House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Jun 1996 (pt 20)

Class II, Vote 5

That a sum not exceeding £799,755,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Overseas Development Administration under the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 on the United Kingdom overseas aid; including financial and technical assistance to governments, institutions, voluntary agencies and individuals; capital and other subscriptions and contributions, including payments under guarantee, to multilateral development banks and other international and regional bodies; emergency, refugee and other relief assistance; pensions and allowances in respect of overseas service including contributions to pension funds (including payments under the Overseas Pensions Act 1973, and grants in lieu of pensions); and on global environment assistance; loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation under the Commonwealth Development Corporation Acts 1978-1995; expenditure on the Turkey Ankara Metro mixed credit Aid and Trade provision project; payments to Crown Agents under the authority of the Crown Agents Act 1995; costs in connection with privatising Crown Agents and the Natural Resources Institute; running costs, related capital expenditure and other administrative costs including for the Natural Resources Institute (an executive agency); and payments (under the authority of the European Communities Act 1972) to certain beneficiaries of the Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund.

Under the Resolution of the House of 18th June and the Order of the House of 21st June, these Estimates are to be considered in so far as they relate to the future role of the Commonwealth, and any Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the five Motions in the name of Mr. Michael Jack will be put not later than Seven o'clock.

The First Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1995-96, on the future role of the Commonwealth (House of Commons Paper No. 45-I), the Government's Observations thereon (Cm. 3303) and the Government's Expenditure Plans 1996-97 to 1998-99-Foreign and Commonwealth Office including Overseas Development Administration (Cm. 3203)

27 Jun 1996 : Column 521

Gospel Oak-Barking Line

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

7 pm

Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow): I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss investment in the Gospel Oak to Barking line. The Minister knows about the line's problems. If he did not know, I am sure that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) has related his experiences when he visited the line last year. It lived up to its reputation. The train was cancelled and we spent 45 minutes waiting on a cold platform for the next train, which came only because the train going in the opposite direction was stopped short of its destination to come back and pick us up.

The line has enormous potential. It could be part of an outer north London orbital route. It could provide easy journeys between points that are difficult to reach by other forms of public transport. Everyone agrees that it is grossly underused because of the serious reliability problems. No one has suggested that the line is valueless; it could be a useful service. The trouble is that people have been saying that for 20 if not 25 years, but little has changed. I suspect that the service is poorer now than it was 20 or 25 years ago. I will not repeat the graphic description of the line given by hon. Member for Epping as that would be to use unparliamentary language.

The consequences of the lack of investment are felt in the service. In charter period 54, there were 210 cancellations out of 968 services. In charter period 56, there were 284 out of 1,209. In both periods, the cancellation rate was more than 20 per cent. The cancellations are caused mainly by rolling stock and infrastructure failures. I shall discuss that and the investment decisions on them.

The line has had aged rolling stock since the decision in the early 1960s not to electrify. There was a short period when some new diesel units were used but that did not work terribly well. Apart from that, it has always had cast-offs from other lines. As other lines were electrified or improved, the cast-off diesel units went to this line. The present units are more than 30 years old. In the longer term, we will need new, modern, reliable trains.

Some immediate questions need to be considered. The lease on the existing units will soon run out and their failure rates suggest that they may be beyond redemption. I understand that North London Railways is considering using class 141 diesel units, which are cast-offs from west Yorkshire. That may be a short-term answer, but I have some doubts about it. They would need major refurbishment before they could be remotely regarded as reliable. There is no commitment to provide the money for that. Many people feel that they would be unsuitable because they have a smaller capacity. Shortage of space for prams and bicycles is a problem.

Recently, under the Government's cycle challenge scheme, £79,000 was awarded to improve cycle-rail integration on the line. That involved cutting cycle channels on station stairways to allow people to get bicycles on and off trains. The trouble is that Railtrack is being obstructive about reaching agreements on their installation. It is demanding all sorts of guarantees from local authorities and asking them to take responsibility

27 Jun 1996 : Column 522

for accidents, compensation and the maintenance of the channels. Those problems are largely the result of Railtrack having to draw up new leases with the various users of the line.

It is likely that some of that £79,000 will not be spent because of the difficulties in getting agreement between local authorities and Railtrack. It would be helpful if the Minister could examine that problem to discover whether anything can be done to resolve it. It is ludicrous that the Government have agreed to spend the money but that it is not being spent.

What are the responsibilities of the rolling stock leasing companies for such lines? Is there a formal requirement for them to supply suitable rolling stock? Are their activities in any way subject to the scrutiny of the Rail Regulator? If not, should that be considered?

There are several hundred bridges and viaducts in a surprisingly short distance on the line, which is largely built on them. The bridge across the River Lea on the edge of my constituency is so weak that two trains cannot be allowed on it at the same time. That problem is compounded by the outdated signalling. Because the signal box at Leytonstone was taken away, there are no signals between Wanstead park and the bridge. If a freight train is sent along the line, it has to be held at Wanstead park until the whole track is clear through to the Lea valley. That causes enormous disruption to passenger services, which run only once every half an hour.

Those long gaps have implications for safety. I am sure that the Minister will recall the crash at Wanstead park in 1995. A freight train had to be held there as there was nowhere else, other than the weak bridge that it had to cross further along the line, for it to be held. As a result of an error at the previous station on the line--Woodgrange park--there was a crash at Wanstead park. If there had been modern signalling or if the there had still been a signal box at Leytonstone, that crash might have been avoided.

If the Minister has travelled on the line, he will be aware of the poor condition of most of the stations: they are run down, there are no indicators and there are no staff most of the time. In 1995-96, under the transport policy and programme system, a joint local authority bid won some welcome money from the Government for station improvements on the line worth £200,000. As a result, Leytonstone station was modernised and about a third of the cost was contributed by Railtrack.