| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Clarke: I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me. I must respond to a large number of points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) raised the safer streets initiative. All borough commanders have been required to develop a street crime intervention strategy. Boroughs with the most significant problems of street crime will receive additional support from the Met's specialist operations division. We will gradually spread that out. I hope that, over time, the policy will tackle some of the points that my hon. Friend raised.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton made several points. We have discussed graffiti previously, and I shall consider the legislation, as the hon. Gentleman requested. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) made one of the few references to drugs in the debate. It is surprising that so few references were made to that subject. He was right to raise it; it is a critical issue, which is at the top of our agenda.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will excuse me if I reply to his particular questions in writing. It would take too long to answer them now. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) made an important point about recruiting ethnic minorities and police who reflect the communities that they serve. That is a priority for the Metropolitan police, and requires a series of different sorts of changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) was the final Back-Bench speaker. He made a crucial point about violent crime. We are tackling that issue urgently because trends show that, while we are moving in the direction that we want on burglary, vehicle crime and so on, we are not doing that on violent crime. There are several important explanations for that, including statistical factors, and the fact that we want more reporting of violent crime, which means that the figures will increase. However, my hon. Friend highlighted major issues, and I want to assure him that we are tackling them urgently. I hope that we shall make public announcements on that soon. I am glad that my hon. Friend gave it priority in his comments.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made several serious points, to which I shall respond as rapidly as I can. He mentioned the 999 service. The Met is currently experiencing a substantial increase in demand. Calls were increasing at 6.3 per cent. a year, but, since March 1999, growth has shot up to 22 per cent. a year. The early months of this year suggest that the growth in demand is more than 20 per cent. higher than in 1999. Analysis by the Met revealed that more than half the calls were not about police business and only half required immediate deployment.
New working practices and shift patterns have been introduced, together with additional staff on Friday and Saturday evenings to cope with identified peaks. Extra recruiting for people to work on the service is being undertaken. I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman's point about the seriousness of the issue.
Beyond that, we have a major control communications and information project, the contract value of which is approximately £1 billion over 10 years, to modernise the whole system. Responsibility for signing the contract will fall to the Metropolitan Police Authority. We are currently considering that in great detail.
If the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will excuse me, I shall write to him on his point about the car fleet rather than go through it now because of constraints of time. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Chinese state visit. Discussions between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the police are a standard part of preparations for state visits. We have learned a lot from the visit to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and future discussions are being minuted to try to avoid the sort of behind-the-hand comments, which were mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned memorials. I am advised that PC Keith Blakelock's memorial will be relocated to Hornsey police station when it has been refurbished, and people will be able to pay their respects there.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the role of the Mayor. I should love to give that a lot of time, but in the two minutes available to me, suffice it to say that the Metropolitan Police Authority holds the Commissioner to account for securing an effective and efficient police force, best value in policing, setting targets, consulting Londoners and playing a major role in the appointment of senior Met officers. The Mayor's role in policing is much more limited than that of the MPA. Subject to the Home Secretary's override power, the Mayor, in discussion with the London Assembly, sets the budget of the MPA. He also appoints 12 Assembly Members to the MPA. However, he has no direct powers over the Metropolitan
service. The Commissioner is accountable to the MPA, not the Mayor. I wanted to clarify that in view of the anxieties of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.I intended to say more about numbers and morale, but we have debated those subjects widely elsewhere. I want to comment briefly on murder. For me, the most shocking part of the Macpherson inquiry was that on murder. The Commissioner has responded positively by allocating significantly more staff to murder inquiries, providing an enhanced response, maximising forensic opportunities, increasing the use of intelligence, and improving the training and usage of house-to-house staff. The number of staff of all ranks and grades who investigate murder has increased from 816 before April 1999 to 1,020 in that month. In May 2000, the figure was 1,105. There has been a massive increase for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman identified. It is an important matter, which the Home Office will consider closely.
In a short time, I have tried to respond to as many of the points as possible. I am sorry that I have not spoken about some of the more substantive issues on police numbers and morale, which we debated previously. I hope that the statements that have been made today will play some part--
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Rail Franchises (Sussex)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. McNulty.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): I welcome the opportunity to raise the important issue of rail franchises as they affect my constituency and others in East Sussex. This is an opportune time to debate the issue, given that the franchises are shortly to be renewed. I have been in touch with the Minister's office, so I hope that he is aware of some of the issues that I wish to raise. I have seen and read carefully his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), so I hope that that helps the Minister in his reply.
I am slightly disappointed that the Government's rail policy has not been as proactive and hands-on as I would have liked. It has taken a long time to establish the Strategic Rail Authority, and we are still not there yet. Indeed, I was told the other day that fewer miles of new railtrack have been opened in the three years since the Government came to power than in the equivalent period of the previous, Conservative Government, which itself was poor.
In those circumstances, and given that Railtrack is still sluggish in spending its money rather than handing it to shareholders, the franchise renewal process is important in securing long-term improvements to the rail network. I would go so far as to say that, if that opportunity is not grasped properly, nothing much will happen in the next 20 years other than what has been agreed in the franchise renewal process. That would be a great pity.
Will the Minister explain why, when three companies were being considered for the short list, South West Trains was eliminated? My written question on this matter must have been slightly misinterpreted because, astonishingly, the answer did not answer the question, but simply set out the criteria used to judge which applicant would be successful. The rail passengers committee thought that South West Trains had put in a good bid. It drew my attention to the fact that the company had set out in detail, with time scales and dates, what it intended to do. The same could not be said of Connex, GoVia or Thameslink.
In a sense, all that is slightly historical: we have two companies left. I want to go through elements of what I think should be the successful shopping list for the franchise bid, which I hope will be considered not only by the Government but by Mike Grant at the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. First, however, may I make a plea to the Minister, which he might be slightly surprised about? It is to avoid the temptation to hit Connex over the head.
A number of complaints have been made about Connex, and some of them are justified. I use Connex regularly from my constituency to this House. It handled the drivers' dispute badly last year and unnecessarily inconvenienced the public, its trains have not been as clean as they might have been, and there are measures that it could have taken relatively cheaply to improve passenger comfort. However, Connex is trying to improve the rail network in my constituency and the surrounding area. I find it receptive to ideas that I put to it. In response to requests that I have made, it has introduced, for
example, extra stops on the service at places such as Plumpton. Moreover, it always gets me here on time, as witnessed by my presence in the Chamber this afternoon.I do not say that Connex is perfect by any means; it is not. It could and should have done better. However, it would be tempting for the Government to say, "We are in charge of this process. We must make at least one change to the companies that currently run our railways to demonstrate to the public that we are doing something." The Government may feel that, when the first bids are made, someone must change somewhere, otherwise the public will think that the Government are not taking a hands-on approach. I understand the politics of that, but it would be wrong to pick on Connex in making those calculations.
Connex is far from perfect, but I am deeply unimpressed by the way in which GoVia and Thameslink have approached the bid process so far. Connex has set out its plans in great detail in its document "20:20 Vision". It has contacted myself, other Members of Parliament, local authorities and many others and been upfront about its plans, but getting information from Thameslink is like getting blood from a stone. I had to ring up the managing director myself two or three times before I finally managed to get any details of its bid. I had to ring up again to get its document, "The Welcoming Network", which finally arrived only yesterday. If Thameslink is that unresponsive to Members of Parliament, I wonder how unresponsive it is to the public. Its PR on the bid has not started well with me.
I can understand why Thameslink has not contacted me--there is nothing much for East Sussex in its bid. I want to be parochial; I am here not as a party spokesman, but to speak for my constituents this afternoon. East Sussex features hardly at all in the Thameslink bid, but it does in the Connex bid. The general opinion of those of us who have looked at the bids is that Connex is offering more than Thameslink to East Sussex. Thameslink has managed to miss off entirely the Lewes-Seaford line from its map. Not only does the route not feature in its plans, but it has even disappeared from its map.
One of the crucial differences between the bids that affects my constituency is the Lewes-Uckfield line. Connex has pledged to re-open the Lewes-Uckfield railway line as part of its bid. Of course, it needs to be tied down to a date early in the franchise, if it is successful. Thameslink has made no such pledge. That is the key difference to my constituents in terms of the rail network in my constituency involved in determining which bid is successful. I have initiated previous Adjournment debates on that matter, which is absolutely crucial to my constituency and that of the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who was asked that his support for the re-opening of the Lewes-Uckfield line be communicated to the House this afternoon in his absence. He and I are at one on the issue. The seven-mile gap in the line could be easily re-opened because the track bed has been preserved. The SRA has stated that it wants the problem of congestion on the Brighton main line to be solved; it has a capacity problem, and Connex is 84 per cent. reliable on that corridor.
The re-opening of the Lewes-Uckfield line would solve the problem neatly and relatively inexpensively by providing an alternative route from East Sussex to London. The solution proposed by Thameslink and GoVia is to increase the capacity on the Brighton line and to
tinker with the Arun line in West Sussex. That would do nothing for my constituents in East Sussex. If they were to pursue that suggestion, it would involve major work on three tunnels and the wonderful Balcombe viaduct, which is grade 1 listed, and cause disruption and inconvenience during the construction phase. The only line from Lewes to London crosses Balcombe viaduct; it is an important piece of the railway network. What a shame it would be to miss the opportunity to introduce another line by simply widening the existing line or increasing its capacity.The re-opening of the Lewes-Uckfield line is regarded as crucial not simply by me and the right hon. Member for Wealden, but by other Members of Parliament with constituencies in East Sussex, including Labour Members, East Sussex county council, Lewes and Wealdon district councils, Sussex Enterprise and the South East regional development agency, the chairman and chief executive of which I met yesterday for lunch. In my view--I have tabled an early-day motion to this effect--the franchise process will fail if the Lewes-Uckfield line is not part of the successful bid. I cannot put it more strongly than that.
I should like to see other important items on the shopping list. The Government must grasp this one-off opportunity to achieve a major improvement to the rail network in Sussex. We want new rolling stock, and I think that we will get it whichever company wins. We want the Polegate-Pevensey link to be restored so that fast trains and freight trains bypass Eastbourne. I do not wish to be rude to Eastbourne, but the journey would be quicker if the trains did not have to go in and out of Eastbourne. That involves a half-hour diversion. A piece of land could be cheaply and quickly connected, which would enable that improvement to occur.
Business men in my constituency want access to the channel tunnel. They want to travel to Brussels or Paris. At present they must go up to London, because the line between Lewes and Ashford is so hopeless. When I went to Brussels, it took me longer to get from Lewes to Ashford than from Ashford to Brussels. That is how poor the line is. Moreover, it is a diesel line. We need electrification of the line between Hastings and Ashford, the restoration of the Polegate-Pevensey link, and a commitment to through services.
We also need major improvements at Newhaven. The Minister may have read the reports of two earlier Adjournment debates responded to by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). If so, he will know that, when replying to the more recent debate, the hon. Lady promised to visit Newhaven and to investigate the situation that I had described. As she is no longer with us in her former capacity, I extend the opportunity to the Minister.
I assure the Minister that such a visit would be worth while. Newhaven is suffering as a result of our atomised rail structure. We have three stations, none of which work terribly well. The consensus is that we need one new station delivering top-class passenger services and proper car-parking facilities. Permission should be given for land to be developed for rail freight. English Welsh and Scottish Railways has been to Newhaven: I took its representatives there myself, and they were interested. We are on the trans-European rail network, so we are eligible for European Union money. Moreover, there is considerable growth in Newhaven, which is making
progress as an economic unit--thanks partly to the Government office for the south east, which has been very supportive.The difficulty is this. Connex wants one station, not three. Railtrack says that it is a good idea, as do the county and district councils: it accords with their local transport plan. I say the same, as the local Member of Parliament, but it does not happen because of the atomised nature of our railway system. No one wants to take the lead. There is a case for the Government, either directly or through SEEDA--I discussed the matter with SEEDA yesterday--to take that lead, and to bring the parties together to secure a significant improvement in Newhaven. A rail renaissance could be brought about there, at very little cost--if any--to the taxpayer. We must take the opportunity presented by the franchise renegotiations.
The chief executive of the Newhaven Economic Partnership, Julian Rea, wrote to me:
- I consider that Connex's initiative in proposing a new line together with new rolling stock from Lewes to London . . . will transform East Sussex and Newhaven in particular. If this line is constructed and combined with Newhaven's industrial base and port connections it would make the town a major economic motor for the SouthEast. I feel certain that the NEP Board would support Connex's application for an extension of their licence.
As for fares, I hope--this point has been made to me strongly by the rail passengers committee--that there will be no relaxation of the commuter cap. There is a captive market--people who have to travel to London by train whether they like it or not, because the alternative of driving is so horrendous. Those people could be exploited, but they are currently not being exploited because of the cap. I hope that there will be no problem as a result of the franchise process.
I also hope that some attempt will be made to use the spare capacity on the rail network. I live in Beddingham, in a house that is sandwiched between the railway and the road at a low-level crossing. In the morning, the road is chock-a-block with cars driving from Eastbourne to Lewes, from town centre to town centre. The train from town centre to town centre is half empty, because the fares \are too high. It is as simple as that. If the fares were cut, it would help the Government's own transport policy dramatically by shifting people off the road and on to rail. They could easily transfer along that corridor.
Some ingenuity needs to be exercised in the franchise renegotiation in regard to fares. We could, for example, consider the idea of carnets. Many people nowadays do not work a nine-to-five-day week; they do not follow the office routine. They may want to come in by train on four days, and use the fifth day for visits. Surely the carnet system that operates on the French metro--and, indeed, on our own London underground: it is possible to buy a number of tickets at a discount if a pack are bought together--could be introduced here. We could have a season ticket for five days, but five days chosen by the person who buys the ticket, and not determined by the calendar. That would provide extra flexibility.
My final point relates to the transport corridor study. The Government have rightly put on hold road schemes for East Sussex, such as the proposal for a dual carriageway between Lewes and Polegate, which would have been immensely environmentally damaging. They have begun a transport study of a south-coast route, which will consider road and rail, and that is absolutely the right policy. I am concerned, however, that the study will report after the franchise has been awarded. If it argues that there should be extra rail--and I think that it will--it may come too late. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the two things are co-ordinated?
I have set out why these matters are so important to my constituents, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |