House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Oct 1991

Column 606

identified as key areas in 1981. It is not for me to evaluate the changes that have taken place since then. However, the crime map fits all too closely over the map of disadvantage."

Sir Peter Imbert then drives the point hard home. If the Home Secretary is doing the job of representing the democratic part of the relationship between the Commissioner and the police, he is negligent not to have commented on the views of Sir Peter Imbert, especially in view of the Home Secretary's other comments about the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Government are also to blame for the low priority given to crime prevention. The police put an enormous amount of work into crime prevention. They support watch schemes and advise on crime prevention measures, and local authorities are keen to work in that area. In London, we have seen outstanding examples of local authority work. Once again, the Home Secretary searches around for a Labour authority to castigate. When will he pick out the authorities, whether Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour, that are doing so much excellent work in crime prevention? Of the Labour authorities, Islington, Hammersmith and Fulham and Southwark all spring to mind instantly because they are doing positive work.

We have argued for years that far greater priority should be given to crime prevention and that the role of the local authority must be recognised. All our arguments have been reinforced by the Morgan report. Yesterday I attended the annual conference of Crime Concern. It was an excellent meeting and there were some good contributions. I hope that the Home Secretary will study the remarks of his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who is not here at present. He made some remarks about the Morgan report being welcomed by the Government. That is not the impression that the Opposition have had. That report is to be buried because its central recommendations include giving local authorities a statutory duty to play a role in and to fund crime prevention. Eight recommendations of the Morgan report are eight fundamental criticisms of the Government's attitude to a locally based crime prevention strategy. Too often local authorities are left out in the cold.

Sir Peter Imbert's report hammers home what happens if the police do not have the trust and confidence of the local authority and a partnership that goes with the local authority into the community. If that partnership is not democratically led it will not work. There has been a fundamental change among those who police the capital city--and the rest of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) mentioned a book by Robert Reiner which reveals that most chief constables would welcome an elected police authority for London. That is a big change among the police and it has taken place not only at the top among commissioners and senior officers. When I visit local subdivisions in the Metropolitan area I hear the view strongly expressed everywhere that the police want that democratic role for London. They see nothing but good coming from it.

The Opposition say to the Government, "Throw off your ideological blinkers and realise what most pragmatic, fair-minded people are saying both inside and outside the police." That relationship would be right and would make the crime prevention strategy in the capital and in the rest of the country work far better.

Column 607

There is another problem that troubles all of us. When we form the Government next year, we shall have to tackle it as seriously as any Government ever have. Young people today are in a condition in which they have never been before. A proportion of our young people are more under-privileged and more exploited--certainly more commercially exploited--than any previous generation. If the allowance for those on the youth training scheme had been held constant in real terms since 1978, when it was introduced at £28.50, it would now have been uprated to £52.50. Yet the same sort of young people--the 17 and 18- year-olds--are receiving £27 to £30 a week. Furthermore, 17 and 18-year-olds cannot draw benefit. If one under-privileged group of young people is exploited, although they will not all become criminals, it is obvious that the statistics will show rising crime among young people. The challenge for all of us is what we do with young people, how we encourage them and give them hope.

In modern Tory Britain one cannot walk safely in most of our town and city centres on a Friday or a Saturday night because of under-age drinking. That fact is undisputed by most Members of Parliament. Those who walk through my town of Huddersfield--or Halifax and other towns in West Yorkshire, or, indeed, most central urban areas of London--know that those areas are dangerous places on Friday and Saturday nights, because of the misuse of alcohol.

Young people are exploited as never before. The challenge that I have described today is an important one for us to grasp. It is too important a problem for political parties to ignore, and we must recognise that it will get worse and worse.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) referred to the unique opportunity afforded to us by the demographic downturn--the fall in the number of births. The fact that there were fewer teenagers should have meant a decline in youth crime, but that has not happened. Youth crime has increased and the challenge that we face is to grasp the problems and turn them into opportunities. Through real policies of youth opportunity and youth crime prevention, we must work positively towards a partnership that will make our country work for young people. That is the way to fight crime in the metropolis, that is the way to a positive policy, and that is the path that the Labour party in government will take next year. 2.20 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : As I find is the case each year, this has been afull, interesting and varied debate and a great many serious issues have been raised. As I also find each year, I am heavily pushed up against the clock. However, I am glad that all those hon. Members on both sides of the House who sought to speak have managed to get into the debate. I shall try to respond to some of the points and to answer in the time that I have left some of the questions that have been asked--as far as my handwriting, which has become progressively worse, will allow.

I am glad that both Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen congratulated the Metropolitan police and

Column 608

agree with us that the Met is making good progress with the right policing strategy. I am only sorry that, in one part of his peroration, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) tried to suggest that all our towns and cities up and down the country are rendered no-go areas on Friday and Saturday nights by young people. There are problems, but to exaggerate them in that manner does not help to solve them.

Let me deal with the specific questions of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who asked me first about a Home Office study that assessed the extent to which improved street lighting helped to reduce crime. A recent study by the crime prevention unit suggests that improved street lighting cannot be shown directly to reduce crime, although that does not, of course, mean that it is not a useful aspect of a more general programme of crime reduction, as has been shown to be the case in the refurbishment of certain estates in London where crime figures have been particularly high. Most particularly, however, improved street lighting helps to give the public confidence. As anyone who studies these matters knows, although the reality of crime is a huge problem, for many more people the fear of crime is a greater problem. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook also asked me to comment on the Morgan report on crime prevention, published at the end of August. We are consulting the Association of Chief Police Officers, local authorities and other organisations about its recommendations and, in the light of their responses, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider whether changes are needed and, if so, what changes are needed to structure, organisation and funding to make the delivery of local crime prevention activity more effective. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wondered whether the Met would have enough officers to make a continuing success of the sector policing policy, which the right hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and, I believe, all the hon. Members who have spoken--except, perhaps, one--consider to be absolutely essential. The Commissioner believes that sector policing can be achieved within existing resources and I am sure that the the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will not forget that the Met now has 6,000 more officers than it did in 1979. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary discusses the Met's manpower needs each year as part of the public expenditure round. It is not normal practice to breach the confidentiality of those discussions, but it is no secret that the emphasis of the Commissioner's strategy is to increase operational strength through civilianisation and through this process we shall be making resources available for 1,000 new operational officers over the next three years.

Mr. Soley : In London?

Mr. Lloyd : Yes, in London, over the next three years.

The deployment of officers is a matter for the Commissioner. He uses the work load related formula. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wondered whether in areas like area No. 1, where the police have had a particular success in reducing crime, that would automatically lead to a loss of officers. Of course, the Commissioner takes account of the crime rate with regard to the deployment of officers, but there are, quite rightly, other factors. He is considering his practice in that sphere

Column 609

and will, if necessary, revise his formula. Although a number of policemen on the beat have been taken from administrative duties, that resulted because the Commissioner preferred it. As he and hon. Members know, money goes much further that way. We have undertaken to provide the Met with 100 extra police posts from 1 April 1992. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook wanted to know how many prisoners there are in police cells in London. The figure is 200 and they cost about £325 a night. He was right to say that the refurbishment and improvements of Brixton are being delayed until January to allow the extra places being provided by the brand new prison of Belmarsh to come on stream. The far-sighted provision of that prison will make it possible to deal with the problem. There seems to be some confusion about the policing of London docks. Forty or 50 members of the Port of London police are not part of the Met, but are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He has announced that as a consequence of the privatisation of Tilbury docks, the status of those officers will change. They will be in the same position as their equivalents in places like Felixstowe, where I believe that there is no suggestion but that they operate with great efficiency and effectiveness.

There are no general plans to change the status of so-called private police forces to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred, such as the Ministry of Defence police. If their status is to be changed, it would require legislation and the House would have an opportunity to debate the matter. However, there are no plans along those lines.

The policing of docklands is another matter. Docklands has the same policing needs as other parts of London and the Commissioner deploys his strength as he judges best. Extra policemen have been deployed to docklands and the new police station at Canary wharf will be opened by the end of the year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) raised an important matter and spoke with his usual thoughtful concern. He asked particularly about bail and the reported increase in offences committed by people on bail. It is not known to what extent reoffending by people remanded on bail has contributed to the increase in recorded crime. Home Office researchers are gathering information about that and are analysing recent research studies by police forces. The work is due to be completed by the end of this month. We shall then consider urgently what further steps may need to be taken. Discussions have already taken place with senior police officers and further discussions are expected when all the information has been brought together. It is an important point of widespread concern and I am glad that my hon. Friend raised it. Government policies are already directed at reducing the likelihood that people on bail will commit crimes, by reducing the time spent on bail, by minimising court delays, by bail information schemes, which allow magistrates better to identify defendants who can be released on bail, and by increasing the provision of places in bail hostels in which people on bail can be monitored to minimise the risk of further offending without the need to remand them to prison. The Home Office has a programme to provide 1,200 additional bail places and improve bail hostels by April 1994. Five hundred of them have already been made available.

Column 610

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to a letter from the European Commission to the British Government concerning a number of transport and environmentally related issues. The matter is obviously of great importance in protecting the environment and improving public transport in this country. As the Minister for Public Transport is present, preparing to answer the Adjournment debate, may I ask whether you have had a request from the Government to make a statement on this extremely important matter? It affects the M3, the channel tunnel route, King's Cross, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), and the future of Oxleas wood. It also affects other serious issues such as the M11 link. I hope that the Government will at least come up with a statement now to allay public concern.

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps, through you, we could elicit from the Minister either an indication that he will make a statement now or, more likely, given that we have had no notice, that we may have a statement before Parliament is prorogued. Obviously, the matter is urgent because it is a time-limited issue, and a statement to clear uncertainty before next Tuesday would be very welcome if the Minister would indicate assent.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The matter affects my constituency because of the M11 link. I add my voice to the request for a statement either today or early next week. Perhaps the relevant Minister could also be present, because many such schemes have fallen foul of the EC because of their poor environmental standards.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : I have had no notice about a statement, but I am sure that what hon. Members have said has been noted by Government Front-Bench Members.

SEVERN BRIDGES BILL

Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message of 15th October as relates to the Severn Bridges Bill be now considered ;

Ordered,

That further proceedings on the Severn Bridges Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament ;

Ordered,

That if a Bill is presented to this House in the next Session in the same terms as the Severn Bridges Bill at the last stage of its proceeding in this House in this Session--

(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time ; and

(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with in relation to the Bill in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in relation to the Bill in the next Session ;

Ordered,

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [Mr. David Davis.]

Column 611

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,

That European Community Documents Nos. 5896/91 and 4051/91, relating to financial and technical assistance for developing countries, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.-- [Mr. David Davis.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Tuesday 22nd October, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House), Mr. Speaker shall, not more than half an hour after a Motion has been made by a Minister of the Crown for the adjournment of the House, suspend the sitting until such time as a Message is received from the Lords Commissioners.-- [Mr. David Davis.]

Column 612

Rail Services (Kent)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. David Davis.]

2.32 pm

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham) : I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for having specially returned from his other ministerial duties to respond to this Adjournment debate on Kent commuter rail services. He is carrying on the tradition that he established of being immensely concerned about the quality of our rail services in Kent. We are deeply grateful to him for his efforts on our behalf. We should be even more grateful for even more efforts, and that is the point of the debate. However, his efforts are genuinely meant and we are appreciative.

It was my good fortune to obtain the debate, and I naturally wish to concentrate on the issues facing my constituents and the north Kent and coast services. The quality and cost of commuting from Kent to our capital city is a vital concern to every Kent hon. Member and to thousands of our constituents.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will speak in this short debate and will dwell on many of the issues with which we are jointly concerned. Although he and I sometimes have slight differences of opinion about the frequency of trains stopping at Sittingbourne or Faversham on the way to Thanet, we share the same concerns about improving services for long-distance commuters. Thousands of our constituents spend a large portion of their lives on trains, and the quality of their lives is affected quite positively by the punctuality, dependability and comfort of train services. Indeed, often their livelihoods are affected by their ability to get to work on time after a sensible journey.

As further evidence of the widespread concern about this matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) wished to contribute, but, because short Adjournment debates do not allow sufficient time for many hon. Members to speak, he has asked me to put his views on record. He said :

"The Oxted, Edenbridge, Uckfield line is notorious among all who use it for unreliability, lateness and frequently cancelled trains. This is despite continual representations to British Rail by their passengers and by their Members of Parliament. In this case, British Rail management are failing to deliver on the very targets that they have set themselves."

There is continued frustration among passengers who face late or cancelled trains. Generally speaking, I do not wish to deliver a major onslaught against British Rail, its management or staff. They have delivered important improvements in productivity and have generally performed their task well in difficult circumstances in recent years. However, it is important to understand the frustrations that face the travelling public even in these autumn months, but the winter months, which give rise to other difficulties, are the time when frustrations mount, complaints are made and British Rail is judged by its customers. One feels ominously that the worst is yet to come if we have a difficult winter. I repeat that I am not here to launch a wholesale attack on British Rail, although, of course, there are shortcomings and failures. My concern is to try to help British Rail through the difficulties that it and my constituents face. Like many others, I was alarmed in August by British Rail's press announcement that we should have to face some cuts in off-peak services and some deferred capital

Column 613

expenditure because of a shortfall in revenue due to the recession. I understand that the deferment included some slippage in the planned programme for new Networker express trains. That announcement was bad enough in itself and prompted today's debate, but the latest announcement of fare increases has caused even more anger and has rubbed salt in the wound in no uncertain way. We feel strongly that we are now faced with higher fares without any promise of the higher quality service that we were expecting and without any assurance of a continuous investment programme ahead. On top of that, the beginning of the channel tunnel rail service in 1993 as scheduled or, allowing for slippage, at the very latest in 1994, will impose tremendous strains on the existing capacity of our Kent main line. That is probably only two or a maximum of three years ahead.

This is a critical time for our railway systems. We must make some fundamental long-term decisions, but just at the moment when we should be making those long-term decisions, we seem to be slipping back as a result of short-term considerations arising from a drop in revenue due to the recession.

As I see it, the main issue facing our Kent coast service is the new Networker express train, the Networker 471. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us about the £700 million--an enormous sum-- that is to be spent on the renewal of the Kent link services, including the Networker 465 trains. I plead with him, however, to make it clear to everyone that the Networker express services, about which I and others are talking, are totally different from the north Kent Networker 465 trains. The confusion of name sometimes makes people feel that we on the Kent coast already have our new trains. That is not the case. Not only have our new trains not yet been ordered, but there is no prospect of that. At this stage, we have no guarantee about their order date, yet those trains are vital to the future of the Kent longer distance services. Earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Minister and many hon. Members representing Kent constituencies saw a mock-up of the proposed new trains. We all hoped then that the new trains would have been ordered by now. Even so, it would have still been a couple of years before the first of those new trains started to come off the production lines. The order has not been placed and I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister today or in the very near future that those trains will rapidly be ordered, produced and delivered.

The present old rolling stock is more than 30 years old and urgently needs replacing. The new stock is not only more comfortable, safer and faster but, crucially, will increase capacity on the network by almost 50 per cent. The present trains have a maximum capacity of 666 passengers, the new ones have a capacity of 900 passengers. Creating a 50 per cent. increase in capacity is almost like building a new railway. If we do not order new trains now, we shall soon hit a major crisis in capacity.

This year there has been a fall in passenger traffic due to the recession, with about a 6 per cent. drop in peak hour demand, but the signs are that growth will resume in the coming year and we could soon face problems of serious overcrowding. The channel tunnel, which is due to open in 1993 or 1994 will generate new demands on the system. It is expected that the new international passenger trains will reach their capacity constraints at peak times in the first year of the channel tunnel's operation. Quite simply, unless the new Networker express trains with their extra

Column 614

capacity are introduced, there will be serious trouble by about 1994. Even with the new trains, British Rail expects that saturation level will be reached by 1998. That illustrates the importance of ensuring that there is no serious slippage on the new high- speed rail links. At the very least, the new Networker trains must be put in service as a matter of urgency.

British Rail states that, following the August cuts, the class 471 scheme is now being planned for 1995. I believe that with some effort and initiative those new trains could start coming off the production line in 1993. British Rail has asked me to stress that all safety schemes will be totally protected from any of the cuts, and it is right to put that on record. Other Kent Members and I do not want to see further essential investment squeezed out by short-term problems.

The issue of fares is of serious concern to my constituents. I welcome the apparent intervention of the Prime Minister and the philosophy of the citizens charter. If that means that passengers should pay higher fares only for better services and trains, that will be welcomed by the travelling public. We on the north Kent lines face fare increases of 8 per cent.--twice the level of

inflation--without better services and without the promise of the new trains that we so badly need. I do not understand why fares on our north Kent and Kent coast lines should not have been held back to the inflation level until a new investment programme was promised. I recognise the financial difficulties facing Network SouthEast at present, but we should give more support to British Rail to sustain the investment programme through the recession. I am proud that the Government are investing record sums in our rail system which are far higher than the amounts invested by Labour Governments. I welcome the £350 million which is being invested in Network SouthEast this year, but it is clearly not enough and we must find new sources of finance for our railway system. That is the great challenge ahead of us. In the meantime, my message to the Government is this. First, this year we should increase the public service obligation grant to help British Rail through the recession. Secondly, British Rail should modify its fare increases on unmodernised lines. Thirdly, we should order the new Networker express trains now. I hope that today, or very soon, my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to offer some help to the hard-pressed commuters of Kent.

2.43 pm

Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) on securing this debate on an issue of crucial importance to all those who live near to and are compelled to use the north Kent line. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has--as my hon. Friend said--been extremely supportive, for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate. I endorse almost every word of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. The only reason why I say "almost" is that I am not so charitable towards British Rail management as he customarily is. This morning I travelled by train. As I got out at Victoria station, a constituent came up to me and said that he was pleased to see his Member of Parliament suffering the same privations as his constituents. He went on to say that as the train was on time this morning, British Rail must have known that I was travelling. The train was

Column 615

indeed on time and the interior was clean, but the exterior was filthy. The staff were friendly and extremely helpful. I should like to put that on the record, but is it not extraordinary that one comments on it because it is the exception rather than the rule? My hon. Friend the Minister took the trouble to come and see for himself the miseries that commuters on the north Kent line suffer, so he will understand only too well why earlier this week my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who does not characteristically admit to being second in anything, acknowledged that the Southend line was the second worst line in Network SouthEast. The north Kent line is undoubtedly the worst. For the privilege of travelling on trains that are slower than they were in the 1920s, frequently dirty, far too frequently late, and always uncomfortable, my constituents are being asked to pay hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of pounds a year, just to travel to work. There is no question in the mind of anyone compelled to use the line but that British Rail, far from imposing a fare increase on those passengers, should reduce their fares until it can deliver a service which is at least reliable.

In a recent response to one of many letters that I have written to BR, the south eastern director claimed that 75 to 85 per cent. of the commuter trains on the line arrive according to schedule "when they run". The last phrase is significant, and commuters would certainly quarrel with that account of train punctuality.

Are things improving? On the contrary, the management's response to falling passenger revenue appears to be to raise fares and cut services. The south eastern director says that the planning and marketing manager had "a successful meeting" with the Transport Users Consultative Committee earlier in the summer to discuss new timetables. In a letter to me, the secretary to the TUCC, John Cherry, said :

"The Committee had anticipated that Network SouthEast would hold consultation over the proposed alterations and possibly defer any action until the start of the Winter time table. Regrettably this was not the case."

In a later paragraph he said :

"I regret that NSE made it very clear that business' objectives have the over-riding priority whilst customer service is in second place. It has even been stressed that achieving the required quality of service targets-- punctuality, overcrowding levels etc--will be taking a back seat in relation to saving costs."

In the private sector, a service industry which did not provide service would be out of business and its management out of jobs. It is small wonder that passenger revenue is declining.

When one contrasts BR's "successful meeting" with the TUCC's impression of

"no opportunity to offer a constructive response to these proposals",

it becomes clear why commuters who use Cannon Street station were told in the summer of improvements that would disrupt services for eight weeks, which was then extended to 12 weeks and which in a recent notice to passengers was extended indefinitely. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham referred to the effect of that on employment. Some firms in the City of London will not employ potential employees who use Cannon Street because their timekeeping is known to be unreliable. Yet those passengers face a further inflationary fare increase. I

Column 616

urge my hon. Friend the Minister to intervene. The fare increase must be scrapped until a reasonable service is available. If investment in British Rail is a question of priorities, I must insist that the worst line in Network SouthEast be the top priority. We need new signalling, new track, new rolling stock and a new approach to management which puts service first. And we need it not when we can piggyback on the channel tunnel rail service in 10 or 15 years' time but now. We need to start that programme of renewal today. 2.48 pm

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) in particular, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), on raising this important subject. They have been at the forefront of a legitimate campaign to bring to their constituents improvements in the quality of British Rail services. I share their desire, as does British Rail, to have better rail services along the Kent coast.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North for having the fairness of mind to report that his journey on the train today was on time. I have just returned to Euston from Birmingham and my train was on time. I am sure that when I catch the 4 o'clock train to my constituency it will also depart on time. We do not congratulate British Rail enough when it performs well. We inevitably focus on the occasions when the service falls down. I place on record my congratulations to InterCity on the service that I enjoyed this morning. It did an excellent job and provided a courteous service, the trains were clean and they ran precisely to time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham raised three issues relating to fares, the PSO grant and the timetable for ordering equipment. It is the Government's intention--in line with the general principles of the citizens charter--not only that the conditions of carriage should be reformed, which is in hand, but that a fare compensation scheme should be introduced which is workable and equitable. The Government also welcome British Rail's policy to seek to distinguish in the rate of fare increase between the different lines by the quality of the service offered, not anticipated. I am sure that British Rail would be the first to say that the precise fare proposals placed before passengers for implementation in early January did not fully meet the wishes of all Members of the House in terms of differentiating between the lines. An excellent start has been made by distinguishing between the London, Tilbury and Southend line and other lines which, rather like the Kent coastal service, have received an average fare increase and those lines, particularly running north of London, including the Northampton line to my constituency, where services have demonstrably improved. We no longer have debates about the quality of services on the Northampton line and I dare say that when the turbo trains are fully introduced on the Chiltern line we will no longer have any questions about the quality of service there. A slightly higher fare increase than 7.9 per cent. has applied to those lines.

I accept what my hon. Friends have said, however, and when it comes to the next round of fare increases, greater consideration should, if possible, be given to a greater

Column 617

differentiation between lines. I shall certainly convey that message to British Rail as it is a fair point and in accordance with the spirit of the citizens charter.

On the PSO grant, British Rail's investment programme is running at £1,000 million per annum. Despite the recession, the programme for this year and next year will be delivered. However, the recession has had a dramatic effect on the finances of British Rail and has had even since I visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North several months ago.

The recession has had a dramatic effect in terms of a fall in revenues, lost receipts from property sales and property developments such as at Liverpool Street station. In the past two years such property developments have been difficult to repeat. As the recession ends and the economy grows again, the effects of that recession will reverse. However, in the middle of the financial year 1990-91, which ended six months ago, the public sector, the Treasury, had to find extra resources for British Rail. That meant that about £416 million extra--a higher external financing limit --had to be allowed for British Rail for that year.

In the middle of the financial year 1991-92, exceptionally, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I had to go back to the Treasury and obtain from it an extra £400 million of taxpayers' resources simply to keep British Rail at a standstill. Those are exceptional sums in the middle of the year. We are in the midst of a process of refixing the expenditure of British Rail for the next financial year, 1992-93 and the succeeding two years and we are faced with much the same pressures. Those pressures are exceptional.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham spoke of the PSO grant. That was £500 million in 1989-90 ; it went up to £600 million in 1990-91 ; and for 1992-93 I forecast the outturn at close to £800 million. So the PSO grant--that is, the revenue subsidy provided in cash by the Government to British Rail by the way of grant to permit it to run Network SouthEast and Regional Railways--is rising substantially.

I labour that point because it is the background against which we must make sure that British Rail maintains its investment programme and adds the projects to which my hon. Friends referred. We cannot avoid talking about the Kent link services ; those Networkers do not serve the constituencies of my hon. Friends, but the programme is costing £700 million to provide upwards of 800 new coaches and the lengthening of platforms--work that is largely complete--to serve 12-coach trains. It is important that that programme is completed before attention is turned to the Kent coastal services to bring relief to the congestion that arises from shorter trains. Once we reach the stage at which British Rail can run 12-car trains, congestion will be relieved for commuters coming in from Sevenoaks and Dartford, although that is still a few years off. Once that programme has been completed, attention can be turned to the Kent coastal services.

Column 618

To break the production of that new rolling stock and insert trains--for example, the 471s--for the Kent coastal services would not be good value for money. The manufacturers, GEC and BREL in the case of the Networkers, would have to retool the production line because the 471s are slightly different trains. Having broken the production line, they would have to start again by retooling so as to finish the inner Kent Networker services and that would be costly.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham rightly said, no one has suggested that it is a question of anything other than when the trains will be delivered. There is no question whether they are needed. I acknowledge that the service is inadequate. The figures for 1991-92 show that for the Kent coastal services, so far this year punctuality at the morning peak is 90.7 per cent., slightly better than last year when it was 86.4 per cent., but for the afternoon and evening peak it is still poor ; 83.8 per cent. of trains arrive within five minutes of their scheduled arrival times against a target that we have set the Kent coast lines of 88 per cent. Service provision--that is, whether the train runs--is adequate, but the cleaning, exterior and interior, is not adequate, although the exterior cleaning situation has had more to do with the water shortage than with the policy of British Rail.

In terms of congestion factors, the figures show clearly that the service is inadequate. The degree of congestion on the trains is unacceptable. So it is not a question whether British Rail will replace the rolling stock but when. I cannot hold out any hope at this stage of advancing the date of 1995, four years hence, for the new services to start running and that includes the two-year manufacturing period. The cost will be over £0.5 billion. Undoubtedly the trains will provide a quicker, more reliable, more comfortable and less congested service.

I am anxious to be helpful and perhaps more hopeful than my remarks so far imply. As and when the economy recovers--if it recovers faster than, prudently, British Rail expects--it may be possible to advance that investment programme. I give my hon. Friends that assurance. Perhaps private sector finance can come into British Rail for example, in freight. Every £1 million of private sector finance that is attracted between now and 1995 for a discrete freight service on lines that run into a single terminal will help to release other resources that are needed for valuable schemes such as the 471s. I join my hon. Friends in hoping very much that the service on this line will improve, but I assure them that in our discussions with the Treasury and British Rail my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I will do all that we can within reason-- we cannot print money--to advance the date from 1995 to provide what is badly needed on the Kent coast lines : new signalling and new rolling stock.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

Written Answers Section

Home Page