§ Ms Joan Ryan (Enfield, North)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of rail services in north London in general, but particularly those in my constituency of Enfield, North.
My request for the debate was prompted by the deterioration of rail services to Enfield and the consequent loss of confidence of my constituents who, for reasons that I shall come to later, are dependent on the train operating company West Anglia Great Northern or WAGN. Their fears are compounded by the news that many train operating companies are renegotiating to have their franchises extended. I do not object to that in principle. We all understand that to bring about the levels of service that we require, it is not unrealistic for train companies to have a reasonable period in which to reap the benefits of their investment.
I believe that most of my constituents wholeheartedly support the Government's attempts to shift traffic from the roads by encouraging more extensive use of railways and I think that they would also understand many of the problems involved in trying to achieve that. None the less, the shortfall in service delivery with current user levels undermines the prospect of success.
The London borough of Enfield estimates that it has seen an increase in road traffic of approximately 1.5 per cent. each year for the past 30 years. That clearly demonstrates that the problem is not new and that the Government are right to pursue an integrated transport system. While I intend to concentrate on the example of Enfield, I am certain from discussions with hon. Members who represent other north London constituencies that much of what I say today will echo the concerns of many thousands of other rail users throughout the region. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) and for Edmonton (Mr. Love) share my concerns. I was also approached by other hon. Members who have in turn been approached by their constituents and by business representatives on this matter, particularly regarding urgent need for improvement in lateral routes such as the East London line.
WAGN is a subsidiary of Prism Rail. In 1997 it was awarded the franchise for the London, Peterborough, Cambridge, King's Lynn and Stansted lines operating from Liverpool Street, Moorgate and King's Cross stations. The contract was for seven years and three months, so is due to expire in 2004. Those rail services go through my constituency and provide essential passenger rail transport from nine stations in Enfield, North—from Enfield Chase, Gordon Hill and Crews Hill in the west, and Southbury, Turkey Street, Ponders End, Brimsdown and Enfield Lock on the eastern lines and Enfield Town. I say essential services because unlike many other parts of north London there are no rail alternatives for commuters from Enfield, North. The underground does not extend as far as Enfield, North and road transport into central London is barely an option, due to congestion and travelling time.
Enfield borough council estimates that some 10,000 people use the railways to travel from Enfield to work each day and that a further 1,500 use the service to travel 246WH to Enfield to work each day. I rely on the service from Enfield Chase station into Finsbury park or Highbury and Islington to pick up the underground to Westminster. Although I use this service regularly, I am indebted to the Enfield rail user groups, which represent many of my constituents, for the broad range of data that they have collected from each of the lines through Enfield, North. I make particular mention of the Enfield Lock rail user group and the business user group, which have provided specific information on the shortcomings of WAGN's services for both private passengers and business and industry in Enfield.
In December last year, the three Enfield Labour MPs invited WAGN's managing director, Euan Cameron, to make the journey from Turkey Street in Enfield, North through Edmonton Green to Liverpool Street to see at first hand the service that rail users receive. To his credit, he was happy to take part. He discussed with us the various problems, which he also discussed with rail user groups' representatives. Mr. Cameron, in an earlier letter to me, was candid enough to concede that the service provided by WAGN had been unacceptable.
The purpose of the journey was to identify specific areas where urgent improvement is needed. Those problems were further highlighted at the Enfield transport users forum in December and again in the community debate in January, both events being initiated by Enfield council. They were welcome initiatives under its agenda for modernising local government.
The shadow strategic rail authority makes it clear that one of the prime proposals for replacement franchises is to reduce perceived barriers to switching from car to public transport, but the experience of many who participated in our local forum made clear the extent of the problem, including increasing overcrowding on trains. WAGN conceded that there has been a 7 per cent. growth in the number of passengers during peak hours and an overall increase of 12 per cent. in two years—something that we should welcome—yet there are no additional trains serving this already overcrowded route.
Mr. Lloyd Tew Cragg of the Enfield Lock rail user group has written to me, and to WAGN, to describe the experience of his fellow passengers. His group is nicknamed, with typical gallows humour, the mushroom club, as each morning commuters on the Lee Valley line remark to each other when they have boarded their train, "There's not mushroom in here, is there?" Mr. Tew Gragg also highlights the remarkable practice of trains failing to stop at certain stations if they are running late. I understand that rail operators are judged to have failed punctuality targets only if trains complete their entire journey late. Therefore trains running late at certain stages of the route can make up lost time simply by missing out whole stations. The consequences are obvious. Passengers are stranded at those stations until the arrival of the next service, which outside peak hours, can be as much as 45 minutes later. That places an additional burden on already overcrowded trains and stations as passengers who would have expected to depart on a previous service are forced to compete for space on a later train.
Trains running along the Lee Valley line during peak hours are scheduled only every 30 minutes. The disruption caused to people with appointments or 247WH obligations by cancelled trains or those that do not stop is all too easy to imagine. This problem is further exacerbated by a lack of information for passengers about cancellations and delays. With no information screens and stations that are often unstaffed, passengers cannot get information or advice about their journey plans. Trains users do not only travel out of Enfield to work: Enfield has many businesses which also suffer from poor rail services. Employers in the borough report that their staff are reluctant to use public transport, especially trains, because of the unreliability of services. Off-peak travel is especially precarious, and therefore becomes impractical for many shift workers and those on flexi-time. Employers also report that that may have an effect on their ability to recruit and retain staff.
Such difficulties almost pale into insignificance against those that people with disabilities endure. Enfield Disablement Association has noted that disabled people are unable to use WAGN services freely. They are required to give about 24 hours' notice if they need assistance and they must state which train they intend to use, and that is on a local network. The train network is largely inaccessible to them because of problems with stairs. Indeed, if a disabled person embarks on a train at Enfield Town station, the only station where he can disembark, wherever he wants to go, is Liverpool Street—all other stations are inaccessible.
The design of stations and the problems of poor availability of information compound the difficulties faced by people with visual impairment, and they too, have made representations to me. In its defence, WAGN states that most stations were built in the Victorian era and that it, too, is concerned about accessibility, but it says that major work would be required to solve such problems. There the matter rests, and no progress is made.
Passenger safety on trains and at stations is another major concern. The poor maintenance of stations, such as Southbury, which could best be described as derelict, produces an intimidating atmosphere. Attacks have occurred at that station. Apparently, even a member of WAGN's staff was attacked there. The neglect of that station and others makes people afraid to leave trains when darkness has fallen. Enfield Women's Safety Forum highlighted that problem and constituents have told me that they will travel beyond their station to disembark at a station where they feel safe. In effect, no-go zones exist when daylight has gone.
§ Mr. Stephen Twigg (Enfield, Southgate)I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As she has said, she is reflecting widespread concern among rail users in the borough of Enfield and more widely in north London. Like hers, my mailbag is regularly full of complaints about the service that WAGN provides. Many of the issues that she highlights are shared. When she takes the train from Enfield Chase to Finsbury Park or Highbury and Islington, she travels through my constituency, through the stations of Grange Park, Winchmore Hill, Palmers Green and Bowes Park. Those are the stations that my constituents use most, and they raise similar issues to those that she mentions.
New Southgate and Hadley Wood stations on the line to Welwyn Garden City are in my constituency. The 248WH state of New Southgate station is similar to that of Southbury. It is important that WAGN recognises such problems and deals with station safety. WAGN has reached an agreement with some local people to open a café-bar at Palmers Green station, which has provided an excellent new facility at that station and helped to improve the safety and security of the passengers who use it. That is a positive example.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam)Order. Interventions should be brief. Another example would definitely be over the mark.
§ Ms RyanMy hon. Friend makes the point well. WAGN has made some welcome improvements, but they would be even more so if they had been more widespread. By far the most mail that I receive is on that local issue. Complaints continue to be made; people do not stop when they have made one complaint. Week in, week out, trains do not turn up or are late. People cannot obtain the information that they need, or they feel unsafe on a station platform, so they will complain again. I encourage my constituents to complain. It is an important right, and they should exercise it to ensure that West Anglia Great Northern knows the size of the problem.
I am not sure whether WAGN is aware of the problem. Enfield rail user groups have undertaken their own survey of passengers' opinions of the service. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate agrees with me that those findings sit at odds with the survey published by the shadow strategic rail authority, which claims that 76 per cent. of passengers nationally thought that the service was good or fairly good. However, that figure represents the level of satisfaction with a particular journey on the day of the survey. For regular users, the figure for the general level of service dropped to 64 per cent. The figures are higher in the surveys undertaken for users of the Enfield service.
I do not question the honesty of the shadow strategic rail authority or the validity of its survey, but those figures would be greeted with incredulity by Enfield rail users. That leads my constituents to feel as if they are the poor relation to those who use the more lucrative passenger services from Cambridge, King's Lynn, Stanstead and elsewhere. Those of my constituents who use the railways say to me that they feel that Enfield was taken on by WAGN because it happened to be part of the franchise, but that the company's real commitment is to the more distant areas, which have faster trains and more lucrative lines. It seems that Enfield is not a priority, and that it not good enough.
The managing director of WAGN denies that, but experience of the railway service in Enfield confirms my constituents in their view. More than 1,000 people have signed petitions organised by Maria Preswell of the Enfield Lock rail user group. Their demands are reasonable; they include four trains an hour, four carriages per train and better information about services. That is the least that we should expect, but it is a long way from what we get.
I referred earlier to a letter that I received from Euan Cameron. I am pleased to say that the managing director of WAGN agrees that it is not good enough.
249WH I had hoped to pursue the matter directly with him at a meeting in January, but that was cancelled by WAGN at short notice. We had hoped that Mr. Cameron would provide us with a timetable for the implementation of the specific improvements that we raised with him on our train journey. He agreed to provide a timetable, but sadly—like some of his trains—it has not yet arrived.
We understand that a fare increase is imminent. I believe that it should be tied to improvements in service. Rail fare increases not accompanied by service improvements would be a further insult to my constituents. Those increases should be not something for nothing but something for something—a phrase used elsewhere by the Government. If we have to pay increased fares, we should expect an improved service.
In the short and medium term, we want four trains an hour. We want trains of four carriages rather than two on either side of the peak hours. We want waiting rooms that are safe and that make passengers feel secure. We want improvements for people with disabilities, and we want improved information for all passengers. The shadow strategic rail authority says that the replacement rail franchises are expected to be much longer than the original franchises and that they may last for between 10 and 20 years. A review will be conducted every five to seven years to assess the franchisee's peformance. This debate is not a WAGN-bashing session, but it is clear to my constituents in Enfield, North that improvements are badly needed. They will support a renewed franchise only if vital improvements start to become apparent. Otherwise, they will be horrified at the possibility of a 20-year franchise.
We have a strong case that we have put on a number of occasions and in different places. We have strong support from our local authority, which is making sterling efforts to make the case for our passengers and to improve the rail service for the people of Enfield, North and for the rest of Enfield. However, very little is happening. The reality is that, for all that we have said and for all the times that we have raised the issues, we do not see the improvements that we seek. I am meeting the managing director of WAGN in just over a week's time, and I shall again put the matter forcefully. I hope that my hand will be strengthened by this debate.
The Enfield rail users group asked me to add my voice to its own to achieve these improvements. I ask the Minister and the Government to add their voices to ours.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin)I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) for raising an issue that is important for her constituents and of general interest to the travelling public. I should like at the outset to pursue a couple of points that she made towards the end of her speech. She said that she wanted four trains an hour throughout the day. My advice is that that service is already provided. If that is not the case, my hon, Friend might want to provide me with details after the debate, but I am advised that there are four trains an hour throughout the day, until early evening. I am advised that there are no two-carriage West Anglia Great 250WH Northern trains and that the minimum number of carriages is four. Again, I must rely on the advice that I am given, but I should be interested to see any advice that my hon. Friend has to the contrary.
I should like to start by making a few general points and then deal with the particular case outlined by my hon. Friend. The Government accept that passengers want punctual and reliable trains and that they want to feel safe, comfortable and secure on trains and at stations. They also want easy access to accurate and impartial travel information and adequate compensation when things go wrong. For that to happen, we need more investment in infrastructure, rolling stock and station improvements. We also need better and more consistent performance, a clear and affordable fares structure and a rail system that is fully integrated and which allows seamless transfers with other public transport modes. Only then can we hope to encourage people to choose to travel by public transport rather than by private car. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister issued new instructions and guidance to the franchising director last September, asking him to deliver improvements through renegotiation of the terms of franchise agreements.
When considering renegotiation requests, we have asked the franchising director to give due weight to commitments on current performance, customer services, innovation, efficiency, new or earlier investment, securing better performance, initiatives to produce integrated transport, willingness to give passengers a greater voice in the level and standard of services and value for the taxpayers. Unfortunately, it is not possible for all the current franchise agreements to be renegotiated overnight. The franchising director's overall objective is to replace most shorter franchises—those expiring by 2004—within about two years. The WAGN franchise, which expires in April 2004, will be one of those to be considered, so my hon. Friend has raised the matter at an appropriate time.
I should like to address my hon. Friend's specific concerns about WAGN's services. As she said, it would be only fair to note that passengers travelling on its lines generally enjoy a comparatively punctual and reliable service. Although passenger numbers have increased, WAGN has not experienced the massive increases that have resulted in severe overcrowding on the neighbouring Thameslink service. I appreciate that her commuters will not necessarily be satisfied to know that the situation on their line is not nearly as bad as that on a neighbouring one, so I do not make too much of the point; I merely refer to it in passing.
My hon. Friend referred to the results of the national passenger survey based on a study of 1,000 WAGN passengers. It found that 77 per cent. were satisfied or very satisfied with the service, compared with 76 per cent for the whole network. I heard what she said about the figure being lower among regular commuters.
As we have heard, WAGN's passengers have not escaped the frustrations caused by poor performance, despite its relatively good track record. Commuters forced to stand every day will take little comfort from the fact that overcrowding levels are below agreed thresholds.
WAGN scored lower on value for money than any other train operating company in the national passenger survey, with only 30 per cent. of pasengers being 251WH satisfied or very satisfied—that accords with my hon. Friend's information. Those using West Anglia Outer services will take little comfort from the fact that the latest shadow rail authority performance bulletin listed WAGN as one of the top five performing train operating companies. Discounts are currently being paid because of poor punctuality. There are contradictions between the different figures.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about inadequate service levels, especially in the off-peak period. WAGN is operating at and, in some cases, beyond, its contracted passenger service requirements. When setting the requirements, the franchising director ensured that a core provision was protected so that the service would be broadly similar to that operated by British Rail before franchising. However, from what she said, it seems that the provision might be inadequate; the franchising director will no doubt bear that in mind when the time for renegotiation comes.
My hon. Friend also expressed concern that WAGN is missing stations to avoid triggering penalties for late-running trains. However, the company is penalised under the regime by the franchising director if trains fail to stop at an advertised station. Likewise, it is penalised for running short formation trains. I asked how the director would know when a train did not stop at a station. I am not competely satisfied with the answer. My hon. Friend might know how he would. She should pursue the point with the franchising director, and I might too.
My hon. Friend suggested that fare increases should be tied to improvements in services. She surely knows that the franchising director has capped the increase of key fares at 1 per cent. below the rate of inflation. However, for London commuter fares, increases can be adjusted by 2 per cent. above or below the fares cap to reflect the quality of operators' services. WAGN was held to below-inflation increases because of its performance during the year to July 1999. Her commuters can have the mild satisfaction of knowing that an incentive is built into the fares structure that ought to be pressing the company to provide a better service.
My hon. Friend mentioned access for disabled passengers. I accept that there are problems for which there are no easy short-term solutions. Train operators are required to produce and comply with the disabled people's protection policy. They have made a number of improvements to stations and trains to make them accessible. New rail vehicles have to comply with the rail vehicle accessibility regulations. They require operators to conform to detailed specifications for wheelchair access and to provide clear colour contrast, audible and visual announcements and a range of other features to help people with a wide range of mobility difficulties.
Train operators recommend that passengers with disabilities contact their dedicated help point before travelling, but I agree that having to do that 24 hours in 252WH advance is not helpful. If contacted in advance, operators can usually arrange for staff to meet disabled passengers at their departure station, accompany them to the train and help them to board.
The fear of crime deters many people, especially women, older people and people from ethnic minorities, from using trains. Many train operators have taken steps to improve security by installing CCTV and help points, improving lighting and introducing rapid response arrangements.
§ Ms RyanThe local council held a forum for businesses and services in the borough on CCTV. The only group that was invited but did not attend was WAGN.
§ Mr. MullinIf that is so, it is clearly unsatisfactory.
As for consultation with passengers, we are determined that they should be given a say in their rail services. That is the only way to make train operators provide the services that meet the needs and expectations of their customers.
When considering requests for franchise replacement, the franchising director will consult rail users consultative committees, the London regional passengers committee, local authorities, regional planning authorities and regional development agencies, as appropriate. We might add relevant Members of Parliament to that list. My hon. Friend will no doubt want to draw her speech to the attention of the franchising director. The rail users consultative committees and the London regional passengers committee will also be encouraged to talk to a wide range of individual users and local groups to ensure that passengers' views are taken into account.
The franchising director's objective is to secure the earliest possible delivery of better services for passengers while providing demonstrable value for money for the taxpayer. However, it is important to remember that the franchising director is not committed to accepting the proposals that are received from prospective franchisees. If an application is to succeed, it will have to guarantee better performance, more investment, the expansion of network capacity and improvements for passengers, as well as providing the taxpayer with value for money. If applications fail to deliver those improvements, the franchising director could decide to allow existing franchises to run their course.
In conclusion, we are determined to improve the quality of rail services and to build a railway that is fit for the 21st century. However, the problems that my hon. Friend mentioned show that WAGN has some way to go before it consistently delivers a rail service that meets passengers' needs. I am grateful to her for raising the subject. No doubt the franchising director and WAGN will take careful note of what she said.