§ Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam)I hope that I shall pass the Minister for Energy and Industry's test for the standard of Adjournment debates by raising an issue of genuine concern brought to my attention by my constituents.
I should start by declaring an interest. I am a daily commuter from Cheam station in my constituency. That experience and the many letters that I receive from constituents led me to seek this debate.
The Minister will know of my interest in rolling stock replacement and slam-door mark I trains. Under existing franchise agreements, the number of mark I trains is forecast to fall from 2,300 to about 1,300 by the end of 2000. However, I understand that 1,031 of those trains have been leased to Connex SouthCentral and South West Trains and will continue to operate because neither company has a franchise commitment to replace those vehicles. Both companies' franchise ends in 2003, and I want to ask a number of questions.
I was a member of the London fire and civil defence authority at the time of the Clapham rail disaster. I remember the trauma, not only of the people involved in the accident, but of the firefighters who went to the rescue. Thirty-five people lost their lives in the disaster and many more were seriously injured.
The Hidden report that was produced as a result of the accident pinpointed the fact that mark I coaches afforded passengers far less protection in a collision than modern carriages. No safeguards are built into the mark I trains to prevent the underframe of one vehicle riding over that of another in a collision. That was known in 1988 and it was known when the first round of franchises were let. I find it extraordinary that no effort was made to secure the replacement or modification of those unsafe coaches during the first round of franchising.
The Hidden report says:
In the light of the accident BR has set in motion a programme of further research into the Mark I coach which is expected to cost £1 million and to be completed by April 1991.I emphasise that date-1991. The report continued:The future of safety and public confidence demand that such research is fully and expeditiously carried out.So what happened?In its evidence to an inquiry by the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in July last year, the Health and Safety Executive said that the issue of mark I safety "fell between two stools" and that it had passed it by. It is hardly surprising that the franchising director did not address the safety issue—the way in which his office was established by the previous Government requires him to address service levels and value for money, not safety. In other words, the Health and Safety Executive dropped the ball on mark I safety in the mid-1990s.
It was not until May 1998, 10 years after Clapham, that the HSE finally began to consult the rail industry about modifying mark I trains by 2003. The result of that consultation and the HSE's recommendations are currently with the Minister, who told me in the House only two weeks ago that she hoped to make an 317 announcement shortly. How long will we have to wait for that announcement? When will the necessary regulations to bring in the HSE's recommendations be laid before Parliament?
I hold no brief for Connex SouthCentral. Indeed, I hope to show that when it comes to performance, I am certainly no friend of the company and have a very low regard for its delivery of services to many of its customers.
In written answers to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), Ministers have made it clear that the responsibility for mark I rolling stock rests with the train operators. There is a very real fear that the inaction on the part of the Government—or, perhaps to a greater extent, the franchising director—could result in the residual mark I fleet continuing to operate right up until the end of the franchises held by Connex SouthCentral and SouthWest Trains in 2003.
The mark I would then be grounded—on 2 January 2003—and the incoming operator would face a severe shortage of trains. Again, it will be the poor commuter who pays: four more years of uncomfortable and unsatisfactory journeys in coaches of questionable safety, and the prospect of chaos as the new operator—or Connex, if it survives the franchising round—seeks to deliver a timetable without sufficient trains to do so. I hope that the Minister will tell us how that is to be avoided, and what steps are being taken by the franchising director and the Government to ensure that it does not happen.
In answer to several questions, Ministers have told me that the rolling stock leasing companies have to comply with health and safety requirements, but will the Minister assure us today that the value-for-money obligations placed on the franchising director will not be allowed to get in the way of rail safety? Will she also explain why the franchising director has not sought proposals from the rolling stock companies to secure modification to avoid the grounding of mark I trains in 2003?
One question that I have not yet had the opportunity to ask, but to which I hope the Minister can reply today, is whether the franchising director might be requested to consider calling a meeting with the rolling stock companies to discuss mark I trains, because options and solutions are being developed by the leasing companies. It is worth bearing in mind, as did the Select Committee, the proposal that the Classic could effectively modernise mark I trains in such a way as to meet all the HSE's concerns.
I want to raise two other issues relating to the performance of the train operating companies, especially Connex SouthCentral. The first concerns the time it has taken to secure the much-needed and long-overdue upgrading of Sutton station in my constituency. The fragmentation of the rail industry as a result of privatisation has transformed what should have been a straightforward investment decision into a saga of delay and buck passing among different parts of the present rail industry.
I shall not rehearse the history of this sorry saga, but it is now five years since the project was conceived, and works have still not started. Indeed, my local authority—I checked this only today—has over the past two months rung, faxed and written to Connex SouthCentral, seeking information as to whether it intends to proceed with the project, but it has not even had the courtesy of sending an 318 acknowledgement. That is unacceptable customer care, and it is unacceptable practice between potential partners who are meant to be working together to secure the investment.
The London borough of Sutton would have been putting a substantial sum of money into the project, but all it gets—and all that I have got—from the company is a vague undertaking that work might start this year. We need to know exactly when this year, because the same thing was said in 1998. I hope that, even if not today, the Minister might pursue the company and at least get from it a letter with a clear indication of a start date.
I recently called a meeting of business leaders in Sutton so that they could put their concerns about local rail services to Connex SouthCentral management. Connex failed to turn up. To be fair, I have at last received a fairly fulsome apology for its failure to attend, but it is still not moving on the issues of substance.
A wide range of issues was raised by the businesses represented at that meeting in connection with Connex's performance. High on the list of concerns, for town-centre retailers and for some of the larger employers in Sutton such as Reed Business Publishing, was the appalling condition of Sutton station. The business view is that the station is a real drag on the local economy. Reed Business Publishing told me that it does not invite guests to come to its premises by train because the appearance of the station is such that it conveys the wrong image of the company. It is appalling that a publisher of journals about the railway industry feels that the industry has let it down so badly.
I raised the matter with the Minister about a year ago when she visited the Roundshaw estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). She was helpful and sympathetic, and I hope that she will be able to put a bomb under Connex to get it to start engaging with their partners so that the money can be unlocked and invested in the railway infrastructure to improve the services to my constituents.
Secondly, I urge the Minister to examine how the performance standards under which Connex and other train operating companies operate can be tightened. I know that this has been the subject of discussions with the train operating companies, but I hope that the Minister will say a little more about it today. Again, my meeting with local business leaders underlined my concerns about the inadequacy of those standards and the inadequacy of the services being provided.
Reed Business Publishing, Crown Agents and some of the larger retailers in the town carried out a survey among their staff as part of their preparation for the meeting. They found a consistent pattern of complaint and concerns, which can be summed up as follows: short trains resulting in chronic overcrowding, late-running services and filthy conditions.
During the peak periods, someone catching a train into Victoria or London Bridge from my constituency often ends up standing for more than half an hour, shoulder to shoulder with fellow passengers. The term "cattle truck" is one with which I am familiar, because I see the phenomenon every day. I am fortunate in that I get on the train at Cheam and there are still one or two seats left, but by the time the train gets to Sutton, that is not the case. Many people have to stand every day, but are paying 319 well over £1,000 a year for a season ticket which they believe should entitle them to a little more comfort on their journey to work.
In answer to a question that I posed to the Minister in writing last year, she drew my attention to the franchising director's quality performance figures, which suggested that improvements had been made by Connex in that quarter. However, on closer examination, it becomes clear that the basis on which they are compiled is far from satisfactory. For example, in the case of commuter services like those from my constituency, a train is officially overcrowded only if people have to stand for journeys of more than 20 minutes. For a train to be officially running on time, it has to arrive at its destination within five minutes of its timetabled arrival for short journeys and within 10 minutes for long journeys. However, that measurement applies only to the final destination, not the intermediate stops. As a consequence, many of my constituents travelling to Clapham Junction to make connections to go elsewhere find themselves being let down by the service time and again.
Finally, the penalty regime for running short trains is not sufficient. It does not send a strong enough signal to the companies that the franchising director regards it as an important issue. As a result, evening after evening, trains run short and are thus overcrowded. That is partly because the fines are small, compared with the fines and penalties that apply to late-running trains and the cancellation of trains. I do not propose that those fines should be lessened, but we must find ways of sending clear signals to train operating companies that short trains are unacceptable.
The daily experience of commuters in my constituency—I am sure that this goes for the constituents of all hon. Members—tells them that services are not improving. That perception is an important measure of the way in which those companies are delivering.
The January issue of Which? confirms that a survey of rail users found that three quarters of commuters had been late at least once in the previous week, and that four out of 10 commuters had to stand at least once a week. Not all those failings can be attributed to external factors or lack of long-term investment. Many are the result of bad management or management in the interests of the company, rather than the customer.
I hope that the Minister can today give some reassurance to my constituents on rolling stock, not just for the immediate future, but into 2003. I hope, too, that she will give us some comfort that action will at last be taken with regard to Sutton station, and that the shadow strategic rail authority, which I welcome as a proposal, will have teeth and the ability to deliver where privatisation has so manifestly failed.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson)I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate, which provides an opportunity for the House to discuss rolling stock replacement and train operating company performance—two fundamental components in the provision of a proper railway service for the passenger. It is the Government's clear commitment to ensure that such a service is delivered.
320 I shall begin by affording the hon. Gentleman the comfort that he requested with regard to Sutton station. I have made a note of the failure of Connex SouthCentral to respond to his inquiries, and I shall forward his concerns to the company. I have been informed by Railtrack that refurbishment work at Sutton station will begin on site soon and is expected to be completed by April. The work is structural and will consist of repairs to platforms, refurbishing the underside of the bridge, repointing platform edges, re-roofing and painting the steelwork on the canopy of platform 4. I hope that on that issue, the hon. Gentleman feels somewhat comforted.
As I said, rolling stock replacement and train operating company performance are essential for the provision of a high quality railway service for the passenger. We are therefore keen for substantial investment to be made in rolling stock, and welcome the recent orders that have been announced. Since franchising began, a total of about 1,400 new vehicles have been ordered at a cost of £1.25 billion. Train operators are committed to ordering a further 800 vehicles at a cost of approximately £1 billion. In addition, some 4,000 vehicles have been, or are being, refurbished.
New rolling stock orders not only provide more reliable services and better facilities for passengers, but create extra jobs in the rail industry. We want to ensure that investment in rolling stock is a continuous process, and that our great train manufacturing centres will never again suffer an investment hiatus, such as the four-year drought in orders created by rail privatisation. The most recent order for 352 new vehicles for Virgin CrossCountryworth £400 million—witnessed the entry into the UK passenger market of a new rolling stock company and a new manufacturer.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the safety of mark I rolling stock. It is true that mark I rolling stock, although not inherently unsafe, is not as crashworthy as more modern types of rolling stock. In certain types of train accident, one carriage can ride up over the carriage in front.
The Health and Safety Executive consulted widely last year on proposals that would require all mark I rolling stock to be withdrawn by 1 January 2003, unless it has been rebodied or modified to improve its crashworthiness. If the rolling stock were modified, it could remain in service only until 2007. On 22 December, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission wrote to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister with formal recommendations from the commission that Ministers make regulations on the issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the Government intended to announce their views. We are considering the HSC's recommendations and expect to be able to make an announcement shortly. However, before regulations can be made, the HSC must satisfy itself that the mechanism that it is proposing to modify mark I stock to make it safer in a crash actually works. The mechanism, which involves fitting a cup and cone to each carriage to prevent overriding, has successfully completed one test, but a further test is required, which it is intended to carry out on 17 February.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the impact of what he perceived as the shortness of franchising on the Health and Safety Commission's requirements. Train operators are required by their 321 franchise agreements to ensure that they have the necessary rolling stock to enable them to meet their franchise commitments and any HSC requirements. Under the HSC's proposed regulations, Connex SouthCentral as well as Connex South Eastern and South West Trains would be required to replace or modify a significant number of mark I rolling stock.
It would be for the individual train operating companies to make the necessary arrangements with the rolling stock companies. The rolling stock market is a competitive one, as evidenced by the new entrants that I mentioned earlier, and there is sufficient manufacturing capacity to replace, modify or rebody mark I rolling stock by the proposed HSC deadlines.
§ Mr. BurstowI shall be brief, in view of the time. I am interested to learn that the HSC needs to carry out further tests, and that those will take place in February. In the Hidden report back in 1989, it was recommended that British Rail should undertake research on that matter by 1991. Was that research ever completed and have its findings informed the HSC's recommendations? If the research was not completed, that raises questions about what was done during the 10 years since the inquiry. I hope that the Minister can answer those questions today, or perhaps she will write to me.
§ Ms JacksonI shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
On the performance of train operators, I trust that all hon. Members are aware of the Government's concerns about the performance of the rail industry. We want more people to travel by train, but trains that are constantly late or unreliable, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, do little to encourage people to leave their cars at home. We expect train operators to run services that are consistently punctual and reliable, and we expect Railtrack to meet its obligations to passengers, freight customers and taxpayers to maintain and develop the rail network in a way that offers proper value for money.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave to the Government's proposals for the institution of a strategic rail authority. As I am sure he knows, it is the strategic nature of the investment, quite apart from the level of it, that is vital to improve our railway system.
My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and I met franchisees and Railtrack on 26 November to discuss our concerns about continuing poor performance. We made it clear that the culture of blame must stop, and that the various parts of the industry must pull together to improve the service to its users. At that meeting, an action plan was agreed to tackle performance problems across our railway. The measures agreed included 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles, a joint hit squad to identify and tackle the worst 50 black spots, and a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers think about their rail services and to help measure performance across the network. The action plan is only the first step in delivering short-term improvements to passengers. We expect year-on-year improvements, starting over the next 12 months, and I am pleased to say that the rail industry has committed itself to that.
322 To build on the success of November's meeting, a larger rail summit will be held on 25 February to identify those matters requiring longer term improvement across the network. A wide range of organisations have been invited to attend the summit, including representatives of passenger and freight train operators, Railtrack, rolling stock companies, local government and the rail users consultative committees. The RUCCs have been invited to bring along to that summit rail-using members of the public who are not necessarily members of their committees.
At the February summit, we shall look to the rail industry to demonstrate how it proposes to deliver the year-on-year improvements that were agreed in November. We have been at pains to point out—it is worth doing so again—that this Government will not tolerate poor performance by train operators. It is in all our interests—those of the industry and of the Government but, above all, of the passengers—that performance targets should be met.
We have also 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, where it offers benefits to passengers and good value for money to the taxpayer. Again, those who perform badly will not have a long-term future in the industry.
§ Mr. BurstowI entirely agree that we should secure the best value for money and the most effective services possible. I hope that the establishment of a dialogue between Connex SouthCentral and South West Trains and the marketplace for the supply of rolling stock will be explored at the summit, if not before. From discussions that I have had with various people, there seems to be a serious logjam. I hope that the Minister, or the franchising director or the strategic rail authority can act as an honest broker to get matters moving, so that we may be certain that, by 2003, mark I trains will be either replaced or modified.
§ Ms JacksonI am somewhat bemused by the word logjam. As I have said, there are new entrants in the rolling stock market, and there is no shortage of capacity in the rail manufacturing industry. It will be possible to meet all the Health and Safety Commission's requirements. I shall of course bring the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the attention of representatives of the rolling stock and train operating companies at the summit that we propose to hold on 25 February.
Everyone acknowledges that not all the challenges facing the rail industry can be solved overnight. We are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge that we have set ourselves. Passengers want an efficient, reliable and reasonably priced rail service. We are determined to work with the rail industry to ensure that passengers get what they want. The next step in that process will be the February summit.
§ It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.