HC Deb 03 March 2004 vol 418 cc1019-27

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

7. 38 pm

Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire)

One of the more perverse myths spread about by the Labour party is the notion that the failings of the railway services in Worcestershire and elsewhere are the result of the privatisation of the railways in 1994. The reverse is closer to the truth. Before privatisation, the railways were in an apparently terminal decline: all the talk was of cuts and closures of railway lines. In particular, an axe hung permanently over the line that links Worcestershire with London Paddington, often known as the Cotswold line, which passes through the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), both of whom I am delighted to see here tonight. The word at the time was that the line was kept open only because four Transport Ministers and former Transport Ministers used it. If so, that fragile safety net comprised Lord Walker, predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire in his previous constituency; Nicholas Ridley, then the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury; Lord Caithness, who lived somewhere in the Cotswolds; and your humble servant, who at that time represented South Worcestershire in Parliament. However fanciful that theory may appear, the stateo run railways clearly turned passengers off and, under the doubly malign grip of Whitehall bureaucracy and powerful trade unions, were heading for oblivion.

Privatisation brought about two major changes. First, there was a massive programme of investment in the industry, and £24 billion has been made available since 1994, much of which has come from resources not provided by the taxpayer. Secondly, foundations were laid for a serious attempt to attract passengers back to the railways, beginning with a new and, at the time, unfamiliar politeness on the part of ticket collectors. Passengers started to be treated as. desirable customers rather than as necessary appendages of the service. Above all, in Worcestershire, there was a marked increase in the frequency of services, particularly on inter-city routes.

The results were highly successful in attracting passengers. Since privatisation, passenger journeys on the service operated by Central trains between Birmingham and Hereford have risen by 25 per cent., and the rise on the service operated by the Cotswold line is an astonishing 51 per cent. That significant increase in passenger demand has, however been, achieved at a price. Previously, the problem was lack of customers, leading to cutbacks in services, which were a further deterrent against usage, but now the growing problem is excessive demand, for which the available capacity of rolling stock and track is insufficient. Trains are overcrowded, especially at peak times, and the track is congested and arguably overused. Congestion blackspots that affect Worcester shire are particularly acute around Birmingham. All of that has led to delays, cancellations and disruption for many of my constituents and, I am sure, those of my hon. Friends. Last week, 150 people turned out to voice their concerns about rail services in a public meeting in Malvern organised by the Malvern Gazette. A dramatic fact emerged at that meeting: a poll of 100 commuters on a route between Worcester and Hereford showed that four out of 10 journeys were more than half an hour late. If I need to make a morning meeting in London, I travel the day before, even though the morning timetable promises to get me there on time. As for timetables, no one is fooled by the proposal to lengthen journey times to meet punctuality targets.

The Government's response, perhaps predictably, is to blame the private operators, turn back the clock and initiate a new process of centralisation which, in some respects, amounts to renationalisation. The Strategic Rail Authority has therefore been created, with powers that go well beyond those of a regulator. All investment decisions and every improvement to the system has to be approved, if not initiated from the centre, by the SRA. We now have the worst of all worlds: final decisions are taken remotely behind closed doors and are subject to complex bureaucratic conditions. We really have returned to the worst characteristics of a nationalised system.

The potential for delay, muddle and bureaucratic cost is self-evident. Let us consider a proposal—in fact, such a scheme is in the pipeline—to improve substantially the facilities offered by Worcester Shrub Hill station by providing a parkway. Three distinct organisations would be directly involved in such a decision. The SRA would effectively decide on the investment, which would be owned by Network Rail and operated by the franchised train operator—in this case, Central trains. The mind boggles at the prospective paper pushing between those three entities before a final decision is taken at the center.

The complexity and remoteness of the new command structure has particularly serious implications for the major investment decisions that are now badly needed to solve Worcestershire's railway problems, the most important of which is the need to redual track where single lining was imposed under a nationalised system. The parts that most affect my constituents are the Colwall tunnel, the line between Ledbury and Hereford, where Central trains has a franchise running between Birmingham, Worcester, Malvern and Hereford, and, on the Hereford-to-London route, the line between Evesham and Moreton-in-Marsh

The latter is a particularly serious deficiency. The fact that trains constantly have to wait at Evesham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, and at Moreton-in-Marsh, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, in order for the line to be free is one of the major reasons for the lateness of the service between Worcestershire and London when it occurs. The Minister seemed to acknowledge the importance of dualling in a comment that he made in the House on 6 January this year. It is essential to the smooth running of the Cotswold line that dualling of the Evesham and Moreton-in-Marsh section be undertaken as a matter of urgency. Similarly, at the public meeting organised by the Malvern Gazette, the importance of dualling the stretch of line between Ledbury and Hereford and the Colwall tunnel was acknowledged by passengers and by the operating companies. The potential for buck passing between Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government is very clear, as is the centralised nature of the decision-making process

It is not only investment decisions that are badly affected by the new management system: there is also the problem of central interference with the daily operations of the train companies. A good recent example relates to the proposed scheduling of trains on the Cotswold line following First Great Western's winning of the new franchise on the line. The train operator originally proposed a schedule of through services of trains running direct to London. That schedule would have equalled, if not improved on, existing frequencies, which have been a major factor in drawing customers back to the line. Following interference from the Strategic Rail Authority, the proposal now seems to be to terminate more trains at Oxford, which will be highly disruptive to passengers travelling from Worcestershire or Gloucestershire up to London. That major deficiency was caused not by the train operators, but entirely by the Strategic Rail Authority's intervening on their proposals and making them worse—not, I suspect, on grounds of cost savings, but simply interfering for the sake of it

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con)

Does my hon. Friend wish to emphasise to the Minister the very serious consequences that changing at Oxford can have for overall usage of the line? As we all know, trains cannot wait at Oxford to make connections because of the single-line sections between Oxford and Worcester. The consequence will be that people miss trains and connections and stop using the Cotswold line

Sir Michael Spicer

My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the Minister will be able to have a word in somebody's ear. Part of the problem is that we do not know whose ear it should be. We do know, however, that the Strategic Rail Authority blocked the proposal and that the new franchise will be based on a worse proposal. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend about the great difficulty caused by the infrequency of trains out of Oxford—certainly, they do not run to London as frequently as they would on a through-train basis.

There is a reverse gear feeling about this problem, as though the former nationalised service were operating again. It would be highly regrettable if it were to become the start of a new policy of cutting back on services. That is exactly what has been implied: it is clear from the new timetable that the frequency of services is to be cut. That is particularly likely if the faults on the new Adelante trains that the National Audit Office recently identified persist.

Worcestershire rail services do not need the imposition of the centralised might of the Strategic Rail Authority; they need the transparency and accountability to passengers that goes with a decentralised, locally accountable, well-motivated system. If we made one mistake in government when we privatised the railway industry, it is probably that we did not break up the network enough. A great debate could be had about that, but in my view we should have gone further to provide for local franchises. It is a tragedy that the Government are moving in precisely the opposite direction. If the trend towards interference from the centre persists, it will mean a less effective railway system for Worcestershire and elsewhere

Worcestershire requires a modern, reliable, comfortable and, above all, frequent commuter and inter-city rail service The last thing that passengers need is a return to the dark ages of a nationalised, centrally controlled, unresponsive, run-down railway system that lacks proper investment. It would mean that our inadequate roads would become even more clogged up

Mr. Geoffrey Clif ton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con)

Does my hon. Friend agree that he, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Lull) and I represent highly rural constituencies and that, without a satisfactory railway system, people will not stop making journeys, but will simply make them on the roads, which are becoming ever more congested? That is environmentally unsustainable.

Sir Michael Spicer

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would add to his comments only my last point. Some people do not want to, or cannot, use a car, and for various reasons, some do not want to drive to work. They, especially those in rural areas, face the prospect of being even more stranded. I look forward to the Minister's response.

7. 50 pm

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con)

I have approximately two minutes before the Minister might be expected to reply. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on a fine speech on a subject that is important to all our constituents in Gloucestershire and Worcestershire. I agree with everything that he said about the Cotswold line. I want to comment briefly on issues that affect his constituency, mine and Birmingham

I hope that the Minister might persuade Network Rail to give higher priority to three different infrastructure investments, each of them modest, which make an enormous difference to the genuine suffering of my constituents who use the line. The first investment is in remodelling track between Worcester Foregate Street and Worcester Shrub Hill station. That would greatly enhance the flexibility of the train operators, especially Central trains. The second is the introduction of an additional signalling section between Worcester and Droitwich, which would greatly increase capacity on the line. The third is increasing the length of Bromsgrove station to enable it to take four-car trains. One of the major problems for services between Malvern, Worcester, Droitwich and Birmingham is the Health and Safety Executive rule for four-car trains. They cannot stop at Bromsgrove so they cannot run on the line. One fast train is non-stop at Bromsgrove.

Lengthening Bromsgrove station, putting in an extra section and remodelling the junction between Foregate Street and Shrub Hill would transform capacity and make a big difference to reliability. It would not cost much, either.

7. 52 pm

The Minister of State, Department for Transport(Dr. Kim Howells)

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the future of rail services in Worcestershire.

Before I respond to the points that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made, it might be helpful if I provided information about the performance of the train operators who predominantly serve Worcestershire. I should like the hon. Member for West Worcestershire to know that there will be no return to a nationalised rail industry. He is doing what he is supposed to do as an Opposition Member—opposing the Government. However, I was sorry that he did not admit that we are spending a lot of money on the railways. That is happening rather too late because, for 30 years, very little money was spent on them.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that privatisation has levered out money that was not previously available for the railways. That is welcome. A symptom of that, which he described, is the 50 per cent. increase in patronage on the Cotswold line. Somebody is doing something right, and we should be readier to pay tribute to people who operate the railways, from those who welcome and look after passengers to the Strategic Rail Authority, Network Rail and the Office of the Rail Regulator.

The system is not easy but complicated, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the matter because it gives me an opportunity to say that the rail review that we are currently conducting does not seek greater centralisation. I have a great deal of sympathy with his last point, when he said that the privatisation that happened nine years ago was not the right sort of privatisation and that perhaps there should have been a greater range of models for running railways in different parts of the country. I have no doubt that they could have been run better, and that any model that is top heavy or very prescriptive in the way in which it seeks to serve very different markets in different areas—rural markets and commuter markets, for example—needs to be challenged. We need ideas about how best to run the railways, and that is why we have instituted the review.

I get the message from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. I have read the press release that he put out on 3 February; it is a very detailed assessment of what is required. I take his point about the platform at Bromsgrove. Many platforms arc and the country need modification; there is no question about that. We could greatly increase the capacity of o ar railways if we were able to make those modifications

I was lucky enough to be in Japan over the past week. I had heard that it had the best railway system in the world, and I wanted to have a look at it. Japan has a population twice the size of ours. We have been celebrating the fact that British railways carried a larger number of people last year than in any year since 1961–1 billion people. In Japan last year the railways carried 22 billion people, yet the network is not much larger than ours. They have created a signalling system and a system of control and route utilisation that are infinitely better than anything we have. We have a great deal to learn from them

I have absolutely no doubt that Worcestershire as a whole would benefit greatly if we could adapt some of that technology, expertise and know-how. Certainly, something as basic as getting platforms the right length so that they can take longer trains is an important issue. I have spoken to Richard Bowker, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, who knows the railways of Worcestershire very well, and he is very keen that we should get on with the work. There is a problem, however, and it relates to the subject of this debate. I would say to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire that I would certainly like to dual a lot more of the single-track lines in the country, but that can happen only at a cost. Dualling is under way at the moment down in Cornwall, and I think that a seven-mile stretch is costing about £14 million. The track was ripped up in the 1980s—quite late, really—and it is now going to be re-dualled. That is a lot of money, yet that is one of the least costly projects that I have seen.

The SRA can manage a project like that, working with Network Rail, for about £14 million for seven miles. The hon. Gentleman listed a number of stretches that need dualling, and some are at least as long as that. That would involve a lot of money. 1 am sure that he would clear that with his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor, because it would be money worth spending. I cannot, however, give him a promise here and now that we can somehow make that money available from central Government. He is quite right to say that this is a complicated process.

One of the objectives of the rail review that we have implemented is to ensure that we get more bangs for our buck, so to speak, when we spend money on the railways. This year, we shall spend the best part of £4 billion, which is two to three times as much as was being spent on the railways five or six years ago. That is a lot of money, but a lot of things need doing on the railways. The hon. Gentleman has told us that he cares passionately about his constituents being able to have access to jobs and other markets, and I am sure that he could wish for nothing more important than that, except perhaps a better health service or education service. However, he knows as well as I do that railway systems are very expensive to run. If we can manage better what we already have, that will be a good start. I am not convinced that we do it well enough at the moment, and we must be much more responsive and imaginative in the way in which we engage with the customers that he is talking about.

I mentioned the huge increase in patronage on the Cotswold line. Somebody must be doing something right there. I am sure that it is not the case that people are simply choosing not to use their cars, because clearly road congestion is rising at the same time. The fact is that people are travelling more and they are looking for opportunities to use public transport where they can

Sir Michael Spicer

The Minister is making a thoughtful and interesting contribution, and I am grateful to him for it. I once heard him make what to me was an extremely interesting remark. He was on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 to discuss the question of prioritising expenditure, which is what, to some extent, we are talking about. The Minister courageously made a point, which it was difficult for him to make, about gold-plating health and safety expenditure by going over the top and unnecessarily far. Would he care to develop that? I say that in the best possible spirit: it was an extremely courageous thing for a transport Minister to say because it raised the question of prioritising. He is right that the money has to be raised, but there is a circular process. If the money is to be raised, it will be raised partly because the operating company is making a profit and it has to be allowed to work the system properly. There is an upward spiral.

Dr. Howells

Yes, indeed. I am happy to repeat that, although I know that the hon. Gentleman will not want me to go on about it because he asked questions about timetabling, among other things. I want to try to answer them. However, I will say that one of the most extraordinary things that I found in Japan is the fact that between the first running of the Bullet train—the Shinkansen—in 1963 and this year, the number of people killed was nil. No one has died on those trains.

I was fascinated by how the Japanese approach health and safety. They focus very much on reducing risk. We know that, unfortunately, because of the immense complication of how safety works in this country—this is not a fault of individuals who work in these sectors nor often of the systems of the individual agencies—there is gold-plating, and the hon. Gentleman is right to talk about it. There are company standards, group standards and bodies of all kinds out there whose responsibilities sometimes overlap. As a consequence, the costs are very high.

This is easy for me to say as I am a politician and I can use these glib phrases as easily as anybody else, but we ought to concentrate far more on basic functions involving the protection of passenger welfare and of staff who work on the railways. We could be saving quite a lot of money there, or at least redirect that money to ensure that we have the safest railways in the world.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Oxford and having to change trains. Nothing is more irritating for people than having to change after they have had a through service. I want to deal with that in more detail, then I will sit down. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I am aware of the press release issued by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire expressing his concerns about the effect of the proposed timetable changes on the services along the Cotswold line and along the line that runs to Birmingham. Thames Trains currently provides six weekday services between Great Malvern and London Paddington in each direction, and First Great Western provides three services in each direction. The SRA has agreed to a two-hourly Adelante service from Great Malvern to Paddington, increasing the number of through Great Malvern to Paddington services from the current nine to 12. Eight of those will be formed of InterCity 125 stock, compared with just three at present. In alternate hours, a Turbo service will run from Great Malvern to Oxford for connection into the Adelante services, which is what has been worrying the hon. Gentleman. Adelantes offer more comfort, with five-car trains, against the three-car 166 Turbos. They also offer a lower-density seat formation, and virtually all the Oxford services will be upgraded to 125 mph InterCity stock.

That represents a significant improvement in the quality of rolling stock and service at certain Cotswold line stations, including Great Malvern, but while the number of services along the route as a whole remains the same, the hon. Gentleman is right that there is a small reduction in through services.

The higher-speed rolling stock will improve journey times, including on some services where a change at Oxford will be necessary. The proposed timetable is not fixed yet—I have a copy of it here, and the hon. Gentleman is welcome to take a look at it if he wants—but it appears to me, as a fascinated amateur, that it is a better timetable. Obviously, he must make that judgment, as he has constituents to represent. I give him the undertaking, however, that I will ensure that the SRA sees the transcript of this debate so that it knows exactly where the weaknesses are in the links. I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has already made the SRA very much aware of his worries, because I have read a copy of the letter that he wrote to Mr. Richard Bowker of the SRA. He is an intelligent man and is determined to put the railways right, and he probably knows trouble when he sees it. He will therefore be able to answer those questions for himself.

I thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire for raising this matter, and I hope that we can work together to try to improve services for his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eight o'clock