| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Resolved,
That this House commends the action taken by this Government to eradicate exotic plant and animal disease when it occurs, and to control endemic disease; congratulates the Government on its actions that have succeeded in reducing the number of BSE clinical cases to just 184 last year; further congratulates the Government on eradicating a major outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease in seven months and on implementing the recommendations of the Lessons Learned and Royal Society Inquiries so that Government is better prepared to tackle a future outbreak of a major livestock disease; welcomes the significant progress made to tackle illegal imports both by increasing enforcement activity at the border and by increasing public awareness; applauds the Government on its action taken against other animal and plant diseases, notably Salmonella Java and potato ring rot; and notes the Government's continuing commitment to prevent serious animal and plant disease.
DRAFT CHARITIES BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 19th April relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider and report on any draft Charities Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, be now considered.
That this House concurs with the Lords that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Charities Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown, and that the Committee shall report on the draft Bill by 30th September 2004.
That a Select Committee of six honourable Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Charities Bill.
That the Committee shall have power—
(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(iii) to report from time to time;
(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;
(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
That the quorum of the Committee shall be two; and
That Mr Alan Campbell, Mr George Foulkes, Ms Sally Keeble, Mr Alan Milburn, Mr Andrew Mitchell and Bob Russell be members of the Committee.—[Paul Clark.]
STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
Ordered,
That Richard Ottaway be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and that Mrs Angela Browning be added.—[Paul Clark.]
29 Apr 2004 : Column 1102
Rail Transport (Kent and Medway)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
6.17 pm
Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab): This debate is a response to the Strategic Rail Authority's consultation on the new integrated Kent rail franchise. The proposal to provide high-speed channel tunnel rail link domestic services from Folkestone, Thanet, Canterbury, Ashford, Swale, Medway and Gravesend has been warmly welcomed by Kent and Medway. The £5 billion high-speed rail service will provide a significant boost to the sub-regional economies and coastal towns of Thanet and, importantly, will allow for the sustainable development of the growth areas in Ashford and the Thames gateway. It is also welcome that the SRA has responded positively to, and is examining the possibility of, the proposal to extend the line to Dover.
For the Medway towns, the high-speed rail link will mean more than just new rail services. It will be a magnet, drawing in inward investment and building on the regeneration that has already taken place. The case that has been put forward by those of us in Kent and Medway for the channel tunnel rail link domestic service in debates, questions and meetings with Ministers over the years has always been about additional capacity, not replacement of services. It is therefore not surprising that the majority of existing passengers in the Medway towns do not see how St. Pancras can meet their current travel needs. They therefore see no justification for reducing the fast services to London from Medway, as set out in the SRA's document.
Although I warmly welcome the channel tunnel rail link's domestic service proposals, I need to focus my comments on the SRA's proposals under the current integrated Kent franchise. This is the first major review of the Kent rail timetable since electrification in 1963. That was the time when technology was thrusting us into a brave new world. It was the year that Harold Wilson told the Labour party conference in Scarborough that Britain was going to be forged by the white heat of the scientific revolution. Over the past 20 years or so, in Kent, we have not seen that much in the way of white heat and scientific revolution when it comes to our train service.
Every day thousands and thousands of people living in Kent travel to London for their work, and their experience over the years has been, to put it bluntly, pretty grim. We have seen fragmentation; we have seen privatisation; we have seen deterioration due to a lack of investment; and we have seen off Connex.
Kent is part of one of the most complicated franchises in the entire rail network, with 182 stations, 773 km of track and 120,000 morning commuters. Of the 1,700 train journeys, 1,400 go into London carrying 13.2 million passengers every year. With the growth in numbers travelling to London—I shall come to that point later—the antiquated infrastructure often struggles to provide and maintain a reliable service. It is beset with problems. As well as the old age of some of the signalling, many of the stations are appalling. The prize for the very worst perhaps goes to those along the
29 Apr 2004 : Column 1103
Medway valley line, which sadly runs through my constituency and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).
It is true, as the SRA argues, that its network is complex and congested, and delays can very quickly snowball. Yet this should not, in itself, be a justification for running fewer trains. The network needs to have the capacity for the number of people who want to use it—whether that is for business or pleasure. If there are fewer trains, there will simply be more overcrowded trains. In Medway, on the Cannon Street service, which runs to the City, where many of my constituents work, we currently have seven fast trains at peak times. Under the SRA's proposals, that number will be reduced to two. The Victoria fast service from Medway, which stops at Bromley, currently has 15 trains. Under the SRA's proposals, the number will be cut to 10. With reductions via Dartford, the total reduction—even when we take account of the new channel tunnel rail link domestic service trains—will be from 32 to 26 trains.
It is not just the number of trains that is the problem; it is the number of seats as well. My hon. Friend the Minister advised me in a written answer on 30 March that there are just over 20,000 seats available from Medway during peak-time services at present. There is no certainty about the number in the future, not least because Rochester and Strood platforms are currently unable to accommodate the 12-car trains with 700-seat capacity that will be the new CTRL domestic service. Instead, he has advised me in written answers that these stations will have a service of six-car trains, halving the possible capacity. Upgrading the platforms, he advises me, would cost £12.4 million at Rochester and £1.2 million at Strood.
I understand the financial pressures that the Department and the SRA are under, but why has the SRA not looked more imaginatively at, for example, selective door opening? I grant that that is far from ideal, but capacity has to be at the forefront of our ambitions. As I said, if we have fewer trains, we will have more crowded trains or we will force people on to the roads to drive to Ebbesfleet. The idea that the new franchise will force commuters to drive further along the A2 flies in the face of what we are trying to achieve with an integrated transport system.
Moreover, in Medway our bus company, Arriva, will commission its new bus service in June. Some £10 million, an unprecedented sum, is being invested in a new bus fleet, added to which a new timetable will offer more frequent journeys. Car parking has always been a problem in Medway stations. My hon. Friends and I want to see Arriva picking up customers. The current proposals, I fear, will further discourage train commuters from taking the bus to the station. It has been estimated by Medway council that the number of seats available could be reduced by as many as 7,000.
We welcome the fact that the Strategic Rail Authority document states that the integrated Kent franchise recognises its contribution to regional planning goals, including the regeneration of Kent and the Mayor's London plan. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark). His high office prevents him from making an outstanding contribution this evening. In his work on
29 Apr 2004 : Column 1104
the Thames gateway he has worked tirelessly to ensure that the planning and transport systems are joined up. As I said, 1963 is a significant date in terms of electrification. On this very day in 1963 my hon. Friend was six years old. Gillingham's No. 1 son celebrates his birthday today.
We welcome the strategic approach to planning and transport, but we—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |