§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
2.30 pm§ Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes)I welcome the opportunity to raise the important issue of rail franchises as they affect my constituency and others in East Sussex. This is an opportune time to debate the issue, given that the franchises are shortly to be renewed. I have been in touch with the Minister's office, so I hope that he is aware of some of the issues that I wish to raise. I have seen and read carefully his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), so I hope that that helps the Minister in his reply.
I am slightly disappointed that the Government's rail policy has not been as proactive and hands-on as I would have liked. It has taken a long time to establish the Strategic Rail Authority, and we are still not there yet. Indeed, I was told the other day that fewer miles of new railtrack have been opened in the three years since the Government came to power than in the equivalent period of the previous, Conservative Government, which itself was poor.
In those circumstances, and given that Railtrack is still sluggish in spending its money rather than handing it to shareholders, the franchise renewal process is important in securing long-term improvements to the rail network. I would go so far as to say that, if that opportunity is not grasped properly, nothing much will happen in the next 20 years other than what has been agreed in the franchise renewal process. That would be a great pity.
Will the Minister explain why, when three companies were being considered for the short list, South West Trains was eliminated? My written question on this matter must have been slightly misinterpreted because, astonishingly, the answer did not answer the question, but simply set out the criteria used to judge which applicant would be successful. The rail passengers committee thought that South West Trains had put in a good bid. It drew my attention to the fact that the company had set out in detail, with time scales and dates, what it intended to do. The same could not be said of Connex, GoVia or Thameslink.
In a sense, all that is slightly historical: we have two companies left. I want to go through elements of what I think should be the successful shopping list for the franchise bid, which I hope will be considered not only by the Government but by Mike Grant at the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. First, however, may I make a plea to the Minister, which he might be slightly surprised about? It is to avoid the temptation to hit Connex over the head.
A number of complaints have been made about Connex, and some of them are justified. I use Connex regularly from my constituency to this House. It handled the drivers' dispute badly last year and unnecessarily inconvenienced the public, its trains have not been as clean as they might have been, and there are measures that it could have taken relatively cheaply to improve passenger comfort. However, Connex is trying to improve the rail network in my constituency and the surrounding area. I find it receptive to ideas that I put to it. In response to requests that I have made, it has introduced, for 631 example, extra stops on the service at places such as Plumpton. Moreover, it always gets me here on time, as witnessed by my presence in the Chamber this afternoon.
I do not say that Connex is perfect by any means; it is not. It could and should have done better. However, it would be tempting for the Government to say, "We are in charge of this process. We must make at least one change to the companies that currently run our railways to demonstrate to the public that we are doing something." The Government may feel that, when the first bids are made, someone must change somewhere, otherwise the public will think that the Government are not taking a hands-on approach. I understand the politics of that, but it would be wrong to pick on Connex in making those calculations.
Connex is far from perfect, but I am deeply unimpressed by the way in which GoVia and Thameslink have approached the bid process so far. Connex has set out its plans in great detail in its document "20:20 Vision". It has contacted myself, other Members of Parliament, local authorities and many others and been upfront about its plans, but getting information from Thameslink is like getting blood from a stone. I had to ring up the managing director myself two or three times before I finally managed to get any details of its bid. I had to ring up again to get its document, "The Welcoming Network", which finally arrived only yesterday. If Thameslink is that unresponsive to Members of Parliament, I wonder how unresponsive it is to the public. Its PR on the bid has not started well with me.
I can understand why Thameslink has not contacted me—there is nothing much for East Sussex in its bid. I want to be parochial; I am here not as a party spokesman, but to speak for my constituents this afternoon. East Sussex features hardly at all in the Thameslink bid, but it does in the Connex bid. The general opinion of those of us who have looked at the bids is that Connex is offering more than Thameslink to East Sussex. Thameslink has managed to miss off entirely the Lewes-Seaford line from its map. Not only does the route not feature in its plans, but it has even disappeared from its map.
One of the crucial differences between the bids that affects my constituency is the Lewes-Uckfield line. Connex has pledged to re-open the Lewes-Uckfield railway line as part of its bid. Of course, it needs to be tied down to a date early in the franchise, if it is successful. Thameslink has made no such pledge. That is the key difference to my constituents in terms of the rail network in my constituency involved in determining which bid is successful. I have initiated previous Adjournment debates on that matter, which is absolutely crucial to my constituency and that of the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who was asked that his support for the re-opening of the Lewes-Uckfield line be communicated to the House this afternoon in his absence. He and I are at one on the issue. The seven-mile gap in the line could be easily re-opened because the track bed has been preserved. The SRA has stated that it wants the problem of congestion on the Brighton main line to be solved; it has a capacity problem, and Connex is 84 per cent. reliable on that corridor.
The re-opening of the Lewes-Uckfield line would solve the problem neatly and relatively inexpensively by providing an alternative route from East Sussex to London. The solution proposed by Thameslink and GoVia is to increase the capacity on the Brighton line and to 632 tinker with the Arun line in West Sussex. That would do nothing for my constituents in East Sussex. If they were to pursue that suggestion, it would involve major work on three tunnels and the wonderful Balcombe viaduct, which is grade 1 listed, and cause disruption and inconvenience during the construction phase. The only line from Lewes to London crosses Balcombe viaduct; it is an important piece of the railway network. What a shame it would be to miss the opportunity to introduce another line by simply widening the existing line or increasing its capacity.
The re-opening of the Lewes-Uckfield line is regarded as crucial not simply by me and the right hon. Member for Wealden, but by other Members of Parliament with constituencies in East Sussex, including Labour Members, East Sussex county council, Lewes and Wealdon district councils, Sussex Enterprise and the South East regional development agency, the chairman and chief executive of which I met yesterday for lunch. In my view—I have tabled an early-day motion to this effect—the franchise process will fail if the Lewes-Uckfield line is not part of the successful bid. I cannot put it more strongly than that.
I should like to see other important items on the shopping list. The Government must grasp this one-off opportunity to achieve a major improvement to the rail network in Sussex. We want new rolling stock, and I think that we will get it whichever company wins. We want the Polegate-Pevensey link to be restored so that fast trains and freight trains bypass Eastbourne. I do not wish to be rude to Eastbourne, but the journey would be quicker if the trains did not have to go in and out of Eastbourne. That involves a half-hour diversion. A piece of land could be cheaply and quickly connected, which would enable that improvement to occur.
Business men in my constituency want access to the channel tunnel. They want to travel to Brussels or Paris. At present they must go up to London, because the line between Lewes and Ashford is so hopeless. When I went to Brussels, it took me longer to get from Lewes to Ashford than from Ashford to Brussels. That is how poor the line is. Moreover, it is a diesel line. We need electrification of the line between Hastings and Ashford, the restoration of the Polegate-Pevensey link, and a commitment to through services.
We also need major improvements at Newhaven. The Minister may have read the reports of two earlier Adjournment debates responded to by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). If so, he will know that, when replying to the more recent debate, the hon. Lady promised to visit Newhaven and to investigate the situation that I had described. As she is no longer with us in her former capacity, I extend the opportunity to the Minister.
I assure the Minister that such a visit would be worth while. Newhaven is suffering as a result of our atomised rail structure. We have three stations, none of which work terribly well. The consensus is that we need one new station delivering top-class passenger services and proper car-parking facilities. Permission should be given for land to be developed for rail freight. English Welsh and Scottish Railways has been to Newhaven: I took its representatives there myself, and they were interested. We are on the trans-European rail network, so we are eligible for European Union money. Moreover, there is considerable growth in Newhaven, which is making 633 progress as an economic unit—thanks partly to the Government office for the south east, which has been very supportive.
The difficulty is this. Connex wants one station, not three. Railtrack says that it is a good idea, as do the county and district councils: it accords with their local transport plan. I say the same, as the local Member of Parliament, but it does not happen because of the atomised nature of our railway system. No one wants to take the lead. There is a case for the Government, either directly or through SEEDA—I discussed the matter with SEEDA yesterday—to take that lead, and to bring the parties together to secure a significant improvement in Newhaven. A rail renaissance could be brought about there, at very little cost—if any—to the taxpayer. We must take the opportunity presented by the franchise renegotiations.
The chief executive of the Newhaven Economic Partnership, Julian Rea, wrote to me:
I consider that Connex's initiative in proposing a new line together with new rolling stock from Lewes to London … will transform East Sussex and Newhaven in particular. If this line is constructed and combined with Newhaven's industrial base and port connections it would make the town a major economic motor for the SouthEast. I feel certain that the NEP Board would support Connex's application for an extension of their licence.Connex proposes regular through services from Seaford and Newhaven to London on an hourly basis; Thameslink does not. According to its proposals, people will have to change at Lewes. There will be a major difference in the quality of service provided for my constituents.As for fares, I hope—this point has been made to me strongly by the rail passengers committee—that there will be no relaxation of the commuter cap. There is a captive market—people who have to travel to London by train whether they like it or not, because the alternative of driving is so horrendous. Those people could be exploited, but they are currently not being exploited because of the cap. I hope that there will be no problem as a result of the franchise process.
I also hope that some attempt will be made to use the spare capacity on the rail network. I live in Beddingham, in a house that is sandwiched between the railway and the road at a low-level crossing. In the morning, the road is chock-a-block with cars driving from Eastbourne to Lewes, from town centre to town centre. The train from town centre to town centre is half empty, because the fares\are too high. It is as simple as that. If the fares were cut, it would help the Government's own transport policy dramatically by shifting people off the road and on to rail. They could easily transfer along that corridor.
Some ingenuity needs to be exercised in the franchise renegotiation in regard to fares. We could, for example, consider the idea of carnets. Many people nowadays do not work a nine-to-five-day week; they do not follow the office routine. They may want to come in by train on four days, and use the fifth day for visits. Surely the carnet system that operates on the French metro—and, indeed, on our own London underground: it is possible to buy a number of tickets at a discount if a pack are bought together—could be introduced here. We could have a season ticket for five days, but five days chosen by the person who buys the ticket, and not determined by the calendar. That would provide extra flexibility.
634 My final point relates to the transport corridor study. The Government have rightly put on hold road schemes for East Sussex, such as the proposal for a dual carriageway between Lewes and Polegate, which would have been immensely environmentally damaging. They have begun a transport study of a south-coast route, which will consider road and rail, and that is absolutely the right policy. I am concerned, however, that the study will report after the franchise has been awarded. If it argues that there should be extra rail—and I think that it will—it may come too late. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the two things are co-ordinated?
I have set out why these matters are so important to my constituents, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill)Let me begin, conventionally but with complete sincerity, by congratulating the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on securing a debate that provides the House with an opportunity to discuss rail franchises in Sussex. I am grateful for his assistance in providing my office with advance notice of some of the key issues that he wished to discuss.
Sussex is served by several train operators, including Connex South Central, Thameslink, Wales and West, Gatwick Express, Virgin CrossCountry and Connex South Eastern. I shall refer to those operators throughout my speech.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about performance and quality of service. In spite of many welcome improvements over the past year by the rail industry, it is clear that there are still too many late trains, too many cancellations and too much overcrowding. In the refranchising process, the franchising director will seek evidence of a commitment to a step change improvement in service quality that covers the whole door-to-door journey experience.
At last month's national rail summit 2000, we warned train operators that we wanted the worst performers to reach the standard of the best. Performance will be a key criterion when we judge requests for franchise replacement. At the summit, operators committed themselves to improve punctuality over the next year, and we expect them to meet that commitment. In autumn 1999, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority carried out the first of its national passenger surveys. The purpose of the surveys is to provide an overview of customer satisfaction with rail travel. A pilot study identified the factors of most importance to passengers, and satisfaction levels will now be tracked over time.
The second wave of the survey took place in March 2000, and it showed that 76 per cent. of passengers nationally were fairly or very satisfied with the day's journey. Only 11 per cent. were dissatisfied. National satisfaction levels were high for punctuality and reliability, at 74 per cent., and for frequency of trains, at 72 per cent. The highest level of dissatisfaction was for value for money—only 41 per cent. of passengers were satisfied.
An improved public performance measure to give a better indication of the actual performance of Britain's passenger rail services was introduced by the shadow SRA on 6 June. The public performance measure 635 combines, for the first time, figures for punctuality and reliability. It covers all scheduled services—seven days a week. Initial data cover the second half of the past financial year—mid-October to the end of March 2000. When the figures are compared with those for the same period in 1998–99, it is disappointing that only two of the six operators that serve Sussex—Wales and West and Virgin CrossCountry—improved.
The new public performance measure will provide the Government and passengers with a clearer, more accurate picture of train operators' performance. Train operators will no longer be able to choose to exclude days—so-called void days—when performance is poor. There were too many large loopholes in the way in which performance was measured under the passenger charter system that we inherited. The public performance measure is much more comprehensive, consistent and suitable. Train operators will be rightly judged on the performance of all trains, seven days a week, with no exclusions.
Let me turn now to the replacement franchise proposals. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has issued new instructions and guidance to the franchising director, asking him to deliver improvements through renegotiation of replacement franchise agreements. The instructions and guidance ask him to seek the Deputy Prime Minister's consent before entering into commitments to let any new franchise. As I have said, performance will be a key criterion when requests for franchise replacement are judged. A continuous increase in customer satisfaction will also be a requirement of any replacement franchise.
On 22 December 1999, the franchising director announced that Connex Rail, GoVia and Stagecoach had pre-qualified for the first phase of franchise replacement for the Connex South Central franchise. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the answer to his parliamentary question of 14 June 2000, having evaluating Stagecoach's bid the franchising director did not consider that it met the six criteria for assessment of proposals given to him in his instructions and guidance from the Deputy Prime Minister.
The shadow Strategic Rail Authority, on behalf of the franchising director, is therefore currently considering the detailed offers submitted by Connex Rail and GoVia. It is not yet known when the franchising director will be able to announce the outcome of the Connex South Central franchise replacement negotiations. I note the hon. Gentleman's positive remarks about Connex. Although, as he will appreciate, it would be inappropriate for me as a Minister to comment, I assure him that the franchising director will reach his conclusions on the bids on an entirely objective basis.
The franchising director is operating an inclusive consultation process for franchise replacement. The instructions and guidance require him to consult the chairman of the British Railways Board, local authorities, passenger transport executives, the rail regulator, regional planning bodies, regional development agencies and rail passengers committees. He has consulted widely on the replacement of the Connex South Central franchise, and there will be further consultation. However, the scope for making large-scale changes will be strictly limited. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority does require investment to improve infrastructure on the south coast line.
636 An issue in which I know the hon. Gentleman is especially interested—he has mentioned it today, and has done so in previous debates—is the reinstatement of the Uckfield-Lewes line. Connex Transport UK Ltd, formerly Connex Rail, has included in its franchise replacement proposals a commitment to take the reinstatement of the line to a Transport and Works Act 1992 inquiry. If it is awarded a new franchise and the Transport and Works Act proposal is approved, it would build the line for an agreed price.
Connex believes that reinstatement of the line is the only way of delivering sufficient increased capacity and relieving pressure on the Brighton main line. GoVia has proposed a study of the viability of the line, which it would take forward depending on the conclusions reached on value for money and appropriate subsidy levels.
The shadow Strategic Rail Authority's position is that it requires bidders to demonstrate value-for-money proposals for delivering capacity to meet expected demand. It recognises the potential value of the line's reinstatement, not only in environmental and social terms but in delivering additional capacity between the south coast and London.
The shadow Strategic Rail Authority will evaluate the proposals made by the counterparties and take account of the costs and benefits of the scheme before reaching a decision. Before a counterparty can commit to reinstatement of the line, there would have to be due process, which is expected to include the requirement for a Transport and Works Act order. As that is dependent upon parliamentary approval, the reinstatement cannot be made—as the hon. Gentleman has occasionally suggested—a pre-condition of the bids.
Overcrowding is a matter on which improvement is needed, and it has been a particular problem for Thameslink. Thameslink has strengthened a number of its services by borrowing four class 317 units from West Anglia, and two class 319 units from Connex, resulting in an extra 3,540 seats per weekday. It has also secured an extra path, from 26 September 1999.
Earlier this week, Sir Alastair Morton, chairman of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, presented the future map for United Kingdom rail. He said that the current refranchising process has paved the way for further progress on replacement of the 18 short-term franchises and was a big step towards development of a 20-year railway strategy.
Additionally, the franchising director has explained that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority intends to complete the replacement of shorter-term franchises before the end of next year, which entails selection and agreement on principal terms by autumn 2001. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority has outlined the strategy and approach that it wants to adopt on re-drawing those parts of the franchise map that need to change to achieve a better grouping of service patterns than emerged at privatisation. The views of all affected stakeholders have been considered and will be used to take a substantial step forward in the provision of improved passenger rail services for this and the following decade.
The emphasis will now be on early delivery of the proposals following proper consultation. The aim is to secure the investment to make it all happen. We can expect the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to drive that process forward as quickly as is reasonable.
637 The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of fares. I mentioned earlier that the national passenger survey showed a high level of dissatisfaction with value for money. When franchises were first let, the contracts incorporated a number of restrictions on the level of certain fares. It is accepted that, for many journeys, competition is not adequate protection. The current range of regulated fares will remain subject to regulation and continue to be subject to an overall cap of RPI minus 1 per cent. Those include season ticket fares in the south-east and saver fares.
With increasing demand, transport objectives require that operators meet demand, rather than price it off. Price limits will need to be reconsidered in the light of the competition position of the railway in relation to road and the costs of providing extra capacity.
The transport White Paper called for a simplification of the ticketing arrangements. A simple range of tickets is in the interests of operators, who want their customers to understand what is on offer. The initiative proposed by the Association of Train Operating Companies to focus on six easily understood fare types is welcome. We are asking operators to be innovative in devising new products to encourage new travellers on to the railway when capacity is available. I note that the hon. Gentleman's suggests the introduction of a carnet system of railway ticket purchase.
It is important to remember that the franchising director is not committed to accepting any proposal. If any application is to succeed, it will have to guarantee better performance, more investment, expansion of network capacity and improvements for passengers, as well as providing value for money for the taxpayer.
If the proposals on offer fail to deliver those improvements, the franchising director may decide instead to allow the existing franchises to run their course. 638 Of course, that is the second best solution, but it is preferable to agreeing to a new, longer franchise without having secured additional passenger benefits.
I understand the issues concerning the reorganisation of the stations and lines in Newhaven. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the Government office for the south east. Those issues are largely for the local authority and for the Strategic Rail Authority, but I will consider carefully his proposals and his generous invitation to visit Newhaven.
The hon. Gentleman raised the Southampton-Folkestone multi-modal study. Draft terms of reference have been circulated to relevant parties. It is anticipated that the study will take approximately 18 months to complete. The output of the study will then be referred to the relevant regional planning body which, in turn, will advise Ministers on the way forward. Ministers will need to take decisions in the light of that advice. I note the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the time scale of that work.
I return to the franchise replacement bids. As there is no fixed programme, I cannot inform the hon. Gentleman when announcements about the replacement of the Connex South Central or the other franchises are likely to be made. However, I will ensure that the franchising director is made aware of all the matters that have been raised in the debate.
I have described briefly some of the measures that we are taking in the context of the franchise replacement programme that are particularly relevant to the hon. Gentleman's interests. I hope that I have made it clear that, through those measures, we are determined to drive up the quality and performance of rail services and lever investment into the industry. I thank him again for allowing us to discuss those important issues by means of an Adjournment debate.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.