| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 July 2009 : Column 82WH—continued
Many constituents who are left on the platforms then have to find an alternative route to work. They either have to take a gamble and stay on the platform for the next train, which will probably also be overcrowded, or they have to take a local bus into Manchester. A number of constituents have written to me saying that they regularly arrive at work in Manchester or Salford more than an hour late. If that happens frequently, as it does, it puts jobs at risk.
Hon. Members can imagine what happens in those circumstances: my constituents abandon the rail service and go back to the roads—all this nonsense about trying to persuade people to get out of their cars and on the trains certainly does not apply to my constituents. Although there is congestion on the roads into Manchester in the morning, my constituents at least know that they will get to work if they set off in time, whereas it is a gamble on the train, because they may not get on.
The solution is obvious—all my constituents can see it. Instead of having two carriages on the trains, with part of one carriage being first class, why on earth can we not have another carriage or, indeed, another two carriages? We need to go from two to four carriages on every train going into Manchester in the morning rush hour and returning from Manchester in the evening rush hour.
Mrs. Cryer: It has just occurred to me that we have perhaps not mentioned something. Rail is still the safest form of travel, so when my hon. Friend’s constituents are pushed from rail to road, they may also finish up in an accident and emergency ward.
Dr. Iddon: Rail should be the safest form of travel, but a disabled person or an older person standing in the middle of the crush on a train will not think so. Older people need to sit down, and disabled people certainly need to, but it is not possible to sit down on these trains. Nobody will give up their seat, although it probably would not be possible to get to the seat in any case. Hon. Members have to see these trains—they are like the London tube at the busiest periods in the morning and the evening, and that is constant.
I have travelled on these trains not just at rush hour, but at various hours of the day. I have travelled on airport trains from Bolton to Manchester in the afternoon, which have the added feature of luggage. Incidentally, the number of airport trains through Bolton has been reduced. We are trying to encourage people to use Manchester airport, and another platform is being built there to encourage people to use the trains, but getting on the train to the airport is a problem. In addition to the passengers, there is sometimes so much luggage that it is on the seats, which prevents people from sitting down. I wish that I could demonstrate that physically so that hon. Members could see the absolute chaos on the Bolton-Manchester rail corridor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley mentioned the Oldham loop, and five trains plus the rolling stock will be coming off it shortly. Councillor Keith Whitmore, who is chairman of the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority, and his vice-chairman, Councillor Ian Macdonald have written to the Secretary of State about the loss of the trains from the Oldham loop. Why can we not keep trains that are already operating in the north-west on the tracks at
another location in the north-west to alleviate some of the problems that I hope that I have described on behalf of my many constituents who are suffering?
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough mentioned the reduction in Northern Rail carriages from 182 to 142, although the latest figure that I have heard is 106. As she said, that is a dramatic drop.
Ms Angela C. Smith: My hon. Friend may recall that the latest figures are for less than half the 182 vehicles promised.
Dr. Iddon: Then I am even more surprised. My hon. Friend did not mention the reduction in numbers on the TransPennine Express. My figures—she may have different ones—show a reduction from a promised 42 extra vehicles to 24.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that if this situation continues, the Government will face increasing criticism. Things are already so bad in my constituency that they cannot, frankly, get any worse.
10.25 am
Mr. David Clelland (Tyne Bridge) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) on securing this important debate, which is set against the background of massive investment in our railways, improvements to existing railways and the floating of proposals for High Speed 2. The Government can be congratulated on the investment that has gone into the railway system.
Regrettably, little of that investment impacts directly on the north and particularly the north-east—an irony, it might be argued, given that the railway system was born in the north-east, which gave the country its first railway line. My colleagues and I are therefore putting the case for the north. Although we appreciate the need for investment in the south’s transport infrastructure, we want to draw attention to the imbalance in the allocation of resources to the north and the south. That has been admirably highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough and for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), so I will not repeat the figures.
Transport infrastructure is crucial to the economic and social development of our regions. That is true of every region, but it is even truer of the north-east. Our inter-regional and intra-regional transport corridors leave much to be desired. Our road and rail infrastructure badly need investment and improvement, as well as an integrated approach that boosts investment and social mobility across the region and beyond.
The east coast main line is a major artery, linking the north-east to Scotland to the north, and linking it to London and stops in between to the south. It provides a good service and it is popular, but recent events are worrying. Ministers need to reassure us that the trains will keep running and that the staff will continue to be paid, and we look forward to this afternoon’s statement on the issue.
The north-east’s economy has traditionally lagged behind the national average, but it has held up well in recent years, even in the face of national and international economic difficulties. It is a credit to our businesses, our local authorities and the Government that that is the
case. However, if we are to maintain and improve on the progress that has been made, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. We need to continue to improve the conditions that are essential if business is to thrive and employment is to grow. That means that High Speed 2 must come to the north-east. It also means that we must ensure a high degree of mobility in the region.
Two rail projects in particular could make a major contribution to the economic and social future of the north-east and could, with a little encouragement from the Department for Transport, become a reality. The first, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), is the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne railway, which would be a fully operational system linking Ashington, Bedlington and Blyth to Newcastle. Reintroducing passenger services on the lines involved would encourage economic development, facilitate social mobility, relieve congestion on Northumberland’s busy roads and reduce the traffic that ends up in Newcastle city centre. It would also be better for the environment than the car movements that it would replace.
The second project is the Leamside line—another operational railway line that became redundant in the 1960s, but which, given today’s increased traffic and overcrowded trains, offers a real source of relief and an important connection between the Tyne and Tees valleys, linking Newcastle and Middlesbrough with useful stops along the way, including, not least, Washington New Town.
Those two projects would cost a tiny fraction of Crossrail, they would involve little disruption and they would contribute greatly to the prospects of the north-east and its people. I therefore look forward to signs of encouragement from the Minister and to a more optimistic prognosis for the north-east’s transport infrastructure.
10.29 am
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute under your chairmanship, Mr. Hood. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) on obtaining this timely debate. As I failed to catch Mr. Speaker’s eye at Transport questions last week, let me also take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his post.
I want to start my remarks with today’s news. I appreciate that the Minister cannot respond, because of the statement to the House that will be made later, but the announcement about the east coast main line service and the news that National Express is to go into temporary public ownership is extremely significant. The Government are right to take that step, which will discourage other franchise holders from asking the Government for a discount on their existing contracts. However, I am concerned that the Government have allowed National Express to hand back its unprofitable franchise, but to continue to make a profit on the other two. I hope that the statement will make it clear whether the Government are willing to consider further action to remove those other franchises, so that the burden on the taxpayer will be kept as low as possible.
The Government should focus on showing the rest of the network that it is possible to put passengers first, rather than rushing into another poorly planned private
franchise agreement. In the light of the new development the Government also need to take a good look at the way in which train franchises work. Franchises need to be longer, with stricter, passenger-focused targets and terms. I hope, again, that some of those matters may be covered in the statement.
Investing in rail infrastructure, as we have heard from many hon. Members, is vital to the economic growth of any region. Good rail links, whether for the transportation of goods or passengers, are imperative for businesses, trade and social mobility. Without good rail links communities become isolated and local economies grind to a halt. Speaking as a northerner, I know that “the north” is a broad term and that there are many specific issues that other hon. Members have touched on, and to which we cannot do full justice today. However, I hope to mention a few of the more significant issues in the next few minutes. All hon. Members here today will be well aware of the problems facing train services in the north of England, almost all of which are linked to spending. Overcrowding, reduced services, unreliability, cleanliness issues and poor accessibility are all widespread problems across the region, and with the number of rail users increasing dramatically every year, which of course is a good thing, all the issues need to be addressed urgently.
In my own constituency of Cheadle, I regularly receive letters containing complaints and concerns about local services. Cheadle Hulme station is completely inaccessible for people in wheelchairs or with prams, which is frankly a scandal in this day and age. Many commuters, as we have heard, are not able to board trains during peak times because they are so full. Timetable changes to accommodate more trains to London have had a disastrous impact on many people’s daily commutes in and out of Manchester city centre. The rolling stock is old—in many cases worn out—uncomfortable to travel in and frankly not up to scratch. It is a scandal that passengers are asked to pay top dollar, in comparison with most other EU countries, to travel in those conditions. The fundamental problem, as so often, is lack of investment.
The bulk of what I want to say today is about an issue that affects passengers across the north of England: capacity. The 2007 White Paper promised an extra 1,300 carriages to deal with the overcrowding that is rife on the network. Northern Rail was allocated 182 and TransPennine 42, but according to the passenger transport executive group information that has come to some of us, the Department for Transport has now indicated that Northern Rail is likely to get only 106, and possibly fewer, which barely covers what the Department has said is needed by the Leeds area alone. Civil servants have also confirmed that TransPennine’s allocation will be cut approximately in half, to 24. If that happens it will be a disaster not just for northern commuters but for our economy. Will the Minister confirm whether those figures are correct, and, if so, why the decision has apparently been made to halve the number of additional carriages? Certainly it cannot be because of falling demand.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is clear: it is because there are not 1,300 new carriages. There are only 973—and only some of them are new; some are cascaded from other railways.
Mark Hunter: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman’s point about older carriages in a moment.
The number of rail commuters on local services has increased at more than twice the London rate; 60 per cent. of all peak-time trains in Leeds, and more than 50 per cent. in Manchester, have space for standing only. Do the Government have any evidence to suggest that the carriages are no longer needed, and will the Minister say more about what impact he expects the cancellation of carriages to have on future capacity issues? Northern Rail has had no new carriages in the past five years, but franchises providing commuter services in London and the south-east have had 580 in that period, so I hope the Minister will not say that the carriages that we in the north of England should be getting have now been allocated to Greater London. According to PTEG, a third of rolling stock in the northern PTE areas was more than 20 years old in 2007, which raises the question of how many of the additional carriages that may come to the north will be second-hand. Will any be refurbished?
I want to move on briefly to the question of the Manchester hub, which seems to have disappeared from the Government’s radar. The hub would not only help those living in Greater Manchester but would improve connections across the north of England, both intra-regionally and with London, and therefore with the rest of the UK and Europe. The Government pledged to deal with pinch-points in the current rail system, but the feasibility study for the Manchester hub was commissioned some 18 months ago. Why have plans for the Manchester hub progressed at such a dismally slow pace and when does the Minister believe the real work might begin? High Speed 2 will, of course, be an incredibly important development for the north and the country as a whole. It will increase capacity, encourage people off roads and planes and speed up our connection with London.
We must proactively invest in our rail network to create capacity and improve efficiency, rather than reactively working to paper over the cracks. Electrification will be hugely important for the future, as it will improve real travel times between cities. I understand that the Government are expected to make an announcement on electrification soon, and I hope they will commit to electrifying the midland main line and to completing essential fill-in electrifications as a bare minimum. We would of course like many more lines to be electrified, including the trans-Pennine routes. In the mean time, perhaps the Minister could explain when the announcement will be made.
We Liberal Democrats also think we need to open old lines and stations to improve access and capacity. Longer franchises would help with that process, as would our future transport fund, which would more than double the Government’s planned investment for 2009 to 2014 to provide an estimated £12 billion to improve rail services. One such line, of great importance for the north, is the Woodhead tunnel, which was closed in 1981 when the Conservatives were in power. It would dramatically improve trans-Pennine connections between northern cities—primarily Manchester and Sheffield. Will the Minister confirm that the tunnel will not be put to any use that will preclude its being opened to rail traffic in the future?
However we look at it, it is clear that the north currently receives a poor deal on transport spending. We have heard the figures from the public expenditure
statistical analyses, but they are worth repeating: £783 per head of population in London, £206 per head in the north-east, £213 in Yorkshire and the Humber and £278 in the north-west. One need not be a mathematical genius to work out that the allocation for the three northern regions together still comes to less than what was spent on public transport in London alone. The north of England is asking not for special treatment, but for a level playing field on spending. To fail to recognise the basic unfairness is to condemn half the country to a less than bright economic future.
10.39 am
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): May I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) on securing the debate? I know that she takes a great interest in transport, particularly those matters that affect her constituency. She eloquently underlined the failings of the transport system that the Government have put in place, and she made a good case for high-speed rail and for the north.
This is the first time that I have met the Minister in a Westminster Hall debate, and I am pleased to welcome him to the Department for Transport. I look forward to a number of his responses. Like everyone else, however, I recognise that this is a particularly embarrassing day for the Government.
The subject of the debate is timely. Public spending is the key policy topic at the moment, and it will impact directly on resources for the Department—and for the north. Given the stratospheric levels of borrowing, controlling spending will be a necessity, not an option. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) pointed out, it will be a necessity for whoever is in power, and of whatever colour, after 2010.
I had the pleasure of visiting Sheffield earlier this year as a guest of the South Yorkshire passenger transport executive. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough said that Sheffield was our fourth largest city but that it did not enjoy the equivalent quality of rail links. That was impressed on me strongly by the PTE, as were a number of other issues. I hope that she recognises that we in the Conservative party share the aspiration to improve transport links to the north of England.
The hon. Lady will know that in January my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) set up a transport commission for the north, to consider specifically northern matters. Network Rail has made a submission to that commission, for which I am grateful. One reason for us doing that is the plan over the next five years to implement improvements in line speed on the London to Sheffield line, and I understand that East Midlands train services from London to Sheffield are to become half-hourly. In addition, Network Rail has said that if funding is secured for further electrification, services from St. Pancras to Sheffield on Midland Mainline would be a priority.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |