| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
17 Jun 2009 : Column 129WH—continued
I note the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about CFRs being the same as firefighters. I have been told by officials that one CFR was a retained firefighter, not a full-time firefighter, and that he provided a CFR
blue light service until 2008. In line with the review undertaken by the trust, that was revoked for reasons of staff, patient and public safety. I am informed that that is how that situation was dealt with.
Mr. Timpson: The Minister has hit on the question at the heart of many discussions over the last 15 months. Will he confirm that the retained firefighter who was a CFR before the blue light was taken away was driving on a blue light under insurance provided through NWAS? Will insurance for the co-respondent scheme be met by the fire and rescue service or the ambulance service?
Mr. O'Brien: I am sorry to say that my valuable briefing does not extend to insurance cover, but I shall ask the trust and let the hon. Gentleman know. That is probably the best way to deal with that question.
It is likely that co-responders will be able to respond to a far wider range of incidents than CFRs. The trust feels that it is a good scheme and that it will give local people a good service. Although the scheme will take some time to be fully implemented, I understand that the pilot scheme in Nantwich is due to start at some point this year, hopefully as soon as August.
NWAS is considering a number of ways to improve its performance across the region, especially in rural areas. One such scheme will provide further training to CFRs, enabling them to be deployed to an increased number of incidents. The volunteers will also be paid for their time. Details of training and the scope of the exercise are being discussed, with a view to a pilot scheme being trialled in Knutsford.
I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman; he made an eloquent case on behalf of his constituents. However, the organisation of services, including CFRs, is not decided by Ministers or civil servants in the Department of Health but by local health care professionals. Organisational changes must be based on medical grounds and what is best for patient care.
To ensure the most effective and appropriate use of CFRs across the north-west, NWAS undertook a review of its services. It is a local health care organisation that consults and engages with local people, considers the arguments, talks to staff and others who are involved and reaches local decisions. It wanted to ensure that CFRs were used in the most appropriate and efficient way to ensure the safety of patients, the public and staff.
The review proposed the standardisation of services across the former ambulance trust areas of Greater Manchester, Cumbria, Mersey and Lancashire. It included the removal of the blue light facility and a review of the level of care that CFRs could and should provide. The proposals were referred to democratically elected councillors on Cheshire’s overview and scrutiny committee. That committee set up a task and finish panel to review all issues in detail. The panel reported back to the full committee in October 2008.
The overview and scrutiny committee made a number of recommendations, and NWAS has produced an action plan to address those recommendations. The action plan was shared with the OSC and other stakeholders in January 2008. As a result, a local Cheshire steering group is reviewing the existing Cheshire CFR schemes, and it will explore other opportunities to strengthen ambulance services in the region.
Local ambulance trusts, in consultation with other local emergency services, must decide whether they are happy for CFRs to operate under blue lights. That decision must comply with the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations 1989, which state that blue lights can be used only by emergency vehicles used for
“fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes”.
In Nantwich, one CFR was using blue lights until 2008. That was one of only a small number of instances across the country of a CFR using blue lights. It was relatively rare, and I gather it was stopped because of the way in which that CFR was trained.
A demand for the wider use of blue lights must be treated with a great deal of caution. It is not only a matter of training, because although people can be trained, they also need to use blue lights regularly. They need their skills to be honed; they cannot be trained once and then use the skills intermittently. Ambulance and fire service crew and police officers use blue lights regularly. However, they do so with some risk; as we know from a number of incidents, using blue lights has risks for the public, so blue lights should be used with caution. People who use blue lights must not only be trained; they must be in a position to hone those skills through regular use.
Mr. Timpson: I am grateful to the Minister for being generous in giving way. He has clearly read his brief and has tried to get to grips with as much of the detail as possible.
I do not want to stray into the minutiae, but the matter is extremely important. A CFR may not only have had the training to use a blue light but, as the Minister suggested, he may have honed those skills regularly over many years. Removing that blue light
could reduce the number of call-outs to which the CFR responds—I gave the figures from my constituency of 120 in 2007 to 20 in 2009. That will not only reduce the possibility of saving lives, but result in exactly what the Minister does not want: it will prevent that skill from being used when appropriate and make it more difficult to reintroduce it later.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes a very sensible point, but misses the key one: it is not a matter of whether Ministers agree, but of whether the local ambulance trust, which has the delegated authority to make these decisions, agrees. I intervened on him earlier to get an idea of what he is looking for from me, as a Minister. I indicated that his party’s policy is to make the NHS much more independent of Ministers—to set up an NHS board and to keep it at arm’s length from ministerial intervention—and to ensure that Ministers have nothing to do with decisions made by ambulance trusts. We do not share that view on the extent of delegation.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred, is an advocate of Conservative Front-Bench policy—after all, he is himself a Conservative party Front-Bench spokesman. However, any of his constituents who intend to support him at the next election, which is a matter for them, must not assume that, if the Conservatives win, there will be a Minister who wants to do something about this situation. Indeed, the opposite will be case: the Conservative party will choose not get involved in any of these matters. We have said that ambulance trusts have to decide whether to allow CFRs to use blue lights—
Mrs. Janet Dean (in the Chair): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.
Grimsby and Cleethorpes Rail Services
4.42 pm
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab): I am sure that it will be a great pleasure to speak in a debate chaired by you, Mrs. Dean. I welcome my hon. Friend to his new job as a Transport Minister—he now has a speaking role, after some time as a silent participant in the House as a member of the Whips Office. As a Member of Parliament representing an east-coast constituency, I hope he will appreciate the challenges that that geography presents. I realise that his constituency is far closer to the capital than Cleethorpes, but still, anyone on the coast experiences greater transport difficulties.
The issues that I wish to raise relate to passenger rail services. I shall cover short and long-term problems and concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) had hoped to take part in this debate, but he is in the Chamber debating another issue of concern to our constituents—the levying of business rates in ports.
The rail line between Doncaster, and Grimsby and Cleethorpes is due to close on 22 June and will not reopen until 7 September, which means that the First TransPennine Express service between Manchester airport, Sheffield, Doncaster and Cleethorpes will start and terminate at Doncaster and will not serve any stations east of Doncaster, which obviously includes Grimsby and Cleethorpes. That will cut off huge swathes of northern Lincolnshire, including its two main urban areas—Scunthorpe, and, on the coast, Grimsby and Cleethorpes. I am told that the closure is necessary to carry out engineering work at Medge Hall in Thorne Moor near Doncaster. I appreciate that the line is built on peat and that speed restrictions have been in place for some time on that section of the line. I appreciate, therefore, that some remedial work is required.
Why close, however, one of our most popular lines to the coast throughout the school summer holidays? Cleethorpes is by far the easiest coastal resort to reach from places such as Sheffield and Doncaster. In fact, Cleethorpes has been the traditional seaside playground for south Yorkshire for many generations—ever since the railway reached it in 1863. In preparing for this debate, I went back over some of the newspaper records, which made for interesting reading. On 3 August 1863, 10,000 people arrived in the resort by train. One year later, the number had risen to 79,000 ordinary passengers and 72,000 excursion passengers. The number continued to grow in subsequent years, and to this day Cleethorpes remains very much part of summer day trips and holidays for many people in Yorkshire.
In the current recession, it is important that we do not create extra barriers to people trying to reach the resort. The small businesses that typify the tourism industry are dependent on a good summer season and August bank holiday to remain viable. In Cleethorpes, we have fish and chip shops, amusement arcades, donkey rides, candy floss and so on—it is very much a traditional seaside resort. Network Rail hopes that people will accept this “short-term inconvenience”. I, and resort businesses, do not think that 11 to 12 weeks is a short-term inconvenience. They feel that this could be “make or break” for their businesses this year.
I simply cannot understand why the work is being carried out at the height of the tourist season, rather that at some other time of the year. Also, I have had no explanation of why there will be no train service between Scunthorpe, and Grimsby and Cleethorpes. These are the two biggest urban areas in northern Lincolnshire. I understand that no repair work is going on along that part of the line, so why can some sort of service not continue to link those two areas? Even at this late stage, I hope that that can be considered.
It is not just the tourism industry that will be affected. People also need to get to work, and moreover, the line will be closed at the start of the football season. Given our geography, many away supporters tend to get the train to Cleethorpes—they alight by the beach, have their fish and chips and then walk along Grimsby road to Blundell Park to watch Grimsby Town. Last season, the club performed an act worthy of Lazarus to remain in the football league, but it seems to add insult to injury that, when the new season starts, away supporters will be unable to get to Cleethorpes by train.
The usual rail replacement bus service will run between Doncaster and Cleethorpes. Mention rail replacement bus services to anybody living in northern Lincolnshire and their reaction will probably be one of hysterical laughter. They are not regarded as particularly reliable, and it takes an age to get to Grimsby and Cleethorpes. People say that they simply will not use it, but will use other modes of transport instead.
I had hoped that it would be possible to retain a link with the east coast main line, perhaps using the Brigg and Gainsborough line, on to which all the freight traffic is being routed. Freight is vital in my area. We have one of the biggest rail freight depots in Britain. All the coal and other heavy goods that are coming into the docks at Immingham tend to go out by rail, as do some of the products from the refineries. I appreciate that it is vital to keep that freight going, but originally I was told that some sort of passenger service may be retained on the line so that people could link in to the east coast main line if they have to go to London. However, I have now been told that there will not be any replacement passenger service on that line.
What is irksome about this long withdrawal of train services is that, just weeks after the line is back in action in September, it will be closed down again in November in order to carry out repair works on the Doughty road railway bridge in Grimsby. When we have such a long shutdown, it makes no sense to leave the repair work on that particular section of the line. Network Rail said that it is because the design and the materials are not yet ready. I am sorry, but this closure has been known about for some time. It is very poor planning not to get all the work done at once. Moreover, the new trains that have been in use on the trans-Pennine route are about to be withdrawn and replaced with 10-year-old rolling stock, which does not bode well for the future.
My hon. Friend the Minister has the luxury of a direct train service to London. In Grimsby and Cleethorpes, we have not had that luxury for some 20 years. Last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions, I told the House that Able UK had announced a £100 million investment in my constituency, thus creating 5,000 jobs, which is welcome news in the current economic climate. The development site is the largest in northern England, alongside a deep-water port. I hope that the Prime
Minister will meet me and other MPs from the area to discuss how we can remove some of the remaining barriers to realising the full potential of our constituencies. One of the remaining barriers is this lack of a direct train service to London. I have been due to meet Ministers to discuss this issue for some months but, like the train services, those meetings keep getting cancelled.
As for the direct line, National Express has come on board after intense lobbying by businesses, MPs and others. It hopes that, by September, it will have the provisional timings for one early morning train to the capital and one evening peak return. Given that the Humber ports are already Britain’s most profitable port complex, given that this new development on the South Humber Bank will make the region even more strategically important and given that the area is the base for a lot of the country’s leading manufacturing industries, it hardly seems sufficient to provide one return service a day to the capital.
Turning now to the frequency of the service, the nearest station to the port of Immingham is Habrough, yet that station has a very poor service, with few stopping trains. If we are to develop the port area, it makes more sense to increase the frequency of the trains serving the port of Immingham by having more stopping at Habrough station. I am always told that people should use Barnetby station. However, it is not the most successful station because it involves using bridges; Habrough does not. Therefore, we must consider having more trains stopping at Habrough if we are to serve the port.
The other service that we must consider is the one to Humberside airport. At the moment, the line goes just past the airport—there is no station at the actual airport. If we are to have an integrated transport network serving this growing industrial area, we need to consider having a rail service into the airport. At the moment, people can get a train to Manchester airport but not Humberside airport.
I hope that my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I have just promoted the Minister; I am obviously delighted that he has been promoted out of the Whips Office and I am promoting him even further. If he cannot address fully this afternoon all the issues, I hope that he will meet me and my colleagues at a later date to discuss them in more detail. I do not know whether such a meeting is in his remit, but there are other issues relating to the road network in the area. The A180 needs resurfacing. We need to sort out the dualling of the A160 and to address the issue of Humber bridge tolls. The tolls must be substantially reduced, as has been demonstrated by an in-depth study. That would lead to further economic growth in not just our area but the whole country.
Once again, Mrs. Dean, I appreciate having had the chance to raise these very important issues for my constituents.
4.56 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Mole):
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Dean, on my first outing as a Minister in an Adjournment debate. It is also a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). In the past, she has told me that her
auntie and my mother-in-law used to sit together in deepest Kirkcaldy watching the Parliament channel to see whether they could spot us. Were they both with us now, they would, no doubt, feel that they had had a double hit today.
Shona McIsaac: That is so true, but what my hon. Friend has not said is that they would be sitting in the Prime Minister’s constituency.
Chris Mole: Indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on what is clearly an important issue for her constituents and their local economy. The Government recognise that seaside towns have a distinctive role to play in regional economies. For its part, the Department for Transport is investing £10 billion in the railways over the next five years to increase capacity and provide better train services. Such improvements are being delivered through new and amended franchise agreements and by infrastructure upgrades being carried out by Network Rail.
Some of the planned improvements will benefit rail travellers to and from Grimsby and Cleethorpes because they will see improved reliability and some new services. Passengers are already benefiting from the major refurbishment of Cleethorpes station undertaken last year, which I understand was unveiled by my hon. Friend last year. Such an improvement is a good example of partners working together to shape the future of this seaside town.
Rail users and businesses are understandably frustrated by line closures, particularly over weekends and at holiday periods, but there is no easy time to carry out major engineering works. Disruption is an unfortunate but sometimes unavoidable consequence of maintenance work, which is essential for the continuing drive to deliver a safer, faster and more reliable rail network. Following decades of under-investment and to cope with increasing passenger and freight traffic growth, the Government are currently taking steps to increase the capacity and reliability of our railway.
In the longer term, passenger and freight operators, business and the tourist industry will feel the benefit. However, we cannot get improvements without occasional blockades of some of the lines. The timing of engineering works is an operational matter for Network Rail within a regime that is overseen by the independent Office of Rail Regulation. Under that regime, the majority of engineering possessions are specifically planned—often up to 18 months in advance.
Over the past two years, a cross-industry review, led by the Office of Rail Regulation, has been examining how best to address the growing mismatch between the increasing demand for travel and the service availability of the rail network. That has produced a new cross-industry consensus and a determination to reduce major disruption arising from engineering works, and, critically, to do so without compromising the safety of passengers and staff. Network Rail is leading the development of a strategy to deliver that, so that within five years, rail users should enjoy a truly seven-day railway service.
My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has already made it clear to Network Rail’s chief executive that the current system for planning engineering works does not adequately represent the needs of passengers.
It is also vital that passengers are properly informed of service changes well in advance, so that they can adjust their travel plans.
We recognise that the ORR has set Network Rail a target of reducing the disruption that it causes to passengers through its engineering work by 37 per cent. over the next five years. That is a good start, but we would like to see more done in the short term.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |