§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
9.55 pm§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn)This is the second Adjournment debate that I have been fortunate enough to secure. On the first occasion, I referred to the town of Holyhead and its importance as a port linking Ireland with Wales, England and mainland Europe. The fact that in this debate I will concentrate my remarks on railway links, which form an integral part of the transport network linking Ireland and Europe, shows the continuing importance of the topic to my constituents and to the people of north-west Wales.
The town and port of Holyhead prospered when strategic decisions were made about the A5 across to the island over Telford's bridge and the railway link built over the Britannia bridge. In the 19th century, the Holyhead to Dun Laoghaire and Dublin link became the premier route for Irish traffic.
Almost two centuries later, Holyhead once again assumes central importance as new links are opened for European traffic. The position of Ireland and Wales on the Community's periphery makes good road and railway communications vital to our prosperity. As the House knows, our economy in north-west Wales has a weak base and in recent years has been buffeted by the economic downturn and recession, but to enable us to fight back, as we will, and to compete effectively in the Europe of big companies and financial battalions, an integrated transport network is essential.
The opening of the channel tunnel later this decade and the introduction of the open market in 1992 bring into focus the need for early decisions, as we are in the process of setting a European network of communications to serve us for the next 100 years. Any area that has no link in that network will be severely disadvantaged and in danger of becoming an economic backwater. The gap between the rich and poor regions will become even wider.
My view, which is shared by many others, as I will explain, is that the north Wales coast railway line between Holyhead and Crewe must be upgraded and electrified as part of the process of improving our communications. British Rail's current position is that the line does not have priority in its strategic planning and it is not prepared to commit itself to the investment necessary for such a scheme, although European Community funds could be available for the project. Indeed, although it has upgraded part of the line between Bangor and Crewe, it is not prepared to upgrade the section across the island of Anglesey. On parts of that section, trains are reduced to low speeds because of the condition of the track. I ask the Minister to have talks with British Rail officials on that specific issue.
Upgrading the line is a prerequisite of any electrification scheme. The track must be suitable to take the high speeds that trains can achieve on an electrified network. When the channel tunnel opens, apart from the sea crossing between Holyhead and Ireland, a passenger travelling from Dublin to either Brussels or Paris will have the benefit of an electrified line right across the system, apart from the Holyhead to Crewe section. We will be the weak link in the chain——
§ It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Mr. JonesThe campaign to have the rail link electrified has received a significant boost in recent months. The Dublin chamber of commerce, which represents the Irish Republic's main business community, believes that the bulk of Ireland's container loads should be carried via Dublin to Holyhead and then onwards. Currently, that route is losing business to the more circuitous routes through Lame and Belfast, at an estimated cost to the Irish economy of £56 million a year.
I ask the Minister to consider the recommendations in the report of the Dublin chamber of commerce, entitled "Corridor to Competitiveness", where many of the arguments are set out in detail. The report argues that the Holyhead to Dublin route, which is referred to as the central corridor, should become the premier route for Irish commercial traffic, both for roll-on, roll-off and for lift-on, lift-off traffic. That is ro-ro for roads and lo-lo for trains. Combined, they account for 58 per cent. of Ireland's external trade, 80 per cent. of which is destined for the United Kingdom market and the balance for the continent.
For most traffic, the central corridor offers the most potential as a reliable and efficient route, providing a short sea crossing to Holyhead and the shortest door-to-door mileage. Of the total number of units emanating from the Irish Republic, a further 125,000 could be accommodated through the central corridor given better facilities both at Holyhead and Dublin, better communications, and certain other factors. There is enormous potential for Holyhead, but clearly we must become more competitive in journey times and more efficient in port handling facilities and we must secure more frequent sailings.
The Irish business community is seeking its Government's backing for the development of a central corridor on the Irish side, with better links to Dublin and better facilities in the port. That backing will almost certainly be given, but it will be meaningless in practical terms unless both the Welsh Office and the Department of Transport are equally committed to securing developments at Holyhead and improvements in the rail network. Only 65,000 units are currently transported by rail through that central corridor. If we are to maximise Holyhead's true potential, that figure must increase significantly.
I readily acknowledge the large investment already undertaken by the Government to dual the A55 across north Wales and the recent announcement to dual the A5 across the island, which is most welcome. That will increase Holyhead's competitiveness. The shipping companies that operate from the ports, Sealink and B and I Line, estimate that those improvements will enable them to carry more commercial traffic.
However, in the end, the road could become the victim of its own success. Even now, we expect it to carry more traffic than was ever envisaged. That is why it is essential to have a rail link as an alternative, but it must be good, efficient and provide a quick service. Once the road is complete, the rail service must retain its competitive edge; unless it does so, it will lose out dramatically.
The campaign to secure the electrification of the line has, in the main, been taken on by the so-called three counties committee, representing the counties of 1283 Gwynedd, Clwyd and Cheshire. I place on record my compliments for the tremendous work done by this team in keeping the issue in the public eye and campaigning vigorously. It began its work in 1985, and subsequently commissioned a report, backed by European Community funding and the British Government, to look at the case for electrifying the line, with particular regard to the benefits for inter-city and freight traffic.
The consultants' report shows that, even by the United Kingdom investment criteria, a conditional case could be made for electrification at a cost of about £50 million. It also said that further work needed to be done to establish the opportunity for developing the Holyhead route as a principal freight route between Europe, Britain and Ireland and including an electrified link to Manchester.
The consultants' evaluation has already identified that the concentration of international freight on the line would improve the viability of electrification. The Crewe-Holyhead railway link would, after the opening of the channel tunnel, be the most direct and quick surface route between most of Europe and Ireland. It establishes further that the upgrading of the Crewe to Holyhead line is probably one of the most effective ways to reduce the peripheral status of Ireland and Wales in the post-1992 European Community.
We need to consider the prospects for that line if it is electrified. The overall market for which rail competes in the commercial sector is growing rapidly, at a rate of 5 per cent. per annum. The rail route captures 10 per cent. of the Irish-Great Britain market and a direct route from Ireland to the continent is not available realistically until the channel tunnel opens. However, the potential for increase is substantial when the current Ireland-Europe traffic is brought into the equation, and that will be the case when the channel tunnel is operational. This accounts for 25 per cent. of the total. To attract more traffic or to persuade shippers to diverge from other routes, its use must be effective in terms of cost and transit time.
The overall growth in the total market has been estimated by consultants as 33 per cent. by 1993 if present trends continue and the forecast growth estimated by the single European A is realised. Total markets will be as much as 1 million units by the late 1990s. Therefore, we must look at the potential to increase the current 65,000 units carried by rail through Holyhead, and the consultants estimate that this could increase to over 100,000 if the line is electrified. I acknowledge that this depends on better handling facilities at the port of Holyhead and more frequent sailings.
The representatives of the three counties met the European Transport Commissioner, Karel Van Miert, in October 1989 to ascertain whether European Community funding for the project would be available. The three counties' representatives asked the Commission what assistance could be made available. The Commissioner, fully appreciating the force of the European argument in relation to Ireland, was sympathetic to the electrification proposal. It appears that the Commission would be keen to promote this line as one of European significance and support it by transportation funds when they become available. However, the Commissioner pointed out that it would be possible for that European support to be secured only if an application was made by Governments, and in this case that includes both the British and Irish Governments.
1284 The three counties committee was so encouraged by the response in Brussels that it arranged a further series of meetings with the Irish Government and representatives of the Irish business community to discuss the plan. I was fortunate enough to be able recently to join the delegation for part of its deliberations in Dublin. At a meeting with the Irish Transport Minister, the local authorities were encouraged by his response. He seemed to be an enthusiastic supporter of the project. He suggested that he was prepared to discuss the matter with his counterpart, the Secretary of State for Transport, and I ask the Minister to tell us whether any communication has been received from the Irish Government on the issue and whether the United Kingdom Government are ready to respond, or to tell us how far matters have progressed.
I have read a report by Mr. Tom Ferris, the head of the planning unit of the Department of Transport and Tourism in the Irish Republic, on the implications of the channel tunnel for Ireland. He makes it clear that for Ireland to benefit from the channel tunnel link there must be significant improvements in the quality of service from ports such as Holyhead. He reports that for rail passengers, good train communications from ports such as Holyhead are essential.
Any switch from road to rail traffic carries significant environmental benefits. Indeed, any such switch is likely to confer environmental benefits through reductions in air pollution and noise. Those benefits are unlikely to be significant, however, unless the development of the railway is accompanied by other initiatives, especially those designed to capture container traffic. I believe—I am sure that the House will accept this—that a switch to rail would also reduce accidents. British Rail's accident record is excellent. Another advantage would be a reduction in our dependence upon oil.
It is important—this is an aside from the main thrust of the debate—that consideration should be given to better rail links between north and south Wales. It causes some irritation and anger to people in north Wales that it is far easier to travel to London by train than to our own capital city of Cardiff. I ask the Minister to impress upon British Rail the need to introduce a good, fast and efficient inter-city service between north and south Wales to reduce the noisy, tacky and unacceptable sprinter trains which currently service the route.
§ Mr. Martyn Jones (Clwyd South-West)I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in his precious Adjournment debate. I support everything that he said about the electrification of the north Wales line. I say as a Clwyd Member that this case is well put. He referred to a link between north and south Wales, but also to be considered is the electrification of the Crewe-Wolverhampton line via Shrewsbury. That would lead to better communications with the channel tunnel south, which is important. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in reply to that as well as to my hon. Friend's submissions.
§ Mr. JonesI am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention. I am sure that the Minister will have heard it.
The Minister will appreciate that I have set out the argument for electrifying the north Wales line in a European context. That electrification, however, would have enormous economic spin-offs for the economy of 1285 north Wales generally. It would go a substantial way towards providing us with an essential ingredient of economic regeneration of the area, which is that of good transport communications. To my constituency, of course, Holyhead is the beginning of the line, not the end of it. I believe that the case for electrification has now been set out fully. I urge the Minister to respond positively, to say that the Government are prepared to consider the matter constructively and that the Department of Transport should arrange an urgent meeting with British Rail and the three counties committee to ascertain how best the plan can be funded. With such a commitment, I am sure that British Rail would also come out in favour of the plan.
The plan is supported by the Irish Government, the Irish business community, Irish local authorities, the Welsh business community and Welsh local authorities. The European Commission is also prepared to entertain an application. All that I need to say to the Minister tonight is: join the club and invest in a worthwhile project.
§ The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo)That is a beguiling invitation from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), and I congratulate him on securing the debate. I thank him most warmly for his courtesy to me before the debate, which will enable us to have a more worthwhile debate than we might otherwise have had.
I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to the work that is under way on the roads programme, which has been taken seriously. To date, 50 of the 60 miles of the A55 between Chester and Holyhead have been improved to dual carriageway standard at a cost of £327 million. The three improvement schemes currently under construction are expected to cost about £269 million, and the two final schemes in preparation a further £21 million. Therefore, total expenditure on the A55 will approach £620 million, and work is expected to be completed by the end of 1993. As the hon. Gentleman said, plans to upgrade to dual carriageway standard the A55 between Holyhead and the existing dual carriageway were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and I am pleased that that, too, was welcomed by the hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts), through whose constituencies the north Wales coast railway line passes, would have wished to be present for this debate, but due to their ministerial duties they cannot be here. Fortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) is here, and I am delighted to see him. However, those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who cannot be here have expressed to me their interest on behalf of their constituents in this important subject. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) intervened in the debate, an opportunity unfortunately not open to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. Some of the remarks that I am about to make are of general application and will help the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West.
Improvement of railway routes, and particularly electrification, is an emotive subject on which a few outside commentators sometimes generate more heat than light. 1286 The question of the best means of traction on a particular route is, first and foremost, a matter of operational and economic significance which should be determined by BR. On some routes, the operational and economic arguments point to electrification, and on others to using diesels. The notion that somehow a non-electrified line is a poor relation—almost something to be ashamed of—is wrong, but I am aware that that feeling exists. Often, higher speeds can be achieved on some diesel-hauled lines than are achieved on other lines where electrification has taken place.
The Government are happy to give approval to railway investment wherever it makes commercial sense. Our record speaks for itself. In the past two years alone we have approved four electrification schemes totalling £90 million, and in the past 10 years 12 schemes totalling £780 million, including the largest-ever single electrification scheme—the east coast main line—costing £460 million. Electrification takes place where a case can be made for it to the Government.
I understand that BR currently sees no reason to electrify the Crewe to Holyhead line. That view is based in part on the joint study carried out with BR's co-operation by Clwyd, Gwynedd and Cheshire county councils, which so far has failed to demonstrate an economic case, but I understand that further work is being carried out to see whether other, non-user benefits can be identified. However, British Rail has plans to upgrade the line from Chester to Bangor by straightening the worst of the curves, thereby improving line speeds so as to take full advantage of the 90 mph class 158 express trains due to come into operation in the next two to three years. Those new trains will provide smoother, more comfortable rides, with air-conditioning, luggage space and tables at each seat. But perhaps the greatest benefit will be a reduction in the journey time of up to 18 minutes—another demonstration that journey times can be improved without electrification.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's specific question, I understand that on the Holyhead to Bangor section of the line, because of prevailing geological conditions, there will always be difficulties in running at very high speeds on some sectors. However, it is hoped that upgrading the line will result in an average speed of 60 mph—a considerable improvement.
I recognise that the channel tunnel is a new ingredient, and I should say something about that. As far as channel tunnel passenger traffic is concerned, British Rail's current intention is to link services from north Wales into the trains from Manchester to Paris and Brussels. It does not believe at this stage that there is a commercial case—in the short to medium term at least—for operating through services, but it will be keeping its planned services under constant review, both up to the opening of the tunnel and thereafter. It will revise its plans as appropriate, as the pattern of demand for international services and the associated commercial opportunities become clearer. It is some years before the channel tunnel will be open, and none of us really knows what opportunities it will create.
The Irish Government made the point to us that the north Wales railway to Holyhead is of great significance to Ireland in the wider European context. Correspondence has been exchanged between the relevant Irish Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Irish Government are anxious to ensure that inadequate infrastructure or services on the line do 1287 not inhibit Ireland's ability to take advantage of the channel tunnel to facilitate speedier access, particularly for freight, to continental Europe.
We have made it clear that we are happy for British Rail to examine that aspect, to see whether any extra international traffic arising as a result of the opening of the channel tunnel would justify upgrading or electrification of the route. I am sure that British Rail welcomes the prospect of any additional freight traffic—which can, of course, be hauled perfectly well without electrification of the line.
British Rail's plans for freight are based on daily services operated from three "train operating centres" at which wagons from private sidings and freight terminals can be sorted into complete trainloads for common destinations. By those means, daily services could be provided from all over the United Kingdom to many continental centres. One of the facilities is likely to be at Crewe. Therefore, whether or not the north Wales line is electrified, all channel tunnel freight movement on the line is likely to enter the system at Crewe, and a change of locomotive traction at that point would not represent a penalty on movements.
I know that there are some Governments and important voices in the European Commission who believe that the Community should establish a large transport infrastructure fund to pay for improvements to such lines. I have to say that the Government have reservations about that approach. From the point of view of narrow national self-interest, the United Kingdom would certainly have to pay more into such a fund than it would get out of it. In effect, there is a risk that the British taxpayer would be subsidising uneconomic projects elsewhere in the Community. A quick look at the map of the Community would show that that is likely to be the case.
More importantly, projects which would not be cost-effective should not, in the Government's view, be subsidised—whatever the source of the funds. We are very happy that the line should he looked at in the wider European context, but I must sound a note of caution to any in our fellow EC countries who believe that there is, or should be, a pot of gold available to satisfy everyone's wishes.
In the same vein, it has been suggested that the European regional development fund or the existing transport infrastructure programme are appropriate sources of money. However, the sums available under either are substantially smaller than even the amount required for an electrification scheme of the type being proposed today. In the case of the ERDF, this seems to be the result of a self-denying ordinance that the Commission itself has applied to the use of those funds.
1288 While it is true that the Community has a role in developing European transport in preparation for 1992, its role is very much one of opening up barriers to trade and facilitating access between member states. We should not be distracting ourselves with setting up unnecessary new funding mechanisms when existing institutions such as the European regional development fund or the European investment bank can perform perfectly well in those areas. Instead, we should be concentrating on the benefits to be gained in making further progress with liberalisation, technical harmonisation, and deregulation—which will themselves encourage both the efficiency of transport operations and the development of infrastructure.
Perhaps I may conclude the debate by emphasising again the need for a sense of proportion when talking about electrification of railway lines. The large costs of electrification are justified only if they produce worthwhile results. The main benefits are operational—normally in terms of reduced maintenance and operating costs to the railway operator. The direct benefit to passengers in terms of speed and comfort can be negligible—possibly a small decrease in journey time from faster acceleration. High-speed journeys, air conditioning and comfortable vehicles can be achieved with diesel rolling stock.
Whether a line will benefit from electrification depends on trends in costs, including fuel prices, and on the density of use. If an equally good service can be provided more economically by diesel traction, that is the right course. What matters is quality, reliability and journey times, and I am sure that British Rail's large investment programme is starting to produce the results that all of us wish to see, not only in north Wales, but throughout the country.
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties about good links to and through his constituency. The Government have shown clearly their commitment to that in the road programme that I described, with its substantial investment in providing dual carriageway through to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is clear that British Rail, too, is intent on making improvements.
Many improvements can be made other than electrification. Electrification is not the be-all and end-all. At present British Rail does not see the case for electrification, but it is happy to continue studying it in conjunction with the councils that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The Government's attitude remains that if a worthwhile case is presented to us we shall be happy to approve it, just as we have been happy to approve so many cases in the past.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.