Integrated Kent Rail Franchise

– in the House of Commons at 7:03 pm on 14 December 2005.

Alert me about debates like this

Motion made, and Question proposed, That his house do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coaker.]

Photo of John Stanley John Stanley Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling 7:05, 14 December 2005

Madam Deputy Speaker, do I have five minutes of injury time as a result of the petitions?

Photo of Sylvia Heal Sylvia Heal Deputy Speaker

The debate will end at 7.35 pm. The right hon. Gentleman has the additional five minutes.

Photo of John Stanley John Stanley Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I am glad to have secured the debate on the integrated rail franchise for Kent and to be able to cover some of the surrounding counties as well. It will affect the lives, journeys to work and rail use of many hundreds of thousands of people in my constituency and surrounding constituencies. I am in some difficulty in having the debate at this moment, although I wanted it as quickly as possible, in that I have sought a copy of the franchise agreement between the Department for Transport and GoVia, which was announced as the successful franchisee by the Secretary of State on 30 November.

GoVia has told me that it cannot provide the document—it is debarred by the Department for Transport from providing it—and that some details are still under negotiation. It is difficult, therefore, for me to know precisely what service details and service requirements have been imposed on GoVia. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that it is an extremely important document and that GoVia needs to be publicly held to account for its performance under the contract. I hope also that he will tell me that the document will in due course be made public, either in full or, if there are some necessary deletions of financial information on the grounds of their being commercial in confidence, with deletions. I trust that he will be able to assure me that the document will be made public and that a copy will be placed in the Library.

I shall start with the service level commitments on the four main railway lines that run through my constituency. The four lines are the Malling line to and from London, the Tonbridge-Hildenborough line to and from London, the Edenbridge line to and from London and the east-west line from Tonbridge through to Edenbridge, Redhill and Gatwick.

The all-important Malling line covers the stations of East and West Malling and Borough Green in my constituency. In all three areas there has been growth. The most dramatic growth has been in the Kings Hill area of my constituency, which is close to West Malling station. In effect, a mini-new town is under construction as a result of a development by what is now called Liberty Property Trust UK, in conjunction with Kent county council, on what was the extremely famous and historic RAF West Malling airfield, from which a major part was played in the second world war during the Battle of Britain.

The development of Kings Hill has led to a huge increase in demand for rail services from West Malling station. The managing director of Liberty Property Trust has told me that at Kings Hill there are now about 5,000 people working there and some 3,500 resident there, and that by the end of the franchise period, in some six to eight years, there will be about 5,000 to 7,000 more people working at Kings Hill, and another 3,500 residents there. At Kings Hill alone, by the end of the franchise period, there will be some 10,000 to 12,000 people working there and some 7,000 living there. That clearly necessitates significant improvement and growth in rail services. Sadly, we are starting from a base in which rail services are clearly inadequate to meet demand. The chairman of the Borough Green and Malling rail users group, Mr. Jeremy Westhead, wrote to me yesterday, saying:

"This morning, however, there were people standing all the way in from West Malling to Victoria on the 7.35. I am also aware of people who already drive from West Malling and Kings Hill to Chelsfield, Sevenoaks, Mottingham or Paddock Wood to avoid our line."

Rail services are already inadequate on the Malling line, even before further development takes place. GoVia advises me that the franchise contract that it is due to enter into does not include significant changes in service levels, which is of serious concern.

Photo of Adam Afriyie Adam Afriyie Conservative, Windsor

As a former resident of West Malling, may I say that it was clear several years ago that there were enormous pressures on the railways and the local roads? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Minister to take a serious look at the franchise and the rail network in the area?

Photo of John Stanley John Stanley Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling

My hon. Friend will have heard me describe the situation as wholly unsatisfactory. As he rightly pointed out, it will become even more unsatisfactory with the significant growth that is under way. I am delighted, however, to welcome my former constituent to the House.

The main line from London through Tonbridge and Hildenborough is the second important line. The area has not undergone as much growth as Kings Hill, but there is significant growth in Tonbridge, where there is serious congestion on rail services at peak times. Once again, GoVia advises me that there will be no significant improvements in capacity on that line to London, which is unsatisfactory.

As for the third line, from Edenbridge to London, there is some growth in Edenbridge. I can only describe the existing service to London as threadbare. It is so poor, in fact, that my constituents in Edenbridge and the surrounding villages get into their cars in the morning but, instead of going to Edenbridge, they drive across Kent and to Sussex or Surrey to find better railheads. GoVia says that it will not make a decision on improvements to Edenbridge to London services until a decision has been made on the Brighton rail utilisation study. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister can tell me when that decision will be made so that we can address the issue of rail services between Edenbridge and London.

Finally, the important cross-country or east-west route linking Tonbridge, Edenbridge, Redhill and Gatwick has extremely significant but underutilised potential, particularly in the provision of an adequate rail service to Gatwick airport from Kent. Almost without exception, my constituents travel by car to Gatwick. They have to park at the airport and pay a heavy charge for doing so. They travel by car simply because there is not a frequent, reasonably rapid rail service to Gatwick from Kent.

As we are creating Ashford International, with channel tunnel rail link domestic services from there, surely it must make sense to establish a decent rail link from Ashford—stopping, I urge the Minister, at Tonbridge and Edenbridge—to Redhill and Gatwick. If that service were in place, I am in no doubt at all that it would take many cars off the road and many more people would access Gatwick by rail. I am disappointed that, again, the Government have not insisted on getting any undertakings from GoVia, as far as I can see, on establishing a good rail service from Ashford directly to Gatwick and stopping at Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Redhill.

Photo of Damian Green Damian Green Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

Since my right hon. Friend has mentioned the growth in Ashford, may I, though him, urge the Minister to address not just the Ashford-Gatwick link, about which I entirely agree, but how the growth affects the smaller village stations around towns such as Ashford, particularly Charing, Pluckley, Chilham and Appledore, all of which are threatened with cuts in services at a time when they will face rising demand, which we should all surely encourage? I hope that the Minister can address that issue as well.

Photo of John Stanley John Stanley Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am sure the Minister will respond to the point, if he can.

I make one last point to the Minister on service provision. I welcome one decision that the Government have made. They have rightly intervened on the drastic reductions in ticket office opening hours that South Eastern Trains, the outgoing franchisee, put out to consultation earlier this year. I was glad to see, buried in note 5 to editors at the end of the Department for Transport's stock market statement on 30 November, the following wording:

"It is appropriate for the new franchisee to have the opportunity to review proposals on changes to ticket office hours on the SET network. It is expected that discussions among interested parties will take place in due course."

I am grateful for that intervention by the Government, but when will the discussions take place and when will they be concluded? Can the Minister give me an assurance in reply to the debate that there will be no reductions in ticket office hours, as proposed by South Eastern Trains, until the new consultation and new review has been completed?

Finally, the biggest single issue for my constituents in relation to the announcement that the Government made on 30 November is the implications for rail fares. Across my constituency, my constituents have been appalled at the Government's decision to allow GoVia to increase its fares by 3 per cent. above the rate of inflation for each of the first five years of the franchise.

I refer to a small piece of history, which is relevant. There were three Conservative Members of Parliament who declined to support the last Conservative Government on the Second Reading of the rail privatisation Bill on 2 February 1993. One was the late Robert Adley, our colleague who knew more about railways, both in this country and overseas, than the rest of the House put together. Another was my hon. Friend Sir Nicholas Winterton, and the third was myself.

I declined to support the then Government on that Bill, not because I was opposed to rail privatisation, which I support—indeed, I believe that in broad terms it has produced a more successful outcome for rail passengers than if we had gone on with nationalised British Rail—but because I was not prepared to see my constituents, many of whom have to fork out a huge sum for their annual season ticket, put into the hands of an unregulated private sector monopoly, any more than I would want them in the hands of an unregulated public sector monopoly.

Happily, the last Conservative Government, when our former colleague Dr. Mawhinney was Secretary of State for Transport, announced on 15 May 1995 that for the three years from January 1996 to 1999 rail fares would be capped at the rate of inflation each year, and for the four years after that, from January 1999 to January 2003, rail fares would be capped at 1 per cent. below the rate of inflation in each year. That was an excellent deal from the last Conservative Government for rail travellers and for my constituents, but as that deal expired in January 2003, the present Government have provided them with a much worse deal—indeed, it is a rotten deal.

That situation seems set to continue under the franchise from GoVia. A fare increase of 3 per cent. above the rate of inflation for each of the first five years of the franchise means a real-terms increase of 16 per cent. over that five-year period. Unsurprisingly, the arrangement has met strong resistance from my constituents. The secretary of Tonbridge line commuters, Mr. Lionel Shields, wrote:

"We believe that there is no justification for such draconian increases."

The secretary of the Edenbridge and District rail travellers association, Mr. John Bigny, has also written to me:

"The increase in rail fares at up to 3 per cent. above the rate of inflation has to be deplored. How many rail travellers are going to get increases in salary, wages and pension of 3 per cent. above inflation. A single pensioner is to get an increase of £2.20—that will be swallowed up by increased Electricity and Gas charges, let alone Council Tax."

Photo of Greg Clark Greg Clark Conservative, Tunbridge Wells

May I associate my constituents with those of my right hon. Friend, because they share the same issues? Our constituents will benefit not one jot from the channel tunnel rail link, but they will have to pay for it through the increase in fares.

Photo of John Stanley John Stanley Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling

I am coming to that very point and agree with my hon. Friend.

The Minister will no doubt say that the increase in rail fares above the rate of inflation for five years is justified by rail investment. However, the overwhelming proportion of that rail investment will go into channel tunnel rail link domestic services, which will not benefit most of those who travel into London from mid-Kent and west Kent.

The Minister knows that I foresaw that we could get into this position two years ago, and I have been campaigning for channel tunnel rail link domestic services to be ring-fenced financially, for channel tunnel rail link domestic services to be recognised as national infrastructure on which losses should be met by the general body of taxpayers—in other words, through the Department for Transport—and for a prohibition on cross-subsidy under the integrated Kent franchise from non-channel tunnel rail link services, which would result in a fair and equitable position.

In a written ministerial statement on 30 November, the Secretary of State for Transport said:

"It is therefore justifiable for the new operator to increase fares by 3 per cent. above inflation from January 2007 for five years to ensure there is fair balance between the taxpayer and fare paying passenger."—[Hansard, 30 November 2005; Vol. 440, c. 34WS.]

My constituents and many others all over the franchise area regard the balance as grossly unfair. My constituents are having their fares ratcheted up way above the rate of inflation to meet losses on rail services—the channel tunnel rail link—that are of no use to them.

Once again, I urge the Minister to ring fence channel tunnel rail link domestic services financially. Does he recognise that those services are national infrastructure and that losses should be financed by the general body of taxpayers? Will he introduce a prohibition on cross-subsidy from non-channel tunnel rail link services into the channel tunnel rail link, because unless such a prohibition is introduced, rail travellers in Kent and elsewhere will be treated grossly unfairly?

Photo of Derek Twigg Derek Twigg Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) 7:24, 14 December 2005

I congratulate Sir John Stanley on securing this important Adjournment debate. The document that he mentions will become public, and when that happens I will ensure that he gets a copy. Many improvements have been agreed, and I will dwell on some of them. It would be impossible to cover all the points in the time that I have left, but I will do my best to get through them as quickly as possible.

Let me summarise the situation before I get to the main point. I believe that the contract that my Department has secured is a tough one that will deliver good value for taxpayers and real improvements for passengers. In particular, it commits the company to introducing the high-speed commuter trains that will use the channel tunnel rail link from 2009. Journey times to London for passengers from stations such as Ramsgate and others in east Kent and the Thames Gateway will be reduced by as much as 35 minutes. It will be a commuter service unlike that seen anywhere else in the country. It will provide the flagship Olympic Javelin service that will link St. Pancras with the Olympic village in Stratford in under eight minutes. In addition, the company has committed to improving performance across the franchise. More than £70 million will be invested in passenger services. It will build on the investment that has already been made: £600 million on new trains and £93 million on infrastructure improvements to allow them to run. A further £250 million is still to be invested in the new high-speed trains.

Let me come to some of the more specific points. From the franchise commencement date in spring 2006 until the introduction of CTRL domestic services, services will be broadly the same as now in order to avoid repeated service alterations. Once the CTRL domestic services are introduced in 2009, they will operate between London St. Pancras and Stratford International, Ebbsfleet through the Thames Gateway to the Medway towns, and to Ashford, Ramsgate and east Kent. There will be comprehensive changes to the service pattern on existing lines at the same time—December 2009—to reflect the anticipated changes in travelling patterns and to simplify and improve performance. The new service specification is intended to provide capacity where it is most needed while making the best use of existing resources within the bounds of affordability. The Government's responsibility is to make the best overall strategic decision on services on behalf of the majority of passengers and of the taxpayer. With service changes of this magnitude, it is difficult to balance the needs of all, but we believe that we have provided significant benefits for the majority of passengers.

The reorganisation will bring many benefits. For example, 10 per cent. more trains—an increase from 171 to 188—will come into London in the morning peak, and there will be a considerable improvement in off-peak services, with the number of trains increasing from 39 to 46 every hour during the daytime. The off-peak improvements are spread between inner and outer suburban services. Key improvements include two additional trains per hour on the following lines: Bexleyheath, Orpington-Sevenoaks via Grove Park, on the Herne Hill route west of Beckenham Junction, and on the Hastings line around the Tunbridge Wells area.

In any exercise of this kind, it is not practical to deliver every request for services, but where representations were made, and it was possible to accommodate them, changes were put in place to address the most difficult problems for local rail users. There have been several rounds of consultation, through which a number of stakeholder concerns were identified and addressed—for example, the retention of the hourly service at quieter stations on the Maidstone East route.

The franchisee intends to provide some services before 2009, when the timetable will change, that are additional to the basic specification required by the Department. They include a strengthened half-hourly service to Beckenham Junction from Victoria, an additional peak service between Faversham and Cannon Street, two additional peak trains between Ashford and Charing Cross, and a few additional mid-evening and late evening trains to various suburban and Kent destinations from London.

With regard to train services in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, there will be no immediate changes on the Borough Green and Wrotham-Maidstone East line. When the CTRL domestic services begin, more frequently used stations on this route, such as Borough Green and West Malling, will benefit from additional services in the peak. However, less busy stations such as East Malling will experience some reductions. Peak services between Tonbridge and the Kent coast will experience improvements on today's service at Paddock Wood, Marden and Pluckley. Services to Staplehurst and Headcorn remain unchanged. Off-peak, Paddock Wood and Staplehurst will lose one train an hour, mainly because the two stopping services, and one fast train to London will be replaced by two semi-fast services.

Given that the new high speed service is expected to result in a significant transfer of demand from classic services east of Ashford, the volume of residual service required to operate via Tonbridge will be reduced. The resources released will be used to enhance some services in west Kent, particularly in the Tunbridge Wells area.

Two trains an hour to Dover all day will link that corridor to east Kent, with alternate trains continuing to Ramsgate via Deal. The journey from London to Ramsgate and Margate via Canterbury West will no longer be direct, but passengers will be able to change at Ashford to pick up connecting services either using CTRL to Margate or the Victoria to Canterbury West via Maidstone service. We expect the operator to develop a timetable providing convenient connecting timings for that. Services from Tonbridge via Redhill to Gatwick airport fall under the Brighton main line route utilisation strategy. That is currently under consideration by the Department and an announcement will be made in due course.

Subject to rolling stock availability and operational and financial practicalities, it is open to the franchisee before 2009 to run additional services or make additional calls at stations, provided that he can demonstrate that that is worth while and that any changes can be achieved without increasing the subsidy. I urge the hon. Gentleman and local groups to work with the operator to consider the scope for such changes.

The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to fare changes. Passengers on the new high speed trains will pay around 20 per cent. to 35 per cent. more than passengers on the classic services, depending on the journey. In general, the premium will be approximately £1 or £2 on a single fare. Passengers will be able to choose routes via CTRL on high speed services or the classic routes to south London terminals. Passengers who use CTRL domestic services will pay premium fares to reflect the enhanced service that it will provide.It is not unusual for faster rail services to be more expensive than alternative slower services. Even with the premium fare, we anticipate a high demand for the high speed services.

The retail prices index + 3 per cent. fare increases have been made to recognise the investment that has already gone into the railway in the region, and will help keep a balance between the taxpayer and the fare-paying passenger.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned South East trains and the press release that was issued. We believe that the new franchisee should consider the matter and we wait to hear its views. I do not want to pre-empt those discussions. Clearly, once they have taken place an announcement will be made.

As I stated earlier, more than £600 million has been invested in new rolling stock in Kent in the past three years. In addition, there has been £93 million of investment in power supply, stations, depots and related infrastructure in Kent. All the slam-door trains have been removed and many trains' interiors have been upgraded. That does not come without a cost. We have to ask whether it is fair for the taxpayer to foot most of the bill. We have to try to strike a balance between how much the taxpayer pays and how much of the cost passengers should bear.

In summary, it is probably worth putting on the record that this has been a good time for the railway. Significant improvements have taken place, with more than 1 billion passengers a year using it. Every week, £87 million is being invested and we have the fastest growing railway in Europe. In addition, the public performance measure of 85 per cent. that was set for next March has been passed on three occasions in the past three periods. We are not complacent—there is more work to be done. We must ensure that we reach and exceed our target, but we have experienced an increase in the reliability of trains and the biggest single replacement of rolling stock and refurbishment in our time.

I do not suggest that we should be complacent or that there is no room for improvement. However, important improvements and strides forward have been made. Performance is improving and passengers are receiving a better service. The current South East franchise has had its share of the benefits and the new integrated Kent franchise will experience more of them in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eight o'clock.