HC Deb 13 January 2003 vol 397 cc519-26

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

10.26 pm
Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to raise another matter in an Adjournment debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport for being present to respond. I realise that he is trying to get into the parliamentary book of records for making the most responses to Adjournment debates, so he will not be too upset. He also knows how important this matter is to my constituency.

Before I speak about the needs for transport infrastructure improvements in east Kent, perhaps a little background is called for to explain exactly why we have those needs. Unless the House listens to all my speeches in great detail—I raise this issue in most of them—it will not be aware that Thanet has the third highest unemployment in England and among 288 travel- to-work areas throughout the country. Thanet's unemployment level is three times the Kent average and 60 per cent. of people in Thanet who are in work are working for less than the average income. Across east Kent, 40 wards are classed as high social deprivation wards using Government criteria. Thanet scores in the top 25 per cent. most deprived districts in England in all six deprivation categories given by the Government and we have the second highest deprivation index overall in the south-east.

To address that situation, wards in Thanet and parts of Dover have been given objective 2 and assisted area status, and projects throughout east Kent have secured single regeneration budget funding, but unless we address the underlying problem that causes economic decline in east Kent, all that we are doing with such additional sums is treating the symptoms and not the illness, which in my view is the poor transport infrastructure.

Our problem is that Thanet is seen by many investors as peripheral to south-east England, rather than, as I believe, central to the European Union. My plea to the Minister is that we should try to take the opportunity to construct a transport infrastructure in east Kent that will put it at the heart of the European Union and address firmly and in the long term the economic decline of the area. That is the vision. I believe that we have a unique opportunity to create a transport hub of road, rail, sea and air unlike anything else in the United Kingdom. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will try to realise that vision in the approaching months and grasp this important opportunity.

Let us consider roads. We have a beautiful, new Ramsgate harbour approach road. From the edge of Thanet towards London, there are some good dual carriageways along the Thanet way to the motorway network. However, the roads around the east Kent access project between Ramsgate and Thanet Way, and Ramsgate and the Sandwich bypass, remain single carriageways. That project must be finished to complete our road infrastructure.

As well as linking Ramsgate to the port of Dover, and to the motorway network and the M25, this project will solve another problem: the congestion around the Pfizer site at Sandwich. Pfizer is a pharmaceutical company, which constitutes the biggest United States investment in the United Kingdom. It is the biggest employer in Kent and the great congestion around its site is a genuine problem. Completing the east Kent access project will therefore not only deal with economic decline in the area but be a major benefit to local people.

We also need to complete our road infrastructure by dualling the A2 all the way into Dover.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover)

I am pleased to be part of a joint campaign in east Kent that presses for better road and rail links. One of the campaign's key aims is dualling the A2. My hon. Friend knows that we have fought for that for more than 25 years. The port of Dover is expected to expand in the next weeks and months, and freight is expected to double in the next 10 years. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that we are considering a burning issue and that we need to get on quickly with putting plans in place and regenerating east Kent?

Dr. Ladyman

I agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for making those points. Dualling the A2 is vital not only to the port of Dover but to the success of the economy in Thanet.

One of my main worries is the train service. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary asks what is wrong with the existing service, I shall reply, "Only two things—the operator and the track." The fastest journey time from Ramsgate to London is one hour 45 minutes. Most services take longer. Let us contrast that with the journey from London to Doncaster, which is 100 miles longer but can be completed 15 minutes quicker.

I worked for Pfizer before I became a Member of Parliament. When we showed people around the site, we used to joke that Pfizer located to Sandwich in 1952 because of the high-speed rail link to London. The same trains are unfortunately still running. The trains are old, the service is poor and Connex has defaulted on a raft of promises. It has been fined for late running, but not many people in Kent believe that there has been much improvement in its reliability. Its train modernisation programme has started but I have no confidence in its completion. I also have no confidence that the slam-door trains will be replaced in accordance with the Government's timetable.

Connex won its franchise by making promises that it could not keep, at a price that it could not afford. That allowed it to outbid companies that made realistic cost commitment projections. When it first began to renege on its promises, the length of its franchise was extended because that was necessary to make future investment viable. Despite that, the Strategic Rail Authority had to invest £58 million in it a few weeks ago to prop up the service.

A year or two ago, Connex said that it had no interest in running fast trains to London. When it became clear that it would be required to do that if it wanted its franchise renewed, it suddenly began to claim that it would try to run such trains. It then started blocking the efforts of other companies, such as NetRail, which was trying at timetable conferences to bid to run a fast train service to London.

Despite this catalogue of failure, Connex recently had the brass neck to announce that it expects to be the preferred bidder for the new franchise in 2006. I hope that the Under-Secretary will scrutinise carefully any bid from Connex and examine it in the light of its performance in recent years.

A modern, fast train link is a prerequisite for regeneration in east Kent, especially in Thanet. It is also vital if we are to realise the potential of Manston airport and Ramsgate sea port. I do not believe that Connex will provide that. And unless the Government acknowledge the need for channel tunnel rail link domestic services to proceed to Ramsgate, no one else will be able to provide such a service either.

A fast train link using the channel tunnel rail link would bring potential inward investors to Thanet. They frequently cite the poor train service as a reason for not investing there. As I have said, the fast link is a prerequisite for the expansion of Manston airport and Port Ramsgate. It would extend the travel-to-work area, allowing key workers to commute to Thanet and the east Kent area generally, thereby making business expansion practicable. It would also expand the commuting area, enabling the unemployed of Thanet to travel out of Thanet more easily to find work elsewhere.

The main barrier to the provision of a fast train service is the Strategic Rail Authority, which is currently undertaking a review of the use of CTRL domestic services. I understand that a report has been presented to Ministers in the last few days, and that it may suggest that a fast train service should go via Ashford to Canterbury West and stop there—although we have, at Ramsgate, maintenance sheds that the trains are almost certain to use. If the trains did not proceed to Ramsgate it would be a disaster for us in Thanet and for Ramsgate, and it would be the epitome of ridiculousness to have empty trains running from Canterbury West to Ramsgate when they should be carrying passengers. Starting the fast train service at Ramsgate would improve the economic viability of CTRL domestic services, and would do a huge amount to regenerate the local economy.

Port Ramsgate,as the Minister Knows, is a municipal port. It was taken back into council ownership when Sally decided to retrench to the Baltic some years ago Since then it has developed a highly successful freight business,but it has no passenger service. One reason why it is difficult to attract a new passenger is the fact that all the costs of starting such a service must be clawed back from the operator in one year, because the council is not allowed to borrow either to invest in the port's development or to spread the cost of starting a new service over several years.

I know that we intend, under the Local Government Bill, to allow local councils to borrow again if they can afford to repay the money, but that will not start for another year at least. We already allow municipal airports to borrow; I wonder why Ministers will not consider allowing municipal seaports to borrow, so that they can spread start-up costs over a number of years. That would allow investment to be made in facilities at the port of Ramsgate.

The Minister will know my view that continental and British seaports are not competing on a level playing field. I should like that to be reviewed. The Government have promised a review of municipal seaports for some time, but have not been able to start it yet. I should also like that review to begin as soon as possible.

Manston airport presents a huge opportunity. I know that the Minister is aware of that, because he recently opened on our behalf some major investments by the developer there. Manston already has a good freight business and a sound air-side maintenance business, but according to the local council's estimate it also has the potential to expand its capacity to 6 million passengers a year. That would make a valuable contribution to the south- east's air capacity, and could create 10,000 jobs including those in the freight and air-side maintenance businesses.

Here we have an opportunity provided by a potentially successful airport carrying passengers as well as freight, a potential successful seaport carrying passengers as well as freight, an advanced train service running rapidly into London and a decent road infrastructure—all located close to the busiest channel port in the country, Dover, and the channel tunnel rail link. It is a potential transport infrastructure hub, unique to the United Kingdom, and it could play a vital role in regenerating the local economy. It could solve our problems in the long term: the Government would no longer have to invest funds by means of, for instance, assisted area status to support us, and it would go a long way towards lowering the grossly awful levels of unemployment in Thanet.

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge what we are trying to achieve in Thanet, and ask his Department to work hard on building this strategy in the coming months.

10.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) not only on securing this Adjournment debate but on the clear and well-considered way in which he has presented his points. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) has been his useful aide on this occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet asked whether I listened to his speeches. I can assure him that I listen to them avidly, and that those that I do not happen to catch I read inHansard the next morning. My hon. Friend has painted a powerful picture in the Chamber on many occasions of the levels of unemployment in his constituency and the need for inward investment there. I can assure him that those are the Government's priorities, and using transport to help regeneration is one of our central aims.

My hon. Friend has clearly explained the importance of Thanet and east Kent to both the national and regional economy. The Government certainly support that view. We also agree that the transport infrastructure is a vital component for assisting in the regeneration of this area. Before I respond to my hon. Friend's specific points, I should like briefly to outline what is already happening to improve transport. We have made it clear in the 10-year plan for transport that we are fully committed to improving the nation's transport infrastructure, especially through effective local transport schemes. We have introduced local transport plans to support this commitment. These five-year plans give local authorities such as Kent the freedom to deliver local transport schemes that meet the needs of their communities. We have already allocated more than £24 million for 2003–04 to Kent county council to increase investment in local transport schemes and maintenance. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed that that is an increase of £4 million over the 2002–03 allocation of £20 million. It is also more than double the allocation for 2000–01.

I understand that Kent county council is spending more than £750,000 in Thanet in 2002–03. That includes spending on safety measures, rural schemes, the A254 Margate to Ramsgate cycle route, a safer-routes-to school project at Drapers Mill primary school in Margate, and the introduction of the Birchington 20 mph zone. We also continue to support schemes that will aid regeneration in north Kent, such as the south Thames development route and Fastrack. In recent years, we have given provisional approval for the A256 east Kent access scheme, and the Leybourne and West Mailing bypass. In total, the amount provisionally committed to major transport schemes in Kent amounts to just over £61 million.

The Fastrack guided bus system is an example of an innovative public transport scheme, and we have committed £14.5 million to it. Its first phase will link Dartford station with Greenhithe station and Gravesend, taking in Bluewater and the Darenth Park hospital on its route. The concept of guided buses is being taken forward by Medway council, which is already planning a rapid transit system designed to link up with Fastrack and aid regeneration in Medway. We have also given £500,000 for complementary highway works to improve access to the proposed Turner centre in Margate. The centre is a key community development and will enable further regeneration of the waterfront at Margate. The south coast multi-modal study has now reached its recommendations and been supported by the south-east England regional assembly. Its recommendations encourage the use of rail for accessing the existing ports of Folkestone, Dover and Ramsgate. They also encourage the use of those ports for the transportation of freight, especially bulky goods such as aggregates.

Let me deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, who will be aware that all road schemes are undertaken strictly on a priority basis. Currently, even at peak times, the levels of traffic congestion on the A2 do not justify the dualling that he mentioned. However, the Highways Agency is discussing with the port authority and other interested stakeholders how we can improve the flow of traffic by other interim measures, which I hope will bring my hon. Friend some relief.

The report notes that the channel tunnel rail link provides the opportunity to operate domestic services that can also serve Folkestone, Dover, Canterbury and east Kent. That would significantly enhance accessibility in the area. In addition, depending on the future role of Manston airport, it may warrant a new rail access.

The consultants' report also supports Connex's proposal to increase the number of trains between Dover and Ashford from two to four. It also advocates completing the east Kent access improvements, including provision of priority lanes, but it will be for the Secretary of State to take the decisions on the way forward.

I want to answer specifically some points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. The concern that he expressed on greater borrowing powers for local authorities will be addressed by the Local Government Bill, which had its Second Reading last week and which will allow local authorities to gain greater freedoms with borrowing. That will aid Thanet with its development of the port of Ramsgate, but it will be up to the local authority to manage its financial business using that new freedom. It will be able to determine how much money it can afford to borrow, and it will, of course, manage the debt.

My hon. Friend has heard of that as the new prudential style of borrowing. Under the proposed legislation, the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State may also regulate how the new powers may be performed. Those are seen as safeguards for the authority. The powers can relate directly to ports, and where the port is commercially viable the authority will be able to borrow over the limit of current Government support for capital programmes. Where the port is not commercially viable, there will still be the avenue of grants.

My hon. Friend also raised municipal seaport regulations and support, setting out how other European ports appear to have greater backing from their Governments. A European Commission paper on public funding and state aid in ports is due shortly, and I understand that it aims to clarify the position in more detail. I look forward to it with interest. We continue to work to persuade the Commission and other member states of the need for a level playing field across Europe, which my hon. Friend realises is important to him and to the ports in his area.

The work on the proposed study of municipal ports has, I am afraid, been delayed for some time owing to the necessary temporary reallocation of staff caused by 11 September, but the aim is that it will be undertaken as soon as possible this year. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the review is important to the Government.

The potential of the port of Ramsgate has been greatly aided by the opening of the Ramsgate harbour approach road. The scheme, which takes freight lorries and port traffic from the town centre directly to the port, was completed in 2000 at a cost of £30 million. It has improved port access and removed a major impediment to the development of the port and the marina.

I am indebted to my hon. Friend for reminding me that I opened the new apron and taxiway at Manston airport on what I recall as an extremely hot day last year. I was made very much aware that the owners of Manston have indeed put considerable resources into developing the airport and the related business park.

I understand that there are also proposals for a new passenger terminal at the airport. My hon. Friend will be aware that we are consulting on the development of airports across the south-east of England; indeed, I am sure that that has not evaded his notice. We expect the consultation to continue into the summer, and the aviation White Paper is likely to follow in the autumn. I am sure that he will contribute to the consultation exercise, as will those others with an interest in Manston airport, and I can assure him that we shall consider the case thoroughly, although he would be surprised if I made any particular comment on it tonight.

On rail services, I know that my hon. Friend met the Minister for Transport last week. The Strategic Rail Authority has been remitted by the Government to achieve train services that will create a strong intercontinental link to increase trade and tourism in Britain. Because the level of infrastructure required will impact heavily on Kent, a provision was made to allow domestic services in Kent to operate using the channel tunnel rail link. The difficulty is the way in which those services will link into the other railway lines already operating in Kent—the north Kent line and the east Kent line. The Strategic Rail Authority has undertaken an analysis of the options for providing services using the channel tunnel rail link and the way in which they can be delivered. That analysis included taking on board issues such as connecting to already existing tracks, the type of rolling stock required to operate on the different tracks, the difficulty of harmonising signalling and the cost to the train operators of services lost because of overcapacity. I hope my hon. Friend appreciates the complexities and difficulties that that has entailed.

My hon. Friend proposed that the maintenance and storage of the channel tunnel rail link domestic stock be carried out at Ramsgate. The franchise for the full Kent domestic services will run from 2007, and all prospective tenderers will look at the resources available to them to make the most competitive tender. The siting of a train manufacturer with maintenance facilities at Ramsgate would seem to be an attractive package. My hon. Friend has made representations tonight, and I am sure that he is promoting the facilities at Ramsgate to all the potential franchisees. Once the consultations on the options identified in the SRA report have been completed, it will be for Ministers to examine all aspects and effects that they may have on the areas concerned, particularly the wider benefits for regeneration, employment and liveability in the area—I know that those are important issues for my hon. Friend. I can assure him that any decision on the channel tunnel rail link consultation will take into consideration all the factors that I have outlined.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the current services to his constituency provided by Connex, presenting them in his usual quiet but robust way. The present deal allows Connex to provide a level of stability to its customers. The package incorporates continuing measures to improve performance and secures commitment to the removal of mark 1 slam-door trains. Connex has already ordered 500 new vehicles to fulfil its commitment to replace that ageing rolling stock. My hon. Friend has the look of someone saying "Watch this space." I am sure that he will do so, and will inform us if that commitment is not met in the expected time scale. The shortened franchise will enable the SRA to market a new integrated Kent franchise from 2007, making use of the new high-speed channel tunnel rail link. As is normally the case, the bidding process for that franchise will be an open competition.

I have already set out in general terms the support for the funding of local authority schemes through the local transport plan. Phase 1 of the east Kent access scheme has already received provisional approval, and funding has been set aside this year in readiness for the scheme achieving full approval. The next two phases have now been combined, and we are expecting a bid for that part of the scheme in this year's annual progress report.

I hope that in the time available to me I have been able to cover the points made by my hon. Friend. If there are matters that I have not covered, I am sure that he will point them out to me, and we can deal with them in correspondence.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend not only for the way in which he has presented his case tonight but for the way in which he has conducted himself for a number of years in presenting most forcefully in the House matters of interest to his constituents. I commend him strongly for all the good work that he has done.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Eleven o'clock.