| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
On 12 February, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) said that all of the carriages would be in operation by 2014, but let me illustrate the shambles that the Government have made of this matter. Last week, I had a response to a written question to the Secretary of State. I asked him the timetable for ordering the remaining 877 carriages, which were referred to in the 2007 White Paper. Some 423 have so far been ordered. I was told in the answer that the new train orders will be placed as follows:
120 for National Express East Anglia, 88 for London Midland, 202 for GoCo, 140 for South West Trains and up to 1,300 for Thameslink. That is all very well, and superficially that answer might sound sensible. However, the Minister will remember that his predecessor told us that the Thameslink vehicles were not part of HLOS. When I asked the Minister about the 877 vehicles that had not been ordered, he detailed only 550. According to the rolling stock plan, South West Trains was to have only 105, not the 140 specified in that answer, so perhaps the Minister would care to tell us which is correct, his answer or the rolling stock plan. As the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, there has also been a change in the rolling stock plan for the vehicles that were due to go to Northern Rail.
Will the Minister clarify which of the class 323 carriages will be new and which will be cascaded, and to which operators? I still do not believe that anyone knows what the promise of 1,300 carriages really means. Even by the Department for Transport’s lamentably low standards of responses to questions, the one that I have mentioned must be regarded as inadequate and poor.
The shambles is further highlighted by an answer that Lord Adonis gave. He stated:
“The Department for Transport does not determine the amount of rolling stock for First Great Western...or any other train operator.”—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2008; Vol. 705, c. WA43.]
That is palpably absurd, because the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Gillingham, gave me a written answer that contradicts it. It is nonsense also because the Department now has an updated rolling stock plan which, as Lord Adonis concluded in the same answer, envisages an extra 52 carriages for First Great Western. In one sentence he said that the Government did not intend to tell any operator where carriages should go or how many they should have, and later in the answer he told us exactly how many First Great Western would have. The DFT is controlling procurement, and it is doing so shambolically. Will the Minister clarify exactly where all the carriages have gone?
A number of contributions to the debate have been about the inter-city express programme. The Minister might at least explain something about that. When the Secretary of State announced the IEP, he talked about the 12,500 jobs that would be safeguarded or created. Hitachi has confirmed that its initial investment in the United Kingdom will create 200 jobs, which is likely to rise to 500. To be generous, there might be 2,000 maintenance jobs. That makes 2,500 of the 12,500. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet asked the Secretary of State on 12 February whether he could explain where the other 10,000 would come from and how many of them would actually be created or safeguarded, there was no answer. The suspicion across the House and among the railway commentariat is that, like so much of the Government’s policy, those 10,000 jobs are actually just another example of double counting.
There have been speeches about high-speed rail in the debate. For far too long it was absolutely clear that the Government had no interest in high-speed rail. When the right hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly) was Secretary of State, she said that it was “risky and expensive” and would not help to meet passenger
demand. That was clearly seen to be wrong, and how things have changed, led by the Conservatives’ innovative announcement last week. I am pleased to see that the Government have finally seen the light, and I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) has been converted to our policy and supports the Conservative party’s plans for high-speed rail to be built, in phase 1, from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, and then in later phases across the whole country.
Tonight, we have had the chance to examine, all too briefly, some of the Government’s plans for the railways. Their 30-year rail strategy has been proved palpably inadequate, the Competition Commission’s findings about their rolling stock procurement policy have been scathing and there have been major failings in Network Rail that we have not had the chance to touch on. The Government’s policy towards rail is both shambolic and ill-prepared.
9.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Clark): We have had a wide-ranging debate, with substantial contributions from many hon. Members. However, it is interesting that, at the outset of his speech, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) could not bring himself to acknowledge the work of the Transport Committee or to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on her work as Chair. I would like to put my congratulations to her on the record.
Contributions included bids for additional funding in several different ways and bids for investment in specific constituencies, which is understandable. Some contributions frankly disregarded any changes in the past 10 years or any improvements to our rail system.
We all know that good transport networks are essential to people’s everyday lives and to the health of the UK economy. That remains true, especially in today’s challenging economic conditions. That is why the Government remain committed to substantial investment in our transport system.
We have therefore led and promoted several major long-term infrastructure projects, which will provide a major boost to our economy. We are investing £15 billion between 2009 and 2014 to increase capacity for up to 183 million passengers a year. For the long term, our aim is a rail network that can carry double the current number of passengers.
However, in spite of the record investment, people’s increasing demand for travel means that in many places, our transport infrastructure is operating at, or near capacity. We need not only to address the problem, but to do so in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Rail already has an impressive and established record of being a highly sustainable form of transport. Carbon emissions from rail are around a third of those for road transport. Electric trains in particular are not only cheaper to operate than diesels, but emit far less carbon. That is one reason for the further work on the case for electrifying the busiest parts of our network, including the Great Western main line and the midland main line, with decisions to be announced later this year.
Some hon. Members referred to times gone by. Thirty years ago, the railway was being written off as an expensive, outdated and declining mode of transport.
Times change—thanks to the substantial investment that we have made, Britain’s railways have enjoyed a spectacular renaissance.
Some hon. Members claimed that the railways had improved because of privatisation. I well remember in 1997 that the railway lines in my neck of the woods suffered from gross under-investment, were unreliable and had rolling stock from the 1960s and 1970s. [Interruption. ] That is not nonsense.
Our rail network now carries more people and more freight than at any time in the past 50 years, and performance continues to improve. In the past year, 90.8 per cent. of passenger trains arrived on time. It is important that that improvement continues. The Government have, therefore, specified an improvement in reliability to 92.6 per cent. by 2014. In addition, we are specifying 25 per cent. reductions in delays of more than 30 minutes.
As I said, passenger numbers have grown around 40 per cent in the past 10 years. That is why we are going to such lengths to upgrade existing track. We want to tackle the major problems that we identified for the control period to 2014: overcrowding and capacity. That is our main focus between now and 2014, and that is why we have upgraded the existing track, as on the west coast main line, as well as investing in new trains. [ Interruption. ] I will come shortly to the number of carriages, which was raised by the hon. Member for Wimbledon and others.
We are investing £5.5 billion in the Thameslink scheme, which will deliver greater frequency and capacity across London services and more than 14,000 more seats on some of the most congested routes in London. Crossrail will give commuters to the east and west of London direct access to the heart of the capital and mean that 1.5 million more people will be within an hour of London’s business centres.
Some 1,300 extra carriages are to come into service between now and 2014. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) referred to the grotesque shortage of rolling stock, as did the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). Those 1,300 extra carriages will go to some of the areas suffering from the worst overcrowding; indeed, 423 additional carriages have already been ordered, before the control period has even started. That is a sign of the Government’s decision to press on with procurement. All those carriages will be in place by 2014.
I can confirm that the 423 new carriages to be delivered between 2009 and 2011 will be distributed as follows: 92 to Southern; 217 to London Midland; eight to Chiltern; and 106 to Virgin West Coast. That means that 423 have already been ordered. Invitations to tender have been issued for a further 320 vehicles and officials are currently in commercial discussions with train operating companies to secure the remainder, after which we will announce where those additional carriages will go.
Stephen Hammond: Can the Minister tell the House whether the remainder, minus the 300—I think—that he has just given us, is the 550 that he cited to me in a written answer or the 877? He never seems to be able to clarify exactly which one he is talking about.
Paul Clark: I have just laid out clearly—I do not know whether this is difficult to understand—that 423 of the 1,300 carriages have already been ordered, that invitations to tender have been issued on 320 and that we are discussing the rest. [ Interruption. ] My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport asks from a sedentary position which ones the Conservatives would cut as a result of the £840 million of cuts that would be made in three weeks’ time if the hon. Gentleman were in power.
Paul Clark: I will not give way, because I want to cover the points raised by other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) mentioned the inter-city express programme, as did the hon. Member for Lewes and others, including the Chair of the Select Committee. We have set out a £7.5 billion investment programme to replace the existing, ageing inter-city trains. The benefit for passengers will be substantial, with 21 per cent. more seats available on longer trains and shorter journeys. Typically, the journey time will be shortened between London and Leeds by 10 minutes, between London and Edinburgh by 12 minutes and between London and Bristol by 10 minutes.
I am delighted that Hitachi has committed to build a new manufacturing plant here in the UK; indeed, I have heard the bids from my hon. Friends the Members for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) and others. We will ensure that those commitments are delivered as soon as possible. However, I would say to right hon. and hon. Members that safeguarding jobs is as important as getting new jobs. It is important that we ensure that those jobs remain. It is not a question of the Government micro-managing the process, because there is substantial work to be done, never mind the long time that it takes to design and deliver the programme. Indeed, the trains will be used by a number of different operators.
I note that the representative from Unite, Bob Rixham, who had met Hitachi’s European chief, said:
“The undertakings Hitachi have given mean they are here for the long term and, if so, we would be crackers not to welcome a second big player in train manufacturing in Britain.”
That is an important point to bear in mind. The evaluation of the bids was based on an assessment of compliance, delivery and value for money. Those criteria were published on the DFT’s website. Of course, the content of the bids remains commercially confidential.
On investment, a new rail line beginning in London and going to the west midlands, approaching London via a Heathrow international interchange, creates the potential for faster journeys to the north and Scotland. That is why we have set up a new company—High Speed 2—to consider all the options and possibilities, recognising the need to move forward beyond 2014.
My hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke about rail freight, to which we remain committed. In the past 10 years, the amount of freight carried by rail has increased by some 60 per cent., with goods such as drinks and groceries now being carried by rail alongside the traditional fare of bulk loads such as coal and aggregates. We are planning £200 million for the strategic rail freight network, which will be capable of handling
more and longer trains. The campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North for a dedicated rail freight line is well known.
The Transport Committee dealt in some detail with the engineering works over the new year in 2008. Network Rail is accountable to its members for its performance against its business plan, and to the independent Office of Rail Regulation.
Paul Clark: I will not give way, because I wish to cover a number of points, including some that relate to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution.
The disruption experienced by passengers and freight customers on the west coast main line in early January last year was unacceptable.
A number of Members asked questions about the bonuses for Network Rail. They are a matter for the company’s remuneration committee, and not for the Government. They are set out in accordance with criteria set out in the management incentive plan. Having said that, my noble Friend, Lord Adonis said in another place:
“I am sure that that House would expect Network Rail’s remuneration committee to be mindful of the public mood on bonuses and not to award bonuses that the travelling public would consider unjustified by their own experience of Network Rail’s performance.”—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 2009; Vol. 708, c. 498.]
Questions were raised about the economic downturn. It is bound to affect passenger numbers, but, thanks to record levels of growth and investment, we are confident that the rail industry can remain competitive in these challenging circumstances. However, under the current regulatory system, the risks and rewards of the rail industry are shared between the operators and the Government. Most franchises are set up to ensure that operators are supported during periods of economic slowdown and, in turn, share their profits with the Government at times of strong economic growth. I would say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside that the independent Office of Rail Regulation has robust powers to enforce the licences of Network Rail and the train operators. On track maintenance, I can assure the House that we are carrying out careful inspection to ensure that track renewals undertaken by the private contractors meet the required standards.
A number of Members raised questions about the regulation of fares. We have already made it clear that, come January next year, the use of the retail prices index plus 1 formula, and the impact of a negative RPI in July, means that we will allow fare prices to fall. This was confirmed by my noble Friend Lord Adonis.
In conclusion, we have a rail network that has been a remarkable success story over the past 10 years, with more passenger numbers than at any time since the second world war and regular investment. I commend the estimates.
Question deferred (Standing Order No.54(4).
The Deputy Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54(5)).
Supplementary Estimates 2008-09
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2009, for expenditure by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform—
(1) the resources authorised for use be reduced by £1,870,622,000 as set out in HC 240,
(2) the sums authorised for issue out of the Consolidated Fund be reduced by 2,011,255,000 as so set out, and
(3) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2009, for expenditure by the Department for Transport—
(1) further resources, not exceeding £8,244,816,000, be authorised for use as set out in HC 221, and
(2) limits as so set out be set on appropriations in aid.
The Deputy Speaker then put the Questions on the outstanding Estimates (Standing Order No. 55).
Estimates, 2009-10 (Navy) Vote A
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2010, a number not exceeding 42,100 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in HC 117 of this Session. —(Mark Tami .)
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |