| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.4 pm
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling): This is a lengthy and extremely complex Bill of 110 clauses and four schedules. It is rare that the House has the opportunity to consider legislation in this complex and important area. That being the case, I believe that there is a real obligation on this House, and the other place, to give every opportunity for those outside to be able to convey their views to Members at all stages of the Bill's passage.
For those outside, the most important stage of a Bill's proceedings is its Committee, as that is in effect the only point at which amendments tabled that are in order are automatically debated. I make no criticism of the members of the Standing Committee that the Committee stage of this Bill took a total of 36 minutes, as that is a matter for them. But this House gave those outside much less than a fair opportunity to have amendments considered in Committee by the minimum gap between the appointment of the Committee members and the commencement of the Committee.
A constituent who is a practitioner in the field of arbitration and a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Mr. Adrien Sturgeon, indicated to me at an early stage that he wished to raise a number of amendments with members of the Committee. I obtained the details of the membership of the Committee at the earliest possible moment when they appeared on the Order Paper on the Thursday, the day after the Committee of Selection had met. I sent those details to Mr. Sturgeon, who very rapidly wrote to all members of the Committee. The fact that the Committee sat the following Tuesday and for only 36 minutes meant in effect that the members of the Committee had no opportunity to considerMr. Sturgeon's amendments. In effect, the Committee's proceedings concluded before the members could consider the amendments.
I make no criticism of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary because these matters are not in his hands, but I believe that there is a serious and substantive issue for the House to consider. There was no need in terms of the timetable for this Bill for it to be as speedily expedited as it was. The Committee Corridor is more or less deserted at this time of a Session, and in no way can the Bill be said to require the maximum accelerated progress. For such Bills, it would be infinitely better if a clear week elapsed between the selection of the Committee members and the commencement of the Committee's proceedings. I personally regret--and ask the House to note--that there has been a material inability in our democracy for expert members of the public to have their amendments considered by Standing Committee members.
Mr. Bell:
I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's constituent in this matter, and I agree with him about the procedures of the House. He will be aware that the Bill was given a thorough hearing in the other place, where it began its life. It was then proposed that it should be sent to a Special Public Bill Committee in the other place, and that motion was discharged. The Bill was then considered by the whole House in the Moses Room. Every opportunity was available in the other place--a part of our institution--to give the Bill a thorough airing. Of course, the proceedings did not stop at Committee. They came to Report, when there were additional opportunities for Members--had they so wished--to table amendments.
Sir John Stanley:
I am aware of the Bill's proceedings and the procedure in the other place. I make my point in relation to this Bill, but I believe it may have wider application. It is a desirable step that there should be a reasonable period between the selection of a Standing Committee and the commencement of the Committee proceedings for those outside the House to be able to contact members of the Committee, and for the members themselves to take a considered judgment as to whether they wish to table amendments at that stage. The House
Mr. John M. Taylor:
By leave of the House, I had not intended to reply to the debate, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has raised a point to which it would be discourteous of me not to respond. It is a matter of record that Lord Justice Saville's committee consulted very widely. However, not every representation won the day. Like my right hon. Friend's constituent, some were disappointed, but Lord Justice Saville's committee dwelt on the issues for more than a year. The total gestation period of the Bill has been no less than five years, including extensive consideration in the House of Lords.
I do not know whether it is seemly to refer to my right hon. Friend's constituent by name, but I should let him know that Mr. Sturgeon wrote to me. He made a number of points that I considered carefully and I replied to him at some length as to why we would not accept his proposals.
On a happier note and to bring my remarks to a conclusion, I omitted one name from the credits that I gave in support of the Bill. It was, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who worked closely as Parliamentary Secretary with the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Having repaired that omission, I shall resume my seat.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
Ordered,
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Burns.]
Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden):
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the future of the Heron line. I should point out straight away that the Heron line is a railway. I am glad that the Minister replying to the debate appreciates that fact, but not all those who made inquiries about the title of the debate appreciated that I was talking about a railway. Those who got nearest to the right answer thought it was a bus route, and others who were nowhere near it thought that it might have ornithological connections.
The Heron line is part of the network run by the West Anglia Great Northern railway company, or WAGN as it is somewhat inelegantly known. It is principally the service between Liverpool Street and Cambridge and it passes through my constituency. There are five stations in my constituency: Stansted Mountfitchet, Elsenham, Newport, Audley End and Great Chesterford. There is also the station at Stansted airport. Although its route uses most of the Heron line, it is now called the Stansted skytrain service, but it is very much part and parcel of the West Anglia section of the WAGN railway company.
I was disappointed that, in shaping the franchises, the opportunity was not taken to split West Anglia from Great Northern so that we would have had competing services from King's Cross to Cambridge and from Liverpool Street to Cambridge. It was one of the natural opportunities that arose for competition in the privatised railway, but it was decided otherwise. I shall not reopen that issue tonight. However, the decision to include both services to Cambridge within the same franchise has certain consequences.
I regard tonight's debate as timely as there are concerns in my constituency about the future of the Heron line and how it will fare as part of a railway franchise, as it is clear that the premier service to Cambridge is seen as the one that departs from King's Cross. There is now an excellent service--railway operators call it the Cambridge cruiser--that enables people to travel between the two cities in 52 minutes--a time that cannot be matched on the Heron line. So questions naturally arise in the minds of my constituents that, in the longer term, the stations on the Heron line will become less attractive to the railway operator. Of course they go on to think the worst. Therefore, I thought it might be useful to make a number of points ahead of the publication of the passenger service requirement for the franchise, and more particularly, the award of the franchise.
I should like to make a few points about the shape and scope of the franchise, mentioning the future impact of the Thameslink 2000 project--I am delighted that the Government have given approval to that project. It is of strategic importance to provide improved services north-south through the capital, but it seems that the possibility of making those additional north-south journeys will not be available until early in the next century--perhaps around 2002. Therefore, my first question is what length of franchise will be considered appropriate for WAGN, as the big question mark of Thameslink 2000 is hovering and that and other connected
franchises might be reconfigured in the light of Thameslink 2000. If, in order to keep options open, the franchising director goes for a short franchise for WAGN at the outset, the chances of certain improvements taking place in the service--to which I shall allude in a moment--seem somewhat reduced if it is envisaged that another franchise operator will take over once the Thameslink 2000 concept is realised.
My second consideration is whether trains operating on the Heron line from Cambridge through the stations in my constituency will have access to the Snow Hill tunnel which--according to the Thameslink project--allows trains to travel through London from north to south. Although there would have to be minor infrastructure changes to allow that physically to happen, it would seem that if it does not, there will be no opportunity to travel from Audley End to Guildford and Brighton on a direct train service, whereas that opportunity will be open to people travelling from Cambridge through the stations served by the line into King's Cross. That would further the impression that the Heron line is of less importance.
I recognise that the alternative opportunity for passengers on the Heron line was originally seen as the east-west link through London known as crossrail, but I do not have to remind my hon. Friend that there is doubt about the future of crossrail at the moment, so the opportunities for my constituents being able to travel directly through the tunnel into Liverpool street to the stations that were planned on the crossrail line seem somewhat diminished. Obviously, I hope that it will be possible to resurrect the crossrail project, but in the absence of that certainty, it appears that some of the advantages that will flow to passengers using the Cambridge-King's Cross service will not benefit passengers using the service through my constituency.
I hope that the franchising director will want to include in the franchise the potential of Stratford as an alternative terminus for trains. It will not be many years now before Stratford will provide an interconnection with the cross-channel rail services and with the Jubilee line, providing a faster connection to the west end. I certainly hope that the prospect of services to Stratford along the Heron line from Cambridge will be included.
To look further ahead, I wonder whether the franchise would be enhanced if the line between Ely and Peterborough were electrified. Those passengers wishing to travel to Peterborough and further on the east coast main line would benefit if there were a direct service that did not require them to change at Cambridge or Ely. I hope that such a suggestion might bolster the potential of the franchise.
The scope of that franchise should also include improvements to the infrastructure, particularly the signalling. I am not a technical expert on railway engineering by any stretch of the imagination, but the type and age of the signalling facilities south of Bishop's Stortford towards Liverpool Street is such that the newer types of rolling stock cannot use it. That is disappointing. If the Liverpool Street and the King's Cross services to Cambridge are included in the same franchise, that means that there cannot be commonality of rolling stock. It would be advantageous if the railway operator who wins the franchise were able to use his rolling stock on either line, as it suited him.
The system is inherently inflexible if one cannot use the same rolling stock on both lines. At the moment, perversely, the same rolling stock is used on both lines, but later this year the Great Northern line is due to switch to the new type 365 Networker trains. Surely that switch will offer a glaring example to my constituents of what the haves have in relation to the have-nots. The haves will enjoy faster services in new rolling stock, whereas the Heron line will still have 20-year-old rolling stock. That does not seem sensible. If there is a justification for having a combined franchise, one should take advantage of that and ensure that there is commonality of stock. That cannot be achieved unless the state of the signalling is attended to in the near future. I want to know whether that will be a condition of the franchise.
Such improvements would have the advantage of providing a diversionary route from Peterborough. If there were any difficulties on the Great Northern section of the east coast main line, it would be possible to run trains from Peterborough on electrified track all the way to Liverpool Street. That would also offer the further possibility of enlarging and enhancing the catchment area for employees of Stansted airport, because people would then be able to use a fast, reliable service to the airport from Peterborough.
Certain questions must be asked about the scope of the franchise. I should also like to comment on the quality of the service that my constituents may expect. They will be left with 20-year-old type 317 rolling stock. I hope that the franchising director will consider it important, whatever the length of the franchise he decides to award, bearing in mind the considerations that I have mentioned that may be in his mind, too, to promise at least refurbished rolling stock on that line. It would be unacceptable to continue to run unaltered 20-year-old rolling stock. It is daft not to hold out the promise of new rolling stock once it is possible for it to use the Heron line.
At the moment, it is galling to my constituents that some of the stations on the Heron line are closed on a Sunday--some are located in my constituency and others are south of it. The reason for that is that engineering works on the Great Northern line preclude a fast service from Cambridge on a Sunday. In order to provide a faster service, trains travel on the Heron line, but, to achieve that fast service, certain stations on that line are closed on a Sunday. People therefore cannot take advantage of those train services. That is not satisfactory and I hope that those Sunday services will be reconsidered as part of the franchise.
I must mention late-night services. It would be wrong to instance the needs of a Member of Parliament, trying to get away from this place at 10.15 pm, if he is lucky, who must catch either the 10.33 pm or the 11.33 pm. The gap between those services is lengthy, especially at Liverpool Street station, which may be beautiful to look at but is not beautiful to dwell in for a long time. There are just about 20 seats on the entire concourse at that station, so it is not an hospitable place late at night. If we are to encourage people to use the railway to come into London for an evening function, the cinema, the theatre, concerts or whatever, they must have the prospect of getting back home at a reasonable hour. The 10.33 pm train is a bit too early, and if they miss that they have an hour's wait. If people go out for a meal after an evening function they are not sure even that they can catch the
11.33 pm service. That does not encourage people to use the railways. I hope that late-night services will also be examined when the franchise is being considered.
I have already mentioned the possibility of links between Stansted airport and Peterborough. When the airport was opened, we went to great expense to build a spur northbound from the airport towards Cambridge, in addition to the southbound spur to carry passengers from London. It was thought sensible and useful to provide such a northbound spur, connected to the Heron line up to Cambridge. The service was run by the Regional Railways. I am afraid that in the early days of the airport, it did not attract many passengers and Regional Railways lost money. It decided to take advantage of regulations whereby it runs just one train a week--effectively no service.
There is a great interest in my constituency in seeing that service reinstated. I do not see why that should not be done by the franchise operator of the West Anglia Great Northern railway. That service should be examined when awarding that franchise. If we are to take the pressure for new housing off the rural part of my constituency and overcome the threat posed to it by urbanisation, it makes great sense to give people north of Stansted the opportunity to travel to work at that airport. I am thinking not just about passengers but about potential employees at the airport. Employment opportunities at the airport are growing steadily by the year. We should make use of the northbound spur, having gone to great expense to build it.
It is also important to consider the impact of the railway on airport employees from stations to the south of Stansted. The Stansted skytrain stops at Tottenham Hale and possibly one other station to provide the fastest possible service for airport passengers. What about the possibility of picking up employees at some other stations on the line? The pressure for new housing and the congestion on roads would be relieved if that service could scoop up more airport employees at those stations.
8.8 pm
That Mr. Richard Spring be discharged from the Health Committee and Lady Olga Maitland be added to the Committee.--[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
10 Jun 1996 : Column 91
Heron Line
8.11 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |