| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Feb 2010 : Column 130WH—continued
Chris Mole:
It is accepted that in metro services, people joining from further afield will generally have access to a seat, although those who join later on the
journey are unlikely to get a seat for a short distance and will have to stand. That is an understood aspect of metro rail services the world over.
Gregory Barker: That is only coming up the line. What about going back down it?
Chris Mole: As I said, that is an accepted feature of the operation of metro services in the UK and worldwide. I must return to the point. As I made clear to the hon. Gentleman, the procurement of these trains is at an advanced stage, and I expect that one of the Government's first tasks after the next general election will be to announce the preferred bidder for those trains. To alter any aspect of the specification of the new trains at this late stage would entail cancellation of the procurement, and delay the arrival of new trains on the network by two years or more. That would create complete disruption for those who anticipate relief from overcrowding.
What does that mean for passengers on the Hastings line? Just as with the sizes of the London stations, many of the difficulties on that line have been bequeathed to us by the early generations of railway pioneers. The extension of the railway from Tunbridge Wells to Hastings in the 1850s was completed in a hurry by the South Eastern Railway company to compete with the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, which had established a presence in Hastings through a line along the coast from Eastbourne. It is said that when extending the line south from Tonbridge towards the coast, South Eastern Railway's contractors cheated the company by building the seven tunnels through the sandstone hills of the Weald with four layers of bricks instead of the customary six layers. That was not discovered until the Wadhurst tunnel collapsed in 1862-I do not know who were Government at the time, but it was certainly not this Government. It was too expensive to re-bore the tunnels, so the South Eastern Railway company simply added the two missing layers of bricks. That, of course, reduced the width of the tunnels, and for over 100 years meant that the line had to be operated with specially-commissioned, narrow-bodied rolling stock. It also meant that electrification of the route came later than it did to neighbouring routes, partly because there was insufficient space in the most restricted tunnels to install electrified rails, and partly because there was no narrow-bodied electric rolling stock.
The most recent solution to all those problems came in 1986-I know who were in Government then-when the narrow-bodied Hastings diesels reached the end of their days and electrification became inevitable. The solution was to make the track single through the tunnels so that the electrification rails could be installed and conventional electric trains could be run. However, as I said, that was in the 1980s, with a Government who famously did not believe in the future of railways, and who ensured that every line of every investment proposal by the British Railways Board was challenged for every last pound. The result was that the railway that had been built in a hurry in the 1850s was electrified on the cheap in the 1980s. Only two trains an hour ran in each direction, and they did not need to be more than eight coaches long. The electrification scheme was designed down accordingly.
In 2009, when developing the Kent RUS, Network Rail came to consider the conundrum that on the one hand the Thameslink rolling-stock procurement programme
depends on 12-car trains to satisfy its capacity objectives, while on the other hand there is an important stretch of railway on which Network Rail believes that the power supply is capable of supplying only enough power for traditional eight-car trains. Furthermore, in order for the Thameslink programme to deliver its maximum number of 24 trains per hour through London Bridge at the height of the rush hour, the number of trains into Cannon Street has had to be reduced from 25 to 22. Faced with a combination of circumstances that required all Thameslink trains to have 12 cars, Hastings trains to have only eight cars, and three trains to be withdrawn from Cannon Street, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Kent RUS recommended that the Hastings to Cannon Street trains be withdrawn.
My postbag in recent weeks has contained a large number of letters from organisations and individuals-such as those referred to by the hon. Gentleman-who believe that the threat of such changes will be enough to provoke some City commuters to seek to live elsewhere. It is unfortunate that some of those letters have found their way into the local press, which is the surest way of ensuring that the prophecy will be self-fulfilling. Even so, I find it surprising that people would forgo the opportunity to live in the towns and villages of east Sussex simply because they had to change trains at London Bridge.
However, the fact that the RUS has made a recommendation on the Hastings to Cannon Street service is far from the end of the story. It is clear that my correspondents do not understand the underlying principles behind the Railways Act 2005, so I am glad to have this chance to remind people that the railway is now publicly specified, albeit privately delivered. That means that when the time comes, the Government will make the final decision on whether to require the relevant train operator to run direct trains between Hastings and one or more of the City stations. The time for that decision does not come until the existing integrated Kent franchise-which requires the operation of those services at least until March 2014-is due for replacement. The Kent franchise is due to run until 2014. The Thameslink franchise runs until 2015, and the Thameslink programme will not require any revisions to train services before the end of 2015. Decisions about what services those franchises will be required to run will not be taken until 2012, or even 2013. Our practice has been to expose decisions about the content of franchises to full public consultation.
What alternatives will face the Ministers on whom those decisions will fall, probably late in 2012? First, they could adopt Network Rail's proposal to withdraw the three trains in the morning and four trains in the evening that run direct between Hastings and Cannon Street. Scrutiny of the loading records of those trains suggests that although there is plenty of demand for most-if not all-of them, withdrawal or redirection of one or two might make sense. Those loading records also make it quite clear that running eight-car trains into London Bridge is unsustainable as a long-term option.
Secondly, Ministers could decide to divert the trains to Charing Cross, changing trains at London Bridge. If Cannon Street is the final destination, that is not a huge problem. Thirdly, despite today's power-supply problems with 12-car trains south of Tunbridge Wells, it remains
likely that the new Thameslink rolling stock will be able to run through to Hastings. Not only will the new Thameslink stock be lighter than its present day counterparts, it will have the capability to regenerate the energy used in braking, thus reducing its net power draw by at least 15 per cent. Those issues need to be worked through in detail with Network Rail over the coming years. As the first input for the decisions to be made in 2012 or 2013, we have a recommendation from the RUS. Over the next two or three years, there will be many more inputs from several sources, leading to a final train service specification for the next generation of Southeastern and Thameslink franchises.
I encourage the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to engage with those processes in order to secure the best possible services for the people in the areas of Hastings, Bexhill and Battle.
Mongolia (UK Relations)
4.30 pm
Mr. John Grogan (Selby) (Lab): I am a very happy man this afternoon for three reasons. First, it is my birthday and I am not yet 50-I am well under 50, one might say. That is one good reason to celebrate. Secondly, Mr. Cummings, if I had chosen the Chairman for the debate from the Chairmen's Panel myself, I could not have chosen a better man than your good self-a fellow member of the all-party group on Mongolia, a visitor to Mongolia and possibly the only other Member of the House who has had an intern or member of staff from Mongolia in the past, just as I at the moment have an intern from Mongolia called Mr. Bakhyt, who has assisted me with preparation for the debate.
Thirdly, looking back in the annals of this place, I find it hard to place a previous debate on Mongolia, certainly in recent times, yet the United Kingdom has a proud record of relations with Mongolia, dating from when we were the first nation in the west to recognise Mongolia, in 1963. When the previous Prime Minister, Tony Blair, met the Mongolian President in April 2007, part of the declaration stated:
"This long association has given the UK a special position in Mongolia, with the Mongolians looking to Britain for advice in their transition to democracy and a market economy."
Therefore, I thought I would use the minutes available to me to list 10 basic facts about Mongolia-some perhaps surprising, some perhaps well known and all of them pretty well known to you, Mr. Cummings. The first is that Mongolia is now a proud democracy. That is something we share with the nation of Mongolia. It is something not only to be proud of, but to be cherished in the part of the world where Mongolia is situated. One cannot really say the same about China. One cannot say the same about Russia. Mongolia became in effect independent in 1911, when the Chinese left. It was the second nation to become a communist nation after the Soviet Union, and was dominated by the Soviet Union for many years. It suffered dreadfully through Stalin's purges and the oppression of Buddhism.
If we fast-forward to 1990, Mongolia was not perhaps the most likely candidate to be an emerging democracy, but in 1990, as the Russians pulled out, 3,000 people gathered in Sukhbaatar square in Ulan Bator and demanded democracy and, within a few weeks, democracy had begun to emerge. Since then, we have seen the rotation of power quite regularly. Fairly recently, we saw the transition of power from President Enkhbayar of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary party, which is a sister party to the Labour party, although it is having a healthy debate about its name at the moment and whether it is time to go back to the party's original name, which was the Mongolian People's party. It is perhaps the only example remaining of a party that existed under communism that has modernised and retained the support of a large proportion of the population. Anyway, President Enkhbayar lost the election and there was a peaceful and successful transition of power to President Elbegdorj, who was involved in 1990 in some of the demonstrations for freedom.
At the moment, there is a Government involving both main parties. There were some very unfortunate riots in July 2008, following the last parliamentary
elections. That was a big shock to the political system. A number of people died, and I think that all political parties realised that they had to govern in the interests of all the people of Mongolia. The coalition emerged from that and was a specific Mongolian response to that time. There is a free media. The elections are judged to be free and fair by international standards. There is still much to do on combating corruption and improving the judicial system, but Mongolia holds its place among the democratic nations.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that when the United Kingdom recognised Mongolia in 1963, a previous Member of the House called Sir Fitzroy Maclean, who some people say was Ian Fleming's inspiration for James Bond, wrote an article. He was a Member of the House until the 1970s. The first lines of the article were:
"As far as I can remember, I first became aware of the existence of Outer Mongolia twenty-five years ago, in Moscow. Idly looking through the list of my fellow members of the diplomatic corps not long after my arrival there, I came upon the Legation of the People's Republic of Outer Mongolia, headed by the Minister, Monsieur Sambuu, and at the next official reception I was able to identify him by his characteristically Mongolian countenance and his charmingly Mongolian-looking wife."
That could almost be something from an Ian Fleming novel, but at the time it was an extremely progressive move by the British Government to recognise Mongolia. We had an enormous embassy there at one stage, which I suspect was full of spies rather like James Bond as much as diplomats during the cold war, but that has stood us in good stead and it brings me on to the second point, which has to do with the economy.
It is perhaps not known widely in the House that various newspaper articles, particularly in the financial press, have recently been comparing Mongolia to Dubai. That was before the Dubai crash; they were saying that it would be the new Dubai. The comparison was made on the basis of Mongolia's small population of just 2.5 million people and its rich mineral resources. Its gross domestic product per head is only about $2,500, but it is rising. Currently, the economy is largely based on mining, which dominates the industrial sector, and on agriculture. Just before Christmas, an historic agreement was reached for the Oyu Tolgoi mine, which is a complex in the Gobi desert. It has a mixture of copper and gold. Ivanhoe Mines, the Canadian mining company, was leading on that, but Rio Tinto has a stake in the mine that could rise to nearly 50 per cent. should it so choose. That means that there is very much a British interest.
It is important to note that the Mongolian Government have retained a 34 per cent. stake in the mining company. There has been a long debate in the country about ensuring that the local population get proper benefits from mining. People there have looked at the experience of other countries, perhaps where the local currency has appreciated, destroying the rest of the manufacturing sector, and I think that all political parties in Mongolia are determined to ensure that ordinary Mongolian people get a benefit.
The mining complex to which I am referring is huge. There are 440,000 metric tonnes of copper and 337,000 oz of gold there, and it is just one of many potential deposits. The Tavan Tolgoi coking coal mine is not too far away. The Government have said that they would prefer to retain ownership of that, but involve foreign companies in extracting the coal. Altogether, there are
possibly 8,000 deposits of 440 different minerals across Mongolia and only 200 of those are currently being exploited.
However, that is only part of the picture of Mongolia, because half the labour force still work in the countryside. Just under half live in Ulaanbaatar and a good deal of the rest live in the countryside. Some 250,000 families have extensive livestock. Three quarters of those rely entirely on the livestock and their income from them. It is worth mentioning at this point that one reason why I wanted to have the debate now was that this has been a very harsh winter in Mongolia and more than 1 million-perhaps 1.7 million-livestock have died. The very heavy snow has followed the drought of last summer, which is the worst possible combination because food has not been stored up for the livestock.
The United Nations warned just a few weeks ago in late January that Mongolia's severe weather threatens lives. The statement said that 19 of Mongolia's 21 provinces had been hit by heavy winter snow and temperatures that had plunged below minus 40°. That puts our own winter in context. The UN's resident co-ordinator in Mongolia, Rana Flowers, said:
"The poor did not have the resources to stockpile food or fuel for heating and the supplies in the now inaccessible villages as a whole are stretched."
I am very pleased that the European Union has responded, and that the United Kingdom is playing a major role. The Mongolian President met José Manuel Barroso a few weeks ago. The EU has increased aid, pledging €150,000 to help Mongolia tackle the severe winter. Mr. Barroso also said that that the EU plans to increase assistance by 40 per cent. to €5 million a year, or $7 million, to support the Mongolian national development plan. It is worth noting that extensive efforts are being made in London. The Mongolian Association in the UK is organising a dinner at the Renaissance Chancery Court hotel to raise funds to help with the difficulties suffered in Mongolia.
I am aware of the time, Mr. Cummings, so I shall rattle through the remainder of my 10 points to enable the Minister to reply. It is a matter of pride that the Mongolian President recently took the brave decision to abolish the death penalty. Since coming to office, he has commuted all death sentences to a 30-year jail sentence. That was not an easy thing for him to do. I hope that the Mongolian Parliament will debate the matter in the near future, and that it will back the President and abolish the death penalty for good. That was a difficult decision, but it is a measure of the quality of debate on human rights that is now occurring in Mongolia. It is worth noting that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has tabled a motion commending Mongolia on that action, which has been signed by 33 Members.
It would be remiss of me not to mention Genghis Khan, the Mongolian national hero. A few years ago, we celebrated the 800th anniversary of his rise to power; he united the Mongolian people and conquered most of the known world. A recent study suggested that Genghis Khan's direct descendants constitute 8 per cent. of men in a large part of Asia, and 0.5 per cent. of the world's population. His reputation is twofold-he was obviously a conqueror, but Mongolian people take great pride in the fact that he introduced the rule of law, written
language and education. Some of those traditions have lasted down the centuries, so his legacy is in many ways a positive one.
I invite any Members who want to come to the annual reception of the all-party group on Mongolia on 8 March in this place, and I am sure that you will attend, Mr. Cummings, if you can. We are also having a joint seminar on the Mongolian economy with the British-Mongolian chamber of commerce, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry).
Tourism has great potential in Mongolia. I understand that about 7,000 British tourists a year visit Mongolia. It is a starkly beautiful country. I hope that MIAT, the Mongolian airline, will introduce direct flights to Ulan Bator before too long, which would reduce journey time to about nine hours. Mongolians coming here realise that they will need visas and to meet the necessary requirements, but I hope that our embassy in Beijing and the subcontractor that considers visa applications will be aware of the different context for Mongolia. I know that there have been various discussions at an official level about that.
The sixth point is that Leeds and Mongolia have many links. Cashmere cloth was supplied to Burton's factory in Leeds, and the previous President of Mongolia was educated at Leeds. Point number seven is that we should not forget our military links. Mongolia has an efficient army, which has been in action alongside British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As for sport, it is a matter of fact that Mongolia is one of those nations that voted at the last minute for London to host the Olympics. It rejected the blandishments of Paris, and we are eternally grateful for that. Mongolia won its first gold medals at the Beijing Olympics and it had a team of two in Vancouver, but I think we will have plenty of boxers, wrestlers, judo players and archers in London.
Point nine is that many institutions in Mongolia look to Britain for advice and examples. The old public service television channel has remodelled itself on the BBC, and is independent of Government. The Education Minister, who visited Britain only a few weeks ago, is very keen to introduce some of the Cambridge education board's standards to Mongolia.
I pay tribute to some of the people who have been crucial to relations between Britain and Mongolia in recent years. Mr. Altangerel is the Mongolian ambassador, and Mr. Davaasambuu was his predecessor; and Mr. Bill Dickson is our ambassador in Mongolia.
I end with what may be a little-known fact-that the Mongolian community in London and worldwide celebrated its new year last year. The dates are not the same as the Chinese new year. It is appropriate for the House to wish a happy new year to all Mongolians who contribute to London-at least 6,000 or 7,000 of them study or work here-and also to the people of Mongolia.
4.46 pm
The Minister for Europe (Chris Bryant): It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings, not least because of something that I did not know-that you are interested in Mongolia and are committed to the cause.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |