| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.15 pm
I am sure that what I am about to say applies to many other regions throughout the UK, but it is reasonable for hon. Members, when making a case, to use their best knowledge and that tends to be of the constituencies that they represent. I do not want to argue this from a purely parochial view, but, obviously, I am not qualified to speak about other regions. The position as it affects Stoke-on-Trent, however, is possibly a microcosm of the dangers that we will face if the benefits of the high-speed link and the channel tunnel are not available to the rest of the UK, which will happen unless the Government are minded to accept the new clause.
The region was built on mineworking and the pottery industry. There is now hardly any mineworking, but I will not go into that--we all know the reasons for it. It is important, however, to say two things about the pottery industry and the efforts to bring investment into the region, about which the Minister knows full well because he has been there on two or three occasions, for which I am grateful.
First, the pottery industry depends for its survival on its exports. It does not sell much of its stuff in the domestic market. Historically, it has always had a clear export-driven philosophy and it is seeking to develop export markets, which have traditionally been in the United States of America and in Europe. It is willing to make that investment so that it can use its undoubted expertise in exporting its quality products to Europe. Unless it has an opportunity to maximise transport links, especially through the high-speed link, those investment plans and the attempt to capture more of the European market will be put in jeopardy. Heaven knows, like many other regions, we desperately need that investment.
Secondly, significant efforts have been made, through the Government, the European Union, local authorities and private money, in the region. There is potential for development and investment of many millions of pounds. Chambers of trade, which I know the Minister has met recently, businesses in the region and potential investors continually ask not only what the road links are like--and, as the Minister knows, we are working on that--but what the rail links are like and how they can gain maximum access to the high-speed link and the channel tunnel so that they can seek to exploit the European market.
At present, we are not in a position to give as positive a response to that as we would like. Unless the new clause is included in the Bill, for the foreseeable future, we shall not be in a position to give such a positive response and, more important, we may send the wrong signals to potential investors in regions north of London.
I hope that the Minister understands that I am not discussing a parochial issue, but using the best knowledge that I have, which is of my constituency, to illustrate, I hope, how important it is that this obligation is included in the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept it as such.
Mr. Chidgey:
I shall not revisit some of the arguments made earlier in the debate--I would not try the patience of the House that much--but I must make a couple of points.
I believe that there is a good deal of sense behind the main thrust of the new clause, particularly in relation to linking the channel tunnel rail link to the remainder of the United Kingdom rail network. What is particularly
important is the linking for large-gauge freight trains to and from the west coast main line. It is fundamental to what the link can achieve. It also brings in the entire context of making sure that Railtrack does facilitate freight trains coming from the channel tunnel rail link. I believe strongly, as we have said in the House before, that there is a need to regulate Railtrack so that it encourages freight business. That business should be encouraged with far lower access charges than is now the case. I believe that those charges should be at wear and tear costs only if we are to achieve a shift of freight from road to rail.
Equally important is the operation of through passenger services from the channel tunnel rail link, particularly to the east coast and west coast main lines. Of course it would be totally unreasonable for the nominated undertaker to be expected to provide facilities and links for through operations unless, in turn, Railtrack was playing its part in upgrading the remainder of the network. That is precisely why, in the national interest, the Liberal Democrats wish to take back control of Railtrack at an early date and regulate its operation with a series of strategic measures. It underlines the need for a national transport strategy, which was so lacking in today's transport Green Paper.
Mr. Watts:
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) raised the issue of the cement batching plants. We gave an undertaking to the Select Committee that we would secure suitable replacement premises for the plants. The Government will comply fully with that undertaking. A lease that is consistent with that undertaking is currently under discussion with all the parties concerned and I understand that we hope that it will be concluded and granted before 24 May--obviously as speedily as possible.
The Government have always recognised the importance of spreading the benefits of international services throughout the United Kingdom. It was always part of the reference design that there would be connections to both the east coast and west coast main lines. One of the attractions of the bid from London and Continental Railways--the hon. Member for Pendle(Mr. Prentice) referred to it earlier when he chided the Government for their base design--is the strong emphasis that it has placed on developing the market for international services, not just in the south-east but to the rest of the country.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South(Mr. Stevenson) made what I have always thought is an important point, which is that this should not be looked upon as a scheme that is intended to benefit just the south-east--of course, it will benefit the areas of north Kent and around Stratford because of regeneration benefits. London and Continental's proposals to enhance the project in connection with the Stratford station and the dual-track link to the west coast main line exist because of its intention of developing business north of London.
The main reason for favouring a station at Stratford is that it knocks a further 30 minutes off journey times north of London. Today, a journey from Birmingham to Paris--to use another part of the country--would take five hours using a through train. With the combination of the new high-speed link and the dual-track connection and using Stratford as a London stop instead of taking every train into St. Pancras, there would be a one-hour saving,
making the journey time from Birmingham to Paris about four hours. That saving of one hour will apply to every destination north of London. We have already approved new clauses and amendments which facilitate the provision of those enhancements to the service.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North mentioned ticketing arrangements. I understand that one of the early intentions of London and Continental Railways, as soon as it has operational control of Eurostar, is to improve the marketing, particularly of the interim services operating as feeder services north of London. Before today's debate I was in Shropshire visiting Gobowen station, which has just had its waiting room and ticket office refurbished. The station is run as a business venture by a local school. I was told that it was able to sell tickets for Eurostar and to any other part of the United Kingdom rail network.
Mr. Allen:
Is it better than Waterloo?
Mr. Watts:
It may well be. I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman wants a ticket for Eurostar he should try the Morton Hall travel service operating from Gobowen to see whether it can provide a better service.
I agree that the better marketing of the service is crucial and that is one of the reasons why it is part of the development agreement that European passenger services are transferred to the nominated undertaker so that the business can be built up as early as possible.
Mr. Allen:
Is London and Continental Railways free to go ahead with taking over the ticketing arrangements? There were some question marks because of the intervention of the European Union on that matter.
Mr. Watts:
I would not describe it as intervention. Part of the process involves formal approval on state aid and competition grounds. That must be cleared before the formal handover can take place.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North asked about class 92 locomotives. They are currently being operated on a trial basis on the Swanley-Maidstone line. That is to ensure that the modifications that have been carried out allow them to operate safely without interfering with signalling and so on. It is British Rail's intention that the frequency of use of those locomotives should build up through the year until they are operating all the freight trains on that line. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to get those modern locomotives in proper operation as soon as possible, but I am sure that he will agree that as a prerequisite we need to be sure that that can be done safely and without any interference with signalling and control.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the channel tunnel freight security regime. In the autumn I announced some modifications to the regime, particularly in relation to--I forget the precise term--security-cleared freight forwarders, which were welcomed by the industry. We will remain in close touch with the freight industry and if we can make further modifications that are consistent with providing the necessary security for the tunnel, we are prepared to adopt a flexible approach. We want to see more freight on rail in general and operating to continental destinations in particular.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |