| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
14 July 2009 : Column 31WH—continued
Given the short time available, I wish to make only two points. The first concerns the open-access operators on the line, Hull Trains and Grand Central, which my hon. Friend mentioned and which I regard as important. I also want to argue briefly why I think there is merit in the Government being firm, bold and clear in saying that they will run the east coast main line franchise in the public sector as a public sector comparator to the rest of the industry for 10 to 15 years to give certainty.
There are three open-access operators in the country, and two of them are on the east coast main line. One of the real benefits of rail privatisation was that for the first time it was possible for new operators to risk money and institute new services for underserved areas of the country. My constituents in Selby lost their east coast main line connection when the mines came to Selby and the railway was diverted. It was truly a red-letter day when GNER and Hull Trains both put Selby back on the map. Seeing Selby on the board at King's Cross station is a little like having a lower division football team.
Selby railway station is a friendly place. I recall at the height of the expenses row-I must have been looking very bleak-the manageress coming up to me and hugging me. She said, "You look like you need a hug, love." There we are-a very friendly place.
Grand Central Railway is the other open-access operator. It had a bad start, but last week it was named by Passenger Focus as the second most popular of all the railway companies in the country, after a vote by ordinary passengers. The company that beat it, Wrexham and Shropshire, is also an open-access operator. We should value such operators' innovation and the risks that they take.
Hull Trains, which has been taken over by First Group, needs to raise its game. It is letting the people of Selby down with too many cancellations. First Group, as the parent company, needs to put that right in the coming weeks.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the barriers at York station. They are potentially a barrier to competition as well as to people. Grand Central allows passengers to buy tickets on the train, unlike National Express, which discourages that. It has to be looked at.
The Government resisted open-access for many years. The Department for Transport was not keen on Grand Central or Hull Trains because they disrupted the franchise system, but they are a valuable part of the railway and should be maintained.
Moving on to the franchise itself, there is a need for certainty. As my hon. Friend said, business in the north-east and in Yorkshire and down the central spine of the country depends on the franchise. I do not think that we can continue this debate for too long, to be honest. There is a general election coming and it is essential that all the parties are clear about what will happen to this major franchise.
I have been inspired by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who, along with many others, put forward the idea of a public sector comparator. Why should we not see who is right? Why should we not have one of the major franchises run by the public sector for a long period-10 to 15 years-to see what happens? In 2008, the rail business of the year in the United Kingdom was a nationalised railway. It is called Translink and it
just happens to be in Northern Ireland. There is a public sector comparator in Northern Ireland, so why can we not have one on the mainland? Otherwise, we will have a debate that goes on for possibly a year or more.
Just saying that we will keep the line in public sector hands for a year, 18 months or some indeterminate period is the worst of all worlds. If that is what we are going to do, we might as well refranchise immediately, as the hon. Member for Peterborough suggested. We need some clarity and certainty, and I strongly urge the Minister to consider the possibility of keeping the franchise in the public sector so that we can plan for the next 10 to 15 years. We are coming up to a general election. I would be absolutely confident, as a Labour MP in Yorkshire, that that would be a popular policy. We could go into the election saying that we would keep the line in public sector hands, and presumably the Conservatives would oppose that.
I finish with the words of Lord Adonis, who recently told the New Statesman:
"If I could rerun the past... I would have tried to pull the plug on rail privatisation in the mid-1990s... So much about transport is basically about action versus inaction... and I am an action merchant."
I believe that there are many-not just on the Labour Benches, but on the Liberal Benches-who would agree that it is time for action, not indecision, Lord Adonis.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grogan: I was about to conclude, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Stephen Hammond: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concluding, but does he want to quote what Lord Adonis said about British Rail in that New Statesman article?
Mr. Grogan: It is not highlighted in my copy, and, as I have had my five minutes, I would not want to detain hon. Members. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remind us of Lord Adonis's many and wonderfully varied sayings when he gets up to speak.
11.45 am
Mr. Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP): I congratulate the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing this important debate. I agree with much of what he said, particularly about the economic importance of the line, which applies to my constituency as much as it does to his. I shall not go over that again, other than to say that there is a big employer in my constituency, GlaxoSmithKline, whose factory, after a rollercoaster ride, was not closed. It continues to work. I recently had a meeting with the company's management, who stressed to me the importance for its operation of having a rail line to Montrose. That should be borne in mind.
The news about National Express came as a great blow to my constituency, although I was pleased that Lord Adonis quickly made a statement on the future of the line and gave a clear undertaking that there would be no disruption to the service. That was much appreciated.
However, there is continuing concern about what the future holds for that line. I shall concentrate in my brief contribution on my constituency and the Scottish situation.
The Government have made it clear that they intend to try to find a new franchisee for the line. I have no ideological feeling one way or the other as to whether it should be the public sector. I have no objection to the public sector or the private sector running it. What I want for my constituents and the businesses in my constituency is certainty for the future. Twice the franchise has been removed from an existing operator. That causes concern, and we do not want to get into such a situation again. We want assurance that the line will continue to operate in the future. That is important.
I regularly use the line to come to London from Montrose. The journey takes six and one half hours. It is a marginal decision as to whether one should fly or take the train. It is probably quicker to fly, but it is much less hassle to take the train, and many of us prefer to take the train for that reason and for climate change reasons. We are less concerned about who runs it than that it is well run and that we have a regular service.
The situation in Scotland is complicated by the fact that, although National Express runs the franchise, it does not run the stations. They are run under a separate franchise given by the Scottish Government. In fact, the stations in my constituency are run by ScotRail. I ask the Minister whether there has been any discussion with the Scottish Government on the new company that will be set up to run the line, should National Express give it up, and what the position will be of the UK and Scottish Governments on the future of the franchise and the new company.
Trains currently stop in my constituency at Montrose and Arbroath, and throughout Fife. They provide an important service to London. The downside is that, north of Edinburgh, the service is much slower than it is through England. That is for various reasons. The line is not electrified, but that is another issue; I shall not open that can of worms now. However, it is a successful line.
I tried to find the passenger figures for the line. It appears that since National Express took over in 2007, it has failed to submit any data on passenger journeys to the Office of the Rail Regulator, but figures in the company's accounts seem to indicate that passenger journeys increased from 18.1 million to 18.7 million between December 2007 and December 2008. That seems fairly reasonable, given the trajectory of figures from GNER, which show that passenger journeys increased from 11.9 million to 17.6 million between 1996 and 2006. Travel on the line remains popular.
From my own unscientific view of travelling on the train regularly, I would accept that there probably has been a decrease in numbers during the recession, but not by a horrendously significant amount. It would be interesting to see the data and to find out what brought National Express to the position that it is now in. To be fair, my experience is that it runs a good service on the line, and I feel some regret that it appears to be on the way out.
My constituency and other parts of the north-east are haunted by worry about what will happen to services if the line is refranchised. We must be honest and accept that many of the journeys are made through England
and up to Edinburgh. It has been reported, for example, as I mentioned in an intervention, that in talks on the franchise between National Express and the Department there was discussion about cutting off-peak half-hourly services from King's Cross to Leeds to an hourly service. I am concerned that, if the line is refranchised, there will be a lesser service, particularly north of Edinburgh, which would be a disaster for my constituency for business and environmental reasons, and in respect of holidays, as many of my constituents travel on the train to catch holiday flights at the airports around London.
Clearly, whoever takes over the franchise will not enter into the same agreement as National Express and, presumably, it will not do so on the basis of the same sort of figure, because the massive amount paid for that seems to be the cause of the problem. I ask the Minister for a categorical assurance that, in the event of the franchise being awarded to another operator, it will continue at least with the current level of service and that trains will continue to stop at stations throughout the north-east of Scotland, particularly at Arbroath and Montrose in my constituency. If a new operator sought to cut down those services, that would have a terrible effect on the north-east of Scotland.
We need investment in the line. We need electrification. We need, eventually or as quickly as possible, a high-speed rail line, but in the meantime, we must at least maintain the service that we have; I seek an assurance on that from the Minister. Lord Adonis will be having a meeting with interested Members of Parliament on Monday, at which I hope he will say more about that. I stress that, for my constituents and for the north-east of Scotland, that is the important point.
11.51 am
Shona McIsaac (Cleethorpes) (Lab): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) on securing this important debate.
Casting my mind back a few weeks to a debate in Westminster Hall on rail services to Grimsby and Cleethorpes, I recall that I mentioned that National Express was discussing putting in a direct service to those towns from the capital city, so, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who can see his constituency on the board at King's Cross, we have not quite got that far yet. Therefore, my main question to my hon. Friend the Minister is what will happen to those future developments on the line? Is it still possible for us to get the one return service a day from King's Cross to Grimsby and Cleethorpes that was promised, particularly given some of the major industrial investment along the Humber bank at the moment?
[John Cummings in the Chair]
11.53 am
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD):
I am glad that we are having this debate. I want to contribute briefly to it because of the vast importance of the east coast main line to the north-east of England and to eastern Scotland. Two companies have walked away from the franchise. We cannot go on like this. We
cannot have repeated franchise abandonment, because it has a demoralising effect on staff, it causes a loss of confidence among customers, particularly among business customers, who plan over a long period, and there is the danger that we will not get rolling stock improvement and acquisition that is badly needed, given the tired state of some of the rolling stock on the service at the moment.
I shall mention in a moment what should now happen with the bidding process, but first I express the hope, which other hon. Members have expressed, that some recent grievances are dealt with as a side-benefit of the disaster of National Express's walking away from the franchise. Let us put a stop to the nonsense of installing ticket barriers, not just at York, but at Newcastle and other stations, which will bring to the railway system the disadvantages of air travel. One of the competitive advantages of that system is that it is easy to get on a train and there is less danger of people being caught in a queue and missing it. Let us also get rid of the odious seat reservation charge, which was one of National Express's most foolish decisions.
I am particularly concerned that the Minister ensures that in any new specification, including for the period of public ownership, services from Berwick and Alnmouth and the limited service from Morpeth are maintained. Given that the Secretary of State has committed himself to improvements, can we please have some real effort behind the improvement of car parking at Alnmouth and Berwick and the introduction of a proper train information system at Alnmouth, so that passengers are not left standing on an empty platform late at night with not the faintest idea of whether a train has been delayed or will arrive? Every station that I go to in the south-east of England has an efficient train information system, and many stations in other parts of the country have such provision. Alnmouth station ought to have that, particularly because there are periods when it is unstaffed.
I do not want the service to be split between several operators, as the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) suggested. We already have three operators north of Newcastle-Arriva, CrossCountry and Northern-and we do not want to confuse the service more. I remind the Minister that Northern runs services on the east coast main line, including one to Belford that nobody can get on because there is still no rail platform there. I hope that the Minister will put his weight behind carrying that proposal through to a solution. I do not want the service to be further split between more operators and I do not want another failed franchise bidder.
I agree that there is merit in not rushing this process. I am attracted by the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), which he will no doubt develop when he catches your eye, Mr. Cummings, as I hope he will, on a public sector comparator on the line, at least for a period. That could be a positive way forward.
The line is essential to the region. The services from centres such as Berwick, Alnmouth and Morpeth serve a wide area and must be maintained. We want some consistency and confidence in the operation of this vital service.
11.56 am
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): We discussed the future of the rail industry in this Chamber on 3 June, when we predicted that franchises would be handed back within weeks. We were proved right. Concerns were raised in a submission by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers to the Transport Committee in October 2007 about the fact that, if the country went into recession and passenger numbers fell, there would be problems with the franchisers and that we would, as a Government, need to stand ready to intervene directly.
I cannot understand the nature of today's debate. Two franchisers have failed on this line in three years, yet the solution seems to be more franchising. I do not understand why we do not learn lessons from what has happened. National Express has taken the Government for a ride. It has made £500 million profit out of a public subsidy of £2.5 billion. It has increased the fares this year as follows: regulated at 6 per cent. and unregulated at 7.4 per cent. On the east coast and the East Anglia lines, it has laid off 750 workers. Cannot we get the message that we are being ripped off?
The proposal that we advanced when the south-eastern trains franchise company, Connex, went down was to put the line in the public sector. We wanted a public sector comparator at least to prove its worth so that we could see whether forms of public ownership could work elsewhere, but the Government reprivatised. A public sector comparator should be used as an example, because some believe that we can demonstrate that the public ownership option can work. If we had a comparator option, at least that would sharpen up the opportunities to increase the efficiency of other rail providers. That is the whole point.
Standing back from ideology, it is about trying to get a rational, pragmatic approach on how we go forward on the matter. I can think of nothing worse than rushing to reprivatise within 15 months, with the turbulence, yet again, of a franchise exercise. Remember the costs of franchising, which we discovered in respect of London Underground: £400 million was spent on consultants, accountants and others to set up a private finance initiative disaster. I am urging people to stand back.
Let me say one thing about the myths about British Rail. The last independent study, by Catalyst in 1995, said that, in comparison with the rest of Europe, for the levels of investment, British Rail was the most efficient service in Europe. We now know that infrastructure costs have gone up fivefold since privatisation and that fares have increased dramatically and impacted on the overall service. Therefore, let us at least come with some objectivity to the debate. On this exercise, at least allow us to have a public sector option, which will enable us to demonstrate that the public sector can have a role to play in the rail industry.
John Cummings (in the Chair): I am keen to call the winding-up speeches at 12.
11.59 am
Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): Thank you, Mr. Cummings. I will be very brief indeed.
Aberdeen is a wonderful place and it contributes an enormous amount to the national economy, but it is a long way from everywhere. One of the things that I
think people have been most concerned about is that Aberdeen does not get a fair deal on railway services. Indeed, although there is a franchise from London to Aberdeen, very often the northern part of the line is the neglected part, as the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) will know.
We want to ensure that, first, there is a full operation of the line, that runs absolutely from London to Aberdeen, with a full service provided throughout the line. Furthermore, I believe that the case for a public sector comparator is a good one.
Secondly and lastly, we want to ensure that we have a sensible and competitive fare structure. It is ridiculous that people trying to book a long time in advance find that it is cheaper to fly than to use the railways. Surely a public owner could find a way to encourage people on to the railways rather than off them and on to air travel.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |