Trans-European Networks (Hansard, 5 November 2003)

§ Albert Owen (Ynys Môn)
The importance of a modern transport system to the economy of north Wales is one of the priorities on which the north Wales group of Labour MPs has been campaigning in the House and outside. It is one of our main issues, along with manufacturing and industry. We believe that it is vital, not only for the economic well-being of the area and for tourism, but for the quality of life of the people of north Wales.
The Government is right to endeavour to spread wealth through the UK, and in their objective of even economic development. To spread wealth evenly to north Wales would require a modern, upgraded transport system, which would provide the foundation and infrastructure to move people and freight across the area. It must be a multi-modal system for the 21st century. The trans-European networks—known as TENs in Euro-jargon—are set up to do that.
North and northwest Wales suffer from dual peripherality; geographically we are on the edge of both Wales and the UK, although I tend to think that that is a London-centric, or even Cardiff-centric, view. To the west of Wales is the Republic of Ireland, which is a major player in European policies. My constituency is smack in the middle of the area between Ireland and the UK. Indeed, it is the heart of the isles and deserves to be treated better in terms of transport.
The links between Wales and Ireland are strong and historic. The towns of Dun Laoghaire and Holyhead have served the cities of Dublin and London for many years. Royal Mail post was carried by road via Chester, Abergele, St. Asaph and Bangor, and across the Irish sea by package ships. The coming of the railways sped up that process and the two cities became closer, although it is argued that the direct rail link was more for transporting MPs from Ireland to Westminster than for moving mail quicker. Hon. Members who travel on the link will testify that MPs in those days had more power to improve things than north Wales MPs do now.
The link is still important. An estimated 2.7 million people a year travel through the port of Holyhead; the Celtic gateway, as it is known in my constituency, Wales and the rest of the UK. Improvement has been made to the port, with new berths and terminals financed by a mixture of private and public money, including European structural fund grants. The sea bridge from Ireland, Dublin and Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead, boasts the fastest ferry, which takes 90 minutes to cross compared with three and a half hours for conventional ferries. There is the largest conventional ferry in Europe, and the new Stena Adventurer is the largest ro-ro ferry in mainland Europe.
According to Anglesey county council and Welsh Development Agency figures, the larger car ferries carry an estimated 646,900 cars and lorries. The E22 Euro-route, or the A55 as it is now known, was completed in 2001. It accommodates some 30,000 vehicles a day, with the ferry companies Stena Line and Irish Ferries projecting an increase in the volume of vehicles, including cars, lorries and large vans. Indeed, they predict year-on-year growth.
284WH The A55 is already feeling the strain, with major bottlenecks and serious problems. At Penmaen-bach, for example, subsidence caused single-line traffic and huge delays. That is why we need a modern railway system with a fully integrated mechanism.
The Minister will be aware of my campaign to establish scheduled Flights from RAF Valley to Cardiff, Dublin and other UK airports. If that succeeds, the Minister could come to Anglesey for business, take a quick walk up Snowdonia, which I know he is fond of, and be home for tea the same day. I am sure that he will support my campaign for an intra-air service. However, that is a debate for another day.

§ Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the idea has all-party support? The Conservative party would like to see RAF Valley used in a proper commercial manner, boosting tourism and businesses in the area.

§ Albert Owen
Absolutely. It has not only all-party support, but the support of the Wales Tourist Board, which yesterday announced that the plan was one of its priorities.
The railways are problematic, to say the least. We now have the completed A55 dual carriageway, the port and shipping developments that I have described and the improved road and rail links in the Republic of Ireland and the north of Ireland. I believe that the missing link is the north Wales railway. I welcome the strategic plan for UK railways from the Strategic Rail Authority and the Government.

§ Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the issue has full all-party support. Earlier, he mentioned the efforts of the north Wales Labour group. When will they meet Richard Bowker of the SRA, as Plaid Cymru did last week?

§ Albert Owen
We have already met Mr. Bowker on a number of occasions, and we have met other members of the SRA, Network Rail and the rail operators. As I said, the missing link is the north Wales railway. The 10-year plan is welcome after a long period of under-investment.

§ Hywel Williams (Caernarfon)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main problems in improving rail traffic in north Wales is not in north Wales itself, but in accessing the system to the east? Investment in north Wales is indeed crucial, but we also need better rights in England.

§ Albert Owen
I will come to the subject of the rail infrastructure in a second.
We must welcome the improvements in progress on the west coast main line. They were the first TENs priority when TENs came into force in 1994. The estimated cost of that project is somewhere in the region of £9 billion. Other projects in 1994 included the channel tunnel rail link, which is now operable in the south-east of England, and a rail link from Lame to Belfast to Dublin.
The Minister will know that the Crewe to Holyhead line forms part of the west coast main line, serving the north Wales coast and the port of Holyhead with its 285WH links to Dublin. It is time for the strategy on the west coast main line to be brought west, to north Wales and northwest Wales. The modern Eurolink needs to be put in place to achieve the objectives of the Maastricht treaty, article 129(b) of which states that to enable citizens of the Union, economic operators and regional and local communities to derive full benefit from setting up an area without internal frontiers the Community should promote the interconnection and interoperability of national networks as well as access to such networks. It shall take account in particular of … island, landlocked and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Community. I am sure that everybody in this Chamber agrees with those general objectives.
I was pleased when the Commission announced the enlargement of the trans-European transport networks in October this year. It proposed new projects with new funds to dynamise Europe. The total costs of the projects were estimated to be in the region of €220 billion. The press release that accompanied the announcement referred to trans-European networks as the motor and precondition for Europe's economic development and cohesion and stated that new rules and structures proposed should provide means of attracting more funding to the priority projects and turning them into reality". Among the projects listed as priorities was the rail line between Crewe and Holyhead, with a date of 2008. It was listed alongside the west coast main line, which is to be completed by 2007. That is a major step forward. Upgrading the north Wales line was on the agenda in the 1980s, but little attention was given to it. It is now in an appalling state, including the stations, which were described by the chief executive of a leading train operator as the worst in the UK network.
The regional paper, the Daily Post, is running a campaign to improve safety and information at north Wales stations, where basic amenities such as toilets, information screens and waiting rooms are either lacking or well below basic standards of cleanliness. The lack of basic facilities does not accord with the objectives of the SRA, which calls for safe and welcoming stations. Journey times are not predictable or relaxing, as the SRA requests.
To be fair to Virgin trains, it has invested in new rolling stock; new, pioneering Super Voyagers and Pendolinos are expected in September 2004. Although the seven trains that were promised will not be coming, there will be a total of four trains, with an additional London to Llandudno train to be timetabled.

§ Hywel Williams
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the capacity of the four trains from Bangor—the number of passengers that can possibly be carried—is less than that of the three trains that are operated already?

§ Albert Owen
It is a bit more technical than that. Virgin trains explains the reduction as being due to delays in the rail upgrading and the inability to run 286WH trains at 140 mph. If the trains could be moved faster, we would have more trains and increased daily capacity, which I am sure is what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
My point for the purpose of the present debate is that the line speeds are as low as 75 mph in parts of north Wales, including Anglesey. That is a total waste of the new capacity that Virgin trains are promoting, which would allow its trains to reach a speed of 125 mph across the network. No wonder people in north Wales feel that the line is a Cinderella line. That is unacceptable for a designated major Euro-route linking the European capitals of Dublin and London.
Of course it is up to each EU member state to improve its own transport system and rail network. Cost is a major factor, yet crude estimates in respect of upgrades in the north Wales line and signalling to allow the new trains to run at 125 mph when they come into service are that the cost would be in the region of £ 10 million to £20 million. I remind the House that the cost of the west coast main line upgrading from London to Glasgow is in the region of £9 billion and I urge the Government to turn the TENs project for a modern, upgraded line between Crewe and Holyhead into reality.

§ The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells)
Will my hon. Friend read out those figures again? I was looking at information recently about the replacement of one group of points, and that cost £10 million. Is my hon. Friend saying that the whole of the railway line from Crewe to Anglesey could be made available for trains to run at 125 mph for between £20 million and £30 million?

§ Albert Owen
No. The information that I was given by Virgin when the Welsh Affairs Committee conducted its inquiry into railways was that most of the line now has the capacity to run at 100 mph-plus, but that areas of the line need upgrading. The figure for upgrading the whole line so that it could maximise its speed to 125 mph was £10 to £20 million.
The objective of TENs is to move people and freight quickly and reliably. I am sure that the Government shares that objective. The construction of the trans-European networks is an important element of economic growth and the creation of employment. North Wales deserves greater investment in its railways. The ports of Holyhead and Dun Laoghaire have benefited from new investment; there are new ships. The euro-route, the A55, is helping to spread wealth across north Wales. I ask the Minister to give priority to the modest work for which the EU is calling and to work with the EU, the Assembly and the rail company to restore pride in that important link.
I do not want to see north Wales lose out in investment or economically in the future. I used the comparison of the A55, which was begun in the 1980s from Chester to Bangor and across the bridge to Anglesey, but stopped a few miles into Anglesey. The Labour Government in 1997 gave that road the final go-ahead. I remember my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—when he was a Wales Office Minister—signing the document to allow the A55 to be completed.
I have no doubt that Anglesey lost out significantly in the period when the road was not dualled. Business complained that there was traffic congestion, and used 287WH that as a factor for not investing in Anglesey. When the road was completed in 2001, the port of Holyhead was fast getting back on its feet, and the economy started to catch up with the rest of north Wales.
I believe that by not investing in and maximising the potential benefits of a fast rail service, north Wales is losing out, in the same way that Anglesey lost out through that major investment not being completed. We need to see a modern west coast line that really is a west coast line, stretching to the west of Wales and to Ireland. I ask the Government to give that greater priority, to adhere to the guidelines of the TENs project and to ensure that the project is completed by 2008, if not sooner.

§ The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on securing this important debate. As he has informed us, his own constituency in north Wales contains key transport infrastructure on the trans-European transport network; the TEN, as it is known.
The A55 is part of the TEN road network, and I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's views on the way the economy of Ynys Môn has improved as a consequence of the A55 being dualled. I remember driving along that road before it was dualled; it was very different then. The thrust of the TEN is to put in place a modern, interconnected network that will enhance trade and the competitiveness of the European economy, will give life to the concepts of the internal market and provide more territorial cohesion.
In conjunction with complementary policies to open up markets and remove restrictive operational practices, it is hoped that the network, which comprises road and rail infrastructure, strategically important airports and ports, as well as transport information systems, will improve competitiveness and growth in Europe. However, as my hon. Friend told us that come at a price. I believe that he quoted a figure of about £220 billion, whereas I have heard that the figure is £350 billion. Those are fantasy sums. Europe cannot afford projects at those kinds of prices. We must examine the matter on a project-by-project basis if we are to inject reality into those great aims and schemes, aspirational though they are.

§ Ian Lucas (Wrexham)
Will my hon. Friend clarify the effect of the announcement that was made in October by the European Union? Does it mean that additional funds will be made available to assist the north Wales line, or does it mean that he has to make the case to the European Union?

§ Dr. Howells
I am glad to clarify that for my hon. Friend. We have to make the case, whether it is for the upgrade of parts of the infrastructure that might be designated as part of the TEN project, or for a completely new route. That is not an easy task. Everyone wants a share of that money, and there are ten accession countries. There will be a marked shift eastwards and to the centre of Europe in terms of where that money will be spent. We have an important case to 288WH make. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has reminded us, there is an issue of peripherality, both geographically and economically. The gross domestic product in Wales is 20 per cent. below the UK average. The European average is in doubt, as no one can work it out, but there is a serious deficit, and transport has a part to play in it.
The benefit to the UK of TENs is twofold. First, there is the prospect of accessing funding for our projects on the TENs map. When the guidelines were established in 1996, 14 priority projects were identified. They are due to receive a generous proportion of the overall TENs budget between them. That runs to about £3 billion between 2000 and 2006. Four of those priority projects are wholly or partly in the UK: the channel tunnel rail link; the west coast main line rail project, which is probably Europe's busiest railway line when both passengers and freight are taken into account; the road link between Ireland, the UK and the Benelux countries; and the rail link between Cork and Belfast. Those projects have been awarded over £150 million, in grants, from the TENs project. As my hon. Friend reminded us, we have partly benefited from that with the A55, with improvements in Holyhead and, more importantly, with the west coast main line.

§ Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd)
My hon. Friend has listed several projects. Does he know where one of the more recent developments, the improvement of Mostyn docks, lies on the list of priorities? Has its profile in Europe been lifted?

§ Dr. Howells
I have no idea, but I will certainly try to find out for my hon. Friend. I am not sure whether Mostyn docks is a priority on the TENs list, but I am sure that he will make a good case for it.
The second benefit of TENs is to our hauliers, who will benefit from the improved infrastructure and links throughout continental Europe, particularly when markets open up after accession. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn would not make the mistake of assuming that because some of those improvements are in England, they will not affect Wales. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said that the most important transport connections for Wales are those that run through England, and that is a significant point. As one who uses the rail system constantly, I know how important those links are to lines such as the great western route.
We should benefit as much as any other part of Europe from the channel tunnel rail link. That project is going well; touch wood. Phase 1 has been delivered on time and below budget. Phase 2, leading into St. Pancras, is well under way. I am sure that that could be the subject of another debate, but it illustrates the point that many key TENs projects will benefit Wales as well as the areas in which they are being constructed.

§ Mr. Llwyd
Although I fully agree with the Minister, I must draw his attention to a problem. The Conwy valley line and the north Wales coastline are hopefully going to be upgraded for freight. That is important to those of us who arc Members of Parliament for north Wales, but it might be scuppered by a freeze on freight 289WH grants in England. Following on from the Minister's remarks, with which I agree, I urge better cross-border understanding.

§ Dr. Howells
That is an important point, Mr. Deputy Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am a lot of things, but I am not a deputy chairman.

§ Dr. Howells
I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The nomenclature of this place is often a mystery to me.
I must reply to the important point raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about freight movements in Wales. He will be glad to know that part of the railway line in his constituency will be used as a test bed for the latest technology in the world on rail safety and management, so that we can run more trains along the track and make better use of railway capacity. He is quite right to highlight the issue of freight, which is important.
Just last week I had discussions with some of the most important companies involved, and they want to hear that we have a positive attitude towards freight on the railway lines. The freight grants are important; there is no question about that. The budget For the coming year is, I think, between £30 million and £40 million, but that is not what counts. The sums involved in moving freight along the railway lines are vast and we must give reassurances that that is the proper way for the country, so I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn knows, the route in question is also an important freight route and should be more important as we try to get more traffic off the motorways and on to the railways; not an easy task.
My hon. Friend will welcome, I am sure, the benefits that the west coast main line upgrade is delivering. By next September, the journey time between London and Holyhead will have been reduced from 4 hours and 20 minutes to 3 hours and 50 minutes. He is right to mention the problem of reliability and punctuality, so I am sure that the figure that I quoted will be a welcome reduction in the overall time that that journey takes. However, if it is impossible for the travelling public to depend on the train arriving somewhere around that time, we shall lose the battle to win more passengers for the rail network, which is such an important consideration.

§ Albert Owen
My hon. Friend is right that the line speeds up to Crewe will benefit people travelling to and from London, or, indeed, to Birmingham and other destinations. However, does he not accept that many people and businesses that trade with the Republic of Ireland or along the north Wales coast will not see those 290WH benefits? My point is that we need to be on a par and have a level playing field with businesses and tourism to the east of Crewe.

§ Dr. Howells
I was rather envious when my hon. Friend talked about 75 mph limits. He should try travelling on the excellent valleys lines; believe me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the limits there are often a lot lower, and that is the busiest commuter network in Wales, between Pontypridd and Cardiff. That line is extremely busy and thousands of people depend on it every day. However, my hon. Friend is right that ultimately the quality of the infrastructure will enable the journey to become faster and more dependable.
The great problem is that although we all want lines to be upgraded, the cost is phenomenal. We know, for example, that originally the west coast main line upgrade was costed at about £2 billion. It then rose mysteriously to £14 billion, and we have now got it back down to about £8 billion to £9 billion. Those are huge sums of money. At the moment it costs something like between £12 million and £15 million to build one mile of railway. A lot of those costs are due to sophisticated signalling systems, safety devices and so on but the costs of electrification are in addition to that. I hope that my hon. Friend bears that in mind.

§ Albert Owen
The point of the European Commission's announcement is that member states can now tap into the cohesion fund as well as the structural fund, which makes financing more attractive. Will the Minister consider that and give priority to this round of funding as opposed to the last round?

§ Dr. Howells
We gave a lot of priority to the last round, and we have a good team working on the issue. We are not going to give up the opportunity of getting some of those structural funds, which could do so much to help transportation in and around Wales. However, there are still a lot of misconceptions about what constitutes a good railway and good railway infrastructure, and I do not want to encourage my hon. Friend to think that a diesel set is somehow inferior to an electric set. On the contrary; lots of countries are going for diesel sets and diesel turbos because they are much more flexible. They can go places that one cannot go with electrification, which I am sure is an important consideration for my hon. Friend.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue, which is important to Wales. Transportation infrastructure is often the means by which we improve the economy of whole regions. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which has been useful, and I hope that we can consider in conjunction with the Welsh Assembly how railways can benefit the Principality in ways that until now they perhaps have not.