HC Deb 29 January 2003 vol 398 cc291-314WH

2 pm

Mr. Steve Webb (Northavon)

Good afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The danger with debates about railways is that they can follow a familiar pattern: a series of weary travellers stand up and tell their favourite late train story; at the end, the Minister agrees that the situation is not all that it might be but adds that things are in hand and that the Government are spending records sums of money; then we all go away and nothing much changes. What I want to do today—although I will allow myself one late train story—is to avoid that familiar pattern.

I was prompted to try to secure this debate by the deterioration in services in recent weeks and months, especially on the First Great Western route. Although the topic of the debate is rail services between London and the south-west as a whole, I will focus my remarks on the London to Bristol routes. I want to challenge what I regard as the fatalism that has slipped into the Government's policy on the railways. I will give an example of what I mean by that. A couple of weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Transport was interviewed in The Observer, and this is what the newspaper wrote: Transport Secretary Alistair Darling admits today he cannot say when, if ever, Britain will have an efficient and reliable rail system. As if reading that was not depressing enough, last Sunday a different journalist wrote in The Observer: Major multi-million pound improvements to the rail network have been abandoned amid plans to axe hundreds more services, promising fresh misery for passengers. The article went on to say: High-profile schemes have succumbed to soaring maintenance bills in the wake of the Hatfield crash". Then came the most chilling sentence: The £35 billion rail budget for the next decade is nearing exhaustion in the face of escalating cost. I wanted to challenge the Minister today because the mood music is fatalistic, saying in effect that we do not know when, if ever, things will be sorted. Most of the money allocated for the next 10 years seems to be spoken for. It seems that we have overspent. Despite that, there seem to be few signs, even after the spending of that money, of real improvement for my constituents and those of the many west country Members of Parliament who are here.

What am I seeking today? I am seeking three things. I seek assurances from the Minister on funding for some specific infrastructure improvements on the routes between London and the west—I am thinking of particular things such as pinch points and areas that are known to be unreliable and to cause problems. I would like some commitments from him that the money will be found to tackle those problems.

The Strategic Rail Authority needs to show more urgency in responding to the ideas that have been put to it about improving the integration of services between London and the west. I am referring in particular to a proposal by First Great Western that went to the SRA last September. The proposal was to bring together the First Great Western and the Thames Trains services. The SRA has been sitting on the proposal for four months. The Minister seems to be saying that that is not so, but First Great Western says that the proposal went in last September. Those services could be running next year. I was going to say that, in train times, that is not very long, but I am sure that I should rephrase that. The company needs a prompt response to its proposal and it has not had one.

Brian Cotter (Weston-super-Mare)

I want to pick up on my hon. Friend's point about the SRA. Does he agree that it would be a good move for the SRA to have a regional office in Bristol and to have regional directors, as the authority has promised?

Mr. Webb

That would be very welcome. The idea has been mooted and it is moving ahead in Scotland and Wales, but, as ever, the English regions are somehow second class. The sooner things move ahead here the better.

Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the proposal by First Great Western to have a wider franchise area. I think all hon. Members would agree that we have to reduce the number of train operating companies. Has the hon. Gentleman written to the Secretary of State and the Strategic Rail Authority, as I and many of my colleagues have done in support of the proposals of First Great Western? We are entitled to know where he stands on the issue.

Mr. Webb

I am clear where I stand on the issue. I fully support integration, and a letter has been written making that point. I welcome the potential for integration that would follow from, for example, Thames Trains not having an extension to its franchise after 2004 and its being able to integrate services better.

In the four weeks to 4 January 2003, the reliability of the service was 98 per cent. That means that one in 50 trains did not run. The punctuality rate was 72 per cent., which means that one in four trains was late. Those trains could have been 10 minutes, one hour or two hours late. All those figures give us is a crude head count measure of the number of trains that were more than 10 minutes late. One of my worries about the statistics is that they do not distinguish between a train that is 10 minutes late—which is not ideal, but liveable with in some circumstances—and trains that are severely late. There is a big difference between companies whose trains are always 10 minutes late and those whose trains are hours late on occasions. Can some thought be given to that?

I have an appropriate late-train story. When it became apparent that I had achieved time for this debate, I was telephoned by First Great Western, which wanted to talk to me before I spoke. I welcomed the call. I agreed to see its managing director and we thought that Paddington would not be a bad place to meet. It was arranged that I would leave Bristol Parkway at 7 o'clock on Monday evening and that I would meet the managing director at 8.30 pm at Paddington.

I arrived at Bristol Parkway at 6.35 pm. Within a few seconds of my arrival, the information screens went blank. I then received a pager message to ring the managing director of First Great Western—if only I always received a pager message whenever trains were to be late! He said that the Severn tunnel was shut, but that he hoped it would open in a few minutes. He asked me to ring him in 10 minutes and said that he would let me know the situation. Ten minutes went by. I overheard a conversation that the London train would be in soon and, sure enough, all was well.

I made it up to the platform at 7 o'clock to catch what turned out to be the 6 o'clock train. It was then agreed that the managing director would get on the train at Reading and travel with me to Paddington. That was fine, except for the fact that the train was stationary between Parkway and Swindon, and the managing director had to wait some time for it to arrive at Reading. Half an hour went by; we finally rendezvoused at Reading. I was tempted to tell everyone in the carriage who was about to get on the train.

The managing director told me enthusiastically about all the plans that First Great Western had for improving the service and, as we rolled into Paddington, someone announced through the Tannoy, "Ladies and gentlemen, we are now arriving at London Paddington two hours late. I apologise. I have run out of complaint forms, but if you go on to the concourse, you can have your money back." I could not help but remark on the contrast between the golden vision that had been set out on the train and reality. Of course, we experience bad journeys and that could have been a one-off, but statistics suggest that the problem is much more general.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

Can my hon. Friend explain why my train is the one in four that is always late? He is making an important point about the general strategy, but will he consider a particular sub-text? The way in which the industry has been split up into so many different units means that information among different parts of the industry is now incredibly confused. I give as an illustration the fact that Exeter St. Davids, where I catch trains, often receives information from Swindon, which does not have a clue what is going on in Exeter, so the information on the screen is completely unreliable. Reliability of service is extremely important, but so is reliability of information.

Mr. Webb

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Integration and co-ordination of rail services have suffered since the fragmentation that resulted from privatisation. However, I have good news for him. I have in my hand First Great Western's commitment to improving train performance, page 10 of which sets out the customer service disruption management strategy. In a first for the industry, First Great Western is developing a holistic approach to its service recovery. A system of green, amber and red alert statuses will be activated by pagers to trains and staff to ensure a consistent approach to service recovery". Things will be improving, I hope, although I suspect that if a few of the management consultants were sacked, it would be even better.

Recently, the service has been especially bad. Sometimes it is wonderful, and at its best it is excellent. However, when signal failures affected all trains out of Paddington recently, the scenes there would have disgraced a third-world country. People were locked on trains in the station because it was physically impossible to force anyone else on. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) was locked on the train. [Interruption.] We were all there.

What were the problems? First Great Western prepared a brief for me, outlining all the problems that it had experienced since October. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that the list included high winds, heavy rain, flooding, derailments, signal failures, timetabling problems, and rolling stock and infrastructure failures—the usual things. What worries me is that many of the problems, such as strong winds and heavy rainfall, will not go away. When will we see the improvements for which we have been hoping?

I want to make it clear that my comments are not an attack on First Great Western, partly because I want to reflect the fact that many other train operating companies have had similar patterns of performance in recent months. I met Chris Kinchin-Smith. Let us be honest: he was decent enough to spend his Monday evening on a train going into London being nagged by me, even though he lives in Bath and had to get home to his family at 11 pm. He is committed and wants to get things done. This is not an attack on First Great Western and its staff. My point is that the infrastructure and the systems that are in operation are not delivering the quality of service that we have a right to expect.

Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

My hon. Friend makes a vital point. Will he confirm that at least 50 per cent. of the delays on First Great Western trains are caused by problems with the track infrastructure, rather than by the operating company itself?

Mr. Webb

Absolutely. The figures that I have seen suggest that First Great Western is responsible for a quarter of the overall lost minutes. Clearly, the whole system needs to be sorted out, not one individual train operating company.

Mr. Salter

We are getting to the nub of the debate, which is not the performance of train operating companies but the infrastructure on which they run, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said. Does the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) acknowledge that in Reading, which I represent, the station causes a bottleneck? All hon. Members with a constituency interest in the south and south-west rail network should hope—and, I suggest, pray—that when the SRA announces its 10-year plan tomorrow, it will include a significant commitment to upgrading Reading station. The track infrastructure in Reading is capable of 50 per cent. more traffic than the station can cope with. Many problems mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and others in this debate could be solved by a straightforward upgrading of Reading station.

Mr. Webb

We can all say amen to that prayer.

Station infrastructure is certainly part of the story. Swindon station is acquiring a fourth platform, which will help. Such things are important. However, one cannot help being nervous about another 10-year plan. Obviously, such matters are long term, but we are already some years into a different 10-year plan for which the money may or may not have already run out. I wish to stress the urgency of these matters to the Minister rather than the defeatism that characterises the Government's approach.

How does the current performance compare with what happened in the past? I am sure you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that about a year after I first came to the House, I led a debate about rail services between London and the west country—within a year of being elected, I was complaining. At that time, I complained that reliability was 99.4 per cent. What would we not give for that now? Punctuality was 86.7 per cent. compared with 72 per cent. now. I was unhappy that the service had deteriorated but it is substantially worse now.

Nobody expects instant quick fixes, but we are in the sixth term—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] Sorry, that was a Freudian slip. We are in the sixth year of a Labour Government. They will still have a 10-year plan after the sixth term. We are not expecting quick fixes, but things seem to be going backwards. We have not returned to the quality of service that was inherited.

I am worried that at the end of the debate the Minister will say, "We have a plan; there is all this money going in and things are heading in the right direction." I intend no disrespect to the Minister, but why should we believe a word of it? Six years have passed. We have had such assurances before and still we see the service getting worse. I hope that the Minister will give us some convincing reason why we should believe the kinds of assurances that we are likely to get.

What needs to be done? I shall raise some general matters relating to infrastructure work that is needed in respect of particular vulnerabilities and pressure points, but I shall start by raising two matters of local interest. First, will the Minister tell us what is the status of Filton junction? I understand that it still features in the SRA's proposals, but that there is some uncertainty about whether the money will be forthcoming. The status of that junction is important in our local area.

Secondly, the infamous Chipping Sodbury tunnel is a matter of particular interest to my constituents and to me. No sooner does it rain than the tunnel floods and trains are redirected or cancelled. I understand that it might be possible to pump water out of the tunnel on to part of the Badminton estate and create a permanent wetland environment. That is an intriguing and attractive idea. Is the Minister aware of that? If so, has he any thoughts about it? Has he considered what action should be taken to ensure that the tunnel is effectively pumped? When there is heavy rain the tunnel causes a permanent bottleneck.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said that we need more co-ordination between different parts of the rail industry. I spoke to the managing director of First Great Western, who talked about his company setting up common control rooms with Network Rail and said, "We sit down and think about what we would do if we were part of an integrated rail system." They are trying to recreate how it once was and how it might be, but it is bizarre that different companies and organisations have to do that. There is a real chance that if things are co-ordinated they might be improved. Infrastructure is finite and long-term investment will inevitably take a while to have an effect. We must make the most of what we have—that means more co-ordination.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

My hon. Friend is describing the deficiencies in the infrastructure that he recognises in his part of the world. We all recognise such things in our own constituencies. Does he agree that, in the overall picture, improvements to the west country's rail infrastructure are completely forgotten and that we are doing extremely badly in comparison with other parts of the country?

Mr. Webb

My hon. Friend has better eyesight than 1 thought, since he has anticipated my third point. I will return to that issue. It will, however, be no surprise to him that I agree on that point.

In respect of co-ordination, on which we have already touched, I would support a single operator for Paddington and I would welcome the merger of the Thames Trains and First Great Western franchises. We need an urgent response from the SRA about these ideas. Some of the proposals can be implemented during the period 2004 to 2006, and there is potential for more integration and improvements to the service beyond that date. The routes currently operated by Thames Trains need to be freed up in order to create better coordination on the existing track.

I welcome the fact that First Great Western is working with the SRA and that joint control rooms are being set up. We need more of that kind of thing and I hope that the Government will not delay matters. There seems to be a lot of dither and delay on the issue of refranchising and co-ordination, and I hope that that can be removed.

My final points, which were prefigured by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), refer to the sense, which many hon. Members in the Chamber will have, that the wider south-west is neglected in terms of transport infrastructure. The Minister shakes his head at that, but given where he is from he might nod his head were he wearing a different hat.

The south-west seems to be the poor relation in respect of the planned major rail infrastructure programmes. I am told that the SRA has not even been coming to recent meetings in the region that it might have been expected to attend. That is perhaps indicative of the attitude of the SRA and successive Governments to the needs of the south-west—there always seems to be a more high-profile region. I sometimes think that south-west MPs have failed to speak as a region. Some of our colleagues from other regions in the country, speak more effectively as a region than we do. I accept that, in that respect, we have a problem with our Cornish friends. Hon. Members from the south-west should perhaps speak rather more on behalf of their region.

Mr. Don Foster

My hon. Friend makes a critical point about the SRA not involving itself in the region. Sadly, on some occasions it does turn up for meetings. Recently it met with four local authorities in my area to discuss the future of Corsham station. The SRA representatives sat through deliberations on how to progress with plans for that station, and three days later it announced that the project was not going to go ahead. Presumably, the SRA had known that all along.

Mr. Webb

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have not spoken at length about the withdrawal of Bristol to Oxford services, which is linked to the Corsham decision. The south-west often suffers when changes of this sort are made, and perhaps it is time that it stopped being the sleeping giant and demanded its fair share of infrastructure investment, and a decent infrastructure. The south-west area multi-modal study advocated particular infrastructure investment, but from what we have been told, there is no money for it.

We could all moan about the railways ad nauseam, and I am sure that the Minister hears a lot about the matter, but I do not apologise for that fact. Some constituents e-mail me on the subject. E-mail is wonderful, because commuters copy me in on First Great Western's reply to their complaints and on the dialogue between them. My constituents are getting angrier and angrier, because investment is not being made; we have been promised great things, but the train service is failing to deliver them. If anything, we are going backwards.

There is a certain fatalism about the Government's approach. They have given up on telling us when, if ever, we can expect a decent, high-quality, reliable rail service. I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong, but I fear that I am not.

2.21 pm
Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

I am delighted to take part in the debate, and I apologise in advance for the fact that I have to attend a meeting of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs this afternoon and shall not be able to listen to the summing up. However, I look forward to reading it in Hansard. I will try not to make this a rerun of the debate that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and I were involved in a couple of weeks ago; it became known as the Virgin debate, because most of us did not have much to say in favour of Virgin. However, one hopes that things have moved on.

I should like to concentrate on some of the plus points, as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has made a pretty damning indictment of some of the problems that have been experienced. Anyone who uses the trains regularly—and I think that all the Labour Members present are regular rail users—will know that there have been significant problems since November. The service did surprisingly well after the Paddington rail crash. Given all the problems that were bound to occur, it is disappointing that we should come out of a long tunnel only to find more problems. However, in the past few weeks, the service has been much better, and I hope that that is a sign of things to come.

It is pleasing that the fourth platform at Swindon is coming back into use because that will bring about a significant improvement in the passage of trains through the town. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) says that Reading is the centre point for problems, there are difficulties at either end of the line. There are problems at Paddington, which is clearly in need of major infrastructure development, and at Swindon, although the latter is being catered for, and that is good news. I am glad that we are in dialogue with the rail operating companies. To be fair to those companies, my spies in Network Rail can honestly say that nearly all the problems in recent months have been to do with infrastructure, rather than the companies themselves. That is not helped by the way in which the companies have to interlock with the infrastructure, but let us put the blame where it belongs, and let us hope that Network Rail is beginning to get to grips with that issue.

Mr. Salter

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent announcement that Network Rail is taking back in-house responsibility for significant elements of track maintenance? Does he agree that one of the consequences of the disastrous privatisation of the railways is the pre-eminence of contractor culture in the British Rail network? Although many Labour Members would welcome the complete renationalisation of the track infrastructure, at least Network Rail's action is a move in the right direction.

Mr. Drew

My hon. Friend has always been provocative. I could talk about historical lessons, but I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said. Anyone who knows anything about railways knows that contractualisation has been a menace, but the situation is more serious than that. I know from talking to people in the industry that the real problem is that we do not have expertise in the industry any more because there are insufficient numbers of railway engineers. That is a safety issue; in our part of the world the number of people who are able to react to emergencies is sometimes pretty minimal.

Mr. Tyler

May I endorse the point that was made by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter)? Neither he nor the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) were in the House when the Labour party was in opposition. I was then the Liberal Democrat transport spokesman and I stressed the need to prevent further fragmentation under the previous Government's privatisation proposals. I urged the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats to make a firm statement that either or both parties would buy back Railtrack if they were in a position to do so following an election. That would have prevented the sale of Railtrack and the fragmentation to which the hon. Gentlemen referred. I know that, like many of us, they have suffered in recent weeks from the chaos in Slough caused by the lack of infrastructure and investment.

Mr. Drew

A benefit of not being around at that time is that I was not privy to such discussions. I hope that we are reaching a more sensible arrangement but there is a need for more co-ordination, which leads on to my next point.

Although we see the sense of refranchising and repackaging parts of our railways, that is causing short-term worries because we are not sure what decisions will result from the discussions. We desperately need to consider a more integrated service. I always make a plea for my own line—the Cheltenham to Swindon line—and we want to be included, which is why we are happy that First Great Western is putting on more trains. However, there was the bombshell of Virgin pulling out. We have lost Wales and West services so we have gone back to the Wessex Trains arrangements, but we are not sure where we fit into the great refranchising arrangement. Will the Minister get a move on and get decisions taken through the Strategic Rail Authority? Will he examine the best integrated outcome, because that will give certainty, which is what the rail system needs more than anything?

I could read out many statistics about the investment that is required. The figures relating to the south-west are fairly stark: 450 miles of track need refurbishing or replacing; many units for switches and crossing equipment need replacing; and many temporary speed limits are in operation. Those of us who travel on the railway know all about that.

The title of the debate gives away one of our rail system's problems. The hon. Member for Northavon is right to talk about the rail system between the southwest and London, but part of the problem is that, although it is not the sum total of the system, it completely dominates all decision making. That is why Virgin dropped out. It could not get places in Paddington and had to pull out all other services because of the knock-on effect. That shows short-term, contradictory thinking.

There are many ways in which we must start to rebuild our local network. I cannot speak from experience because I do not often travel to Bristol by train. We could re-establish local stations. We have examined carefully how that could be done and suggestions have been made about my line. I should declare an interest because I live nearby, but Stonehouse Bristol Road station, one of two stations in Stonehouse, could be reopened. That would allow people to travel from Gloucester to Bristol on a train that stops at several stations, making localised commuting possible. At present, a person who wants to go to London can commute, although it may be rather expensive—we could do something about that. However, anyone who wants to commute can travel nowhere apart from London.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right about new stations. One of the problems in Corsham in my constituency is that although there may be the money and the plans to open the station, there are no trains; there have to be trains. The recent announcement from the SRA makes the situation even more difficult.

Mr. Drew

I do not know much about Corsham, but that seems similar to what happens in my part of the world. One can get the infrastructure but not the trains, or one can get the trains but they cannot stop at the appropriate times. We need much more joined-up thinking. My plea is that we should think about how to use refranchising not only to reconstruct the system but to re-energise it. The situation could be improved by linking the trains and the bus network; in some cases, train operators also run bus franchises.

However, that is a local issue, and it does not affect people who commute to London. Although we need to improve the service to London—and in some cases to hold on to it—we must also consider genuine alternatives to the car, to enable people to move around locally. The SRA has many proposals to consider. I urge it to get on with the refranchising and to consider issues on their own merit rather than measuring everything according to its relevance for people travelling to London. I fear that by the time we have waited until Paddington is right, and then we have waited until Reading is right, some of us in the south-west will be able to get to London, but we will not be able to get anywhere else. That is not what the rail network should be about.

2.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton)

I should like to mention some matters that affect the railway further to the south-west than the areas mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). He rightly focused on the part of the track between Bristol and Swindon and then on to Reading. That has had an impact on my constituency in Devon, in particular, over the years, on Tiverton Parkway station. Parkway stations are good; this one services not only mid-Devon but north Devon and parts of Somerset. However, it has had problems.

Each year, when the timetables have been revised, trains going through to Paddington have been removed from the schedule. When I have inquired about that reduction in the stopping services at Tiverton Parkway, I have been told that it is because of congestion further up the track, between Bristol and Swindon. All indications are, as has been said, that putting the franchising agreements in place as soon as possible—particularly if there is to be a link between First Great Western and Thames Trains—will make a difference not only to those served by that part of the track but to us, further down.

It would be remiss of me not to remind the Minister, who does not need reminding as he hears from me regularly on the matter, about the parts of the line to the west of Bristol where there are still problems. One is the long-standing issue of the flooding of Stafford's bridge at Stoke Canon in my constituency which means that people have to be bussed from Tiverton Parkway to Exeter St. David's. Not only does that have a huge, detrimental effect on the local community, it does not augur well for businesses that want to locate in the further south-west or for our tourist industry. As we know, it occasionally rains in the summer as well as the winter. I know that work has been done on Stafford's bridge, and I am grateful for the information that I have received about the engineering work. However, we have not completely resolved the problem, and while it remains, it affects the main route from Penzance to London.

I should also like to flag up to the Minister the fact that I took a close interest in the south west area regional multi-modal study exercise last year. It looked at the overall strategic importance of rail, road and other interrelated links. He should take fright at it as much as I did, not least because he represents a Plymouth seat. The SWARMMS report concluded that one of the key problems was the lack of competitiveness of the rail link, particularly west of Exeter.

If there is ever any question of the railway's being deemed not important further west of Exeter, I am sure that both the Minister and I will champion the railway. That exercise was carried out for the SWARMMS report and overseen by the regional assembly. During that process, I, as a Member of Parliament, had the humiliation of being allowed to observe the deliberations, while others who had little knowledge of the locality made profound pronouncements. I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind not only that such comments are depressing for business, but that no hon. Member from the west of Exeter would countenance such events in future. I am sure that I have cross-party support on that point.

Mr. Drew

I am sure that the hon. Lady will remember, but I got the SWARMMS people to the House, because I thought that it was important that they had a dialogue with us. I hope that the Minister will take on board the idea that SWARMMS should work with hon. Members, not disregard them as seems to have happened.

Mrs. Browning

I could not agree more. I was allowed to go and observe, but not to sit round the table and talk about the issues in my constituency, something that was difficult for me, as the Minister will appreciate.

If we are talking about rail links between the southwest and London, I must mention the Exeter to Waterloo line. That is not the issue that the hon. Member for Northavon raised initially, but it is equally important. The fact that the new franchises are being issued is important. Railtrack wrote to me in August 2001, further to my inquiries about dualling the track on the line. It said that various train operator bidders for the new Wessex franchise covering that area had considered the suggestions, taken them on board and anticipated that dualling certain parts of the track would feature in their proposals. There are huge problems with that line, but it should not be forgotten, because it is an important alternative to the main Paddington link. It is useful not only to my constituents but to those further up the track.

In conclusion, I realise that there are difficulties at the moment, because of what has happened recently to the structure of Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority. However, I should appreciate it if Ministers personally kept hon. Members informed on such matters, rather than leaving that to the train operators and those who obtain the franchises. Those briefings are useful, but I would be grateful if we could hear more regularly from Ministers about their thinking and their realistic expectations of timetabling for the strategic overview of rail transport in the south-west.

2.37 pm
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

There are three subjects that most Englishmen like to talk or complain about: cricket, weather and the awfulness of the rail services. That has been the case under all regimes, from the very beginning of the railways. I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on calling the debate, and wholeheartedly agree with most of his remarks about the general dreadfulness of the service. "Delays, discomfort and disgraceful cost" is a reasonable summary. It is not necessary for me to expand on that. Everyone present knows what the matter boils down to, and I stand with them in complaining to the Government, to First Great Western and to others.

I want to speak in this debate because of the announcement a few weeks ago of the withdrawal of the Bristol to Oxford service via my constituency. That announcement has an unintentional and regrettable consequence: the likely failure to reopen Corsham station. Corsham is a town of 10,000 or 15,000 people and is growing rapidly. The station has been planned in all but its final stages. There has been a slight hiccup recently over the cost involved, but the £2.5 million that was originally proposed seems to be enough. A consultant recently proposed that it would cost £2.5 million to reopen the station, and the trains from Bristol to Oxford were going to stop there.

Corsham is largely a commuter area, from which people tend to commute to Bath, Bristol, Chippenham, Reading and London. A survey carried out 10 years ago found that, of the 1,500 or so people commuting from Corsham, more than 1,000 were doing so in the local area and a total of only 48 commuted to London. The service that was offered from Corsham to Bath, Chippenham and Swindon would have been heavily used. In addition, a new development has been proposed in the Pockeridge lane to Peel circus site, which would create 595 new houses within a 100 yd or so of the new station. That development is being built not least because the new station was expected.

Following last week's announcement by the Strategic Rail Authority of the withdrawal of the Bristol-Oxford service, it now looks as if the rail passenger partnership will not be an option for Corsham station. The Corsham station programme may well collapse, in which case the station will not be reopened. Incidentally, that would mean that other projects for which we have been fighting, such as the Wootton Bassett station, are equally unlikely to occur. In these days of sustainable transport and all the brave words used by the Government about trying to persuade people off the roads and on to railways, it is extremely regrettable to see a project such as the one for Corsham station disappear.

I want to ask the Minister two things. First, is there a way in which he can delay the withdrawal of the Bristol-Oxford service? It has been announced that the service will be withdrawn in May, but if he could delay that until after refranchising, it is just possible that the new franchisee might find some way to run the present service or provide another service that will stop at Corsham station.

Even if the Minister cannot go that far, will he take an early opportunity—I have written to him on this matter—to welcome to his office representatives of a broad consensus, consisting presumably of those from Wiltshire county council and North Wiltshire district council, myself and Other interested persons? The civic society at Corsham is very active on the matter, as is Councillor Peter Davis, a Liberal Democrat who has been campaigning on the subject for 20 years, to whom I pay tribute. If the Minister would be so kind as to meet us to discuss the matter, I should like to find a way of allowing the project to go ahead.

Mr. Tyler

I am listening carefully. There is a more general point. The Minister's influence in the matter would, of course, have been much greater had the industry not been fragmented by privatisation. Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he would have voted for that legislation had he been a Member at the time?

Mr. Gray

I am here to fight the corner of the people of North Wiltshire, including the people of Corsham. I am not interested in entering into petty party political dialogues of that sort. We are here to talk about Corsham station.

Another disadvantage that has resulted from the announcement is that the money earmarked to turn Chippenham station into a transport hub has been withdrawn. There was to be a bus link from Chippenham to west Wiltshire, especially to Devizes, Calne, Melksham and Trowbridge. That is to be cancelled. Both those developments are extremely regrettable.

I am grateful for the Minister's nod, which I understand to mean that he will welcome a delegation of the sort that I have described. I look forward to discussing the matter further with him in the privacy of his office.

2.43 pm
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate.

It may appear to an innocent observer that Members are making competing claims on the Minister, but I do not see it that way. All that we are saying is complementary in that we are trying to establish a viable and integrated rail infrastructure for the south-west. If we are serious about moving people from our overcrowded road system and the over-congested A303 and M4, we must have a rail network capable of meeting their needs. In order to meet those needs, the service must be economical, efficient and convenient for those who want to use it. At the moment, it is none of those things.

I have serious concerns about the level of investment in the west country, as I said during an intervention on my hon. Friend. We are losing out as a region, as we so often have on such a wide range of issues over the years. We do not speak sufficiently forcefully and we do not speak with one voice. I hope that we are beginning to rectify that omission today. Other infrastructure programmes, equally important in their own way, do nothing for the people whom we represent in the west country. The west coast main line seems to be gobbling up all the available cash at the moment.

At Transport questions yesterday there was a bizarre competition to offer to buy the Minister more and more drinks in order to secure his support for various rail schemes. The bidding for Somerset was left with a commitment from the Minister to come down to Yeovil junction to have a pint of cider with my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and me while discussing the Waterloo to Exeter line. I do not intend to enter that auction, today. I simply want to express my concerns about the three main lines and then deal with local services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon talked about the first main line—London to Bristol. It is the main link for many of my constituents in Frome and the surrounding area. As we have heard, there are huge deficiencies in that line at the moment. It is an essential arterial route, not only for the west of England but for Wales. I tend to badger the Secretary of State for Wales on the ground that sometimes I can put a question to him when I cannot put one to the Transport Minister. Our desire for an effective rail service should cross the Bristol channel.

The second main line is the service that runs out of Paddington through Westbury and Frome in my constituency. It does not stop at Frome, however, which is a longstanding grievance. Frome is the largest town in England with a mainline station where the trains do not stop. The line then runs through Castle Cary—a very important station—and down to Taunton and beyond. We are concerned about the level of investment in that track and in the rolling stock that is used on that line, and about the future of the line as a whole. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) spoke about that too.

The third main line is Waterloo to Exeter, near to what I rather archaically refer to as the Southern region line, which serves my constituency via Temple Combe. A programme to dual that track could be implemented but is now on hold. There is no sense in talking about improving the public transport infrastructure in the area without addressing that issue.

Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)

Would not dualling that old Southern region line and increasing the speed of journey times between London and the south-west open up the very competition between routes that privatisation was supposed to promise? It is the lack of investment in infrastructure that has turned it into such a disaster.

Mr. Heath

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The biggest nonsense of all was when the dual-bed bridge at Temple Combe was taken up and replaced with a single-bed bridge. That was the height of myopia.

Mrs. Browning

In the spirit of cross-party consensus on this issue, may I point out that the hon. Gentleman and I are hit by a double whammy? Not only will those involved not dual our railway line between Exeter and Waterloo, they will not dual our road—the A30/303—either.

Mr. Heath

The hon. Lady must not lead me down that route, because otherwise I would talk about the Sparkford to Ilchester section of the A303, which I hope is to be dualled in the very near future.

Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for many years there has been great concern about the Reading, Westbury, Taunton element of the track? Is he convinced that the SRA will help maintain the present level of services, or is he worried about what it has been doing in Corsham and elsewhere?

Mr. Heath

I would be extremely worried. There seems to be a blind spot about the major arterial route to the west country. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) is right to say that one of the deficiencies is the bottleneck at Reading. That is outside our region, but affects all our people.

I shall say a few words about local services. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) that it is no good having the best express trains in the world if there is no way of getting people from their localities to them. One way of achieving that is via parkway stations, which are suitable in some circumstances, but a better way is to have good, connecting local services. As a result of Dr. Beeching's policies many years ago, there are huge gaps in the services available on the line from Westbury to Taunton.

One of my long-term intentions—it really is long term, as I started discussing it in 1985 on the county council—is to see the reopening of local stations. Stations such as Langport and Somerton, Castle Cary, Bruton, Witham Friary Junction—in which I declare an interest, because I live there—and Frome, could provide a useful component of the local public transport infrastructure. The reopening of those stations was being considered as a feasibility scheme under Railtrack, but now that has disappeared. I cannot tell my constituents whether there is any possibility of the reawakening and reinvigoration of that very enlightened and sensible scheme. It is a great opportunity missed.

I do not understand why we in Somerset cannot have the same sort of infrastructure that is taken for granted in other parts of the country. Why do we always have to get into our battered cars and drive to places, rather than use the railway that runs past the end of our garden but speeds its way down to Cornwall or up to London without stopping? I make a plea to Ministers. Let us deal with the main thoroughfares—the trunk routes, as it were—of the railway system, but let us also recognise that railways could perform a very valuable local public transport function. In the west country, at present, they fail to do that.

2.51 pm
Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury)

I rise to speak in the debate without declaring an interest, as I am not a regular rail user. That is because the service between Cheltenham, Gloucester and London is appallingly bad. I support all hon. Members who have commented to that effect.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate. I know that his intentions are genuine, and that he would not have raised the subject had it not been so important.

What is wrong with the Cheltenham service? Cheltenham and Gloucester are a main town and city and therefore deserve much better rail services than they have. The frequency is poor and the reliability is poor.

The direct service between Cheltenham, Gloucester and London is limited. Many trains require passengers to change at Swindon and the quality and safety of the train that takes them from Cheltenham to Swindon is questionable. One would struggle to find a bus that was worse or more antiquated.

The length of the journey is another problem: it can take well over two hours, and it is easy to drive to London in that time. If one then adds in the length of time it takes to get to the initial station and the time to travel across London, that is at least another hour. That is why so many people drive, because they cannot depend on the trains to get them to London on time or even to get them there at all. Nor can they depend on having refreshments when they are on the train.

The whole service is a disaster, and I want to bring it to the attention of the Minister, if he is not aware of it already, and to the House. I am being far less polite and measured in my terms than the hon. Member for Northavon was, but that reinforces my point—the service is dreadful.

The situation has been made worse and possibly more frustrating by the fact that, some while ago, I attended a meeting with First Great Western, which runs the trains from Cheltenham to London, and was promised that better services were on the way. I cannot remember the exact date of that meeting, but it is long enough ago to suggest that there should be some difference by now. I am not, however, aware of any sign of a difference.

On top of that is the quality of the station at Cheltenham, which for a mainline station is appalling. Some time ago, we were promised an hourly service to London from a small station called Ashchurch, which is near Tewkesbury. I do not expect the Minister to be aware of that station or the situation, but I would appreciate it if he examined the matter and wrote to me about it. That promise was made to people in the area, and just before today's debate started, I spoke to the parish council, which is concerned about the station's current viability.

Time is short. I would like to say a lot more, but I cannot. I will say only that it is a cop-out to blame privatisation, as it avoids examining the real issue. We hear that fragmentation has been the cause of the problem, but I cannot think of a transport industry that is more fragmented that the airline industry. Not all airports are owned by the same company and there are goodness knows how many air operators, but the quality of the service is far better, and it is safer and more reliable.

The fragmentation argument is nonsense. If there is any problem in that regard, it is that there are not enough rail providers. We do not have the choice that privatisation perhaps should have brought, and competitive rail services would improve the situation. If we are saying that British Rail should be the model for every industry, it is no wonder that people have no faith in politicians.

2.56 pm
Mr. Don Foster (Bath)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this important debate, in which he has rightly raised the concerns of all rail users in the south-west. Indeed, he has gone further and challenged Members of Parliament of all parties from the south-west to work harder together to get a better deal for our rail users.

My hon. Friend raised several specific local issues, as have other hon. Members, and the Minister will have made his traditional list of the questions to answer. My hon. Friend asked about Filton junction and Chipping Sodbury tunnel. Other hon. Members have asked about station improvements at Reading, problems of flooding at Stafford's Bridge, the Chippenham transport huh and the dualing of the Exeter to Waterloo line or what my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) described as the Southern region line. Rightly. the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) raised the vital question of Corsham station, to which I will return in a few minutes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon also talked about how the region has been neglected and is seen as a poor relation. Sadly, it is worse than that, because for certain rail and transport purposes, the south-west region does not even exist. Hon. Members will be aware that in 1999 the Deputy Prime Minister announced a new all-singing, all-dancing public information system. It was to be a "Travel Direct" along the lines of NHS Direct. At a research seminar organised by the Institute of Public Policy Research in December 1999, he said: I see no reason why you should not in the future be able to buy a single ticket on the phone, allowing you to go long distance, door-to-door, with a cab picking you up at home and taking you to the train, and another cab or bus taking you right to the door at the other end. The service should also be available on the internet, giving you the chance to buy your ticket and plan your journey at home or the office. New technology, modern transport will offer a brand new service for passengers.

Knowing my hon. Friend lives in the beautiful village of Olveston, I decided to check out how good that service, which was established in 1999, was in 2003, and he will be delighted to know that the all-singing, all-dancing system that was supposed to help integrate transport does not operate in the south-west. When I entered the name "Olveston", the system said that no results were found and that it could find not find any places that matched the inquiry for Olveston. I was surprised, but thought that it was perhaps because Olveston was too small for the computer. I thought that I would try my own wonderful constituency of Bath and was more generous by putting in the name of my local authority, Bath and North-East Somerset council. Unfortunately, it said that there was no journey planner covering Bath or Bath and north-east Somerset. So much for taking note of the transport needs of the southwest. My hon. Friend is right; we have been neglected. He was right to draw attention to the fatalistic approach adopted by those who are supposedly in charge of our over-fragmented railway system.

Tomorrow, the Strategic Rail Authority will announce its new, updated, strategic plan, to which we look forward with great interest and, I fear, resignation. A year ago when the first plan was announced, the Secretary of State told us there was a line in the sand—there would be a new dawn for the railways, and at long last there was long-term planning for the future. Tomorrow, that plan will be torn up, and many of its exciting projects—the schemes that hon. Members on both sides have referred to—will not go ahead.

The south-west loses out in many respects. There are signalling problems in many parts of the region—from Castle Cary to Taunton, Totnes to Plymouth, and Bristol to Swindon—and problems resulting from the failure to install a dual track in many areas. We have discussed the Exeter to Waterloo line; my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) referred to the need for dualling in the Probus and Burngullow area in Cornwall.

There are overcrowded trains in many parts of the system, and even the new rolling stock is sometimes inappropriate. I am unhappy with the Adelante trains introduced by First Great Western, and many people who have to use Virgin services are concerned about the Voyager train. When there are cutbacks in train services it is crazy to run shorter trains, with less room for passengers, rather than longer ones. More space should be available on the overcrowded Virgin Voyager and the Adelante trains. I was surprised that the Minister yesterday in the Chamberߞat column 706 of Hansard— described the Virgin Voyager trains as "a considerable improvement". That view is not shared by many people.

There are all sorts of problems in my region. In common with everyone else, we suffer increasing delays and cancellations. Since the Government came to power, delays have increased by 100 per cent. and cancellations by 50 per cent. Services in the south-west are part of those statistics. That is not solely the fault of the train operating companies; much of the problem results from the failure, over many years, to invest in railway infrastructure and from the problems caused by the fragmentation introduced when the railway system was privatised.

The south-west loses out in other ways, even when the Government decide it is important to look at the overall system. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to the south west area regional multi-modal study. Many of us were unhappy about its proposals but the study at least made an effort to consider the integration of road and rail. But what happened? As soon it was presented we were told that the road schemes might go ahead but there was no funding for the rail projects.

The notion of integrated, joined-up thinking on transport seems to have gone out of the window. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire gave as an example the cuts to the Bristol Temple Meads to Oxford line and its implications for Corsham station. That will be a disaster for rail travellers, and it will put many more cars on the roads, which means more congestion. We are being offered jam tomorrow for our railways, but jams today on the roads.

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

I do not want to stem the hon. Gentleman's flow, but he talked about infrastructure improvements and listed several substantial improvements that he wanted. Would he tell the Chamber whether the Liberal Democrats plan to put more money into transport? If not, how will they bring about improvements?

Mr. Foster

Yes, it is, in part, about more money. If the hon. Gentleman will wait just a few more days, we will present a detailed alternative Budget. I ask him to be patient.

However, it is also a matter of making more effective use of money. We all accept that rail costs are massively over the top, but I raised questions a very long time ago about the way in which money was wasted on the railways. Even the Minister's Government accepted that part of the problem was that there were far too many contractors and subcontractors on the track, all taking a share of the profits. The former Secretary of State for Transport accepted that more than 12 months ago—action is long overdue.

There are far too many train operating companies, and there is a need to address the fragmented nature of the railway. Some developments are simply not affordable because everyone is concerned about the safety regime on the railway and thus not moving forward. If the Government were to take up suggestions as to how such problems might be managed, we would be able to make better use sooner of existing resources.

Mr. Laurence Robertson

As the hon. Gentleman is talking about safety, would he comment on the fact that there are far more airline companies than there are train companies, yet the safety record in the air is infinitely better?

Mr. Foster

We had that debate in the Chamber only yesterday. Comparisons between a fragmented monopoly and a fragmented competitive situation are totally false. In reality, people have little choice about which trains they take, whereas they have the option of not flying on an unsafe plane. Competition can drive up safety in a way that a fragmented monopoly cannot.

Much can be done. It is regrettable that there will be significant reductions to the big schemes that were planned by the Strategic Rail Authority. The Minister heard from Members from all parties today, and will continue to hear from Members from the south-west and elsewhere, that many pinch-point problems can be resolved by relatively small, relatively low-cost schemes on different parts of the network. Bringing in a passing-loop line to allow a fast train to overtake a slow one and a bit of dualling here and there could make a huge difference. I urge him to review the rail passenger partnership programme, because it offers opportunities. Local people can suggest local solutions to how improvements can be made on the network.

Let me conclude by speaking briefly in support of what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said about the Oxford to Bristol Temple Meads line. I accept that it may be sensible to reduce the number of trains in some pinch-point areas to achieve improved reliability. I would not deny that for a minute and have said so publicly several times.

However, each service must be considered much more carefully than it has been to date. The impacts on other aspects of the transport network and on long-term future planning of the rail network must be considered in the round. The cancellation of the Oxford to Bristol Temple Meads train is an example of a bad mistake about to be made. It will mean not only more cars on our roads but almost certainly cancellation of the Corsham station plans. Frankly, that would be a disaster for the area.

I hope that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will urge the Minister not only to meet a group of people with an interest in the matterߞthe affected area is much wider than the immediate north Wiltshire area because, as other hon. Members have said, an impact in one area can spread a very long way—but also to take a personal interest in the issue and try to delay the decision.

This has been a very important debate. We look forward to the response from the Minister but above all to his assurance that the south-west will not continue to lose out in the provision of a rail system.

3.9 pm

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch)

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on introducing the debate. We heard important contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). It is notable that, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate and his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who has just replied from the Front Bench, the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is the only Liberal Democrat with the staying power to listen to the debate throughout. By coming into the Chamber to offer a sound bite and then disappearing, the Liberal Democrats quite typically show that they do not take the issues as seriously as they should. This matter needs more than a short contribution; it needs sustained involvement. That is why I am delighted that I have four of my hon. Friends with me.

Mr. Heath

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Chope

No, I will not give way at the moment.

Nobody has dealt with a significant issue that affects the part of Dorset that includes Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole. The Strategic Rail Authority announced in December that it would reduce the number of trains a day on the line between Southampton and Bournemouth by no fewer than 30 with effect from May. It used the extraordinary justification that the purpose of these particular reductions is to make more productive use of capacity on an overcrowded network. People in my constituency recognise that there is pressure on the network further to the east of Southampton, but there is not the pressure on the network between Bournemouth and Southampton to justify that enormous cut in service. That is another example of the SRA being rather disingenuous.

Another big issue for my constituents is the uncertainty generated by the delay in deciding on the new franchise for South West Trains. When South West Trains became the preferred bidder, it put its money where its mouth was and invested heavily in new rolling stock, which will come on stream in the next two or three years. In return, it has received delay and indecision from the Government, and the franchise, which expires next month, will be extended for a year while a new three-year deal is negotiated. One adverse consequence is that investment in infrastructure that South West Trains has been willing to commit to as part of a longer-term franchise will no longer be available. That money will be clawed back by the SRA, and we will not know until tomorrow's announcement whether the authority will invest in the infrastructure to the extent that South West Trains would have been willing to do, had it been given a longer franchise. We may find that the reduction in the lengths of the franchise will be to the detriment of the travelling public, particularly in Dorset.

Several hon. Members referred to the SRA's announcement. It is extraordinary to have a debate when there will be a major announcement on the following day, and it is extraordinary that we cannot have the debate the day after the announcement so that we can comment on it. There is plenty of scope there for conspiracy theorists. We are likely to hear tomorrow that there will be a substantial reduction in investment in railway infrastructure because of the extraordinary overspending and waste that has been identified. I hope that the independent rail regulator, who is still in office, Mr. Tom Winsor, will consider very carefully what the SRA intends to do and will see whether it will be evenhanded in its investment in various parts of the country.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)

I apologise for not having been here for the whole debate. I have been serving on an inquiry team, and I am sure that the House—particularly Liberal Democrat Members, because they are never here when such things are being said—will understand why I have not been here until now.

I do not understand why we cannot catch a train from Paddington to Plymouth without such a fuss. Anywhere else in Europe, people simply get on a train. I cannot believe that we are having a debate about the lines and the rolling stock. What is the problem with this country that means that we cannot just get on a train, get off it at the other end and arrive on time? What has gone wrong with Britain and our rail services?

Mr. Chope

My hon. Friend, as always, puts his finger on the core issue, which is that the people who are responsible for running the railways are not able to deliver the common-sense results that both he and I want. I feel strongly about rail travel between Cornwall and the south-east, particularly between Cornwall and my constituency. My mother lives in Cornwall and depends wholly on the railways when she wants to see her family. She is not alone in Cornwall in feeling isolated, and the Government's failure to deliver improved services on the railways, and on the roads to Cornwall, increases that feeling of isolation.

I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and others about the south west area regional multi-modal study. What a waste of time that was. We were suspicious when it was set up. We thought that it was a delaying tactic by the Government to get a lot of people chattering among themselves and becoming involved in enormously complicated evidence gathering, evidence giving and playing one group of people off against another. At the end of that elongated process, a report was produced, which made it clear-that if there is a west country voice on such matters, it should be that the railway line to the east of Exeter should be dualled.

How did the Government respond? They ignored the report and thereby insulted everyone who had been involved in its preparation. If he does nothing else this afternoon, the Minister should apologise to those people who, in good faith, embarked on that consultation exercise, only to have the Government press their faces into the mud.

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

I am pleased to follow the temperate remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).

I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate and making the points that he has done. I shall put on my south-west hat for a moment. He was right to say that there is considerable advantage in Members of Parliament and local authorities speaking with one voice. If I have a criticism of my region, it is perhaps that it has not spoken with a unified voice in the past, as some other regions have. Let us consider the lobbying of the Welsh or the Scots—not as regions, but separate nations—and of some parts of the north. Perhaps we have lost out in that respect.

Two years ago, we had a lively debate on the subject, occasioned by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. The hon. Member for Northavon also referred to a debate that he initiated in 1998 on the subject. He relayed the usual horror stories. There is no difficulty in finding such stories, and I accept that every one of them is an inconvenience to the people involved. However, I travel from London to the southwest and the majority of my journeys have been successful. The trains have been on time. They have not always been as clean as I would have liked, nevertheless my experience of the service generally has been very good. That has also been the case in trains that I have used when carrying out ministerial duties. The operators had not known beforehand that I would be using the trains. Not all journeys are bad. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are sufficient bad journeys to cause concern. However, to suggest that the whole service is poor paints a false picture. Although it is fraught with problems, there are also many successes in our rail system.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I want the rail service to improve. For years, under British Rail, the rail industry was widely regarded as being in gradual decline. There was never a golden age, some 50 years ago, when the rail service delivered everything that people today say that they would like. Then the industry was privatised. The emphasis was on reducing subsidy rather than on looking for growth or improving passenger and freight services. For the first time in generations, the industry started to grow—just as the private sector took over. An additional problem has been caused by there being considerably more people in employment: since 1997, 1.5 million more people have been travelling by train to work or for pleasure and leisure, putting additional strain on the system.

Following privatisation, there was no strategic leadership. The Strategic Rail Authority was therefore set up to provide that leadership and to take a new strategic approach to providing rail services. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to be fobbed off with references to the SRA. However, the authority's objectives, as set out by the Secretary of State, are to provide clear leadership and the co-ordination that the hon. Gentleman talked about, to improve performance across the network, and to provide a clear and focused approach to franchising. I think that the hon. Gentleman would welcome those objectives. If he thinks that 50 years of neglect can be turned around in six years, I have to tell him that it cannotߞalthough there are many signs of improvement.

In contrast to the previous fragmented approach, the SRA is getting to grips with the problems that rising prosperity has brought. Since 1997, passenger rail journeys have increased by just over 20 per cent. The increase in the amount of freight on the network has been similar. The hon. Gentleman did not have time to mention that, but I am sure that he would join me in welcoming it. Use of the rail network is now much higher than before, but for decades the network has been deprived of necessary investment.

All of those pressures threaten the drive to improve performance. We have made the structural changes that are necessary to achieve that improvement. The SRA has a clear plan and a clear strategic direction. Network Rail is now working in the public interest—working to overcome the legacy of Railtrack. We have to remember that the handover to Network Rail was very recent.

Mr. Steen

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jamieson

No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber long and many hon. Members who have been here would like their questions to be answered.

I shall comment on the performance of First Great Western and South West Trains, the main providers of rail services between London and the south-west. The latest statistics that the SRA has published, for April 2002 to October 2002, show that the operators' performance in the quarter from July to September was an improvement on their performance in the corresponding quarter in 2001. However, late last year a considerable number of problems arose. In this country, we like to laugh about certain problems, but some of the weather and flooding was exceptional. Not only did that upset the rail system, it flooded houses and roads. As we know, the famous Dawlish problem was prominent again last year for Virgin trains. As the hon. Gentleman will know, it can take only one train being delayed to have a knock-on effect throughout the whole system.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that Virgin Voyagers were not all they were cracked up to be. Those trains are considerably better than the rolling stock that was used before. They are much more reliable and comfortable. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that, he should go and sit first in one of the old trains, then in one of the new ones, to test which is better. I can only think that he has not used one or other type of train.

The hon. Member for Northavon talked about the failure to deliver the service that the passengers have a right to expect. That is sometimes true, but not always. Lamentably, it is true too often. That is the reason for our current level of investment in the infrastructure. The hon. Gentleman will know that central and local government budgets for improvements are finite. However, he must admit that no other Government in the past 50 years have put the type of investment into the rail system that we have done, or invested at the same level.

The hon. Gentleman wants various projects to be brought forward. Given that funds are finite, I challenge him to decide which of the projects currently being undertaken he would not proceed with. Would he put a stop to some of the investment that is being made in the west coast main line? That has an effect on the whole of the south-west. If trains from Bristol to Birmingham and further north are delayed, there will be a knock-on effect in the south-west region.

I notice that the hon. Member for Bath was extremely coy when we talked about more funds. I look forward to his proposals in the next few days. He has said that he will announce extra funding. Only a short time ago—the hon. Gentleman will not like this—the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), who is the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, told his colleagues in a confidential paper that they could no longer assume that spending pledges could be funded unless they satisfied five conditions. One of those was that the pledge could be funded within current budgets. Previously, when I have asked in this Chamber how much extra money the Liberal Democrats would make available, I have been told that there would be no extra funding. I was also interested in something that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said.

Mr. Don Foster

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam)

Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way. Hon. Members must not heckle.

Mr. Jamieson

I will not give way to the hon. Member for Bath. As the Liberal Democrats do in this Chamber, he took longer for his speech—nearly 13 minutes—than I have been allowed and longer than the hon. Member for Christchurch. There are other people we need to listen to.

On the question about Filton junction, the scheme is being developed, and once the SRA knows the costs and benefits of the project a decision will be taken. We are aware of the problems at the Chipping Sodbury tunnel, which are causing considerable difficulty. A pumping system is in place, but I am told that the difficulty is where to pump the water once it comes out. I think that a problem with creating wetlands is the possibility that flooding might result. The matter is being given careful consideration because of its importance to the whole network.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) stressed the importance of the line going west from Exeter and I agree, of course. That is a part of the Government's view of the matter. Good-quality links in that direction are vital, particularly as the lines run through Devon into Cornwall—which has, after all, objective 1 funding.

Several hon. Members mentioned the Exeter to Waterloo line. We shall be considering what improvements can be made to capacity utilisation, to make better use of the existing track. I also take the point about keeping Members of Parliament better informed. I shall consider devices for that. If the hon. Lady has any suggestions I shall be happy to take them forward.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) talked of the Oxford to Bristol service. I know that he will be disappointed—as I think we all are—at the prospect of the service being withdrawn. I should be happy to meet a delegation, but we should need to consider how to increase the use of the service. At the moment, only 43 people, on average, use a large train. That is a low level of use. If we can increase it, a case for improvement may be made. I am, of course, happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about the matter if that is helpful.

With the little time that I have to sum up, I have not covered many hon. Members' questions. However, if they want me to take up particular points and are happy to do so by correspondence, I shall, in the usual way, try to answer them most thoroughly.