly people, women and those who fear vandalism and violence from using the services. We must recognise that it can be short-sighted to save on staff wages, because the cost of the increase in damage and vandalism that results from destaffing, and the fact that it discourages passengers, can lead to a net deficit.Preston station is a major interCity station, and a number of local Lancashire services also run from it. Lancashire county council and British Rail have done much work to improve the station. Incidentally, they are also to improve some aspects of Burnley Central station, where the improved access on one level will be a welcome development for disabled people. At Preston station, however, there remains a great problem for disabled people who need to use platforms 1 and 2 because the only access is by means of very difficult stairs. In a letter dated 3 April, Brian Hill, of Lancashire county council, wrote:
I would, however, point out that, despite improvements to other parts of the Station, British Rail has failed to come up with a solution for improving access to platforms 1 and 2 for passengers with a mobility handicap. These are the main platforms for British Rail's provincial services at Preston.We are seeing the end of an era during which the railways declined. In the past few years, there has been a move in a different direction. If the Government rethink their policy and accept that public investment in public transport—in particular, in the railway system, locally, nationally and internationally—they will improve transport and will bring environmental advantages that will certainly be welcome in the north-west.
§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo)I have great pleasure in responding to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and I congratulate him on having secured the opportunity to talk about rail services in the north-west, which is an important subject. I enjoyed his speech greatly. He took us rattling around the north-west and covered a lot of ground.
However, I found a number of contradictions in what the hon. Gentleman said. He began with an attack on the 1365 Government for their lack of investment and then, with a generosity that is typical of him, paid tribute to the improvements made to stations, services and rolling stock in the north-west. He is absolutely right about that: there have been many improvements and the Government's investment programme has been substantial. The hon. Gentleman and I are not as far apart as he may think. I certainly echo the sentiments with which he ended his speech. I, too, believe that there is considerable scope for the revival of the railways in Britain—not least in the north-west.
At one point, the hon. Gentleman set about predicting what I might say in my speech, and he was accurate in that, too. I shall indeed be talking about the investment that has taken place. Investment in the railways is now at its highest level for 25 years—since the conversion from steam to diesel. We are looking at an investment in British Rail of £3.7 billion over the next three years. Investment in public transport over the next three years will be about the same as central Government investment in roads. I recognise the environmental advantages of investment in public transport, although where we have slow-moving traffic on congested roads, investment in roads can also bring environmental benefits, and we have a balance in Government policy between public transport and roads.
§ Mr. PikeI in no way oppose investment in motorways. I am fighting for the extension of motorways in my own area, so I do not dispute the Minister's point.
§ Mr. PortilloThat is marvellous. We are even closer together than I supposed; we share our balanced policy.
The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to mention some of the new services available in the north-west. The Windsor link became fully operational last year. It is now possible for through journeys to be made, for example, between Bolton, Blackpool and Stockport, without the need to transfer between Victoria and Piccadilly stations. Manchester Piccadilly station has benefited from a successful remodelling and resignalling scheme to improve the approaches to the station.
Manchester airport will have a direct rail link which is due to be operational in the financial year 1992–93. I am happy to confirm that that is my information to the hon. Member for Burnley. That link will provide direct services from such places as Leeds and Hull as well as from Manchester. I know that the hon. Gentleman is looking for access from the south as well. The frontier always moves on when the Government do what they are asked to do. However, I know that he welcomes the decision on that link.
British Rail is also considering other cases for electrification around the north-west, including Hooton to Chester and Blackpool to Manchester. The hon. Member for Burnley was concerned that there were no electrified services to Blackpool. The north-west is also benefiting from investment in modern diesel rolling stock. Pacer, sprinters and super sprinters are in service in that area and they will be joined in due course by the new class 158 express vehicles which will offer inter-city levels of comfort, air conditioning and 90 mph running.
By 1993–94, the whole of British Rail's provincial sector fleet will be either electric multiple units or the new generation diesels, apart from some stock kept on hand for 1366 special requirements such as football special excursions. To achieve that, more than £ 400 million has been invested in the provincial sector rolling stock over the past few years and a further £340 million is planned over the next three years. That is a story of Government support for British Rail investment, and investment is the keystone to the strategy in the provincial sector.
New investment means greater reliability, lower maintenance and running costs, an enhanced quality of service and an opportunity to increase the receipts and revenue from the passengers attracted on to the services. Reduced costs and increased revenue mean that services can be maintained with a reduced call on the taxpayer in the way of subsidy. However, I recognise that large subsidies will continue to be needed for the provincial services for the foreseeable future. Indeed, even at the end of British Rail's current corporate plan in 1992–93, we are looking at public sector subsidy of £300 million to the provincial sector.
However, I recognise that some services in the north-west are not nearly as good as they should be, not least because the class 158 express units have been late in delivery. Therefore, some services have not been as good as they should have been because the life-expired diesels running on some routes have been breaking down. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, among others, have probably suffered as a result of that.
None the less, it is worth noting that currently revenue is 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. above the corresponding period in the previous year. There has been an increase of about 11 per cent. in Manchester PTE, and it appears that there has been considerable growth, mainly in off-peak periods. The conclusion that I draw from that is that services are at least attractive enough to bring in new customers. Otherwise, people would be voting with their feet.
As we are considering rail services in the north-west, I am proud of the fact that the Government have now approved the grant to be made to the Manchester Metrolink scheme. That £110 million scheme will provide a new rail-based public transport system within the Manchester area. It will offer services between Altrincham and Bury and will run on on-street track linking Manchester's two main railway stations. That will be an innovatory public transport system, and I am pleased that it will be designed, built and operated in the private sector but with a large subsidy from the public sector.
Moving a little outside the area to which the hon. Member for Burnley referred, we have issued credit approvals that will allow the Merseyside PTE to modernise the signalling and information systems on the Merseyrail network. The total cost of about £24 million will be staged over four years. British Rail will be able to cut running costs, and passengers will benefit from more reliable services and information.
Following the King's Cross fire, we have also given priority to a programme of works, costing initially about £14 million, to update the underground parts of Merseyrail for the better protection of passengers, staff, infrastructure and equipment. Credit approvals have been issued, and also, exceptionally, capital grant of £376,000.
The hon. Gentleman referred to inter-city services. He talked about the service on the west coast main line. As he knows, the fastest journey time to Manchester is just under two and a half hours, to Liverpool just over two and a half hours, and to Carlisle about four hours. From May, most 1367 services from London to the north-west will be operated with trains that are capable of running at 110 mph, and there will be an hourly service between London and Liverpool. The line will benefit over the next year from additional rolling stock and extra trains released by the electrification of the east coast main line.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point when he said that the east coast main line already provides higher speeds than the west coast main line. He is right, but the crucial factor in determining the speed of the line is not so much whether it is electrified, as the layout, the straightness of the tracks and the number of flat junctions that trains encounter. The Government are looking for good economic cases that show that electrification justifies itself. There is often a misunderstanding, which is not shared by the hon. Gentleman, that electrification is the key to speed. Electrification may be the key to more reliable services and lower operating costs, and it is on that basis that it tends to justify itself.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to Channel tunnel services. Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 does not prevent public investment in Channel tunnel rail services. It prevents the Government from subsidising that investment. In other words, it must be an investment that justifies itself with a commercial rate of return.
The hon. Gentleman referred to section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act which sets out British Rail's current views of commercially viable services through the tunnel. As he knows, BR's proposals were based on extensive regional consultation prior to drawing up the plan. For passenger services it is important to recognise that people from places with fast, frequent inter-city services to London will find it convenient to change to inter-capital trains, so BR plans comparatively few daytime trains from the regions.
Notwithstanding that, BR plans a daily service to Paris each morning from Manchester, calling at Stockport and Crewe, where there will be connections with Liverpool services, and a return service each evening with a similar daily service to Brussels. There will also be an overnight service calling at Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston and Crewe.
On the freight side, British Rail recognises that about 70 per cent. of traffic will pass beyond London to the regions. It is anxious to compete in that important market, but clearly it can run only commercially viable services. It is planning a regional freight terminal for the north-west, but it has not yet decided on the site. I understand, though, 1368 that British Rail hopes to announce the locations of the terminals during this year. A train operating centre is also planned at Crewe.
Although I recognise the hon. Gentleman's impatience for decisions to be made, there are three years to go. Decisions are being taken in a timely way. Certainly British Rail's section 40 plan will be kept under review and it will be the subject of further consultation. BR would certainly welcome information from the hon. Gentleman's local businesses and other concerns that would enable it accurately to assess the developing demand for international services.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned also about some particular points. I share his ambition that Preston station should be made ever more accessible to disabled people. I very much hope that a way can be found to achieve that.
I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the change from the two-tiered structure of Burnley station to a single-level facility. All facilities will be merged at platform level. That will enable British Rail to reduce the number of staff required, but no exact decisions have yet been taken on the details of that. British Rail has made it clear that it intends to maintain the opening hours of the booking office to at least the present level.
I also hope that the refurbishment of Burnley station can proceed in a timely way. There has been a joint operation between Lancashire county council, which has provided some of the finance, and British Rail, which has provided the bulk of it. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed some of the results. I share his disappointment that vandals have been at work to destroy some of the good work that has been done. British Rail has had to defer some of the work that it hoped to do but, providing that Lancashire county council can come up with its part of the finance in the coming year, I understand that British Rail will be able to improve Burnley Central station and one other station. Despite the disappointing news that the programme of refurbishment will move more slowly than we would have hoped, it seems that there is a good chance that Burnley station and one other will benefit from the improvement programme in the coming year.
It has been a great pleasure to debate these matters with the hon. Gentleman. The review that I have given shows that a great deal of work is being done in the north-west area to improve services and stations. That is possible only under a Government who are committed to public transport and are prepared to see the railways invest massively for the future.