§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
6.17 pm§ Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)This debate is a response to the Strategic Rail Authority's consultation on the new integrated Kent rail franchise. The proposal to provide high-speed channel tunnel rail link domestic services from Folkestone, Thanet, Canterbury, Ashford, Swale, Medway and Gravesend has been warmly welcomed by Kent and Medway. The £5 billion high-speed rail service will provide a significant boost to the sub-regional economies and coastal towns of Thanet and, importantly, will allow for the sustainable development of the growth areas in Ashford and the Thames gateway. It is also welcome that the SRA has responded positively to, and is examining the possibility of, the proposal to extend the line to Dover.
For the Medway towns, the high-speed rail link will mean more than just new rail services. It will be a magnet, drawing in inward investment and building on the regeneration that has already taken place. The case that has been put forward by those of us in Kent and Medway for the channel tunnel rail link domestic service in debates, questions and meetings with Ministers over the years has always been about additional capacity, not replacement of services. It is therefore not surprising that the majority of existing passengers in the Medway towns do not see how St. Pancras can meet their current travel needs. They therefore see no justification for reducing the fast services to London from Medway, as set out in the SRA's document.
Although I warmly welcome the channel tunnel rail link's domestic service proposals, I need to focus my comments on the SRA's proposals under the current integrated Kent franchise. This is the first major review of the Kent rail timetable since electrification in 1963. That was the time when technology was thrusting us into a brave new world. It was the year that Harold Wilson told the Labour party conference in Scarborough that Britain was going to be forged by the white heat of the scientific revolution. Over the past 20 years or so, in Kent, we have not seen that much in the way of white heat and scientific revolution when it comes to our train service.
Every day thousands and thousands of people living in Kent travel to London for their work, and their experience over the years has been, to put it bluntly, pretty grim. We have seen fragmentation; we have seen privatisation; we have seen deterioration due to a lack of investment; and we have seen off Connex.
Kent is part of one of the most complicated franchises in the entire rail network, with 182 stations, 773 km of track and 120,000 morning commuters. Of the 1,700 train journeys, 1,400 go into London carrying 13.2 million passengers every year. With the growth in numbers travelling to London—I shall come to that point later—the antiquated infrastructure often struggles to provide and maintain a reliable service. It is beset with problems. As well as the old age of some of the signalling, many of the stations are appalling. The prize for the very worst perhaps goes to those along the 1103 Medway valley line, which sadly runs through my constituency and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).
It is true, as the SRA argues, that its network is complex and congested, and delays can very quickly snowball. Yet this should not, in itself, be a justification for running fewer trains. The network needs to have the capacity for the number of people who want to use it—whether that is for business or pleasure. If there are fewer trains, there will simply be more overcrowded trains. In Medway, on the Cannon Street service, which runs to the City, where many of my constituents work, we currently have seven fast trains at peak times. Under the SRA's proposals, that number will be reduced to two. The Victoria fast service from Medway, which stops at Bromley, currently has 15 trains. Under the SRA's proposals, the number will be cut to 10. With reductions via Dartford, the total reduction—even when we take account of the new channel tunnel rail link domestic service trains—will be from 32 to 26 trains.
It is not just the number of trains that is the problem; it is the number of seats as well. My hon. Friend the Minister advised me in a written answer on 30 March that there are just over 20,000 seats available from Medway during peak-time services at present. There is no certainty about the number in the future, not least because Rochester and Strood platforms are currently unable to accommodate the 12-car trains with 700-seat capacity that will be the new CTRL domestic service. Instead, he has advised me in written answers that these stations will have a service of six-car trains, halving the possible capacity. Upgrading the platforms, he advises me, would cost £12.4 million at Rochester and £1.2 million at Strood.
I understand the financial pressures that the Department and the SRA are under, but why has the SRA not looked more imaginatively at, for example, selective door opening? I grant that that is far from ideal, but capacity has to be at the forefront of our ambitions. As I said, if we have fewer trains, we will have more crowded trains or we will force people on to the roads to drive to Ebbesfleet. The idea that the new franchise will force commuters to drive further along the A2 flies in the face of what we are trying to achieve with an integrated transport system.
Moreover, in Medway our bus company, Arriva, will commission its new bus service in June. Some £10 million, an unprecedented sum, is being invested in a new bus fleet, added to which a new timetable will offer more frequent journeys. Car parking has always been a problem in Medway stations. My hon. Friends and I want to see Arriva picking up customers. The current proposals, I fear, will further discourage train commuters from taking the bus to the station. It has been estimated by Medway council that the number of seats available could be reduced by as many as 7,000.
We welcome the fact that the Strategic Rail Authority document states that the integrated Kent franchise recognises its contribution to regional planning goals, including the regeneration of Kent and the Mayor's London plan. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark). His high office prevents him from making an outstanding contribution this evening. In his work on 1104 the Thames gateway he has worked tirelessly to ensure that the planning and transport systems are joined up. As I said, 1963 is a significant date in terms of electrification. On this very day in 1963 my hon. Friend was six years old. Gillingham's No. 1 son celebrates his birthday today.
We welcome the strategic approach to planning and transport, but we—
§ Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway) (Lab)On the strategic basis that he just mentioned, will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.] I should very much welcome the Minister's attention to the intervention that I am about to make, facile though that may at first appear. Is it not the case that the Medway towns have been the beneficiaries of more inward investment from the Government than any other single conurbation in the United Kingdom? All of us in the Chamber welcome that with open arms. The Minister might find it rather difficult to hear me say that one of the Government's great achievements is in my constituency. The Minister previously said he could not understand why the Government had given so much money to my constituency.
Before you tell me that this is an incursion or an invasion, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Minister to answer this question: is it not right that, given the enormous investment in the capital structure of the Medway towns, we must have a concomitant investment in our infrastructure to give us the speed and the ability to feed into London? That must be a structural and strategic gain—
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal)Order. That is rather long for an intervention. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is drawing his remarks to a conclusion.
§ Mr. Marshall-AndrewsYou have been more than beneficent as regards my intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have understood the point that I am making.
§ Jonathan ShawI am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's contribution. He is right. We have seen considerable investment in the regeneration of the waterfronts and moneys for our universities. That was one of his aspirations when he stood for the Medway constituency in the 1992 general election. That aspiration has been driven forward by many people in the Medway towns. His contribution, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, has been important. We now see students receive higher education in the Medway towns, and they too will need a transport system.
We are concerned about the strategic aspects of that, and we are worried that the SRA does not appreciate the scale of development in Medway. Unlike other areas, there has been no quantitative estimate of the scale of development. Development is taking place on Strood, Chatham and Gillingham waterfronts, and importantly, those are all within walking distance of a train station.
Today 20,000 residents—17 per cent. of the work force—travel to London. We are generating new employment opportunities, as my hon. and learned 1105 Friend the Member for Medway pointed out, and the channel tunnel rail link domestic service will assist us further.
§ Mr. Gwyn Prosser (Dover) (Lab)My hon. Friend is making powerful arguments for linking the channel tunnel rail link with some of the strategic centres of Kent. Does he agree that the port of Dover ranks highly among those strategic centres? Does he support the view in east Kent that we should be linking the busiest city in this country with the busiest ferry port in the world? At the same time. when we look at such major strategic matters, we should not lose track of the issues that he has already raised regarding services to some of our small stations. I have in mind places such as Kearsney, which is just a stone's throw from my home, Martin Mill and of course Snowdown.
§ Jonathan ShawI am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked tirelessly in respect of Dover. As I said, the Strategic Rail Authority has left the door open and is exploring the matter, which is testimony to the hard work that he has put in on behalf of his constituents.
As I said, 17 per cent. of the work force travel to London. The population is set to increase from the current 250,000 to 300,000 by 2024. That means that commuting could rise by 30 per cent. over the next 20 years—the equivalent of 1.3 per cent. a year. By the time the new trains start running in 2008, demand is likely to be 5 per cent. higher than now, and it is likely to be 10 per cent. higher in 2012.
There is welcome news in the SRA document, as well as the channel tunnel rail link domestic service, and it is important to place that on record. On the Ashford, Maidstone and West Malling line, which serves the southern end of my constituency, there are set to be three additional peak period trains to Victoria. The Medway valley line, to which I referred earlier, will have trains running through to Tonbridge. That will make the line significantly more attractive to use. However, the proposal to reduce stopping times is unacceptable, and I, together with parish councils at Cuxton, Snodland, East Malling, Larkfield and Aylesford, have met the SRA and voiced our objections.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) said, throughout the county, people are very hostile to reductions in off-peak rural services. Rather than save a few minutes, the people of Kent would like to retain existing services. There is a significant opportunity to grow off-peak services and to provide better stations, information and revenue collection, which is simply not undertaken on some lines.
My hon. Friend the Minister understands our anxiety. I know that he not only fully appreciates what we are seeking to achieve in Medway and the Thames gateway, but actively supports it. As a former planning Minister, does he share our belief that changing the timetable in such a revolutionary way is very dangerous? If there is one lesson that we have learned in recent years, it is that we cannot achieve a quick fix for the railways. If there are to be changes, they have to be not revolutionary, but evolutionary. Passengers will need time to adapt to changes. It is important that a level of flexibility is built in, so that where we see growth occurring, the rail system can meet that demand.
1106 The task ahead is difficult, with many competing demands for priority. We are seeing investment in our rail service. Some £600 million has been invested in new trains on the south-east network, and they are being rolled out. They are air-conditioned and are far more able to respond to the climatic challenges of snow and ice. The Government have a track record of £75 million a week in investment. Hatfield lifted the lid on the appalling state of our track. The Tory legacy of botched privatisation has been long, painful and very expensive. It has caused delays, but we cannot move forward without a safe network.
The review is the first of the Kent rail timetable since 1963. The great train robbery took place in that year, when £5 million was snatched from a Royal Mail train in Buckinghamshire. The Strategic Rail Authority's proposals will amount to the great train robbery of Kent if they are allowed to go forward. We do not want a reduction in our train services. We have what Martin Luther King had in another significant event in 1963—a dream. We have a dream of a more reliable rail service that is fit for the future, and fit to carry the people of Kent around the county and, in what has been the focus of the debate, to carry them to and from our capital city.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on securing the debate—in one sense, it is timely; in another sense, it is not, and I shall come on to the reasons for that. I further congratulate my hon. Friend on mentioning Martin Luther King, Ronnie Biggs and my lion. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) in one cogent, clear speech.
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford and for Dover (Mr. Prosser), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) on the way in which they have argued their case not only in public forums such as this, but throughout the process from specification to consultation, which may appear tortuous. I include my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, who is more mute than usual because of his high office, in those congratulations.
I congratulate my hon. Friends on placing this debate in the context of the significant activity by the Government in Kent throughout 1997. The debate is timely, in that the Strategic Rail Authority concluded its 12-week consultation on the integrated Kent franchise—hereafter IKF—on 23 April, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford knows that the SRA is seeking to move to invitation to tender by June, at which stage the results of the consultation will be announced. The debate is not timely, in that, whatever I say, I cannot prejudge the outcome of the consultation, but I assure my hon. Friends that their comments will be fed into it, although I am sure that those points are already part of the consultation.
My hon. Friend is right that rail services in Kent have suffered from under-investment, a slow network, unsatisfactory reliability and outdated rolling stock. As he says, the timetable in Kent and south-east London has remained largely unchanged for the best part of 40 years, and it needs to change to reflect current and 1107 future needs, to deliver improved reliability and to build on the capital infrastructure that we have put in. I take the point that our objectives must be concomitant, at least in part, with not only that capital infrastructure investment, but our plans for the entire area.
My hon. Friend knows that passenger services throughout Kent, parts of Sussex and south-east London are currently operated by South Eastern Trains, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the SRA and took over the services from Connex. The key objectives in SET's business plan for 2004—05 are to stabilise the business, to provide a higher standard of service to passengers and to introduce new trains to replace the Mk 1 slam-door fleet. That is important because we are discussing a service that will not be introduced until 2007 and beyond, so there is still an interim period. I hesitate to say it because I know that it will come true and bite me, but I am sure that a "save our slam-door trains heritage society" will be formed at some stage. I do not know whether such a society exists yet, but the sooner we get the new stock in, the better.
As my hon. Friend said, the proposed franchise represents a significant milestone in the development of Britain's railways, and a major opportunity for Kent. It is a stark fact that the channel tunnel rail link is the first major railway to be built in this country in more than a century, and section one opened on time and to budget in 2003—I had the great pleasure of visiting Leeds castle for the sideshow that took place at the same time as the main opening. Section two of the CTRL is due to open in 2007, providing faster journey times and opening up new travel opportunities. In developing the IKF, the SRA wants to make the best use of the whole railway network in the region, including the CTRL. As my hon. Friends said, that is a matter of balancing the strengths and advantages of the high-speed line with the needs of the existing network.
The objective is to specify a passenger train service provision that is based around current and future demand while delivering better reliability at a cost that is both value for money and affordable. The SRA is proposing a revised timetable of services for the integrated Kent franchise that is based on an all-day regular service pattern that is easy for customers to understand.
New stations at Ebbsfleet and at the other end of Stratford will assist regeneration in the Thames gateway, including north Kent, and provide new access to the rail network, some improved journey times and service reliability, which will benefit other centres on the network.
The IKF timetable specification document is the final step in the formal consultation to develop a detailed franchise proposition. Earlier consultations addressed CTRL domestic services and the proposal for an integrated franchise of services running on CTRL and the national rail network. I do not need to rehearse the proposals for the Medway towns, because my hon. Friends will certainly know about them. I am grateful to them for highlighting the advantages, in terms of their constituency interests and the interests of the county, of adding to what already prevails. I am sure that they will have pointed out some of the gaps to the SRA.
1108 The SRA forecasts demand patterns for peak and off-peak periods that will require significantly different service patterns, especially in the context of maximising the use of dedicated CTRL domestic rolling stock at peak times. The calling pattern of peak services will have to reflect available platform length at certain stations together with any further constraints that may emerge through the SRA's detailed timetable development work.
§ Jonathan ShawMy hon. Friend mentioned platforms. As I said, some of the platforms at Rochester and Strood are too small to accommodate all 12 carriages. Does he agree that the SRA should consider flexible options whereby only some of the doors are opened? That would not be ideal, but it could be a possibility.
§ Mr. McNultyI do not doubt that it is a possibility, because it already happens on some lines. I am sure that my hon. Friend has made that point to the SRA.
There has been a substantial consultation process. During previous consultations, people have made it clear that they want faster, more reliable trains. In response to those demands, the SRA's service specification aims to deliver faster journeys. Every station stop typically adds some two minutes to journey time on a medium-speed railway, perhaps slightly less in inner suburban areas and more where prevailing line speeds are higher. There has to be a balance between achieving high speeds and constantly stopping. The SRA will say that it has got that right, whereas my hon. Friends will have made strong representations on behalf of their constituents that that is not the case.
One area of concern has been the proposal that services should serve different London terminals. The SRA is reviewing the specification and testing the feasibility of alternative options suggested by consultees in conjunction with Network Rail. As my hon. Friends will know far better than I, going into different terminals can have a ripple effect throughout the network.
Others have expressed concern about services for people travelling to local schools and colleges. The SRA is considering the need to reflect those traffic flows and collating information on particular passenger numbers and flows.
Reductions in peak services at some stations also attracted comments including from passengers who use Farningham road station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate). It is expected that a significant number of people from the catchment area of that station would transfer to CTRL services from Ebbsfleet, thus reducing the level of passenger demand at Farningham road.
Whatever is outlined in the invitation to tender in June as a result of the consultation, I accept that, given the growth and activity that will take place in Kent over the next 10, 15 or 20 years, it must have a degree of flexibility. But as I have said, the consultation period for this initial phase closed on 23 April, and all responses and comments are now being considered and the feedback analysed. When the final invitation to tender for the new franchise is issued to bidders in June, the SRA will shortly afterwards provide a "stakeholder briefing information document"—its words, not mine— 1109 to key stakeholders, to explain exactly what is in the bid. It will contain similar information to that provided to the bidders about the IKF service provision requirements.
The SRA has a strong shortlist of Four bidders for the IKF franchise: Danish State Railways; GNER; First Kent Integrated Railways Ltd; and London South Eastern Railway Ltd. All four organisations have proven experience in delivering railway services. The SRA continues to work on the process for delivering the IKF franchise, and aims to have it in place by early 2005.
The integrated Kent franchise provides an opportunity to design a train service for Kent that exploits the potential of the channel tunnel rail link by speeding up journeys and providing new, direct links to new stations at Ebbsfleet, Stratford and St. Pancras, with the connections to other parts of the country. As I have said, the IKF specification is a very complex issue, involving many difficult choices and trade-offs. I believe there will be very many winners, but I accept that some people will be unhappy with some of the proposals—perhaps when the invitation to tender comes out.
The consultation has been a very open process and I know that the SRA chairman has met several hon. Members to hear their views. Also, various meetings were arranged by the SRA at the beginning of the final stage of the consultation process, and a number of smaller meetings with stakeholders have subsequently been hosted by the SRA or attended by SRA representatives at various locations in the south-east. 1110 The views of hon. Members, other stakeholders and passengers are now being analysed in detail and the SRA has the challenge of finding the best balance between the needs of passengers and of taxpayers.
§ Mr. Marshall-AndrewsAt the end of what has been a very detailed and considered response, may I ask the Minister simply to give us a general undertaking that, when the Government invest vast sums of money in an area—as they have done in ours—they will also in the long term undertake a concomitant responsibility to ensure that the infrastructure in those areas will bear a resemblance to what has been invested?
§ Mr. McNultyI thought that I had made it clear earlier that that is the approach that the Government take. It is a matter of interpretation and dispute whether the SRA has achieved that in the context of the IKF, and we shall wait to see what the invitation to tender says about specifications.
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today. This is about finding the best balance between the needs of passengers and the call on public resources, and between meeting the needs of those who want an integrated, comprehensive all-stopping service and getting full utilisation of the high-speed link.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Seven o'clock.