London, Tilbury and Southend Railway

HC Deb 03 December 1998 vol 321 cc1141-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]

10 pm

Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch)

I thank Madam Speaker for choosing this subject for tonight's debate. The London, Tilbury and Southend line was chosen for debate before, but, along with other business, fell prior to the Queen's Speech. I also thank the Minister for her presence in the Chamber this evening.

My involvement with the London, Tilbury and Southend railway as a passenger pre-dates my election as a Member of Parliament. Although my remarks refer to the railway that runs from Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness, I am concerned mainly with what is called the Tilbury loop, which runs through Rainham station in my constituency and through two stations, Dagenham Dock and Purfleet, in neighbouring constituencies.

Since my election—or shortly thereafter—I began to receive complaints from my Rainham constituents about service on the LTS line. People came to my surgeries and wrote to and telephoned me. I express my appreciation of the time and effort that my constituents have expended contacting me and attending meetings of the Rainham rail users group, which I helped to establish when, following an avalanche of complaints, it became clear that collective action was necessary. I expected about 20 or 30 people to attend the group's first meeting in September, but in fact there were probably 80 or 90. The mood of the meeting was so angry that, if an LTS Rail representative had been present, he or she would have had a pretty tough time.

I will give the House some idea of the feeling about LTS in my part of the country. An Essex radio station conducted a survey some time ago to discover the most unpopular man in Essex and east London. The managing director of LTS Rail, Ken Bird, finished second in that survey, pipped at the post by Saddam Hussein. That gives hon. Members some idea of how my constituents and, I suspect, people from neighbouring areas regard the LTS service.

That is hardly surprising in view of the correspondence that my constituents and I have received. In a letter last July, the managing director, Ken Bird, offered some fairly patronising comments. As part of an explanation as to why the service from Rainham is so poor, he wrote: We offer a walk-on, walk-off non-reservable system". He concluded: It is now pleasing to be able to manage a retail venture that recognises that profit comes from giving customers what they want at a price they are willing to pay. We are not there yet, but give me another 18 months and judge us then. People have been using LTS for three years since privatisation. It is fair to say that they have every right to judge the service now rather than waiting another 18 months. LTS has had quite enough time already. In any case, the Tilbury loop service, which runs through my constituency, has worsened since privatisation.

Many managers, including Ken Bird, ran the pre-privatisation British Rail service. They laid off many station staff before the sell-off and, after privatisation, took on low-paid security guards, whom I see regularly at Fenchurch Street checking tickets and giving directions.

Just before privatisation British Rail spent £150 million on resignalling the line—an investment from which LTS clearly benefits.

A choice paragraph from one of the railway's leaflets states: LTS Rail has now employed a number of key staff in order to improve customer service and the station environment. To many of my constituents, such comments are pure propaganda, especially when considered against the fact that the work force fell from 686 in 1995–96 to 657 in 1996–97. I am convinced that that has led to the cuts in the Tilbury service. There have been cancelled trains, frequent delays and the early closure of the booking office at Rainham and other stations. The company is not prepared to employ sufficient staff to run the line successfully.

I shall give the Minister an example. Two years ago there were six trains running between 8 and 9 am from Rainham to Fenchurch Street. There are now just three trains: the 8.12, the 8.27 and the 8.48. Like many trains since privatisation, the 8.48 has been reduced from eight coaches to four, leading to such overcrowding that I wrote to the Health and Safety Executive to find out whether it could do anything about the problem.

The HSE wrote back saying that overcrowding was not a danger in itself, but if there was an accident, as was the case in Clapham, an overcrowded train would be likely to result in many more injuries to the passengers than a train that was not overcrowded. Because most of the trains on the Tilbury loop are the old slam-door trains, there are no suitable handles for passengers to hang on to when they have to stand to travel to work and home again.

Last year LTS Rail failed in its obligation to run 98.5 per cent. of timetabled trains. It cancelled 1,500 trains, and 2,000 trains ran late. Nevertheless, Prism Rail, the parent company of LTS, has received a considerable amount of money from the taxpayers' pocket—not only the £150 million that went into resignalling, but £30 million from the franchising director in 1995–96, which will fall towards the end of the franchise in 2011 but is still a substantial sum. Passenger income for 1995–96 was £52 million and for 1996–97 it was £55 million. Revenue grant for the same years was £31 million and £24 million respectively. Large sums are going into LTS, but people are not seeing the benefits, and there is growing anger among my constituents.

I shall give some examples of constituents' experiences with LTS Rail. My hon. Friend is familiar with one case, about which I have corresponded with her. It involves a woman who was stranded at Barking late at night after a train broke down. Only five taxis were provided to get everyone home from a full train. The woman had to ring her mother to send a taxi to take her home at about 1 o'clock in the morning. My hon. Friend will recall that British Rail was obliged to get everybody to their destinations if a train broke down, using licensed taxis or buses. It seems from that case that LTS is not meeting its responsibilities.

Another constituent writes to me regularly about the problems on LTS. On 18 November she wrote detailing all the delays and problems that she had experienced during that month. On six days during the first half of November there were problems including late trains, cancelled trains and locked carriages, leading to ever greater overcrowding and so on.

A constituent writes regularly with the outstanding excuses used by LTS. The corker was the announcement that the delayed 7.55 am will not stop at Rainham due to the train already being heavily overcrowded. In fact, when the train came through the station it was almost empty and—this is the telling point—it got to Fenchurch Street on time. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that it did not stop at Rainham station. It meant that the railway could fulfil its obligations under the regulatory framework.

There has been investment in the railway, but it has gone on the main line—most was by Railtrack—in rail renewal. There has been minimal investment on the Tilbury loop. Stations are miserable and often deserted because there are not enough staff. The railway is extremely badly run and there is no sign of investment in the pipeline.

The result is fear among my constituents that part of the Tilbury loop could be run down to the point where it might face closure. The three stations—Rainham, Dagenham Dock and Purfleet—are always cited when people come to me to express that fear. I met Ken Bird last week and he assured me that Rainham station would remain open. He pointed out that LTS was legally unable to close any stations or any section of line that it runs, because that is a matter for the franchising director.

I have written to the franchising director to ask for an assurance that those three stations and the rest of the line will remain open until the end of the current franchise, which is 2010–11. I look forward to receiving that assurance.

My view, which is not always shared by the Government, is that certain things are best run as publicly owned monopolies. The railway system is one area that should be publicly run, owned and accountable. People across the country have problems, some of which are worse than those experienced on LTS. If the enormous problems in Britain's rail network continue, my hon. Friend and other Ministers will have to think about that.

In the meantime, we must consider strengthening the regulatory framework to make sure, for instance, that LTS does not get away with the diminution in the service from Rainham to Fenchurch Street. LTS should have to provide the sort of service—or better service—than was provided before privatisation. We should return to the days when there were six trains between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the morning from Rainham to Fenchurch Street, and those six trains should carry eight carriages.

The franchising director has allowed LTS to delay the introduction of new trains—despite all the money that is going from the taxpayer's pocket into LTS. The introduction of new trains to replace the old slam-door variety has been delayed by three years and they will not come into service until 2002. That is another example of the laxity of the regulatory framework, which is hardly surprising: it was introduced by the previous Government, who saw rail privatisation as a way of taking money out of the taxpayer's pocket and diverting it into the pockets of shareholders.

The great problem is that, in any privatisation—rail or any other—the people who run the railway ultimately have greater responsibility to shareholders than to anyone else. That is the crux of why there is such a system on LTS and on other railways.

10.14 pm

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) on securing the debate—twice. I also congratulate him on putting on the record so succinctly the concerns and the experiences—the bad experiences—of his constituents in respect of the service that they are receiving from the London, Tilbury and Southend railway.

The Government have made it clear that poor performance on our railways is unacceptable—it will not be tolerated. We expect train operators to run punctual and reliable services, and we expect Railtrack to meet its obligations to passengers, freight customers and taxpayers to maintain and develop the rail network in a manner that offers proper value for money.

Hon. Members—indeed the whole country—will be aware that all franchisees and Railtrack were summoned to a meeting last week with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and me. As a result of that meeting, an action plan has been agreed to tackle performance problems across our railway network. Measures agreed include 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles, a joint hit squad to examine, identify and tackle the worst 50 black spots on our network, and a national troubleshooter team to tackle punctuality problems. We shall also introduce a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers really think about their rail services, and to help measure performance across the network.

That action plan is only a first step to delivering short-term improvements for passengers. We expect to see progressive, year-on-year improvements from the industry starting over the next 12 months. Next February, there will be a wider-ranging national railway summit to examine how to tackle medium to longer-term performance problems.

My hon. Friend spoke specifically and succinctly of the difficulties on the London, Tilbury and Southend line. I hope that he will be interested in a stroll down memory lane. When I first entered the House, the LTS line was dubbed the misery line. Hon. Members from both sides related horror stories of their constituents' experiences on a service that was going not from bad to worse, but from worse to execrable. That was before rail privatisation, and shows the previous Administration's failure to invest adequately in our national railway system.

However, it would be quite wrong to pretend that performance on the LTS line has not improved since that time. Some would say that it was impossible for it to get worse, and as my hon. Friend has detailed, it is by no means perfect. Despite the fact that 96 per cent. of LTS trains have arrived within five minutes of their scheduled time—a statistic that I regret to say many other train operators cannot match—problems with the renewal of overhead line equipment has caused cancellations, and season ticket holders are receiving discounts as a result. As we all know, what passengers and season ticket holders want more than discounts is certainty that the train will be there when they arrive at the station, and that it will reach its destination at the designated time.

My hon. Friend referred to his constituent's particularly harrowing experience. He wrote to me on this issue, and I promised that I would raise it with the Association of Train Operating Companies, which I meet regularly. Last month, I reminded ATOC of the need for train operators to be mindful of their responsibility not to leave passengers stranded when services are disrupted. It is vital that train operators consider the personal security of their passengers during their whole journey, particularly at night, and, I would argue, even more particularly when the passenger is female.

Train operators are required to use all reasonable endeavours to deliver passengers to their destination station when services are disrupted. Although they are not formally obliged to do so, ATOC has assured me that train operators take passengers to their final destination when that is practicable or necessary for their personal security.

I raised this issue with the managing director of LTS, Mr. Bird, who said that he would speak directly to my hon. Friend. I trust that that is indeed what happened.

My hon. Friend expressed fears that there may be proposals to close the services that serve his constituency and what he referred to as the Tilbury loop. Services on the loop, as elsewhere on LTS, are protected by the passenger service requirement, which guarantees a minimum level of service.

I understand that, with the franchising director's agreement, LTS has rearranged the service pattern on the loop to increase frequency on the Ockendon branch, and to provide direct services to London. That has allowed LTS to run direct services to Chafford Hundred for the Lakeside shopping complex.

My hon. Friend referred to reductions in services on the line. I understand that the winter timetable has involved a cut of one train from both morning and afternoon peak times—a reduction from the summer timetable of, I believe, 12 to 11 trains in the morning and from 11 to 10 in the afternoon. I will, however, look into the specific issue that my hon. Friend raised.

Although I am pleased that more people are travelling by train, I accept that has resulted in serious overcrowding on certain London commuter services—certainly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, on LTS. All train operators have a general obligation to avoid excessive overcrowding, but more specific controls apply to London commuter services such as LTS at peak times.

Earlier this year, the franchising director required five London train operators to develop action plans to alleviate the serious overcrowding on their services. LTS has so far remained within the contractual limits set by the franchising director, but, like other operators, it has experienced an increase in passenger numbers over the last year. I expect the franchising director to ensure that, where network capacity allows, all operators of London commuter services take immediate action to reduce any severe overcrowding that may occur now or in the future.

We have made it clear that train operators' performance will be a key criterion when it comes to franchise renewal. Those who perform well will find that we are constructive partners. We are willing to renegotiate franchises, including franchise extensions, when that offers benefits to passengers and good value for money to the taxpayer; but our warning to train operators who perform poorly is simple and clear. Those who perform badly will not have a long-term future in the industry.

Last month, the franchising director announced a new package of benefits for LTS passengers. I was particularly pleased that it resulted from a voluntary renegotiation by the franchising director and Prism Rail of LTS's franchise plan commitments, rather than being recompense to passengers for poor performance. The package clearly signalled a commitment to responding to passengers' needs, and I hope that it was welcomed by them.

I accept that, as a result, some existing slam-door trains will not be replaced as soon as was originally agreed, although the majority will be replaced within a year with new trains already ordered by LTS. I know—and my hon. Friend raised the point this evening—that there is concern about the safety of older rolling stock. Slam-door rolling stock is not necessarily unsafe, but it has been criticised for its performance in certain types of accident. The Health and Safety Commission has recommended that all mark one stock should be withdrawn by 1 January 2003 unless it has been re-bodied or modified.

The new deal commits LTS to replacing its remaining slam-door stock progressively with modern sliding-door vehicles by the end of March 2002. Its fleet currently numbers 69 four-car units, of which 17 have sliding doors. By November 1999, 44 new four-car units will be in service, and by March 2002 a fleet of 72 four-car units will all have sliding doors.

The new deal offers a considerable package of additional benefits to LTS passengers to offset the delay in replacing the slam-door trains. LTS's passenger charter punctuality standard and trigger for season ticket discounts has been increased by 1 per cent., with immediate effect. Compensation for delays of 60 minutes or more has increased from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. Contractual thresholds for cancellations and capacity have been tightened, so that enforcement action can be triggered at a lower level. Those thresholds will be further tightened in April 2000.

To help to meet the growing demand for commuter rail services into London, LTS has committed to extending its scheme for cheap early morning season tickets to more stations from May 1999, providing travel to Fenchurch Street at a discount of at least 20 per cent. A total of £2 million will be spent on service quality improvements, including real-time passenger information systems by the end of March 2000. A further £50,000 will be spent in each year until the end of the franchise on providing further staff coverage at stations. I hope that that fact affords some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch.

Other welcome benefits included improvements to facilities for disabled passengers, including disabled toilets and boarding ramps at all 11 of LTS' main stations. LTS will seek accreditation for all its stations under my Department's secure stations scheme, and similar accreditation for car parks at its stations. Improved cycle storage facilities have been promised at a. further six stations.

The new deal committed LTS to improving transport integration between its services and other public transport services and commercial development, moving towards our vision of a railway that is integrated with other modes of transport and allows people to travel by public transport to the places that they want to reach. In particular, LTS has committed £700,000 to improving pedestrian access to the Lakeside shopping centre from Chafford Hundred station. It has committed to building further links with bus services in the local area. It will work with Great Eastern railway to develop season tickets between London and Southend that can be used on either train operators' services.

On our plans for the future of passenger rail services, renationalisation—not a word that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch uttered, but it is clearly still his dream—of the railways would be very expensive and cannot be a priority given the other demands on public expenditure. Therefore, our task is to improve the railways as we find them, not as we wish them to be.

We will introduce a new strategic rail authority to provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the development of the railways. The SRA will provide a better means of influencing the use of the significant amounts of public funds that we provide to the industry, to the benefit of passengers and taxpayers.

The Loyal Address on 24 November has now given us the go-ahead to publish a draft Bill to introduce the necessary legislation to establish the SRA. Given the extraordinary events that are taking place down the corridor and the even more extraordinary events that are taking place in the official Opposition, legislation could come sooner, rather than later.

However soon we legislate, it will take at least 18 months to get the SRA up and running. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister announced at Blackpool the setting up of a shadow SRA. That will use existing organisations—the British Railways Board and Office of Passenger Rail Franchising—both of which will be under new leadership by next spring, when the new shadow authority will be up and running.

I acknowledge that not all the challenges that face the rail industry can be solved overnight. It is clear that, in many instances, the passenger and taxpayer are still not getting the best deal in the privatised railway; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch gave us details of that fact. We are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge that we have set ourselves, but we are determined to work with the rail industry to achieve our goal.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock