HC Deb 29 July 1998 vol 317 cc329-37 12.30 pm
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important question of the possible reopening of disused rail lines, and the Lewes-Uckfield line in particular. The debate comes at an opportune time, following as it does the publication of the Government's White Paper on transport.

The last time I secured an Adjournment debate was on the subject of Newhaven port. On that occasion, the Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—who I am pleased to see has not been shunted anywhere—confidently predicted that I would be pleased by the contents of the White Paper. I am happy to say that she was probably correct. At last, after so many years, the country is moving towards a sensible transport policy. As part of that, the train is at last emerging from the tunnel.

As an aside, I was particularly pleased to see that the Government have at last put a stop to the sale of so-called redundant rail land. During my last Adjournment debate, I raised that issue on the basis that if I did so often enough, I might get what I wanted. The Minister on that occasion called it a drip, drip approach. Buoyed by the success of that tactic in respect of redundant railway land, I am hoping that perseverance on my part can bring a similar result in respect of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line.

The line was closed in 1969 after more than 100 years of operation—not by the Beeching cuts, which destroyed so much of our rail network, but by East Sussex county council. The council wanted to put a new road bridge into Lewes and forced the line to close, effectively, to achieve that. That was an act of stupidity and environmental vandalism. Although none of the officers or members involved are still connected with the council, I believe that that body has a moral responsibility to try to make amends and help to secure the reopening of the line. I am pleased to say that it is now doing so.

The Lewes-Uckfield line can and should be reinstated. That statement is born not of romanticism but of a hard-headed view that it makes economic, social and environmental sense. Almost as soon as it closed, a campaign was begun to secure the reopening of the line. The Wealden line campaign—as it is known—has consistently put the case for the reopening and has helped to keep the issue in the local papers for years. I congratulate those involved on their diligence and commitment in that respect.

A cursory glance at the map shows how illogical it is that there should be no railway between the two towns. A line straggles down from London to Uckfield, and then there is a seven-mile gap between there and Lewes, the latter a major rail junction with access to Brighton to the west, Newhaven and Seaford to the south and Eastbourne to the east.

North of Uckfield, on the London line at Eridge, there is an even shorter network gap between there and Tunbridge Wells. I should say that the evaluation for reinstatement which is taking place—and to which I shall refer in more detail later—is considering what is called the central rail corridor in total.

There are essentially three parts to the central rail corridor. The first section, from Tunbridge Wells to Eridge, is held by a preservation society, and the track bed and tracks are intact. The logistical problem of how to reconnect with the existing services at Tunbridge Wells has been solved by the consultants looking into the feasibility of reopening that stretch of the corridor.

The second section comprises the existing Eridge to Uckfield railway line, currently operated by Connex South Central. The third section is a seven-mile gap south to Lewes. Here the track bed has been protected from Uckfield southwards, even through the new industrial estate, although much is now in the private ownership of farmers and the like.

One section near Isfield continues to operate as a preservation railway, now called the Lavender line. Because of the new road bridge into Lewes, a reinstatement on the original alignment would be hugely expensive—perhaps even impossible—but there are two other solutions which could be put in place at much less cost. One is to follow the route of the track bed down to Hamsey just north of Lewes and then to create a new short stretch eastward to join the existing Lewes-London line. The other, more expensive, option is to create a new stretch westwards from the track bed to provide a new station at Ringmer, a fast-growing village in my constituency, and then to join the Lewes-Eastbourne line near Glynde. I happen to think that the first option is the more practicable.

In the past two or three years, there has been a renewed momentum from the local authority sector in particular to push for the reinstatement of the link. The county council, not long after killing the line, adopted a structure plan policy that is still in place today, protecting the track bed from development so as not to prejudice possible reinstatement. That has been mirrored by the Wealden district and Lewes district local plans.

In 1996, the county council commissioned a feasibility study into what it calls the East Sussex rail corridor which considered not just the Lewes-Uckfield line but another short stretch from Eridge to Tunbridge Wells. The Minister may recall that I presented her with a copy of the report when she was kind enough to meet me last year. The report, by Mott MacDonald, concluded that it was perfectly feasible to reopen the two closed lines and ended: In summary, it may be concluded that at a reinstatement cost of £20–25 million such a long-term infrastructure facility (which might substitute for more expensive investment in road infrastructure elsewhere) might be considered a relatively cheap option. Since then, the county council and other local authorities—with some financial support from Connex South Central—have commissioned further work on a business case. That work is due to be finished shortly and will be discussed with Connex and Railtrack. I would like to present a copy to the Minister as soon as possible, if I may.

Let there be no doubt that the matter is being treated seriously. The draft report confirms that there are no engineering and operating problems that cannot be overcome. Illustrative timetables have been produced to confirm the operational feasibility of a through line from Lewes to Tunbridge Wells, connecting with the London line at Eridge, and integrating with Connex South East services at Tunbridge Wells, and Connex South Central services at Eridge and at Lewes. These are based on a 30-minute frequency service, with a journey time from Lewes to Tunbridge Wells of around 50 minutes.

Financially, the business case has been developed using a local demand model based on travel times and costs for cars and public transport using the corridor. The results from that model have been validated by comparison with independent forecasts produced using Opraf's own regional planning tool, called Planet.

Provisional assessments suggest that it will be possible for the route to cover its operating costs but not necessarily the capital costs of reinstatement. That, in effect, is the same conclusion as the one reached by Network SouthEast in 1986. It is worth mentioning that, in 1986, the then director of Network SouthEast, Chris Green, ordered a serious review of the case for reopening, and inspected the disused line personally in February 1987. British Rail at the time indicated that it was minded to allocate £1.5 million towards the estimated cost of £6 million, but no other sources of funding were forthcoming at that time.

There has been interest from the rail operators for a long time, and it is worth drawing to the Minister's attention the fact that even in the Beeching days, British Rail recognised the value of the line. When the road bridge idea was first mooted, British Rail went so far as to secure parliamentary approval in the 1965–66 Session for a new route into Lewes—the same route used between 1858 and 1868—which would have kept the link open.

In the event, the permission was allowed to lapse. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who is here today—and who represents the Uckfield end of the line—will remember that point, as he was in the House at the time.

Why do we want the line reinstated? It would make considerable sense from an integrated network point of view as it would link existing rail infrastructure at relatively little cost by means of new short stretches. That would improve the viability and profitability of the lines to which it connected, as journeys previously impossible suddenly became viable propositions. For example, many who drive from Uckfield to Brighton might now take the train, thereby improving the use of the existing Lewes-Brighton line. Two members of my staff live in Uckfield and commute each day by car. They would prefer to use the rail line. There are many in that situation.

The reinstatement would provide an important alternative line to London from Brighton and Lewes. There is a bottleneck on the current network north of Haywards Heath, so there are no more paths for trains despite the considerable potential for increased passenger numbers to London, and for freight movement to Newhaven.

Connex South Central tells me that its figures show an increase in passenger numbers of about 12 per cent. over the past year, but the numbers cannot be pushed up further without an alternative route, because of the lack of train paths. Congestion has become so bad that Connex has to join trains at Haywards Heath to maximise use of the paths, leading to delays. Furthermore, if there is a problem on the London line, the nearest alternative routes north are via Hastings or Littlehampton: a very long way in either case.

The line would provide a real alternative for those who currently pour into Lewes, or indeed Tunbridge Wells, every morning on the A26, as well as being a speedy means of reaching key towns such as Brighton for those without access to the private car. A third of people do not have access to private cars, and their needs must be considered.

The White Paper commits the Government to working to get people out of cars and on to public transport. Here, in my view, is an example of how that might be achieved. Uckfield, stranded at the end of the present line, is, I understand, the fastest-growing town in East Sussex, and there is no question in my mind but that there is considerable potential custom for a reopened line. I hope that the right hon. Member for Wealden will be able to speak about that.

The line would provide rail access for communities currently not served by rail, such as Barcombe in my constituency, again helping to take cars off the road. By providing an alternative means of accessing Lewes, where many come to work in the public sector, the line would also help to protect from further damage by the motor car what is accepted as one of the top 50 heritage towns in the country.

I was pleased that the Minister said that the Government were prepared to invest public money, where necessary, in rail capital projects. In a parliamentary answer to me, she wrote: Such proposals could include new or enhanced local rail services, better facilities for passengers and re-opening of disused lines."—[Official Report, 23 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 679.] For some years, we have had the ludicrous situation of a huge roads programme being funded directly by the taxpayer while railways have been told that they have to fund their own improvements, with a requirement that they show an 8 per cent. rate of return—which is ridiculously high—when no such barrier has been applied to roads.

The Government have said that they want to consider transport corridors, and it is absolutely right to take that view. Any sane assessment of the A26 transport corridor north of Lewes will conclude that rail investment makes much more sense than spending more money on roads, as is the case in many areas.

A few years ago, the county council spent £1.5 million—probably borrowed from, or with the permission of, the Government—on straightening a couple of bends on the A26 north of Lewes. A similar amount pledged at that time would have matched the investment that Network SouthEast was prepared to put in, and might have been the catalyst for reopening the line. Too often in the past, the county council and the Government of the day were prepared to improve marginally an existing road facility rather than creating a brand new rail facility for the same money. We must not make such mistakes again.

Might the Lewes-Uckfield line, and indeed the central rail corridor project as a whole, qualify for capital investment from public funds, under the terms of the parliamentary answer that I quoted? I appreciate that the Minister has not yet seen the business case, and I will be happy to give that to her as soon as it is ready, but I would like an in-principle answer.

The line has considerable public support. I have with me a petition carrying 3,400 signatures, presented to me by George Yerby of Friends of the Earth, which I will hand to the Minister after this debate, if I may. I know that she is familiar with the project, and I hope that she will agree that the time has come to forge again the link between Lewes and Uckfield. If the Government are looking for a relatively cheap rail project to demonstrate their new transport priorities, which I support, to symbolise what can be achieved by rail investment and to show that the reopening of rail lines has a part to play in the future, I can think of no better example.

12.43 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden)

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) for raising this important matter, especially in the light of the recent transport White Paper. Unfortunately, this debate comes in the shadow of the franchising office's refusal to extend Connex South Central's franchise, but the company has a strong determination to reapply in 2003 and to go ahead with electrification. There is no doubt that the line needs modernising.

It was most certainly a great mistake to break the link. I thought that the whole line was to be closed, but my strong protest and that of many others at least retained the line to Uckfield. In the years during which I have been a Member of Parliament, since 1965, there has been an enormous increase in the population, and there will be great development in Uckfield in the near future. No road infrastructure could make it easy for people to travel by road from the south of Sussex to the places where the jobs are. The job increases have been along the coast and up in south Croydon, so there is a crying need for a rail link.

A truly integrated transport system must include not only modernisation of the line running north but the link between Uckfield and Lewes. I am happy to support everything that the hon. Member for Lewes said.

12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson)

From the remarks made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), it is clear that there is cross-party unity on the necessity for a properly integrated transport strategy. That is the Government's informing policy for the coming years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes not only on securing this debate but on ending the Session as he began it: he has consistently presented his constituents' concerns in a most detailed and informed way. The proposal to reopen the Lewes-Uckfield line is but one such concern. On the previous occasion when we spoke across the Chamber, I said that his policy was drip, drip; the energy, commitment and detail with which he presented his argument today are more of a gush, gush.

There is strong support for the reinstatement of a rail link between the Hurst Green-Uckfield line and Lewes, not only from the hon. Member for Lewes and the right hon. Member for Wealden, but from those who live and work in the area, as I learned from my visit to Lewes before the general election. The hon. Gentleman has written to me on the subject on several occasions and I have answered his questions in the House.

Last week, we announced our plans for the future of public transport in our White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport". I thank the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave that document, which reiterates the great emphasis that the Government place on the role that the railway can play in achieving a properly integrated transport policy. We also set out our proposals for the establishment of the strategic rail authority and the future arrangements for regulation of the railway in our response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report.

Those statements demonstrate our commitment to public transport enhancements at national, regional and local level, to the benefit of all sectors of our community. The functions of the strategic rail authority will include promoting the use of the railway within an integrated transport system; working closely with local and national organisations to promote better integration; and participating actively in the development of regional and local land use planning policies to ensure that, as far as possible, decisions on the provision of rail services dovetail with those policies.

The White Paper is not the first initiative that the Government have taken concerning our railways. In November last year, we issued the franchising director with new objectives, instructions and guidance, dealing with the real issues that matter most to passengers. The objectives require the franchising director to facilitate investment in the railway, and to that end we approved—also in November last year—interim planning criteria for the reallocation of financial support, in order to provide an effective framework for developing and implementing worthwhile rail investment. The criteria will be revised in the light of "A New Deal for Transport" to take account of the development of multi-modal appraisal techniques that establish a level playing field between the transport modes.

We also required the franchising director to produce an assessment of the sort and level of services that the railway network should provide. He is drawing up that assessment, having consulted widely with the rail industry, local authorities, passenger representatives and other parties, and will submit his conclusions to Ministers shortly.

The hon. Member for Lewes referred to an answer that I gave which said that the Government could find new funding for capital investment in our railways in some instances. I am pleased to reiterate our announcement in the White Paper of two new sources of investment funding for the railway. More than £100 million will be made available over the next three years. The infrastructure investment fund and the rail passenger partnership scheme are aimed at supporting new investment proposals that produce significant wider benefits for integrated transport and a modal shift to rail that could not be taken forward without public sector financial support. Railtrack remains responsible for funding investment in rail infrastructure where there is a commercial case.

The infrastructure investment fund is a new fund to support investment projects aimed at addressing capacity constraints at key infrastructure pinch-points on the rail network. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, such difficulties are already being experienced by Connex South Central. The rail passenger partnership scheme is a private-public partnership designed to encourage and support at regional and local level innovative proposals that develop rail use and promote modal shift. It will support innovative proposals to develop rail use, for example, by improving interchange with other modes, improving passenger security or accessibility, enhancing local rail facilities, or introducing new local rail services. Funding for the scheme will be awarded through open competition, with financial support channelled through franchised train operating companies. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question about that.

I encourage local authorities and others to present to the franchising director proposals consistent with the strategies set out in the White Paper. The new schemes will be co-ordinated with other Government programmes to ensure overall coherence in the provision of publicly supported rail services and ensure that proposed new schemes are complementary to existing ones. We will announce further details of both schemes in the autumn.

There need to be partnership and accountability in developing the railways as part of an integrated transport system. The Government are determined to play their part in creating an effective public transport network that people will choose to use, but local authorities and the private sector, whether operators or developers, also have a vital role. Private sector initiative is already bringing some welcome improvements to our railways. For example, the franchisee for Chiltern Railway, and Railtrack, have taken forward a multi-million pound scheme to double-track capacity between Princes Risborough and Bicester North, where there were 19 miles of single track—a victim of the Beeching era. Half-hourly, rather than hourly, services have been introduced between Princes Risborough and Banbury, and the number of services to Birmingham Snow Hill has been increased. The introduction of new 100 mph trains has permitted a reduction in journey times of up to 18 minutes.

Another example is the construction of a new Parkway station to serve Luton airport. My Department is providing £2.8 million of transport policies and programme funding, with Railtrack funding the remainder—the bulk—of the project. When complete, the new station is expected to divert car journeys from the existing station in the centre of Luton, increase the percentage of people accessing the airport by public transport, and divert some London-bound M1 car journeys by providing an attractive alternative rail option into the capital.

We anticipate further initiatives between the private and public sectors, as well as closer liaison between central and local government on local transport planning. To that end, we will give the new strategic rail authority obligations to work with local authorities and regional planning authorities on local transport planning and integration.

We are clear that local authorities have a fundamental role in initiating investment in local schemes, whether or not they involve support from the Government. Local authorities have a responsibility under the Transport Acts for planning and arranging public transport services in their areas, and they have a role in working up schemes with operators and third-party investors that will benefit passengers in their areas.

Sponsors of schemes that may require financial support from the franchising director's budget should prepare a business case in consultation with the relevant train operator and Railtrack. The business case would allow the franchising director to estimate the likely level of public sector funding required to support the scheme. He could then decide whether that funding was available from his budget, and whether the proposed expenditure represented value for money. I understand that East Sussex county council is considering the viability of a scheme to reinstate the Uckfield-Lewes line.

The franchising director's interim planning criteria provide guidance to any party putting a proposal to him for changes to the passenger rail services for which he provides financial support. Under those criteria, he would look for genuine value for money and a real passenger benefit from schemes that he is asked to support. The Government expect him to undertake the appraisal of any proposal that is put to him objectively and to give fair consideration to all the proposals for new services that he receives.

The franchising director has powers under the Railways Act 1993 to grant experimental status to new passenger services where they are operated over lines not previously served by passenger trains, and to new or reinstated stations. Experimental status can be granted for up to five years and enables the viability of a new service to be tested without the need to exercise the statutory closure procedure if it is decided to withdraw it. In certain circumstances, experimental designation could provide a disincentive for investors to open new services, so the franchising director can use his discretion not to designate a new service as experimental to ensure that it will remain an integral part of the rail network unless an application for closure is approved.

The hon. Member for Lewes was concerned about the need to preserve the track bed that would permit reinstatement of the line from Uckfield to Lewes and about the implications of a possible redevelopment of the original Uckfield station site. I understand that it remains structure plan policy to restrict development that would significantly prejudice the possible reinstatement of the line. As Railtrack has no plans to reopen the line between Uckfield and Lewes, and in the absence of a financial commitment from the county council, I understand that the local authority felt that a land use policy to restrict development around the former route could not be justified and thus was not included in the local plan. I understand that any development of the original Uckfield station site is subject to the condition that the station buildings be retained and refurbished, as the local authority rightly considers them part of the town's heritage.

It is open to the rail industry, the local authority or third party sponsors to propose investment in reinstatement of the Lewes-Uckfield line. The hon. Member for Lewes will, I am sure, continue to make his case to interested parties and will no doubt press the county council for an early statement about whether it believes that there is a case to support the reopening of the line. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wealden will support his actions.

I assure the House that the strategy and commitments that the Government announced in the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" will serve generally to benefit rail passengers and facilitate worthwhile investment in new schemes, through partnership between Government, regional and local authorities and private sector operators and sponsors. Where there are genuine local needs, the local authorities—and the service providers—have the avenues to seek to address them. We want the railway to play its part in shifting traffic from roads to rail, as no doubt do the constituents of the right hon. Member for Wealden and the hon. Member for Lewes.

I will most happily accept the petition to which the hon. Member for Lewes referred. We all have an interest in enhancing the overall availability and quality of public transport options in the integrated transport network.