§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
9.30 am§ Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)(Lab)I welcome the fact that we are debating rail franchises today. I shall try to keep my remarks fairly brief, so that all hon. Members can contribute. The problem with any rail debate is that one has mountains of information, insufficient time to deliver it, and lots of conflicting advice.
This country has about 10,000 miles of railway—about half what it had in the 1960s, before the Beeching cuts. Our railway system receives greater public subsidy now than at any time in the past, yet the service is less efficient, huge profits are being made from it by train operating companies, and there is an unbelievably complicated railways structure. In that respect, I look forward to the Minister's reply to the debate, as he might be able to throw some light on the current structural review and what will come from it.
The Transport Committee recently produced a welcome and informative report on the issues surrounding the structure of the railways and, in particular, franchising. It referred to what the Secretary of State for Transport said about that structure when he launched the rail review. My right hon. Friend said:
"The way in which it was privatised has led to fragmentation, excessive complication and dysfunctionality that have compounded the problems caused by decades of under-investment. Quite simply, there are too many organisations, some with overlapping responsibilities, and it has become increasingly clear that that gets in the way of effective decision making and frequently leads to unnecessary wrangling and disputes. That is no way to run the railways."—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1076.]I could not agree more.Twenty-four TOCs and one open-access operator, Hull Trains, operate on our railways, but when one looks at the ownership and operation of the franchises, one sees that quite a small number of organisations run them. The big companies are National Express, First Group, Stagecoach, Arriva, Go-Ahead and Virgin. In the last financial year, the profits made by the companies from running railways in a publicly owned railway system—an activity for which they are very heavily subsidised—amounted to £182 million for National Express, £302 million for First Group, £217 million for Stagecoach, £105 million for Go-Ahead and £122 million for Virgin.
Since 1996, TOCs have received subsidy from the public purse totalling £10 billion. Incredible amounts of money have been poured into the railway system, yet it is being run in a way with which the public are not terribly happy and from which a number of people make huge profits. The Transport Committee considered the 70WH matter with some care and in some detail, and stated:
"Nearly a third of the franchises were no longer expected to function in the entrepreneurial, risk-taking way that was one of the fundamental justifications for private sector involvement in running train services but simply to function as fee paid agents of the SRA. This indicates the extent of the present malaise."That is the fundamental problem that we must address.The railway system was nationalised in 1947 and British Rail put a huge amount of investment into it, including innovative developments such as faster trains and all the rail technology that went with them. There was a strong sense that the railway industry in this country could produce high-quality trains and signalling equipment, and much of that was available for export around the world. However, the Tory Government's obsession with privatisation of the railways after the 1992 general election led to our ending up with an unbelievably inefficient and complicated system in which those who managed to get into the rail industry made huge profits from selling off its assets. Under the present system, the public pay private TOCs that take no risks and are paid even when they are unable to come to an agreement with their staff and industrial action is taken—in other words, the TOCs are paid not to run trains during industrial action. That is an odd state of affairs. There is no incentive for management to establish a decent relationship with the work force.
Many—nearly all—of the franchises on existing lines are due for renewal between now and 2007, so the Minister has important decisions to make. Most of the franchises are privately run, apart from the Connex franchise, which was returned to public ownership because it was so badly run by the private sector. It is curious for a Labour Government to say that a franchise must now return to the private sector: that is nothing but reprivatising something that is better run in the public sector. The public sector has a big role to play and we should consider the possibility of taking over the running of the TOCs when contemplating the situation facing the whole network.
The Secretary of State received a proposal from Transport for London. Everyone accepts that Transport for London has done a good job of coordinating transport policies across London. It has massively improved the bus services and ridership across London, including the operation of East Thames Buses as a public sector company, and it now has control of the London underground, although, unfortunately, it is saddled with the expensive investment proposals that the Treasury has forced upon it. TFL's proposal is to co-ordinate all transport undertakings across London. It makes sense for it to control all rail operations, overground and underground, across the capital. The same is true of regional transport executives elsewhere. Such a change would make for better public involvement in planning and decision making, and would help to overcome problems with the train operating system.
§ Mr. John Horam (Orpington)(Con)I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has brought up the broad issues to be tackled in this debate. Apropos the Mayor of London's request to control the whole overground system in London, how would the hon. Gentleman deal with the fact that most of the trains originate far away— 71WH as far away as the coast—and travel across Kent and Sussex? How would he overcome that part of a mayoral attempt to grab the railways as well as the underground?
§ Jeremy CorbynI do not think that it is right for hon. Members to talk about a mayoral attempt to grab anything. The Mayor was elected to try to improve services in London, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that he should be congratulated on the good job that he has done over the past four years. Yes, trains run from outside London and the majority of inter-city train journeys begin and end in London. Those services would continue, but Transport for London's proposal would allow for much better coordination at local stations and of interchange facilities. It would avoid the nonsensical situation of a plethora of TOCs fighting for track space in and out of stations such as Euston and Liverpool Street—Kings Cross and other stations are less affected by the multiplicity of operators. The proposal would lead to more efficient running of the railway and more public accountability for London's transport. I hope that the Minister will give us some hope that, when examining the renewal of franchises, he will at least consider publicly run and operated services in certain areas, so that we regain control of the railway.
The current structure of the railways is bizarre beyond belief. We have a Secretary of State answerable to Parliament who has to fight for money from the Treasury for investment in the railway system and railway services. I applaud the Government for the large amounts of money that they are prepared to invest in the railway system. I welcome that; it is incredible and it is to the Government's credit that they have been prepared to invest such sums. Future generations will benefit from that. However, under the present structure, the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament is somewhat fettered by the fact that the rail regulator seems to have more power than Ministers or Secretaries of State to decide where the money is spent, how it is spent and how much of it is spent. The regulator then passes his views—very regularly, no doubt—to the Strategic Rail Authority, which in turn passes its views to Network Rail, which now owns and operates the track and charges the TOCs for the use of the lines. This country has a parliamentary democracy in which public expenditure is meant to be accounted for to Parliament. That is seriously undermined by the position of the rail regulator and by the amount of money that is poured into TOCs that make huge profits from running a service that they are paid to run in the first place.
§ Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)(Lab)To concentrate for a moment on profit, it is estimated that the companies' collective profit this year will be £170 million, reflecting a profit margin of about 30 per cent. We are simply giving them money.
§ Jeremy CorbynMy hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. The profit margin is excessive by any standards. The railways are not a free enterprise system in which companies make profits by taking risks. There are no risks involved, as long as the companies run things moderately efficiently. When a company is given a franchise to run a railway, it knows that it has an 72WH income from public funds and that all it has to do is run the service to make a profit. There is no risk involved for the company.
§ Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire)(Con)Surely there is a risk, because if the company behaves incompetently or inefficiently, it loses the franchise.
§ Jeremy CorbynI did state the caveat that the company has to run the railway and clearly there is some risk that it will lose the franchise if it does so badly, but it has to be pretty had for that to happen. We are not being as tough with the companies as we ought to be. I read the rail press avidly and quite regularly and I have heard of companies that lose a franchise because they have run it badly which then pop up somewhere else running a franchise in another area. The company's record seems to be forgotten when the new franchises are handed out.
I hope that the rail review brings a degree of public accountability for this huge public expenditure and that the Minister will reiterate the view that the railway network is publicly owned, so there should be a publicly owned railway system. I hope also that, in the discussion of franchises during the next few months, the Minister will consider very seriously the need for regional operation and simplicity of operation in and out of major stations, and that he will acknowledge that the train operating companies that have made enormous profits over the past few years are simply not an acceptable example of how we should run a railway.
This country spends more money than any other European country on subsidising a largely privately run railway system, yet in return we get a rather worse service than most other European countries. There must be a lesson there. A comparison of our railway network and that of France is not a happy one from the point of view of people who want a really good and efficient railway system in this country. Railways are the most environmentally friendly, the most efficient, and in many cases the most popular form of transport. We have a responsibility to ensure that they are better run and funded in an acceptable way that is good for the public as a whole.
§ Mr. John Horam (Orpington)(Con)The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made a very good attempt to sketch out the broad themes that should be addressed in a general debate about the railways, but he was wrong to concentrate so much on the profitability of particular companies and thereby to denigrate private sector involvement in the railway industry. I believe that a mixed economy for the industry can work perfectly well.
The hon. Gentleman, because he is a London Member of Parliament, will be aware that Connex, a private company, was recently sacked by the Strategic Rail Authority because it was failing to perform. One major reason for that failure was that when it originally set out its stall for the franchise, it underbid for the contract; consequently, the company was losing money year on year. In response, it cut back: for example, it did not paint its stations, and it de-manned some of them. In my constituency, Petts Wood station lost one of only 73WH two regular members of staff; consequently, there was a lot of vandalism and the station became rundown. That is a tiny example of the way in which the pressure to cut costs resulting from originally underbidding for the franchise caused deterioration in the service and the maintenance of stations.
The SRA decided that Connex could no longer continue and installed its own team to run the railways in south-east London and Kent. Opinions differ on whether there has been an improvement in performance during the intervening six to nine months. I think that there has, but as I discovered when I talked to the managing director of South Eastern Trains recently, the main reason for that is that he gets more money from the Government. He would not tell me exactly how much he gets—perhaps he should have, given that it is a matter of public interest involving public money—but I understand that it is roughly £10 million to £15 million more a year to run the trains in south-east London and Kent. As a result, he can begin to restaff stations, improve trains and enhance performance in a way for which my constituents are grateful.
Despite that, performance is still inadequate. The real issue is no longer whether a company is privately or publicly run. I accept that there was a reprehensible degree of profit-taking after 1997 in particular, but now the issue is how to set subsidy at the right level to give the proper incentive to a company, whether private or public, and its management to perform well. The hon. Member for Islington, North is right in one respect: there are too many chefs trying to cook this particular meal. I agree that it is astonishing that the regulator has so much power. As a democrat, I am amazed that so how much power has been given to a regulator to determine money is spent. The regulator is given a sum of money by the Government and seems to determine how that money is spent, which is wrong. Too many organisations are involved in the industry, and the Government have not helped by setting up some more in the past seven years. The review of the structure of the industry should examine the complexity at the top level of decision making. I believe that the structure at the top should be simplified. The vast amounts of public money involved could be far better spent than they are now.
I agree with one thing that the Mayor of London said recently. He said that the capital is being neglected compared with other parts of the country. We know that vast amounts of subsidy are going into regional railways that are very unprofitable, whereas the main lines into London, which carry tens of thousands of commuters every day and on which London depends, have been relatively starved of capital and revenue. That matter should be addressed.
§ The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells)The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for a long time. He has had some experience of Government and he knows that if he were sitting in my seat he would have heard the cries from all over Britain that the great problem with Government spending is that we lavish money on London. That is a fact, and I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's reaction to that. Perhaps he could 74WH transport himself for a moment, and imagine that he is an MP from Yorkshire, the north-east or Ceredigion. How would he feel about it then?
§ Mr. HoramMentioning the north-east was rather near the knuckle. I might have taken a different view had I still been the MP for Gateshead instead of for Orpington. None the less, if the Minister considers rationally—I am sure that he will, as he is a rational Minister—the capital spending spread over the country as a whole, he will realise that London has received much less spending than is sensible, given the amount of wealth that it contributes. He might take as an example the amount of money that has been spent on renewing the north-west line and compare it with the amount of money that has been spent on London commuter services.
§ Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion)(PC)I do not wish to plead Ceredigion's case too strongly at this stage, but what the hon. Gentleman is saying undermines his earlier statement that he believed in a mixed economy for the railways and that such a system was delivering. He is now underlining why the railways should be a publicly run and funded UK national enterprise. We have a problem in that some lines get sufficient investment and some are profitable because of the number of people who use them, but they do not fit into the wider jigsaw because the industry is so fragmented. Surely we should reconsider a UK basis for the railways.
§ Mr. HoramThe hon. Gentleman is making a mistake that I traditionally associate with the Labour party. He seems to be saying that an industry that is publicly funded should also be publicly run. I believe that the industry can be run equally well by a public or by a private organisation. However, I do agree that funding should be determined on a UK basis. That is precisely my point. If we were to do that, we would see that London has been underfunded. However, let us get away from the London versus the regions debate—perhaps I have overstressed the issue, and it is obvious that people have different views on it.
Spending money on small improvements that could make a great deal of difference to the performance of the rail companies has been undervalued compared with spending a lot of money on particular lines. For instance, the north-west line, which has taken a huge amount of Government funding, may have been over-financed. There is a need for a better balance across the whole picture. Spending money on small improvements, such as lengthening station platforms so that they can accommodate 10 or 12-car trains, thereby reducing overcrowding on the London commuter lines, might be better than spending huge amounts of Government money on the Pendolino. It is the duty of the Government, not of the regulator, the SRA or private companies, to address that balance. The Government must set the overall pattern of funding.
The Minister will know that my area has seen the sacking of a company and the temporary handing over of railway operations to a public company. It also faces the prospect of the integrated Kent franchise—the new basis on which companies will bid for the Kent area franchise this year. I beg the Government and the Minister to pay some attention to that, as the SRA has 75WH indicated that it will savagely cut some of the traditional commuter services, for example, by up to two thirds in peak-hour commuter services to some stations in my constituency and by up to a half in other areas. People have built lives, bought homes and taken jobs based on the expectation that a service that has run for 30 or 40 years will continue, even if it is subject to tinkering. I hope that the Minister will not leave such matters to the SRA, which has admitted that it made some mistakes and is reconsidering the situation. but will consider most carefully the pattern of services. He should simplify the overall structure of the industry, and review the amount of subsidy and how it is spent, value for money and, above all, the demand for services from various parts of our country.
§ Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North)(Lab)I will be brief, because I know that many hon. Friends wish to take part in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing it. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). We served together on the Environmental Audit Committee. I know that he is very much aware of the environmental benefits that can come from public policy of many kinds, including rail.
The important point about today's debate, which I want the Minister to take away, is that it takes place in the aftermath of the Transport Committee's report. I think that that has a great deal to offer. It should steer and guide the Government towards making sure that, after all this time, we get rail policy right. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about environmental issues, we are living the extreme effects of Tory privatisation. It is taking a long time to put right what the Tories did. We must find a way to put rail transport back together and to link it with other forms of transport, including bus services.
We in Stoke-on-Trent are fortunate in one sense, in that we are on the west coast main line, which has received an enormous part of the public subsidy that we have heard about for the carrying out of essential rail repairs. I thoroughly welcome that. North Staffordshire MPs had a briefing with Virgin Trains on the new timetable, which is to be introduced in September, with new, half-hourly services to London and the new Pendolino services. There will be huge improvements in the speed and the comfort in which we can travel from Stoke-on-Trent on that west coast main line in both directions and down to London. All that is good, but there is no gain without pain. Upgrading repair works are carrying on as we speak. We will have to put up with that.
The wider context is the Strategic Rail Authority review that is now taking place. That is where the good news ends. I will concentrate on one point, which might seem small, but is hugely important to people in north Staffordshire, for their MPs, for the North Staffordshire Rail Promotion Group and for local authorities. Many of us are old enough—or young enough—to remember the Beeching cuts. We have to face up to the possibility of a new round of Beeching-type cuts by stealth as a 76WH result of the policies of the Strategic Rail Authority, which is introducing a word that I had not come across before: bustitution.
Some may not know what bustitution is. While essential repair works are being carried out, it is perfectly acceptable for there to be a replacement bus service along the route affected. I accept that and I am happy to go from train to bus when I am making a journey. However, my constituents and I are not prepared to accept the Strategic Rail Authority giving strategic instructions to those responsible for the franchises allowing bus services to replace train services along local passenger routes. I am talking about the route from Stoke-on-Trent to Stafford, although I know that routes in the west midlands are similarly affected.
Replacement bus services will run not only during the period in which essential repairs are being carried out to the rail tracks. The SRA has given franchises to operators for long-distance routes that are, they say, much more important than local routes. As a result, bus substitution services will continue, because—surprise, surprise—the new franchise operator needs the rolling stock that we have on our local train services. In addition, the new franchise operator, as determined by the SRA, does not have the trained drivers to operate the local routes. We are told that we will have bus services, without any consultation with local authorities or Advantage West Midlands, which is doing its best to improve the local economy and to link passenger services to congestion problems at a time when, I am delighted to say, there are huge, much needed roadworks in progress on the A500.
I fear that the SRA is not working regionally. It has no presence in the west midlands, so how does it know the economic, transport and sustainability needs of people in the west midlands, never mind north Staffordshire and my constituency? We have heard about public funds and whether they should be spent by publicly owned companies. Accountability is the real issue that must be addressed in the review. Why is the SRA not accountable for the way in which it runs its services? When the line repairs end and bus services give way to rail services as cab drivers on the franchise through Oxford or elsewhere are trained, I am afraid that there will be low demand for local train services—as was the case with local train stations such as Longport in my constituency and Kidsgrove and Etruria in adjacent constituencies. There is a real danger of depressing the demand for rail travel, because people find the prospect of travelling by bus too much to take.
It is simply not good enough for the SRA to substitute bus for rail without consultation. It should not be allowed to get away with it and it should be made accountable. I am delighted that we have had the debate. I hope that the Minister will talk to the SRA and to north Staffordshire MPs to see how we can integrate our rail services with the transport needs of the north Staffordshire economy.
§ 10.3 am
§ Mr. Simon Thomas (Ceredigion)(PC)I am pleased to take part in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing it. There is a tradition in Westminster Hall that the Member who opens the debate deals with the broad issues and then everyone piles in with their own local, regional or national agendas, and I am not going to break that.
77WH Although we may differ about the funding of the franchises, consensus has emerged about accountability. There is a lack of accountability in the present system. The Minister has intimated as much in his comments over the past few weeks, and I look forward to his official reply to the debate.
I shall offer a perspective from Wales. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) offered a perspective of the west midlands, but in Wales we do have a Strategic Rail Authority presence. It has a member who is supposed to be the member for Wales, but that person has no accountability and there is no accountability generally between the National Assembly, the UK Government and the Wales and Borders franchise.
From accountability comes integration. From an environmental and a social and economic development point of view, we want to, see integration between services. I detect from the Government that they are starting to wake up to the lack of accountability for the rail system throughout the UK. I would like to see a two-way process in which there is greater regional accountability for rail and passenger needs, so that the English regions and commuter areas can integrate them, and a greater democratic accountability within Wales, in particular, reflecting the greater accountability that we hope Parliament will have for the whole system in the United Kingdom.
My journey to and from Westminster takes me through about half the franchise regions of the United Kingdom. I have a lot of time to think about these services during the five and a half hours I spend on the train. I am regularly bustituted at either the beginning or the end of my journey, depending on whether I am coming or going. Aberystwyth is at the end of the line, and that is where the bustitution often happens; the train service has to start at Machynlleth or Newtown. The hon. Lady is right in saying that bustitution has increased. We used to talk about integration of services. Initially, rail services would end because it was the end of the line, but buses would then link into neighbouring villages and towns. That was the old idea of bus and rail integration. It now seems to be a t other less palatable way forward.
Other hon. Members referred to the Transport Committee report, and it is appropriate for me to concentrate on the Welsh Affairs Committee report on rail services in Wales. It calls for greater accountability for transport services and railways in Wales and for some transfer of power to the National Assembly. I agree that one cannot transfer power from this Parliament if we do not have it in the first place. The first step is for the Minister to get a bit more power over these services and the railways and then to work out how we can do this at a UK level and with the devolved Governments. The National Assembly recently requested that a Transport Bill for Wales be passed to help it to achieve some of its national objectives for passenger integration.
There is also an ongoing review of the devolution arrangements between the National Assembly and Westminster, prompted by the Richard report, which was published a month ago. That report also had something to say about railways. It was fairly neutral 78WH about whether there should be further devolution of power, but said that it was obviously possible. The Welsh Affairs Committee report accuses the Strategic Rail Authority of failing in its statutory duties towards the National Assembly and towards Wales. The First Minister of Wales, like MPs from Wales, was not informed of the SRA's decision to cut services in Wales. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned, some backdoor cuts are now happening, such as scrapping the only direct link between the Eurostar service at Waterloo and our national capital in Cardiff. That was cut without any consultation with Welsh MPs, AMs or even the First Minister. There is no attempt at wider consultation.
Although the National Assembly has control over buses and roads in Wales, it has no control over railways at all. A person has been appointed to the SRA—her name escapes me, but she is supposed to be the person from Wales. She is appointed not by the National Assembly but directly by Westminster, and she is not answerable to the National Assembly. The SRA does not have to take direction from the National Assembly about services in Wales, as it does from the Executive in Scotland about services there. The difficulty arises when we try to improve passenger services as a whole in Wales. The National Assembly can do that only by spending more money on roads. That is a rather ridiculous and environmentally unsound way forward. Indeed, the National Assembly has contributed money towards rail services, even though that is not in its remit. Some £2.5 million of the National Assembly's money is going towards rail services at present, yet it has no say about how it is spent. That is crazy.
Let me give an example of which the Minister may be aware: the Dyfi junction in mid-Wales. It is our equivalent of a bottleneck, where two lines come together. A loop is needed to enable hourly passenger services. This is to go from two hours to one hour and is a big step. The National Assembly has come up with the money, but Network Rail does not have the engineers to do the work. We have been waiting for two years, even though the money is available for that service to go ahead.
In a statement to the House, the Secretary of State for Transport said that the Government were considering how
"more decisions on public transport, including rail"—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1076.]could be devolved to the Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and the regional level in England. The Welsh Affairs Committee report says specifically that we should consider setting up statutory passenger transport boards or consortiums in Wales. That is what we really want. About 3 per cent. of rail investment ends up in Wales, and as Wales has 5 per cent. of the population, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) should not be looking at Wales to get extra resources for his commuter services in London. No doubt someone will point out that we do not have 5 per cent. of the railways, but that was because of Beeching, and we certainly had it historically.We need transport passenger boards established and the SRA's powers of guidance and direction for Wales to be given to the National Assembly. The Assembly should also be able to appoint directly to the SRA. It is 79WH about democratic accountability. However the franchises are run, with private or public companies, strategic democratic accountability is needed.
The Welsh rail network links into England, and it is important to remember that we cannot travel by train from north to south Wales without going through England, via Shrewsbury. However, in giving evidence to the Richard commission, National Assembly Minister Sue Essex said that the Labour Assembly Government do not believe that the problems are insurmountable. We can work with the border regions of England to provide a better service for both the English and Welsh, as many of the journeys are back and forth between the two countries.
It is the same situation in London. It is right that the London Mayor wants to take more of a view on these matters and to integrate the system better. However, that should also take into account the fact that all the journeys start and end in London. We face the same problem in Wales, but it is addressable if we put it into the UK context of national investment and consider how the regions of England and nations of Wales and Scotland can come into that.
The issue is really about statutory consortiums and passenger transport boards. That is the prize that we can win in the Welsh context. So many of our public passenger services are bus-based, and we need to integrate them with the relatively few rail services that we have. To give an example, the National Assembly was the first to give free transport to passengers on buses, but as it had no control of the railways, it could not give pensioners even a discount on the trains. That is a sore point in many of the south Wales valleys. I am sure that the Minister, who represents Pontypridd, will be aware of that.
We have some rail safety concerns about the mid-Wales part of the Cambrian line. I know that the debate is about passenger transport rather than rail safety issues, but I want to put it on record that I have great concerns about the Plas Crug railway crossing in Aberystwyth. Now that we have had this debate, I will take the opportunity to raise them in correspondence with the Department, and I hope that the Minister will be aware that many rail users have specific concerns about rail safety in Aberystwyth.
I hope that the debate will give the Minister strength in tackling the issues and winning back more democratic accountability for the public money that has been invested in the railways.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am sorry to say that I will not be able to call all those who want to speak, because the Member who initiated the debate obviously wants an adequate reply from the Minister.
§ Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)There are four interlocking themes that influence the debate on how the railways are, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, lacking accountability. The first theme is the opaqueness of the process and a 80WH lack of transparency in how the franchise arrangements are undertaken. The second is excessive bureaucracy, with too many organisations fighting over what are good spoils, and causing a great deal of confusion. That links to the third point which is a lack of understanding of what happens to public money, and whether we are getting, to use that dreadful phrase, value for money. Lastly, there is an issue that has not yet been mentioned: the companies' relationship with railway staff. I start with that, as we are all aware of the tragedies and must not underestimate their impact: Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield have had an enormous impact on the rail networks. It is still much safer to travel by rail, but one cannot be unaware of safety concerns.
My hon. Friend the Minister has a difficult job in that respect, because the post-Hatfield experience is one of trying to return to where we were. We are not going forward at present: we are still talking about achieving, by the end of the decade, the level of service that we had before. That is depressing, but I am pleased that this Government are putting money in, and have a view that rail is a service for the future.
Part of the difficulty with the current franchise operation is that those who are bidding have to work out which franchise to apply for. In my part of the world, Wales and West is more likely to go for Wales, and it has been a devil of a job trying to clarify exactly what it intends to do arid who will take on the franchise. It has become so ludicrous that, although First Great Western would be prepared to invest in some of the stations, it will not do so until it is clearly likely to be the successful bidder. There is an interregnum period during which clarity is lacking. Virgin Trains wanted to run through trains from London to Birmingham on the reserve line, but it could not get the slots at Paddington, so it quickly pulled out. That results in customer dissatisfaction. Customers want reliability and accessibility, but the franchise operation is, at best, pretty bloody and far too long, and we are not getting the best out of it.
I want to mention the work force. I welcome the way in which Network Rail has taken back into public ownership—can I use that term?—the responsibility for maintenance. The people who work in the rail industry are—forgive the pun—shunted around, and that does not achieve anything. Sometimes the basic safety case of those working in our railways is insufficient. We want good people in the railways, because safety, reliability and a good service are important.
I have been trying, since I was elected and before, to promote the redoubling of the track between Kemble and Swindon—the Minister will probably despair to hear me say that. We were having good discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority about 18 months or two years ago, but the authority was reorganised and the discussions with local authorities are now in abeyance. The Strategic Rail Authority is not responsible for the franchises, but it should be involved and give guidance. It is not strategic at present: there is an element of power grab. The difficulty is that the privatisation was botched, and we are trying to make good something that is, in many respects, irreparable. I wish my hon. Friend good luck: he is well known for cutting through the bluster and the complete lack of foresight. We need to apply 81WH public investment correctly, and there is no better time to start than today.
§ John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington)(Lab)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on initiating the debate at a key time in relation to the discussions on the overall structural review that the Government will have before the summer. I also congratulate the Government on having that review: they now have the courage to address the problems and disasters that resulted from privatisation.
Many hon. Members remember the debate about privatisation. Many of the arguments that were advanced by Labour Back Benchers have proved to be accurate. They are as valid today as they were then: time and time again the private sector's woeful performance in the delivery of train services has been demonstrated. Nowhere is that problem worse than in the south-east. Connex is a good example of how poor the private sector can be. I welcome the fact that, with the setting up of South Eastern Trains, the franchise has effectively been returned to the public sector.
We have seen what happened under the Connex regime. When South Eastern Trains took over, a 20 per cent. shortage of station staff was identified, which meant that Connex had been cutting back on station staff, year in, year out, with the consequent risk not only to the service but to the safety of rail passengers. The Minister will know that since the franchise's return to the public sector, there has been a significant improvement in overall service. The all-day punctuality rate on South Eastern Trains has increased by 9 per cent., which is the highest rate of increase of all 10 London and south-east operators.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister—by appearing in a photocall with the Mayor of London in Brent, East, which we all enjoyed—seems to have given his blessing to a new London rail authority, which would be given control of all London's commuter routes. However, I find it remarkable that five of the 10 passenger services are to be refranchised—reprivatised—over the next five years, which flies in the face of a new London authority being able to co-ordinate an overall system for London's commuter trains. In addition, that move reinforces our concern that South Eastern Trains will itself be privatised and the franchise will return to the private sector. We argue that the removal of the requirement to pay shareholder dividends must ensure that more resources can be provided for investment in the service itself. I sympathise with the comments made by the managing director of South Eastern Trains, Michael Holden, who said:
"Bidding for franchises takes management time and time is the most precious commodity we have. We have been able to declutter the agenda and focus everyone on running the railway better."Given the failure of the private sector in the past and the improvements that are beginning to emerge now, most of us would be astonished if South Eastern Trains were forced to press ahead with reprivatising the service in its area.We should also listen to what people in the area are saying. The responses to the recent Strategic Rail Authority consultation showed unanimous support for 82WH retaining the service in the public sector. Passenger groups, trade unions, the south-eastern region TUC, Mark Watts, MEP, who is Labour's transport spokesperson in the European Parliament, Kent county council Labour group, other local and unitary authority Labour councillors, and the London Transport Users Committee were united against the service cuts proposed by the SRA last month, and in favour of maintaining SET as currently constituted. I draw hon. Members' attention to the Maidstone declaration produced last month by Labour councillors in Kent. It pointed out that democratic accountability of the rail network had been lost as a result of privatisation and that public subsidies and passengers' fares were diverted from service improvements. It argued that the rail service in Kent, Medway and south-east London should remain in public hands. The campaign is popular. MPs for the area will be inundated with postcards from local residents who support the retention of the train service within the public sector.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of the current rail review to create a framework that stabilises railway provision, ensures adequate resourcing in the long term and maintains management expertise in the public sector. We can then deliver to our constituents the safe, secure and efficient services that they expect.
§ Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley)(Lab)In my neck of the woods, GNER does a reasonable job on the east coast main line. My main complaint is about the quality of the toilet facilities on the White Rose trains, which are definitely below par, but I pay tribute to the men and women who operate that line to a fairly high standard. It gets me to work each week and back again at the weekend. It is working reasonably well at the moment.
I wish to discuss briefly industrial relations within the passenger services remit of the rail network and the national situation post-privatisation. Will the Minister consider the plight of the work force, who work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to keep the network running? Is he concerned that open, transparent and accountable industry-wide collective bargaining was shattered by privatisation and that industrial relations have worsened as train companies open up pay differentials of thousands of pounds between employees of the same grade working for different companies and between different grades of employee? The Minister will be aware that that is generating a series of disputes that could have been avoided. How would he feel working alongside Ministers of similar rank and performing similar duties, but working much longer hours, having fewer benefits and receiving less money? I think he would not be terribly pleased about it. Does not he agree that under the current disjointed and chaotic system, industrial relations cannot improve, and that less fragmented industrial relations and national bargaining are in everyone's best interests?
Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), most hon. Members present have signed early-day motion 254 on keeping South Eastern Trains in the public domain.
§ Mr. Paul Marsden (Shrewsbury and Atcham)(LD)I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this extremely important debate. What has happened to our railways is a national disgrace, which continues to this day, as huge amounts of public money go into private hands to deliver a service that arguably is worse than it was seven years ago. I pay tribute to the hon. Members who have spoken: every one made a useful contribution, and I hope that the Minister will take their points on board. I agree that the root cause of the problem is the appalling way in which the Conservative Government botched rail privatisation. We are living with their legacy today and paying for it through our taxes. The Minister has the thankless task of trying to sort out the problem, but it is his Government's collective responsibility to do so.
The passenger rail franchises under the remit of the Strategic Rail Authority have unfortunately not done a good job. The 18 train operating companies will receive £1.4 billion in subsidy this year, rising to £1.6 billion next year. The Treasury constantly reminds Departments to be prudent because we do not want to go back to the days of boom and bust, but that huge amount of public money is simply not delivering value for money. The Conservative Government's assertion at the time of privatisation was that costs would decrease, but the opposite has happened. The latest statistics available, for the four years to 2001–02, show that staff costs rose by 28 per cent. I suspect that that is not the result of front-line staff being paid decent wages, but the cost of management who often make the problem worse. Other operating costs over the same period have risen by 22 per cent.
The Transport Committee's seventh report "The Future of the Railway" concluded that
"the industry is not fit for purpose."It stated:"The SRA appears utterly incapable of managing significant improvements … It is outrageous that astonishingly large sums of taxpayers' money have been used to prop up palpably failing businesses such as the £58 million in the case of Connex. While we accept that failures in the initial franchise process may have been to blame originally, we cannot understand why action was not taken earlier by the SRA."The SRA should be accountable to the Minister. Why has he not been able to find a way to stop the apparent abuse of taxpayers' money?The massive increase in rail journeys is welcome, but that welcome is tempered by the massive increase in car journeys and air travel. In the past 40 years, car journeys have increased fourfold and aviation journeys eightfold, so the fact that the number of rail journeys has increased is no cause for complacency. We must get people out of their cars and into trains, but the trains must be able to deliver a decent service. At the moment, things are not getting better; they are getting worse. Rail fares have increased by an average 20 per cent. since 1997, yet the percentage of trains arriving on time has decreased from 89.7 per cent. in 1997 to 80.8 per cent., according to the latest figures. People are having to pay more and to put up with overcrowding at twice the 1997 levels. To use the cliché, the system is a gravy train for certain companies to make a vast profit at the taxpayer's expense and without due accountability.
84WH A Pacer train with a life of some 30 years costs about £600,000 to replace, yet it costs £144,000 each year to lease one; it would be possible to buy such a train for the cost of leasing it for four years, if the companies were allowed to do so, but they are not. Instead, that money goes straight into the pockets of certain companies—companies that are owned by the big three banks. I declare an interest: I have accounts with Abbey and one with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I cannot blame them or HSBC for the fact that money is given to them so easily and they make huge profits, which stack up at about £170 million each year. It is money for old rope; we are stuffing gold into their mouths. It is time that that stopped, because the return for those banks is calculated to be about 30 per cent. Even a company such as Tesco makes a profit of only about 5 per cent., so how on earth can the Minister justify the banks and the companies owned by them making such returns?
I have the delight of travelling on Virgin trains from time to time when I return to Shrewsbury. An article inThe Mail on Sunday on 8 February stated:
"Under the bizarre rules of rail privatisation, operators such as Sir Richard Branson's Virgin are contractually obliged to pay lease charges to rolling stock companies, regardless of whether the locomotives and carriages are used."Last year, Virgin paid £55 million to lease new state-of-the-art tilting trains—only they were not used. They sat in the railway sidings because they were not ready, yet Virgin's subsidy from the Government increased from £306 million to £371 million, and it made an operating profit of £26.3 million last year.The long-suffering British public have to put up with the reality of those poor train services. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) said, staff on the front line are desperately trying to make the best of a very bad job, and they should be saluted for what they manage to achieve. Some companies are better than others, but with the new generation of franchises, we must find a way to control costs and ensure, for instance, that there is no automatic extension to a rail franchise after three years simply because modest—at times very modest—targets have been met. There must be a fundamental shake-up based on passenger satisfaction as well as safety, reliability and affordability for passengers.
What has happened after seven years of Labour Government is a national scandal. To their credit, the Government have invested money in the national health service, but they must consider why they are wasting money on the railways when they could invest more in hospitals, schools and fighting crime. We could come up with a decent public transport system using only some of the money that we spend now. Following on from the hon. Member for Cetedigion (Mr. Thomas), a fraction of the profits of extra subsidies in other areas could be used, for example, for a direct rail link from London to Shrewsbury, which would be so wildly appreciated that the Government would reap huge kudos. We would finally have a direct rail link to Shropshire, mid-Wales and the heart of Wales line, which many people want. I make that pitch and I hope that the Minister will answer many of the questions posed today. As the Rail Passengers Council has said, the system is a mess at the moment and there is little confidence that the Government are getting it right.
§ Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire)(Con)A discussion on rail franchises and the future of our railways is timely. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this debate and thank all those who have taken part. We have heard from eight hon. Members today, and what a sorry tale they have all told.
Last Sunday, we read in our newspapers about Birmingham Moor Street station, which was apparently officially opened last September after 16 years of lying derelict. It is meant to boost the new Bull Ring shopping centre in Birmingham and sounds like good news; the only problem is that despite the £11 million facelift, it was revealed in the press that no passenger trains will pass through the station until 2007. What on earth is going on? When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he can tell us why there is to he such a long wait before Birmingham Moor Street station is used.
§ Jeremy CorbynI am puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Birmingham Moor Street station. It was certainly open last time I used it. I got off and on a train at that station and there was no problem—it was not a phantom train. I think that he is referring to the refurbished part of the station, which has not yet been opened for trains to complete their journeys at Moor Street.
§ Mr. KnightI have not been to Birmingham Moor Street station so I defer—to some extent—to the hon. Gentleman's greater travel experience. However, the Sunday papers said—[HON. MEMBERS: "They could be wrong"]. Yes, they could be wrong, but for the sake of accuracy I shall put on record what many people read in the Sunday papers. We read:
"Birmingham's Moor Street was officially reopened last September after 16 years of lying derelict…But it will stay empty while signalling work is completed."That is what it said in the press. Perhaps the Minister could confirm either the press report or what the hon. Member for Islington, North said.
§ Jeremy CorbynOr we could all go there.
§ Mr. KnightOr we could all go there after this debate.
I was about to confess that I like the Minister, but I was astonished by his comments last week, again printed in a newspaper. I give him the opportunity to deny that he said that the only way to end Britain's love affair with the car and get people using public transport, including the railways, was
"to tax people out of their cars in the same way as the authorities have tried to tax people off cigarettes".The headline of that article was, "Tax drivers off the road, says transport chief".
§ Dr. HowellsI did not say that and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I did not say that. The original interview appeared in theFinancial Times. TheDaily Mail. for its own reasons—God knows what they are—decided to print something different. If he wants me to send him the transcript—luckily the interview was tape-recorded—he can read it for himself. He should not repeat information that is not correct.
§ Mr. KnightI am delighted that we have that on the record, and as I rather like the sound of the Minister's voice, I would like a copy of the transcript. I am pleased to hear that denial, because if he had said that, it would have been a kick in the teeth for poor families and people who live in rural areas who have no option but to use the motor car because there are no rail services.
The year began with the Secretary of State for Transport announcing a fundamental review of the rail industry to remove "unnecessary wrangling and disputes" between the various organisations running the railways. Having rightly ruled out renationalisation, he promised to publish by summer proposals that were designed to ensure a more streamlined structure for the railway system with clearer lines of responsibility and accountability.
The review heralds the fifth change in structure in nearly seven years of Labour Government. They came to power promising immediate benefit, but after seven years, as we have heard from many hon. Members, services in many areas are getting worse. One in five trains run late, and work on many new lines has been scrapped. Despite inflation-busting fare increases, commuters face deteriorating services. I fear that the latest review of rail policy is not about finding a better structure for the railways, but about increasing centralisation and political control. Although that would please the hon. Member for Islington, North, it would not please me or solve the problems. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us the likely date of publication of the Secretary of State's review and about any information contained in it that he is at liberty to put in the public domain today.
Part of the key to a modern, efficient railway system is modern, efficient railway stock, and that needs close attention in the Government's rail review. Encouraging more people to travel by train does not simply involve increasing the costs of motoring; the public have to feel comfortable when they make a train journey, and the problem in many areas has been that travelling by train is not reliable, predictable or comfortable.
As hon. Members will know, in February the National Audit Office published a revealing report that indicated that new rail rolling stock was being delivered late. It also warned that the new carriages being introduced into service are less reliable than the old slam-door vehicles that they were designed to replace. The report provides clear evidence that the railway system is something of a shambles. Not only are trains arriving late at the stations, but new trains are arriving late from the factory. Why should the public have to put up with old, uncomfortable and dirty rolling stock while manufacturers take up to two and a half years to deliver new trains? People will clearly not use the railways if they feel unsafe or uncomfortable.
Passengers are also concerned about punctuality. According to the official figures published in March, after seven years of Labour Government nearly a quarter of all trains, and nearly one in three run by some operators, run late. No wonder more than half of voters think that public transport is bad. The Strategic Rail Authority's answer to the problem of punctuality seems to be to make journey times longer, and Network Rail appears to agree. That is not the way to encourage people to use the train.
87WH I have the honour to represent a constituency that includes the town of Bridlington, which is one of the country's premier seaside resorts. Passengers who want to travel to Bridlington from Hull and back again have recently been faced with longer rail journey times. I submitted a written question to the Minister, who passed it on to Network Rail. I received a reply from Victoria Pender, the company's group director for government and corporate affairs, on 23 April. In that letter, she admits that there are stretches of rail track on which the speed limit has been reduced primarily or solely to prolong the life of the track. She reveals some of the routes involved, including Wigan to Kirkby, Newcastle to Carlisle, the Barton upon Humber branch, Allington Junction to Boston, and Hull to Bridlington and Same. If the Minister wants people to use the train, why do passengers on some routes face longer journey times, imposed not for safety reasons but because those running the railways are trying to prolong the life of the track? That is not the way forward, and I hope that the Minister will address that matter. If he cannot provide a detailed reply this morning, I hope that he will write to me.
The Government's proposal to spend £26 billion upgrading the rail network is not guaranteed to improve the system. We must see that the money is properly targeted. It is not only the official Opposition who are concerned about the state of British railways; the Transport Committee, which is chaired by a distinguished Labour Member, has also expressed concerns. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said recently:
"The government has had years to address the problems of the railway but has failed to take effective action."I agree. The Committee's report shows that thus far the Government have let passengers down, performance has got worse and the network is in turmoil. Does the Minister accept the conclusions of the Transport Committee's report? If he does not, perhaps he will tell us with which of the conclusions he disagrees and on which he will take action. Although any organisation needs a period of stability, change must be brought about to the structure of the railways, and it will be interesting to see what the Secretary of State announces later this year.Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken, I believe that railways need private sector investment. That sector in turn needs the confidence of knowing that the railway network has stability, independent regulation and a simplified structure. Grand Central Railway Company commences passenger services between Newcastle, Manchester and Preston this summer. It has published its vision of providing
"affordable, diverse and improved journey opportunities, and attracting new customers to the rail network."It says that, unlike many rail franchise operators, it will not seek subsidies from the Government and will operate trains on an entirely commercial basis. Subsidy is necessary for some routes, but I hope that the Government will monitor best practice. It should not be a regional secret; it should be commonplace and encouraged.The Government cannot escape the fact that they have spent almost eight years promising a better railway system but have failed to come up with the goods. 88WH Performance is bad, it is getting worse and after almost eight years many people feel that the Government have let them down. I sty to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) that to blame my party for the structure that was put in place on privatisation 10 years ago will not wash when for seven of those 10 years another party has been in power,. The buck is now with new Labour. So far, it has failed to deliver on our railways.
§ The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells)I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. I enjoyed his contribution very much, and I especially admired the fortitude with which he admitted poring over rail magazines. In the 10 months since I have been in this job, having to pore over them has changed me completely. I can no longer relax on rail journeys—I find myself looking out of the window to see why there is a temporary speed restriction, whether the clutter on the side of the line has been properly secured, which train is going past, and so on. Doing so becomes an obsession and turns people into anoraks.
My hon. Friend raised a lot of important issues. I enjoyed listening to the other interesting contributions to the debate, but I shall try to answer my hon. Friend's points as this is his debate and he needs proper answers. There is no question but that we needed to institute the rail review. I know that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) will have a pop at it and he is quite right to do so—we would do the same if we were in opposition. However, as all hon. Members who spoke made clear, there are many things that are wrong with the structure of the rail industry. We could do a much better job. Hon. Members from all parts of the Chamber expressed unhappiness over how some of the money has been spent in the past 10 years. They want greater clarity and a guarantee that it will be spent better in future.
There is also no question but that there have been some strange management practices in the industry in the past 10 years. One only has to consider, for example, what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) called the north-west railway, but which is in fact the west coast main line. When I took up my post 10 months ago, the cost of that project was about £13 billion. It is now reckoned to be about £7.6 billion. That is mainly because the management of Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority have at long last got a grip on expenditure. There is no question but that expenditure on that vast project was out of control.
The hon. Gentleman said that we tend to undervalue what we can do with relatively small amounts of money to improve the railway system for passengers. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has seen improvements at one of the nation's most important rail-bus interchanges, at Finsbury Park. I have used that station for many years and have seen great improvements there. However, my hon. Friend is right still to be concerned about the relationship between Network Rail and Transport for London, and about 89WH whether the project will pushed through with the energy and vigour that it requires. I hope that we can help with that.
§ Jeremy CorbynWill my hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will ensure that the rail operators, Network Rail and the SRA actively co-operate with Transport for London to bring the project to fruition? It is a great idea, but needs a bit of push.
§ Dr. HowellsI certainly undertake to do what I can. My hon. Friend's question—or plea—has prompted a few other questions about what levers the Government have and how we can add value by paying huge amounts of taxpayers' money to promote a better railway. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) asked a similar question.
The industry must be much more accountable. The SRA has lately come to admit that its relationship with the devolved bodies, MPs and the regions could have been much better. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) talked about how some decisions should have been signalled long before they were taken. I am sure that Richard Bowker has taken that point on board. After all, one of the primary functions of the SRA in trying to create a national strategy for the railway industry must be to understand that the industry is made up of thousands of incremental elements and that it is to do with local stations and local services. It has handled that task with a degree of understanding and perspective that was previously missing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North was especially concerned about integration and what should be happening inside London. Despite some of the comments—I share some of the misgivings of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, when he talked about Wales—there are many examples around the country of passenger transport executives that have achieved good co-ordination between railways, tram systems and buses. We can learn a great many lessons from those examples. London, quite naturally, is looking for a degree of control or at least a way forward that involves partnership.
We are talking about how we achieve better integration and how we face passengers better, because that is really what the railways are about. Very often, we become obsessed with questions of structure. As the hon. Member for Orpington reminded us, there is 90WH almost a macho obsession with how much we spend and with saying, "Look at this great project! Look at that wonderful new fleet of rolling stock!" The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said that it is important that we get new rolling stock, and we are getting it—factories are working flat out to produce new rolling stock—but the process has exposed a great many shortcomings within the network and a great lack of co-ordination, the most absurd example of which was that we started to get new rolling stock in the old southern region, only to find that there was not enough electricity in the system to run the trains, which, unlike the old slam-door trains, have electric doors and air conditioning. I dare say some even have coffee makers. Such trains draw more electricity off the track. To have those wonderful new trains being put into sidings until the billion-pound project to upgrade the power supply has been completed, or phased in, was absurd. Hon. Members are quite right to highlight such examples.
The rail review is a very serious enterprise. We hope to report in July, and we will try to institute a system that will meet some of the demands that have been made in this Chamber for a simpler system of command, with shorter command structures, under which the needs of people will be reflected much more closely in the way in which decisions are reached. I want to ensure that the aspirations of people in London, Wales, Scotland and the regions of England are more clearly reflected in the decisions that are made by the management of the rail network.
South Eastern Trains has been mentioned several times. The facts must be stated: Connex did not have its franchise removed because it was a relatively poor performer; it had it removed because the SRA was very unhappy with the financial governance of the company. The hon. Member for Orpington hinted at that. South Eastern Trains management—Michael Holden is a very good manager—are doing a pretty good job with a system that is one of the most complex in the United Kingdom, and the integrated Kent franchise, as it will be known, will be an improvement on the existing system. We are sensitive to the aspirations of the people of Kent, who have suffered long from the rail service that has been offered, and we are determined to give them a better service.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North for raising these issues. The debate has given many of us an opportunity to express heartfelt concerns about the current system.