| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Letwin: I apologise for interrupting the Minister again--she has been exceptionally courteous. However, as one who has worked long and hard with TACIS, I have to tell her that, if she is suffering from the illusion that it will ever make the slightest difference to the Russian banking system, she really should talk to those who have worked on it, because there is not the slightest chance.
Ms Quin: I simply do not accept that, because I have been involved in discussions on how to take that work forward. However, I would not commend TACIS without reservations, because many British firms working within it have been frustrated by the slowness of procedures and the way in which payments are made. Those problems must be sorted out.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), a former Minister for Europe, took the Government to task over various issues, saying that we
had failed to achieve agreements with our partners. That struck me as odd coming the week after our success in the lifting of the beef ban. Some of what he presented as a complete failure, I would regard as a success, for example, our decision to sign the social chapter. It was always a matter of great regret to me that the Conservative Government refused to sign that or the social charter which preceded it, and were never prepared to make even a basic commitment to decent treatment for the people who work in the single European market.
Many hon. Members referred to tax harmonisation. I believe that the press articles of the past couple of weeks are scare stories, because nobody is proposing the harmonisation of income tax, which is one of the claims; nor is there a specific proposal to harmonise corporation tax. In the European Union, it is important not only to see what is happening within it, but to see the position of the European market within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and in the wider world. One of my European counterparts told me of her worry that, if there were moves to harmonise tax within the European Union, we would take our eye off the ball--the position of the EU within the world market. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) referred to the need for us to be competitive in both the world market and the EU market. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that the UK will not support any action that will damage competitiveness, or our employment creation policies in the UK. That is extremely important.
The speech of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) contained several references to "Corpus Juris". He said that he had read the treaty of Rome, but if he supplements his reading with the treaty of Amsterdam he will see that the articles--
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Hill.]
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch):
I thank Madam Speaker for choosing this subject for tonight's debate. The London, Tilbury and Southend line was chosen for debate before, but, along with other business, fell prior to the Queen's Speech. I also thank the Minister for her presence in the Chamber this evening.
My involvement with the London, Tilbury and Southend railway as a passenger pre-dates my election as a Member of Parliament. Although my remarks refer to the railway that runs from Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness, I am concerned mainly with what is called the Tilbury loop, which runs through Rainham station in my constituency and through two stations, Dagenham Dock and Purfleet, in neighbouring constituencies.
Since my election--or shortly thereafter--I began to receive complaints from my Rainham constituents about service on the LTS line. People came to my surgeries and wrote to and telephoned me. I express my appreciation of the time and effort that my constituents have expended contacting me and attending meetings of the Rainham rail users group, which I helped to establish when, following an avalanche of complaints, it became clear that collective action was necessary. I expected about 20 or 30 people to attend the group's first meeting in September, but in fact there were probably 80 or 90. The mood of the meeting was so angry that, if an LTS Rail representative had been present, he or she would have had a pretty tough time.
I will give the House some idea of the feeling about LTS in my part of the country. An Essex radio station conducted a survey some time ago to discover the most unpopular man in Essex and east London. The managing director of LTS Rail, Ken Bird, finished second in that survey, pipped at the post by Saddam Hussein. That gives hon. Members some idea of how my constituents and, I suspect, people from neighbouring areas regard the LTS service.
That is hardly surprising in view of the correspondence that my constituents and I have received. In a letter last July, the managing director, Ken Bird, offered some fairly patronising comments. As part of an explanation as to why the service from Rainham is so poor, he wrote:
Many managers, including Ken Bird, ran the pre-privatisation British Rail service. They laid off many station staff before the sell-off and, after privatisation, took on low-paid security guards, whom I see regularly at Fenchurch Street checking tickets and giving directions.
Just before privatisation British Rail spent £150 million on resignalling the line--an investment from which LTS clearly benefits.
A choice paragraph from one of the railway's leaflets states:
I shall give the Minister an example. Two years ago there were six trains running between 8 and 9 am from Rainham to Fenchurch Street. There are now just three trains: the 8.12, the 8.27 and the 8.48. Like many trains since privatisation, the 8.48 has been reduced from eight coaches to four, leading to such overcrowding that I wrote to the Health and Safety Executive to find out whether it could do anything about the problem.
The HSE wrote back saying that overcrowding was not a danger in itself, but if there was an accident, as was the case in Clapham, an overcrowded train would be likely to result in many more injuries to the passengers than a train that was not overcrowded. Because most of the trains on the Tilbury loop are the old slam-door trains, there are no suitable handles for passengers to hang on to when they have to stand to travel to work and home again.
Last year LTS Rail failed in its obligation to run 98.5 per cent. of timetabled trains. It cancelled 1,500 trains, and 2,000 trains ran late. Nevertheless, Prism Rail, the parent company of LTS, has received a considerable amount of money from the taxpayers' pocket--not only the £150 million that went into resignalling, but £30 million from the franchising director in 1995-96, which will fall towards the end of the franchise in 2011 but is still a substantial sum. Passenger income for 1995-96 was £52 million and for 1996-97 it was £55 million. Revenue grant for the same years was £31 million and £24 million respectively. Large sums are going into LTS, but people are not seeing the benefits, and there is growing anger among my constituents.
I shall give some examples of constituents' experiences with LTS Rail. My hon. Friend is familiar with one case, about which I have corresponded with her. It involves a woman who was stranded at Barking late at night after a train broke down. Only five taxis were provided to get everyone home from a full train. The woman had to ring her mother to send a taxi to take her home at about 1 o'clock in the morning. My hon. Friend will recall that British Rail was obliged to get everybody to their destinations if a train broke down, using licensed taxis or buses. It seems from that case that LTS is not meeting its responsibilities.
Another constituent writes to me regularly about the problems on LTS. On 18 November she wrote detailing all the delays and problems that she had experienced during that month. On six days during the first half of November there were problems including late trains, cancelled trains and locked carriages, leading to ever greater overcrowding and so on.
A constituent writes regularly with the outstanding excuses used by LTS. The corker was the announcement that
There has been investment in the railway, but it has gone on the main line--most was by Railtrack--in rail renewal. There has been minimal investment on the Tilbury loop. Stations are miserable and often deserted because there are not enough staff. The railway is extremely badly run and there is no sign of investment in the pipeline.
The result is fear among my constituents that part of the Tilbury loop could be run down to the point where it might face closure. The three stations--Rainham, Dagenham Dock and Purfleet--are always cited when people come to me to express that fear. I met Ken Bird last week and he assured me that Rainham station would remain open. He pointed out that LTS was legally unable to close any stations or any section of line that it runs, because that is a matter for the franchising director.
I have written to the franchising director to ask for an assurance that those three stations and the rest of the line will remain open until the end of the current franchise, which is 2010-11. I look forward to receiving that assurance.
My view, which is not always shared by the Government, is that certain things are best run as publicly owned monopolies. The railway system is one area that should be publicly run, owned and accountable. People across the country have problems, some of which are worse than those experienced on LTS. If the enormous problems in Britain's rail network continue, my hon. Friend and other Ministers will have to think about that.
In the meantime, we must consider strengthening the regulatory framework to make sure, for instance, that LTS does not get away with the diminution in the service from Rainham to Fenchurch Street. LTS should have to provide the sort of service--or better service--than was provided before privatisation. We should return to the days when there were six trains between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock in the morning from Rainham to Fenchurch Street, and those six trains should carry eight carriages.
The franchising director has allowed LTS to delay the introduction of new trains--despite all the money that is going from the taxpayer's pocket into LTS. The introduction of new trains to replace the old slam-door variety has been delayed by three years and they will not come into service until 2002. That is another example of the laxity of the regulatory framework, which is hardly surprising: it was introduced by the previous Government, who saw rail privatisation as a way of taking money out of the taxpayer's pocket and diverting it into the pockets of shareholders.
That this House agrees with the Report [16th November] of the Liaison Committee.--[Mr. Hill.]
Question agreed to.
10 pm
"We offer a walk-on, walk-off non-reservable system".
He concluded:
"It is now pleasing to be able to manage a retail venture that recognises that profit comes from giving customers what they want at a price they are willing to pay. We are not there yet, but give me another 18 months and judge us then."
People have been using LTS for three years since privatisation. It is fair to say that they have every right to judge the service now rather than waiting another 18 months. LTS has had quite enough time already. In any case, the Tilbury loop service, which runs through my constituency, has worsened since privatisation.
"LTS Rail has now employed a number of key staff in order to improve customer service and the station environment."
To many of my constituents, such comments are pure propaganda, especially when considered against the fact that the work force fell from 686 in 1995-96 to 657 in 1996-97. I am convinced that that has led to the cuts in the Tilbury service. There have been cancelled trains, frequent delays and the early closure of the booking office at Rainham and other stations. The company is not prepared to employ sufficient staff to run the line successfully.
"the delayed 7.55 am will not stop at Rainham due to the train already being heavily overcrowded."
In fact, when the train came through the station it was almost empty and--this is the telling point--it got to Fenchurch Street on time. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that it did not stop at Rainham station. It meant that the railway could fulfil its obligations under the regulatory framework.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |