§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
11.44 pm§ Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)My constituency could well be described as commuter country. I have nine railway stations in my constituency or on the periphery from which local residents travel to and from central London daily to work and also for shopping and visits to the theatre, and so on. They do so mostly along the lines from Orpington via Chislehurst to London Bridge and Charing Cross or via Bickley to Victoria. I travel daily on the route, in my case from Petts Wood. Later in the month I shall do so in a little less comfort and more slowly because British Rail has decided that services which hitherto ran fast from Petts Wood to London Bridge will no longer stop at Petts Wood. That will reduce the long distance service time by two or three minutes, but it will increase the journey time from Petts Wood from about 20 minutes to 30 minutes.
Most of my constituents use the stations along the main suburban line. The exception is the small branch or spur line from Grove Park to Sundridge Park and Bromley North. At one time there was a regular service on that line to London Bridge and Charing Cross, but it has been gradually reduced until there are just a few through trains in the peak hours. Otherwise, Bromley North and Grove Park are connected by a shuttle service.
In 1986 British Rail attempted to cut out the through service. There was strong local resistance, led particularly by a local organisation, the Bromley North and Sundridge Park Association of Rail Travellers, otherwise known as Bronspart, and at that time British Rail relented. Five years ago there were five through trains in the morning and in the evening. A year ago there were three through trains at less attractive times in the morning rush hour and three in the evening rush hour. Apart from that, there was simply the shuttle service which ceases at about 10 o'clock at night and at about 7 o'clock on Saturday evenings. There is no Sunday service at all.
Last summer, British Rail announced the intended withdrawal of the through service by reducing in October the three morning and three evening peak services to two trains. There was a further reduction from two to one this month, as shown in the new timetable, and in October this year the plan is for a complete withdrawal of the through service. Only a shuttle will then be available at peak times. I have said that British Rail announced its proposals. There is, of course, a legal obligation on BR to consult only if it intends complete withdrawal. In this case it was a gradual withdrawal and the legal obligation may well not apply. However, the House may feel that there is surely a moral obligation on British Rail to consult.
Mr. Harrison Mee, the manager of Network SouthEast, attended a Bronspart meeting on 7 June and quite incidentally told the meeting of his plans. A few days later the London borough of Bromley was told. Initially, people were given the impression that these were simply proposals, but it was quite obvious that the matter had already been decided and a letter to me was couched in those terms. British Rail also claimed that public meetings had been held, but later admitted that the only meeting was the Bronspart one, to which I have referred, at which 30 people were present.
1184 In subsequent correspondence, BR spoke of the possibility of further meetings, and told the council that its representatives would be willing to attend. They did not do so, and a meeting held by Bronspart on 18 October last year, which I chaired, was notable for the complete absence of any representatives from BR, as they refused to attend.
The manner in which BR has let its plans be known has left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth. As a result of the withdrawal of the service, some 1,700 season ticket holders will suffer a much poorer service, assuming that they continue to use it. According to BR figures, some 1,200 people use the through trains in the morning. From October, they will have to use the shuttle and, at Grove Park station, cross the bridge—about 300 or 400 people will go in each shuttle at the 8 o'clock peak—to wait on the station, much of which is open and most uncongenial on wet and windy mornings, for the mainline train. By the time it reaches the station, it will almost certainly be full. Passengers will find that the length of their journey both to and from town has been lengthened by up to 20 minutes, or possibly even half an hour in the evenings, particularly if the mainline trains are late and the shuttle has left. These passengers—BR likes to call them customers—are people who pay the full fare, and many have chosen to live near Bromley North and Sundridge Park stations because of the train service that BR now proposes to withdraw.
The local people believe that the line makes a profit, but as BR will not issue profit and loss figures, we do not know. The figures that it produces show that reducing this service will produce savings. That is surely self-evident, and on that principle BR could go on withdrawing more services and making more savings. BR is in receipt of a public service grant. In 1988, in respect of this, the Secretary of State required BR
to provide a public service which is comparable generally with that provided by the Board at present.BR shields behind the word "generally", but it is obvious that passengers on the line will not enjoy a service comparable with that which they had in 1988.One of the claims that BR has made is that the withdrawal will enable stock to be transferred to other routes, but there are doubts that this has been done, or even that there is capacity on the other routes to do so.
The reaction to these proposals was hardly surprising. A large number of letters came to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), whose constituents also use this station, and who hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We had letters from passengers, from the residents association and from Bronspart, and I was recently presented with a petition that has over 1,000 signatures. Alas, it is couched in terms that do not enable me formally to present it as a petition to Parliament, but it contains not only more than 1,000 names, but space for comments, and many of the signatories have taken advantage of that, and have not minced their words. I have already referred to the well-attended public meeting last October, at which my hon. Friend and I were present, although BR was not, and where strong views were expressed.
The London borough of Bromley has made representations to BR and had a meeting with officials, whom it found most unforthcoming. The only response was to invite the council to provide a capital injection of £4 1185 million—a rather unrealistic approach. I understand that the London Regional Passengers Committee has discussed this matter and is making representations to BR.
There is a real suspicion in the constituencies that British Rail is trying to run down the services on the line so that usage will steadily decrease, when it can argue that there is a case for closing the line. British Rail would then develop the station site. Those suspicions were strengthened by the fact that British Rail suggested to officials of the London borough of Bromley that, following the closure of the through line and the platform which serves it, the council might be interested in part of the station area for an office development and car park.
The possible shadow of closure was lifted with the proposal to extend the docklands light railway to Bromley North, but recently we have been told that that extension is not to proceed. Doubts about the future of the station and the line remain.
I want Network SouthEast to reconsider its proposals. It seems deaf to pleas from its customers, from passenger organisations, from Bromley council and from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne. That is why I have chosen to raise the issue in the House and to give my hon. Friend the Minister the opportunity of hearing my case and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne. I am grateful to the Minister for his presence, especially as I appreciate that there are many other matters occupying his time at present. I know that when he responds he will say that the day-to-day running of British Rail is a matter for it and not for him. I ask him, however, to consider carefully my case and to tell Network SouthEast to think again. It has a duty to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne, who are its customers. It has a duty also, I suggest, to make the best use of its assets. Far from reducing the services on the Bromley North line, it should be developing them. There is a formidable case for doing so. In the past three years both passenger numbers and receipts on the line have increased.
Bromley North station is close to the new shopping development in Bromley town centre, as well as providing easy access to the courts and the fine Churchill theatre. Bromley North is one of the few stations in the area that are completely at street level. That is a great attraction to the elderly and the disabled. They can board a train at Bromley North and go to Charing Cross, which again is at street level. London Bridge and Waterloo have ramps.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister and to Network SouthEast that the other station, Bromley South, is heavily used. It will have to carry increased traffic with the opening of the Channel tunnel, wherever the link is finally established. Network SouthEast should be offering Bromley North as an attractive and comfortable alternative.
As a marketing man, I would advise Network SouthEast that it has in the Bromley North line a product which it should be marketing vigorously and not phasing out of use. I hope that on these grounds, and especially in the interests of my constituents, British Rail will think again, even at this late stage. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to urge this upon it in the strongest possible terms.
§ Sir John Hunt (Ravensbourne)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for allowing me a few moments to support the convincing case which he has made for the Bromley North line and to reinforce his plea for the retention of through trains on a much-needed and widely used commuter service to London.
I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that throughout my 25 years in the House there has always been a significant level of dissatisfaction with the service provided by British Rail for this part of my constituency, together with a lurking fear that the Bromley North line would sooner or later be closed altogether. There is no doubt that, compared with the gloss and glamour of Bromley South, Bromley North is seen as a sort of Cinderella station. In recent months, the dissatisfaction with it has become markedly worse. At the same time there has been a corresponding increase in the fears about closure. In other words, the rumble of discontent has become a roar of disapproval.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst said, a number of my constituents now suspect that British Rail has embarked on a cynical exercise in which it will allow the Bromley North service to run down to such an extent that the number of passengers using it will decline to a level at which the arguments for closure can finally be clinched. It is obvious that with through trains withdrawn, the alternative of changing at Grove Park via a footbridge on to already overcrowded trains presents very real difficulty, especially for the elderly and disabled, and is a guarantee that passenger figures from Bromley North will inevitably show a decline in the months ahead. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can provide some reassurance tonight about the retention of Bromley North station and the survival of the Bromley North line.
I wish to put a final point to my hon. Friend. Unlike many other parts of Greater London, Bromley has no underground railway services. It is, therefore, dependent on a surface railway in a way in which many other London boroughs are not. That, coupled with the still uncertain impact of the Channel tunnel services on the Bromley South route, make it vital that the future of the Bromley North service be safeguarded and guaranteed. I hope that my hon. Friend can tonight provide such undertakings for the House and for my constituents.
§ 12.1 am
§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo)My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) began by describing his constituency as a commuters' constituency. If I may, I shall describe him as a commuters' friend. He has assiduously represented his constituents over the years. When I was researching for the debate, I discovered that it was almost six years ago to the day that he raised another Adjournment debate on the same subject. That debate took place at 3.2 am, so I consider myself lucky that history has not repeated itself.
Many matters have changed since then, and my speech will, in many respects, be dissimilar to the one given by the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Then, the' picture was of a railway whose numbers were declining Today, the picture is of a railway whose numbers are increasing. Much of the logic has changed with that.
1187 My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst, who is moderate in all that he says and who considers his words carefully, said in that previous debate:
It is obviously sensible that British Rail should review its timetables from time to time to take account of changes in travel patterns and demand."—[Official Report, 30 April 1984; Vol. 59, c. 166.]It is just such a process that has been under way.In the debate six years ago, my hon. Friend the then Minister referred to a public service obligation grant to British Rail of £855 million. He spoke of a reduction in the number of train miles being run in the south-east of 2 per cent., and of a decline over four years in peak commuting on the southern region into central London of more than 12 per cent. The contrast between then and now is stark.
Between 1984 and 1988 demand for Network SouthEast services rose by 26 per cent., so that in 1988–89 nearly 500,000 commuters were using NSE each day, representing 41 per cent. of all central London commuters. The increased revenue that that has created, together with improvements in productivity, has enabled BR to reduce its call on the taxpayer since 1984 by almost 50 per cent.
As my hon. Friends know, at the same time investment has risen dramatically. Over the next three years NSE plans to invest some £1.2 billion, mainly on new rolling stock both to replace existing stock and to cater for areas of particular growth. In the short term, NSE is seeking to match its services as closely as possible to demand by adjusting train formations and making alterations to the timetable. From 14 May, the total number of train miles operated by NSE will increase by 2 per cent. but changes to the timetable are never universally welcomed and that is, in part, the subject of tonight's debate.
It is right that British Rail's customers should be able to have a say when alterations to the services that they use are proposed. I am distressed to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst that the consultation has not taken place in the way that he would have wished. But I hope that I can reassure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), who raised the point in particular, that the concerns of their constituents about ceasing services to Bromley North are unfounded and that it will continue to play a part in BR's plans for south-east London.
I obviously must confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst said: as a general rule Ministers do not like to become involved in operational matters. Few subjects are as complicated as railway planning and we believe that it should be left to the experts, but I do know that the approaches to London from the south are extremely congested and adjustments to services are made only after careful thought. Anyone who has stood at the end of the platforms at London Bridge in the morning rush hour, as I have, and observed the number of trains going through there will know that trains are almost literally fighting for space.
The decision to remove direct services from Bromley North has not been taken lightly and BR is well aware that some inconvenience may result. I have great sympathy for my hon. Friends' constituents because they will be inconvenienced, but BR has an equal responsibility to its passengers using the other lines into Charing Cross and 1188 Cannon Street, most notably the north Kent lines via Dartford. My hon. Friends will know that those commuters also have formidable champions in the House.
I am well aware that conditions have become intolerable for many commuters. British Rail recognises that the rolling stock in use is getting towards the end of its useful life and a major investment programme is planned over the next few years. To demonstrate the severity of the problem, in the 1988 annual passenger count, the last for which we have complete data, 16 trains arrived at London Bridge between 8 am and 9 am from Dartford or stations further in those trains were carrying more than 17,500 passengers, meaning that nearly 3,000 were travelling in excess of the agreed load factor standard which allows for 10 per cent. standing on journeys of less than 20 minutes.
British Rail needs to cope with that sort of demand every working day and for the time being that means allocating the resources available to it as carefully as it possibly can. Difficult choices have to be made, which will inevitably generate dissatisfaction from some and relief from many more. Sadly, we never seem to hear from the passengers whose journeys are improved.
As I have said, the removal of through trains will result in some inconvenience for passengers using Bromley North and Sundridge Park stations, as it will necessitate changing at Grove Park. But, as I have tried to explain, BR must rightly consider the needs of all its customers using the Kent link services and balance those needs. It will be of small consolation to my hon. Friends, but the policy of reallocating rolling stock from the Bromley North line has already brought relief to the services in north Kent.
The removal of the 7.22 am through service from Bromley North to Charing Cross last October released a train path which enabled Network SouthEast to relieve overcrowding on three heavily loaded trains on the Dartford lines. But by adding an extra shuttle from Bromley North and providing greater capacity on the corresponding Charing Cross service from Orpington, that adjustment was carried out with the minimum of disruption for Bromley North passengers. Similar adjustments will be made in the new timetable to ensure that the removal of the 8.45 am through service will cause Bromley North passengers the least inconvenience possible.
The other concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst is for the long-term future of the Bromley North line. It is perhaps not at all surprising, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne said, that the gradual withdrawal of through services has been interpreted as signalling the line's inevitable closure in the longer term. "Closure by stealth" is the expression that is used. I can say now that that is not BR's intention at all. On the contrary, it is simply looking at ways of making the line as efficient as possible in both operational and commercial terms. The majority of Bromley North's through services were not as heavily used as other services into London and it made sense to give priority to the more heavily used mainline trains. But in so doing, BR is ensuring that Bromley North will continue to be a viable, more cost-effective area of operation.
The shuttle service will be more reliable and more frequent. From October BR intends to increase the capacity of the shuttle train from two to four cars. As a result of the move to a shuttle-only service, the costs of running the line will be reduced—of course my hon. Friend 1189 the Member for Chislehurst was right about that—which British Rail says argues in favour of retaining the line and not closing it. The more that it makes it efficient and viable, the more certain it is that it will remain in operation.
A further indication of British Rail's long-term plans for the line can he seen in its strategy of introducing the Networker trains over the next few years. These brand new high-capacity trains, many of which will run on the Dartford line in 12-car formation, will replace the Kent link fleet and will be British Rail's best weapon yet in its continuing efforts to improve conditions for its customers. British Rail intends to order one four-car Networker unit for use on the shuttle service, so that will benefit from the re-equipment of the rolling stock, and there is a specific provision for new rolling stock for that line. The decision to earmark reinvestment for that line in that way would seem to offer the clearest possible evidence that British Rail has no intention of closing the line.
It is vital that British Rail should discharge its responsibilities for all its customers in the south-east subsector of Network SouthEast. That means—I am afraid to say—weighing up the needs of all passengers who wish to travel on the congested lines into London. Whatever shortcomings there may have been in the meetings that my hon. Friends arranged and chaired, I am told that British Rail has had regular contacts over recent years with the groups representing passengers who use 1190 Bromley North and Sundridge Park stations. Following criticisms made six years ago of its efforts, BR has been trying to keep its customers informed of the plans for the line.
The proposal to withdraw the through services will certainly not be welcomed with open arms, but I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will accept that, by improving the shuttle service and improving conditions on trains serving Grove Park, British Rail has not forgotten the needs of Bromley North commuters. British Rail has made great efforts to improve the robustness of all its services and in so doing it insists that the future of the Bromley North line has been secured.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst deployed his case formidably as he always does. My hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne managed to give the essence of the case in a few words. Of course, I shall ask that British Rail reads both speeches made by my hon. Friends and considers carefully the points that have been made.
I hope that if I have not been able to offer much consolation, at least what I have had to say about the long-term future of the Bromley North line may have given some reassurance to my hon. Friends and. most importantly, to their constituents.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.