§ '.—(1) The nominated undertaker shall in constructing the scheduled works have regard to easing the flow of passengers and freight traffic from the entire United Kingdom to and through the Channel Tunnel;
§ (2) The nominated undertaker shall, in relation to the works authorised by Part I of the Act, operate and use them in such a way as to ease the flow of passengers and freight traffic from the entire United Kingdom to and through the Channel Tunnel;
§ (3) The Secretary of State shall require the nominated undertaker to provide him with such information as he deems necessary to show how subsections (1) and (2) above have been satisfied and shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the steps taken by the nominated undertaker to comply with those provisions.'.—[Mr. Allen.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am here in the stead of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), because I understand that his wife is about to give birth. I believe that they are hoping for a girl. A rumour is sweeping the House that she will not be named Clare, but that may be just Tea Room gossip.
I am conscious of being a new boy among all the old lags of the Select and Standing Committees, but one thing is obvious to me. It is appropriate, on the day when the Government have officially conceded that they have no transport strategy—in a Green Paper published an hour and a half ago—that Opposition Members should raise the issue of how to integrate the channel tunnel rail line into our United Kingdom transport strategy in both regions and nations. By the end of the month, our own transport policy document will be in the public domain, and we hope that everyone with an interest in transport will then see a return of the sense of strategy that is so sadly lacking in the Green Paper.
The channel tunnel represents a huge opportunity for regions outside the south-east, opening up new markets for British business, attracting increasing numbers of 613 visitors and tourists to the British Isles and offering an efficient means of travel to and from the continent. What Ebbsfleet and Stratford can do for the south-east must be replicated in every other region. I should say immediately how much we welcome Stratford's inclusion in the plan, and pay tribute to the hard work of my hon. Friends in Committee and throughout many months of lobbying before that stage was reached.
On the very day when I stopped dealing with super-highways and the media and took up the transport brief, I addressed a conference in Northampton. I had been in my post for all of 40 minutes when my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) sat down next to me and began lobbying me about Stratford international. My hon. Friend is someone who wastes no time, and he and his east end colleagues have succeeded in their campaign, thanks largely to the energy that they put into it. Now that they have won their battle, hon. Members representing other regions—Scotland, Wales and all the English regions; the east midlands, in my case—must make their case with similar force and I hope, given a new Government, with similar success.
The tunnel also provides a unique opportunity for us to transfer more road and air traffic to rail, reducing road and airspace congestion and supporting sustainable development. Up to now, the debate has focused on the relatively minor aspect of the link between the tunnel and London, but it should now become wider. When a new Government come to power, we will ensure that our whole transport planning structure—from our national transport framework, through the regional transport strategies, to our local transport plans—reflects the need to exploit the rail links with the tunnel. That will be good news for the regions, but also for London and Continental, which will be able to capitalise on such developments.
Failure to capitalise on the tunnel would threaten our regions with increasing isolation on the edge of Europe, reduced ability to compete in the single market, less inward investment and the prospect of United Kingdom firms being attracted to mainland Europe for expansion or relocation. Economic imbalance between the south-east of England and the rest of the country could then widen.
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)Can I take it from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that the Opposition Front Bench thinks that the high-speed rail link should be used for freight trains?
§ Mr. AllenI shall come to that later. There is certainly room for increasing freight and the high-speed rail link could assist in that.
The Bill does not refer to the potential benefit of the tunnel to the United Kingdom as a whole. That may be mentioned in the contracts, but Parliament has not been allowed to scrutinise them. For the regions fully to benefit from the tunnel, we should like to see not only ministerial and company assurances but a duty in the Bill on the statutory undertaker to build and operate the link in a way that will require the free flow of passengers and freight between the tunnel and the regions.
5 pm
We should not simply be delivering people to London to make the connection, causing extra air and traffic movements towards and in the capital. The Government 614 have been slow to promote other possibilities. It was left to London and Continental Railways to add to the plans the small but all-important usable link north of King's Cross that would allow a connection to the west coast line. We commend LCR for that addition. That company is currently excluded from many of the regulator's powers which could be used to insist on the provision of regional services. That will have to be reviewed by an incoming Government.
As far as we can discover, current proposals for a regional service are limited and unsatisfactory and cannot realistically compete with air travel for people in the regions. The current rail timetable suggests that it will take nine hours 15 minutes to go from Glasgow to Paris and five hours 45 minutes to go from Manchester to Paris. In addition, the frequency of the service is still unclear. Those problems must be addressed if the regional links are to compete with air travel.
Ticketing must also be addressed. Never has so great a service been marketed so badly. Having to force one's fare upon a reluctant Eurostar must become a thing of the past. When it does, regional usage will be able to take off. Arrangements need to be put in place to provide a speedy and satisfactory freight service. Sir Alastair Morton was quoted recently in The Guardian as saying that in 1993 the railways had planned to transport 3.3 million tonnes of freight through the tunnel in 1995. It managed only 1.3 million tonnes—barely half the objective.
To ensure that constraints are not replicated when the high-speed link is built, it is important that the requirements of freight and passengers from the regions are taken into account from the beginning, and that the finished link has the capacity to cope with increased future flows. The Minister may wish to comment on the reports in yesterday's Evening Standard which, ironically, implied that one of the first impacts of the channel tunnel rail link will result from giving away the King's Cross lands because three cement and construction companies are to be evicted from their sites there, resulting in a massive transfer of freight from rail to road.
That is exactly the opposite direction to the one that we should seek to take. Even that has been given a nod in the weak Green Paper that was published today. Are these just press reports or will the Minister make it clear that this is not an unfortunate early precedent on these large sites at King's Cross? If those companies are thrown off their sites, it will massively increase the number of heavy goods vehicles trundling in and out of the centre of the capital.
The linkage to the regions underlines what we mean by integrated transport. Regional services should be able to join the high-speed link directly without complex manoeuvring and without having to enter congested areas of London's suburban railways. The link needs to be built in a way that will make that possible from the moment that it is operational. Direct services to the regions beyond London are essential, and the Government should use this opportunity to instigate and promote new developments, including innovative service patterns that will allow domestic and international passengers to use the continental trains, as happens on the continent. They should allow the extension of the London-Paris/Brussels trains to other UK cities.
Currently, domestic passengers are not allowed to board any train whose ultimate destination is outside the UK. That means that load factors will fall alarmingly as 615 trains travel northwards through England and that frequencies will be poor. The solution has to be Paris/Brussels-London regional through trains, and attempts to develop services under present operating conditions could lead to the raising and the dashing of expectations and could have little impact on the regional economies of England, Wales and Scotland.
Initially, there will be an inadequate rolling stock to deliver a frequent service on that basis, but when the link has been completed and international trains are operating to St. Pancras, an intermediate approach could be adopted whereby Eurostar trains, Eurostar regional trains and InterCity trains would all run to St. Pancras and a gradual process of train renewal, or the adaptation of the capital-to-capital trains, would eventually facilitate through running.
Regional passenger services should be able to use the high-speed link at all times and should not be held up by slower freight trains. That requires that the construction of the route takes account of the needs of both types of traffic. There must be sufficient rolling stock to provide an attractive and competitive service, and the timetables must offer convenience and must compete with the airlines. The Minister may wish to comment on the class 92 position and say when approval for that class type is likely to be granted.
In the context of freight services, the Minister may wish to speak about security because, as he knows, the freight industry is deeply concerned about the great delays caused by security on approaching the channel tunnel from the UK side. No one underestimates the need for security clearance, but perhaps the Minister has had some thought about whether the process could be tightened up so that freight does not suffer further delays.
Railtrack's current track access charging regime is inhibiting private and public rail companies and will have a detrimental effect on the efforts of London and Continental Railways. It should not be allowed to price freight off the railways by making them uncompetitive with road, sea or air. Freight services to the continent, including trainload intermodal, piggyback and wagonload should give maximum choice to customers. By strengthening the powers of the regulator, Labour will make sure that rail access charges are fair and will encourage a greater shift towards rail and the development of the regional potential of the links to the tunnel.
The development of the high-speed link should take forward the European Union's vision of trans-European high-speed rail networks for passengers and combined road-rail or sea-rail transport for freight. Our amendments place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that that is done. Rather than warm words and assurances from the Minister and the company, we want to see these matters in the Bill.
Taxpayers in Scotland, Wales and the English regions are providing the massive funding for the channel tunnel rail link. We shall come to that in the next debate. The Government should look after their interests by taking full account of the wider economic and environmental opportunities that are offered by the tunnel because, much as we commend the additions to the channel tunnel rail-link in respect of the south-east, it belongs to 616 everybody in Britain. We have paid for it, and we wish the regions and nations of the United Kingdom to benefit from it.
§ Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South)May I impress on the Government how important the new clause is? There is a perception in the UK as a whole that this tremendously important project is viewed as a south-east project and will primarily benefit that region. For the purposes of the argument, whether that perception is correct is neither here nor there. I wish to give the example of the west midlands to illustrate the strength of feeling about the vital need for the link, from the beginning, to be constructed and operated to benefit directly the countries of the UK.
The west midlands faces two significant problems in terms of rail links and the connection to the high-speed link and, therefore, the channel tunnel. The first is the state of the west coast main line. I shall not go into that in this debate because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would probably stop me, but it is important that, if the Government are, as we hope, determined that the benefits of the link are spread throughout the country, the present infrastructure is examined carefully. There are particular problems in terms of the west coast main line, although we look forward to improvements in, we hope, the not too distant future—there have been considerable delays.
The second problem faced by the west midlands and, especially, Stoke-on-Trent, part of which I have the honour to represent, involves services operating through the channel tunnel. There is a service from Manchester, but its operators have decided that trains will stop only at Stafford. That is of considerable concern to us as it gives a worrying idea of what the operators' approach—taken because of commercial pressures—will be once the link is up and running. That approach could be to the detriment of the regions. It has been touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
At present, there is one stop at Stafford and none at Stoke-on-Trent, which we are rightly lobbying and arguing about. That region in north Staffordshire has a population of some 350,000, who, because of a decision by the operators, have no direct access to the train services through the channel tunnel. We hope that that will change and that the advent of the link will have a beneficial and positive effect, but the evidence is not encouraging.
Unless the Bill includes an obligation—the new clause seeks to do this—both on the builder and operator of the link and, through the Secretary of State for Transport, on the Minister to ensure not only that the regions are seen to benefit, but that the construction of the scheme is designed to benefit the south-east and the other regions, the fear is that commercial pressures, which will certainly exist, will mean that the regions will not benefit, which I am sure no hon. Member wants.
The example that I am giving of the west midlands and Stoke-on-Trent in particular is a stark and reasonable one which causes concern. At present, the operators are simply, as it were, putting their toe into the water—they are seeing how the service works. If it does not work, through inconvenience or whatever, they will not continue it. If the loadings are such that, because of the way in which services operate, getting to London is one commercial proposition, but getting north of London is another, services that we hope will develop investment. business, industry and, I hope, employment will be jeopardised at the outset.
617 5.15 pm
I am sure that what I am about to say applies to many other regions throughout the UK, but it is reasonable for hon. Members, when making a case, to use their best knowledge and that tends to be of the constituencies that they represent. I do not want to argue this from a purely parochial view, but, obviously, I am not qualified to speak about other regions. The position as it affects Stoke-on-Trent, however, is possibly a microcosm of the dangers that we will face if the benefits of the high-speed link and the channel tunnel are not available to the rest of the UK, which will happen unless the Government are minded to accept the new clause.
The region was built on mineworking and the pottery industry. There is now hardly any mineworking, but I will not go into that—we all know the reasons for it. It is important, however, to say two things about the pottery industry and the efforts to bring investment into the region, about which the Minister knows full well because he has been there on two or three occasions, for which I am grateful.
First, the pottery industry depends for its survival on its exports. It does not sell much of its stuff in the domestic market. Historically, it has always had a clear export-driven philosophy and it is seeking to develop export markets, which have traditionally been in the United States of America and in Europe. It is willing to make that investment so that it can use its undoubted expertise in exporting its quality products to Europe. Unless it has an opportunity to maximise transport links, especially through the high-speed link, those investment plans and the attempt to capture more of the European market will be put in jeopardy. Heaven knows, like many other regions, we desperately need that investment.
Secondly, significant efforts have been made, through the Government, the European Union, local authorities and private money, in the region. There is potential for development and investment of many millions of pounds. Chambers of trade, which I know the Minister has met recently, businesses in the region and potential investors continually ask not only what the road links are like—and, as the Minister knows, we are working on that—but what the rail links are like and how they can gain maximum access to the high-speed link and the channel tunnel so that they can seek to exploit the European market.
At present, we are not in a position to give as positive a response to that as we would like. Unless the new clause is included in the Bill, for the foreseeable future, we shall not be in a position to give such a positive response and, more important, we may send the wrong signals to potential investors in regions north of London.
I hope that the Minister understands that I am not discussing a parochial issue, but using the best knowledge that I have, which is of my constituency, to illustrate, I hope, how important it is that this obligation is included in the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept it as such.
§ Mr. ChidgeyI shall not revisit some of the arguments made earlier in the debate—I would not try the patience of the House that much—but I must make a couple of points.
I believe that there is a good deal of sense behind the main thrust of the new clause, particularly in relation to linking the channel tunnel rail link to the remainder of the United Kingdom rail network. What is particularly 618 important is the linking for large-gauge freight trains to and from the west coast main line. It is fundamental to what the link can achieve. It also brings in the entire context of making sure that Railtrack does facilitate freight trains coming from the channel tunnel rail link. I believe strongly, as we have said in the House before, that there is a need to regulate Railtrack so that it encourages freight business. That business should be encouraged with far lower access charges than is now the case. I believe that those charges should be at wear and tear costs only if we are to achieve a shift of freight from road to rail.
Equally important is the operation of through passenger services from the channel tunnel rail link, particularly to the east coast and west coast main lines. Of course it would be totally unreasonable for the nominated undertaker to be expected to provide facilities and links for through operations unless, in turn, Railtrack was playing its part in upgrading the remainder of the network. That is precisely why, in the national interest, the Liberal Democrats wish to take back control of Railtrack at an early date and regulate its operation with a series of strategic measures. It underlines the need for a national transport strategy, which was so lacking in today's transport Green Paper.
§ Mr. WattsThe hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) raised the issue of the cement batching plants. We gave an undertaking to the Select Committee that we would secure suitable replacement premises for the plants. The Government will comply fully with that undertaking. A lease that is consistent with that undertaking is currently under discussion with all the parties concerned and I understand that we hope that it will be concluded and granted before 24 May—obviously as speedily as possible.
The Government have always recognised the importance of spreading the benefits of international services throughout the United Kingdom. It was always part of the reference design that there would be connections to both the east coast and west coast main lines. One of the attractions of the bid from London and Continental Railways—the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to it earlier when he chided the Government for their base design—is the strong emphasis that it has placed on developing the market for international services, not just in the south-east but to the rest of the country.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made what I have always thought is an important point, which is that this should not be looked upon as a scheme that is intended to benefit just the south-east—of course, it will benefit the areas of north Kent and around Stratford because of regeneration benefits. London and Continental's proposals to enhance the project in connection with the Stratford station and the dual-track link to the west coast main line exist because of its intention of developing business north of London.
The main reason for favouring a station at Stratford is that it knocks a further 30 minutes off journey times north of London. Today, a journey from Birmingham to Paris—to use another part of the country—would take five hours using a through train. With the combination of the new high-speed link and the dual-track connection and using Stratford as a London stop instead of taking every train into St. Pancras, there would be a one-hour saving, 619 making the journey time from Birmingham to Paris about four hours. That saving of one hour will apply to every destination north of London. We have already approved new clauses and amendments which facilitate the provision of those enhancements to the service.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North mentioned ticketing arrangements. I understand that one of the early intentions of London and Continental Railways, as soon as it has operational control of Eurostar, is to improve the marketing, particularly of the interim services operating as feeder services north of London. Before today's debate I was in Shropshire visiting Gobowen station, which has just had its waiting room and ticket office refurbished. The station is run as a business venture by a local school. I was told that it was able to sell tickets for Eurostar and to any other part of the United Kingdom rail network.
§ Mr. WattsIt may well be. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman wants a ticket for Eurostar he should try the Morton Hall travel service operating from Gobowen to see whether it can provide a better service.
I agree that the better marketing of the service is crucial and that is one of the reasons why it is part of the development agreement that European passenger services are transferred to the nominated undertaker so that the business can be built up as early as possible.
§ Mr. AllenIs London and Continental Railways free to go ahead with taking over the ticketing arrangements? There were some question marks because of the intervention of the European Union on that matter.
§ Mr. WattsI would not describe it as intervention. Part of the process involves formal approval on state aid and competition grounds. That must be cleared before the formal handover can take place.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North asked about class 92 locomotives. They are currently being operated on a trial basis on the Swanley-Maidstone line. That is to ensure that the modifications that have been carried out allow them to operate safely without interfering with signalling and so on. It is British Rail's intention that the frequency of use of those locomotives should build up through the year until they are operating all the freight trains on that line. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to get those modern locomotives in proper operation as soon as possible, but I am sure that he will agree that as a prerequisite we need to be sure that that can be done safely and without any interference with signalling and control.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the channel tunnel freight security regime. In the autumn I announced some modifications to the regime, particularly in relation to—I forget the precise term—security-cleared freight forwarders, which were welcomed by the industry. We will remain in close touch with the freight industry and if we can make further modifications that are consistent with providing the necessary security for the tunnel, we are prepared to adopt a flexible approach. We want to see more freight on rail in general and operating to continental destinations in particular.
620 As I said earlier, the base requirement of the project is that it is capable of taking freight, but it is not a requirement that freight should be operated on it. Generally, it has been considered that the main benefit to freight flows will be the train paths on the existing network which will be freed by the transfer of the international passenger services on to the new infrastructure.
I am not aware of any great enthusiasm for being able to operate high-speed freight. Over the longer distances to continental destinations, freight trains travelling at conventional speeds can have a significant time advantage over road haulage. It is more likely that, apart from low weight-high value goods, perhaps some of those produced in Stoke-on-Trent which may be carried on high-speed passenger trains, freight will develop on the capacity that is released on the domestic network. We have always wanted to keep that option open and that is why there is a requirement for the freight links to be provided.
§ Mr. RoweMy hon. Friend and I have exchanged correspondence on the matter, but it remains of concern, first, that the curves on the line are not designed for freight trains. A serious question is still hanging over that design. They do not, for example, conform to either German or French standards. Secondly, the big freight loops that are being built in my neighbouring constituency of Ashford are static. If he is really as doubtful as he seems to be about the likelihood of freight being carried on the line, is the building of such freight loops not a huge additional land take and expense?
§ Mr. WattsWe have always thought that it is important to keep open the option of freight on that infrastructure. That is why we have made provision for the freight loops.
A further point in considering what sort of services should be using the capacity concerns the domestic services that will also operate on the high-speed link. Thirty minutes will also be knocked off journey times for commuters travelling into London from parts of Kent. Right hon. and hon. Members would probably agree that it is more beneficial for domestic passenger flows to be able to move more conveniently and quickly and that they should have priority over the haulage of freight on the new high-speed link. We have therefore reserved eight train paths an hour in peak periods for those domestic services, which will bring considerable benefits.
§ Sir David Mitchell (North-West Hampshire)If the line will potentially carry freight—it will certainly be used for passengers—a far heavier infrastructure will have to be built to enable it to take the weight of freight trains than would be required for either high-speed passenger trains or local passenger trains. Is my hon. Friend really telling the House that he will incur those substantial costs without knowing whether the line will be used for freight?
§ Mr. WattsThe minimum requirement, which is embodied in the development agreement, is that the link must have the capacity to take freight traffic and that the passing loops must be provided. I am perhaps not as well versed in the technicalities of rail freight and its operation as my hon. Friend, but if it is essential that there is some greater strength required in the infrastructure to enable such operation, and if it incurs greater cost, my answer to him must be yes.
621 I share the sentiments of a number of Opposition Members, particularly those of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, that we must ensure that this major project delivers benefits to regions of England and, indeed, other countries in the United Kingdom, not only the south-east. The private sector promoter has identified market opportunities in order to do that and has proposed modifications to the original design, to which we have agreed, which he considers enhances the overall project. The requirements that the new clause would place on the promoter are therefore unnecessary.
As there is no intention that, beyond the general regime of track access, freight facility grants, and so on, which we have in place to support rail freight, there should be any general subsidy to the operator, it would be wrong to impose on him a requirement to develop plans for developing freight services that might not be commercially viable and for which he would receive no public sector support. The new clause is unnecessary and I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North will not press it to a vote.
§ Mr. AllenOpposition Members made the point that not only are there commercial opportunities in the channel tunnel rail link for all regions—that is why London and Continental has made those links—but there are service and economic opportunities. No doubt, those points will be taken up by my hon. Friends in the other place, and with the assurances on the specific points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.