HC Deb 16 September 2003 vol 410 cc227-35WH 3.30 pm
Mr. lain Luke (Dundee, East)

As a Member who represents a constituency that is some considerable distance from this capital city, I shall continue to raise this subject in the House. The Minister may be aware that, last year, I had an Adjournment debate in this Chamber on the electrification of the north-east section of the east coast main line. After the recent visit of the all-party rail group and the Rail Freight Group on the east coast main line to York and Doncaster and enjoying a trip on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, on a steam engine especially named "The Parliamentarian", I return to the House revitalised and ready to refocus on the important issue of the reinstatement and fast-tracking of the stalled improvements desperately needed on the east coast main line infrastructure.

Looking back on my Adjournment debate on 26 June 2002, I was disappointed by the response of the then Minister for Transport—now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar)—to my pleas for the electrification of the most northern part of the line. I am sure that the Minister who is to reply this afternoon will be much more sympathetic to my representations.

I am greatly saddened that the much needed improvements to the infrastructure of the east coast railway, which were promised and promoted as the best way to secure faster travelling times between London, Dundee and Aberdeen have been so badly delayed. In retrospect, I accept that those improvements would be a useful and positive step in an investment programme that would make the long-term prospect of electrification much easier to achieve—if it ever makes it back on to the agenda.

My major concern in today's debate, however, is that even those hoped-for improvements to the east coast main line have been shelved. Furthermore, the prospects of improving the line north of Edinburgh have disappeared into the highland mist that we so often experience at this time of year, despite the sunny weather that we are having in London. Once again, the northeast of Scotland's rail aspiration has, as a result, been ignored and forgotten. That is to the detriment of travellers, business users and rail freight opportunities alike.

It is time for Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the north-east of Scotland to start clamouring for a higher priority for an agenda that does not discriminate against the east coast at the cost of a vastly improved rail transport infrastructure on the west coast. Given the Strategic Rail Authority's review in January of this year, even those improvements are now at risk. The question is whether the Government's target of increasing the number of rail passengers by 50 per cent. and rail freight traffic by 80 per cent. over the duration of the 10-year plan is at risk.

I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government will do all they can to ensure that the SRA and Network Rail get their priorities back on track, and that improvements to the west coast line are delivered on time and on target. With the completion of the works being timetabled for 2007, the focus needs to be shifted to the east coast, and improvements on the east coast main line need to be made as swiftly as possible. It goes without saying that without improvements to the east coast line, the economic benefits that can accrue from fast, efficient transport links to the south and Europe will be seriously diminished.

The Prime Minister highlighted the importance of the east coast main line when he was interviewed earlier this year for Great North Eastern Railway's house magazine, Live Wire. When asked how important the east coast main line was to national and regional prosperity, he replied: This line is vitally important both nationally and regionally. Everyday it carries 200,000 passengers, 1,900 trains and 200,000 tonnes of rail freight."

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely crucial fully to understand that when we discuss the east coast main line we are talking about the line from London through Dundee to Aberdeen? Unfortunately, some people think that it starts at Edinburgh. We must never allow that to be accepted.

Mr. Luke

I shall deal later with that matter, about which I have had discussions with the chief executive of GNER.

Referring to the economic relevance of the east coast main line, the Prime Minister said that he knew how important it was to people in the Sedgefield constituency to have a safe, reliable and frequent service to York, London and Edinburgh. In the context of my constituency, I entirely concur with those sentiments. Furthermore, if such connections are important for the constituents of Sedgefield, they are doubly important for my constituents and those of other Members whose constituencies are farther north and more isolated.

Since the debate last year, I have continued to get a negative response to my pleas for electrification. You will not be surprised to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have continued to pursue the required improvements to the rail infrastructure to ensure that the constituents of Dundee, East and Sedgefield have parity of service. In the wake of last year's debate, other hon. Members and I have had meetings with GNER. Virgin Rail and the SRA to put the case for electrification and improvements to the east coast line north of Edinburgh. The Minister who replied to that debate accepted the need for such improvements. He made it clear that the line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen was in need of some improvement and that several projects were in hand to assist with that. In subsequent discussions that I have had with the SRA, to which I shall refer, there was no evidence that those projects were in hand.

The need for improvement was also recognised by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), when I wrote to her following last year's debate and the comments of the then Minister for Transport. In her response to my inquiries, she, like the Minister, argued that increased line speeds could be achieved without electrification of the route. I am sure we all appreciate that that would be a very expensive option, because of the nature of the line. She said that electrification would, unfortunately, not overcome the physical difficulties that the route presents. As a consequence, her initial priority, like that of the Minister, was to improve the line and increase line speeds. As both Ministers pointed out, however, and as has been recognised by everyone who is involved in the debate, the only way to do that north of Edinburgh is to straighten the line over its entire route through Fife and to lay further track north of Dundee at Usan to ensure that travellers get the travel times that they deserve. To allow such improvements to go ahead would mean a significant shift in priorities and spending once the improvements to the west coast line are completed. Any lengthy delay there would condemn travellers on the east coast line to a second-class railway service for an even longer period.

Christopher Garnett, the chief executive of GNER, shares that worry. In March, in his response to a letter from me, he stated: As far as the East Coast Main line is concerned, wherever we say it ends"— I had taken issue with him about remarks from GNER and others that indicated that it stopped in Edinburgh, whereas it goes on to Aberdeen— the key issue for me is to ensure that Network Rail and the SRA provide the funding to the highest level of operational and safety standards. His great worry, voiced in that letter, was that any delay in the supposed upgrade of the east coast main line would result in ordinary maintenance renewal delays such as those that occur on the west coast main line. In truth, I believe that he worries, as I do, that the current delays in the implementation of the 10-year plan condemn us to a second class—not a standard class—east coast rail service. Indeed, instead of getting faster services and shorter travel times on the east coast, we are getting some slower services and longer travel times.

In his letter to me, Mr. Garnett goes on to conclude that we need to keep up the pressure on Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority to achieve the best service possible on the east coast line. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I have had several meetings with the SRA to that end. The main objective of my dialogue with the SRA has been to extract a costing of what would be needed to upgrade the line north of Edinburgh.

In his letter of 19 May 2003, Chris Austin, the executive director for corporate affairs with the SRA pointed out that, following discussions he has had with Network Rail, the only scope for achieving any further significant line speed improvements on this corridor would be through a programme of route realignments and strengthening works on some of the major structures". That has already been highlighted. The major structure to which Mr. Austin refers could be the Tay bridge, which causes something of a block on the line on the way north. He goes on to say: Each of these items carries a significant price tag and as a consequence no work is planned on raising line speeds by the Scottish Executive on the route at this stage. In the letter, he goes on to give an interesting comparative exercise on the costing arrived at for the Midland Mainline railway improvements by Railtrack in 2000. That placed a price of £60 million on the upgrade of the route between London and Sheffield—a distance of about 159 miles. Mr. Austin points out that, given that that level of investment would achieve a saving of only 10 minutes, that work could not be seen as cost effective and as a consequence Railtrack and Midland Mainline were unable to make a value-formoney case. However, the £60 million was an alternative used on the introduction of new trains that had the ability to reduce the travel time between London and Sheffield through better acceleration.

I have yet to respond to Mr. Austin on that but, although there are little geographic differences between the London-to-Sheffield line and the north-east part of the London-to-Aberdeen line, if £60 million were spent on improving the east coast main line north of Edinburgh to Aberdeen—a distance of 126 miles—the travel time would be significantly reduced. I believe that it would be halved. That is a value-for-money case if ever I heard one.

That type of improvement would lead to a dramatic increase in the number of passengers using the railways along the east coast main line from the north-east to Edinburgh and London. Cutting travelling times from Aberdeen to London to six hours or less and from Dundee to London to five hours or less would create that demand. The improvement would be a huge benefit to travellers. It would be a massive boost to the prestige of the railways in the area and would provide a tremendous vote of confidence in the Government's transport plans for the next 10 years. The improvement would also bring the Government closer to achieving their target of increasing passenger numbers by 50 per cent.

Is the improvement achievable? In the light of the celebrations today—I am sorry that the Minister is not at Waterloo—surrounding the completion of the first phase of the fast-speed link to Europe, which, for the first time on a regular service in the UK, allows trains to travel at 186 miles per hour and which has cut the travel time between London and Paris by 20 minutes, I believe that it is eminently achievable, if we use that kind of approach. If we have the confidence in our railways that the French and the Japanese have in theirs, the improvement will be achievable. Let us make the next 100 years of the railways as exciting as the first 100 years of their existence. The UK should take the initiative it gained in pioneering the railway age to recapture its lead in promoting this universally popular, environmentally friendly and accessible form of travel in the 21st century. Empty trains are rare in the UK. The need to boost rail traffic is always the Government's prime concern.

We need to set an ambitious agenda, however, if we are to regain the momentum that we have lost in the development of our railways in the past two to three decades. Certainly, in the past five years, we have lost further ground in some aspects. First, we need to review and speed up the works on the west coast main line, and given the current crisis in funding, we need new innovative ways to do that. The SRA and Network Rail will have to look at new models of finance for that project. One option open to them could be to enter into discussions with companies involved in rail maintenance that have developed new ways of laying track at lower costs. As part of the railway delegation that visited some of those companies during our time in York, I believe that underutilised potential for completing the work on the improvement of the railway system in the UK more cheaply is waiting to be harnessed if those companies are given the opportunity to be more fully involved.

As I said, on completion of the west coast line, the emphasis has to move eastwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) is here today, and improvements such as upgrading Waverley station in Edinburgh have to be progressed. The delay in delivering a faster, more efficient rail service on the east coast was featured on the front page and in the editorial of Glasgow's newspaper The Herald. In those features, the SRA and its failure to deliver the much-needed £800 million worth of improvements—an upgrade to the Waverley station as a way of speeding trains up the east coast has been shelved—and the stop-gap funding to be provided by the Scottish Executive were much criticised. About £100 million was to be spent on the improvements, rather than £800 million over the next 10 years. A sub-heading in the article read: Cost cutting plans will not benefit suffering rail users. The point was well made.

My colleagues from Edinburgh will continue to put the case for these draconian cuts to be reversed just as I will continue to argue for greater investment in the east coast main line north of Edinburgh in pursuit of the much improved rail service that rail users and the taxpayers in that area deserve.

The £60 million mentioned in relation to spending on Midland Mainline, or indeed a small fraction of the billion or so spent on the completion of phase one of the fast service Eurotunnel rail link, could be put to good use—some might argue better use—in my part of the east coast. The Minister in his response may say that the Scottish Executive have a major role to play in that area of transport policy. I will not deny that, but the Minister can rest assured that I and other Scottish Members will be working with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament to ensure that the points I have made today will be forcibly relayed to the Scottish Executive.

I will send the Scottish Transport Minister a copy of this debate and ask him to meet me and other Members from the north-east to discuss issues relating to the Scottish end of the east coast main line. However, saying that the Scottish Executive are involved does not excuse the United Kingdom Government from their responsibility for cross-border transport links and the overall co-ordination of national transport strategy throughout the UK.

To ensure the excellence of the rail service that we all want in the years ahead the Government and the SRA need to take action now to ensure that the targets they have set out are achieved. They need to give a commitment that UK rail travellers, whether they live in Doncaster, Darlington or Dundee, should enjoy the excellent levels of service taken for granted by so many citizens of our European Union partner states. We need a world-class rail service to transport a new generation of rail users

In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will endorse that aim and give a commitment to do all he can to achieve the goals we set as an outcome of this debate. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for granting me the opportunity to go on about the rail infrastructure on the east coast—a subject close to my heart. It is a theme I will return to time and again until we achieve the improvements in the rail infrastructure up and down the east coast that are needed to provide the service standards required throughout that area.

3.49 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) on the persistence with which he has raised this issue. He referred to Edinburgh's Waverley station, which is a vital hub for the rail network in Scotland and the entirety of Great Britain. Most of us were looking forward to the major upgrade of Waverley station, which has been under discussion for a number of years. I share my hon. Friend's concern at the way in which the original proposals for a major upgrade—ambitious, but essential if rail services in Scotland and on the east coat are to develop their full potential—seem to have been reduced to the minimum. As my hon. Friend says, the signs this week—I hope that it is just press speculation—are that the proposals will be reduced to the most basic scheme possible. Moreover, those proposals would have to be funded entirely by the Scottish Executive and, notwithstanding the UK-wide importance of the Waverley upgrade, without a contribution from the Strategic Rail Authority.

I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to be able to respond to the issue in any detail today. However, given the concerns raised by so many hon. Members and others, I ask him to meet me, the other hon. Members who represent Edinburgh seats and members of the local authority, so that he can hear our concerns about the future of Waverley. We can then find out the time scale and the current situation for that project, which is important both to Edinburgh and the entire country.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton)

Order. The Minister will reply in the time that he has got left.

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

Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to respond to the points in the time that I now have available.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), not only on securing this debate but on having secured the second debate on the subject in 18 months. He is a powerful advocate for his constituents on matters of transport, and he has spoken powerfully about today's railway system. I listened carefully to the points and issues that he has raised. I hope to be able to respond to some of those and I will write to him about any I cannot deal with today.

I would like to say a few general words about the Strategic Rail Authority that were raised by my hon. Friend. The authority is responsible for the development of the east coast main line and Network Rail has responsibility for its maintenance. Those bodies are addressing the key problems in the rail industry that were inherited from the previous Government—the years of decline, poor management and fragmentation following privatisation and a lack of strategic direction. We now have those things in place, which I am sure is good news for his constituents.

The statutory purposes of the Strategic Rail Authority are to promote the use and development of passenger and freight networks and to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system. Its primary objectives are the achievement of the key targets in the Government's 10-year plan for transport, to increase passenger and freight usage and to improve the punctuality and reliability of train services. The SRA is tasked by the Government to work within allocated resources and to secure value for money from its expenditure.

The SRA will determine national investment priorities and take forward the enhancement programme in its role as the strategic specifier, working closely with Network Rail as its delivery agent. The SRA assesses proposed improvement projects for affordability and value for money on a Great Britain-wide basis.

Britain's railway network is now under the new ownership and strengthened management of Network Rail. Network Rail is a private sector, not-for-dividend company, whose key objective is to provide a safe, efficient, reliable and affordable network rather than to generate profits for its shareholders. I think that those are some of the points that my hon. Friend made in his speech.

The creation of Network Rail was a turning point for Britain's railways, and a real opportunity to reverse the years of decline. In its first year, Network Rail has made a promising start.

Mr. Frank Doran (Aberdeen, Central)

I have a simple point. The Victorians invested in the railways and built the line to Aberdeen. We have heard from two hon. Members about the failure to invest in the line north of Aberdeen. In the past 30 years, the North sea oil and gas industry, one of the key economic generators in the country, has been based in the north-east. Last year, that industry accounted for about 20 per cent. of investment in manufacturing industry. Throughout that 30-year period, transport links between the north-east and the rest of the UK have been appalling. Will we see any improvement in the next 30 years?

Mr. Jamieson

Had my hon. Friend been patient, he would have heard the next part of my remarks, which I hope will give him some comfort.

Track renewal has increased dramatically. Steps are being taken to improve the knowledge of the network's condition and the factors behind the escalating costs. The SRA has developed the capacity utilisation policy to ensure that the most efficient use is made of the existing network. A consultation on the subject ended last year. and we have now published the network utilisation strategy, which looks at getting better use out of the existing lines. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East would agree that that is vital.

The second route to be completed under the national framework is the east coast main line, which my hon. Friend discussed today. I understand that the baseline work on the east coast main line route strategy started in April. A set of options was drawn up in June and evaluation work began on those options this summer, with stakeholder involvement in the form of regional reference groups, including representatives of the regional development agencies, the regional passenger councils and the passenger transport executives. This will help to develop the preliminary options to be included in the draft strategy document, which the SRA aims to produce in December.

The route strategy will provide the basis for a major review of timetables for implementation in 2005 and for implementing the SRA's new franchise replacement policy on the east coast main line. It will also produce a strategy for rolling stock replacement and a modest affordable model programme of investment based on requirements for the next 10 years. The SRA aims to have the route strategy in place in the summer.

The east coast main line is a huge route and I understand that Edinburgh was chosen as the cut-off point to make the route strategy manageable. My hon. Friend will be aware that services north of Edinburgh, and in Scotland as a whole, are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.

The SRA has confirmed its commitment to producing a strategy for the development of the east coast network by the end of 2003. This will determine which further enhancements of the infrastructure will be required. It will also focus on making the best use of current infrastructure on one of the country's principal rail routes.

The SRA therefore intends to upgrade the east coast main line in a phased programme, and individual project elements will be subject to case-by-case approval and careful integration with Network Rail's renewal programme. It is too early to say what that will include, as further investment will depend on the completion of wider studies, especially the route utilisation strategy, but the preferred schemes will be those that produce capacity and performance benefits.

My hon. Friend also talked about the electrification of the east coast main line. I understand that that there are no plans for electrification north of Edinburgh. This issue is often raised in my area by people who say that there is no electrification on the south coast west of London. Previous assessments indicated that electrification of the line would be very expensive. There are also doubts about whether there is sufficient demand to justify the investment required.

Advances in train technology are such that the traditional distinction between electrification and non-electrification is becoming blurred. Diesel engine technology now produces fewer emissions, better acceleration times and higher top speeds, and is a serious competitor with electric trains.

My hon. Friend raised another issue about the line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen and the need for improvement. Straightening the line, not electrification, may be the main issue here. It may be more important for the through-put of passengers, but is not one of the SRA's main priorities. It would, however, be a more attractive proposition than electrification if funding could be secured. The Scottish Executive may consider funding for works that benefit internal Scottish services. They do, however, have their own list of priorities.

My hon. Friend also talked about Waverley station. At £33.5 million, this is the largest investment project being undertaken in Scotland and is due for completion in April 2004. It includes the renewal of equipment in the main signal centre at Waverley, which controls the east coast main line.

I have not had time to cover many of the points that my hon. Friend raised. To give a proper answer to some of the other question I am prepared to enter into correspondence with him if he will find that helpful, rather than trying to deal with them now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

We thank the Minister for his reply. He got in a great deal in a short time. Before we move to the next debate, I have to advise hon. Members that I anticipate a Division in the House. We shall, of course, be granted injury time.