(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of Thameslink train services.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Many of my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire rely on Thameslink services on the Bedford line to get to work or get into London for leisure. About 1.5 million passengers use Harlington and Flitwick stations in my constituency each year to meet friends, go shopping and take advantage of everything our capital has to offer. Commuters from the Flitwick and Harlington stations might also take advantage of the convenient connection that Thameslink offers to our local airport in Luton, or perhaps use the Thameslink direct connections to Gatwick airport, slightly further afield.
I have spent much of my career commuting to work on Thameslink services, so I know that many constituents in the eastern part of Mid Bedfordshire also rely on services from the Arlesey and Hitchin stations on the east coast main line, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), and many others use Thameslink services from stations including Bedford, Leagrave and Luton.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Like him, I have been a regular users of the Thameslink services in his constituency and mine, and, like many of my constituents, I have been consistently let down. My constituents’ two most common bugbears are the lack of drivers, which means that Thameslink cannot consistently put on the services it advertises—that seems the bare minimum—and the fact that when services go wrong, the emergency routes home via taxis and buses, which are so important in rural communities such as ours, are an afterthought. Does he agree that securing sufficient drivers for the line and getting back to putting passengers at the heart of our rail operations will be fundamental to delivering the rail services that my communities and his desperately need?
Blake Stephenson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for joining this important debate for the communities across Bedfordshire that rely heavily on rail services for leisure and work. The disruption is also having a huge impact on our economy; I will come to that later in my speech.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done for disabled people who use trains regularly. That should be happening everywhere in this great United Kingdom. Does he agree that disabled people—those who are in wheelchairs, and those who have mobility or vision issues—deserve the same quality of service no matter where they are in this United Kingdom?
Blake Stephenson
I could not agree more. Later, I will talk about the need for step-free access to Harlington and Flitwick stations, but that is necessary right across the country for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has set out.
In this debate, I will focus on the Thameslink services on the Bedford line and east coast main line, which my constituents use regularly. Since I first moved to Mid Bedfordshire more than a decade ago, I have been a regular user of Thameslink, but it feels to me and many of the constituents I speak to about it that something has gone wrong. Overcrowded, standing-room-only carriages have become the norm. Too often, the timetable is merely a guideline, not a rulebook for when trains will arrive. We pay more and more each year for services that deliver less and less: a season ticket from Flitwick into Farrington costs about £5,500 per year.
When this debate was selected, I launched a survey of local residents to hear about their experiences of travel on Thameslink. Fifty-seven per cent of respondents told me that they thought the service is poor, 80% told me that they had been impacted by a cancellation in the past month, and 88% told me that they had experienced a delay of more than 10 minutes. Those are not healthy statistics. I want to share some of the things that people in Mid Bedfordshire told me about the impact that the poor service is having on them. Callum from Flitwick told me:
“Trains are subject to delays or cancellations at very short notice. On one occasion I was on the platform and the train was cancelled with only one or two minutes’ notice before it was due to arrive, even though Thameslink must have known it hadn’t left the previous station (Bedford) at least 10 minutes before it was due to arrive at Flitwick.”
Tracey from Haynes would happily use the train from Flitwick to Gatwick, but it is too unreliable; they have to use the car instead. Kate told me that despite travelling just once or twice a week, she has had to make five delay repay claims in the past month. Stephanie from Flitwick told me:
“This train service is appalling. We very nearly missed our eurostar despite leaving hours to spare. It’s got the stage that we dread using the service and are always worried about being stranded in London.”
Ginette from Maulden noted:
“Flitwick is often cancelled as a return stop from London where there have been delays. This is usually only advised once we are on the train leading to frustrated passengers disembarking at Luton.”
I hope that these examples of the hundreds of comments that I have received from residents make the problem clear. Too often, Thameslink services are unreliable, late or cancelled, and too often my constituents are stranded when their stop is cancelled while they are sat on a Thameslink train. Too often, taking the train is simply not an option for people in Mid Bedfordshire. It should not be this way. For commuters in Flitwick and Harlington, the frustration of unreliable services is compounded by the frustration caused by Network Rail’s failure to deliver step-free access programmes at pace. If we want people to use the train, we must make it easier for them to do so.
For too long, things have not been getting better. In 2008, a commuter getting the 7.41 am train from Flitwick could expect to arrive at London St Pancras at 8.32 am. Nearly 20 years later, the timetable has no more stations, but commuters on the 7.41 am from Flitwick can expect to arrive at St Pancras two minutes later, at 8.34 am—and that is when the trains arrive on time. Too often, they do not arrive at all. In the past 100 days, 11% of the 7.41 am services from Flitwick have been cancelled, and 25% have arrived at St Pancras more than five minutes late. That compares reasonably favourably with the 7.43 am service, which has been cancelled 28% of the time and has arrived late 42% of the time. That is simply not good enough.
That is just the morning commute. The best performing return journey from St Pancras to Flitwick between 5 pm and 6.30 pm has been more than five minutes late 23% of the time in the past 100 days. For commuters in Harlington, the evening peak period sees three services that are more than five minutes late 50% or more of the time—three evening services more than five minutes late every other time a commuter uses them—and one service that is cancelled more than a quarter of the time.
We must do better than this, and we can. Investment through the Thameslink programme under the previous Government has seen the travel times from Arlesey to St Pancras drop from 47 minutes in 2008 to 40 minutes now. Here, at least, services have become much more convenient, with trains now running beyond St Pancras and into south London—and beyond. Of course, even here there have been problems with delays and cancellations, as the hon. Member for Hitchin knows too well, and the east coast main line section of Thameslink will face its own pressures, which I will address later.
The picture I have painted is of an underperforming service that is letting my constituents down, and I could cite plenty of other statistics to back that up. This matters to my constituents, who suffer the inconvenience of the service in their daily lives, but it should matter to the Government, in the big picture sense, too. Quick, reliable trains into London help us to improve UK productivity, with fewer working hours lost on station platforms and more workers at their desks, growing the economy. They also allow for better economic ties between places such as Mid Bedfordshire and our capital, and make it easier for local people to set up and run growing businesses. That helps to deliver on the Government’s mission for economic growth.
A well-performing Thameslink service is also vital to supporting the economic growth of the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor, which is one of this Government’s central missions. Thameslink services already link London to Cambridge, but they will one day also link London with East West Rail at Cambridge, Tempsford and Bedford. If we want to maximise the return on investment of that infrastructure project, its connections into the wider train network need to be fast and reliable.
That takes me nicely to the next section of my speech. As an outcome from this debate, I would like to see not just a strategy to improve the Thameslink services we have today, but one that starts thinking about the Thameslink services we will need for tomorrow. On the Thameslink line, we have already seen the booming success that new onward connections can bring. Farringdon station, which is on the Elizabeth line, served just over 4.6 million passengers in 2010; today it serves 10 times that number. We know that Thameslink faces significant future pressures. If those pressures have even a fifth of the impact that the Elizabeth line has had on Farringdon, we will need to see serious forward planning to ensure that commuters travelling to and from Mid Bedfordshire can benefit from sufficient capacity to enjoy comfortable commutes.
Take the Bedford line specifically. In relatively short order, it could see additional pressure from Luton airport expansion, a Universal theme park at Kempston Hardwick, an interchange with East West Rail, a rail freight interchange in Sundon, and more than 10,000 more houses in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire alone. I hope that within the next decade, we might see the Ryder cup come to Luton Hoo, bringing with it huge opportunities but also considerable pressures on the local transport network.
If we are to ensure that comfortable travel on the Bedford line is the norm and not the exception—I do not think that is too much to aspire to—then we must start doing the long-term legwork now to put the capacity in place, because at the moment the capacity is simply not there. Overcrowded trains at peak times are now the norm, not the exception. The timetable shows that. Anyone who goes on the Thameslink website will see that the vast majority of morning and evening commuter services are filled with the red of standing-room-only trains.
We need more capacity now so that my constituents do not have to resign themselves to a cramped, standing commute every day. However, we particularly need more capacity on the Bedford line to cope with the challenges of tomorrow. Do not misunderstand me; I know that work is already being done on that. I met with people from Thameslink recently and I set out some of the challenges that my constituents and I foresee arising over the coming years. I know from my discussions with the Mayor of Bedford that significant progress is being made on the construction of Wixams station, which will serve the new town of Wixams in my constituency. However, with the Government pressing ahead with their nationalisation agenda, it will be Ministers who will oversee much of the future planning in that area, so it is incumbent on Ministers to understand the challenges and opportunities facing our communities.
It is so important that we get it right. It is important for commuters using the stations at Flitwick, Harlington and, hopefully soon, Wixams to get into work in the morning. It is important for all the growing businesses in Mid Bedfordshire, which rely on a good rail connection to do business in London and across our region. It is also vital for the Government’s growth agenda.
If we want to take advantage of the potential expansion of Luton airport, and use it to grow the economy, we must get people there comfortably and quickly. If we want to get the best bang for the taxpayer’s buck on East West Rail, we need a Thameslink service that is reliable enough for people to be able to count on making their connection train at Bedford. If we want to take advantage of the economic game changer that is the planned Universal theme park at Kempston Hardwick, we must provide sufficient transport capacity to get people there. More generally, if we would like to grow the tourism economy in Bedfordshire, as I would, a Thameslink service that works is a vital part of the jigsaw. People will not visit our towns and villages, spend money in our shops or enjoy a pint in our pubs if we make the process of getting there difficult and uncomfortable.
Of course, as I said earlier, it is not just the Bedford line that my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire rely on; for many commuters in the eastern part of my constituency, the Thameslink services at Arlesey and Hitchin play a crucial role in their daily commutes. That line is not immune from pressures of its own. Planned housing growth, all the way down the line, will have a significant impact on capacity pressures over the coming years, as will the line’s own interchange with East West Rail at Tempsford and the potential housing growth that the Government might like to put forward there. Significant development at Tempsford would require concentrated efforts to increase capacity, in particular to avoid services into London becoming standing room only further down the line.
Any increase in capacity on that line is made much more challenging by the limitations placed on the services by the Digswell viaduct and Welwyn North station, where the line bottlenecks and drops from four tracks to two. When Ministers take full control over the services on that line, they will need to have a plan for how the network will cope with the future development plans being pushed forward elsewhere in Government.
As I conclude, I will touch on the Government’s plan for rail nationalisation. I say “plan”, but at the moment I am unclear whether that is the right word. If I have understood correctly the various announcements made so far on rail, the Government will be nationalising Govia Thameslink, but they cannot say when they will do that. There will be a central, unified rail system under Great British Railways, except in areas where mayors have requested rail powers under English devolution plans. Great British Railways will be directly accountable to Ministers and mayors, but there will also be a new quango, the rail watchdog, presumably to make sure that Ministers and mayors are doing their job and improving passenger experience. The watchdog will refer poor performance to a regulator, not Ministers. The Labour party’s manifesto set out that one focus of nationalisation was affordability, but Ministers are now briefing that the savings are minimal and fares are likely to keep going up.
My constituents need a clear plan to improve our rail network. So far, it is far from clear how, if at all, the Government’s renationalisation plans will do that. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out exactly how they plan to make services more reliable, to expand capacity and to keep fares down, now and in the future. That is what our constituents deserve from the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing the debate and providing this opportunity to discuss the performance of Thameslink services, and I thank the hon. Members who interjected to make points, which I will try to address in my response.
The Government recognise the crucial role that the rail network plays in supporting economic development, housing and employment growth, tourism, and environmental benefits. That is why we have made fixing Britain’s railway our top transport priority. We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer.
I recognise that performance on Thameslink, operated by Govia Thameslink Railway, has not been where we expect it to be, and passengers deserve better. Thameslink passengers have faced recent disruption caused by a variety of Network Rail infrastructure incidents, as well as a high level of cancellations due to train crew availability, particularly during the final few months of last year. I know that cancellations, especially those made close to the time of travel, can be very inconvenient for passengers, disrupting their lives and making it difficult for them to travel with confidence.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Just this morning, commuters in Ashwell in North East Hertfordshire, which is also served by Thameslink, wrote to me about the challenges that they are experiencing because of a lack of reliability and expensive fares on the line, and how those challenges are increasingly cutting them off from work and education opportunities. Could my hon. Friend the Minister address what steps the Government will take to improve fares and reliability on those routes as they bring Thameslink into public ownership?
Simon Lightwood
We are rewiring Britain’s railways to end decades of poor service, waste and timetable chaos. A unified, simplified railway will put passengers first, raise living standards and boost growth, as part of our plan for change. We will hear more about that when the railways Bill comes before Parliament.
Disruption due to train crew availability remains a priority for my Department. The Department’s officials are closely monitoring train crew availability levels and the actions that GTR is taking to improve, which will provide greater resilience in this area. I am pleased that there has been some improved performance in that area this year, but that must be sustained and improved on further. The Department has also commissioned work to understand, in detail, the impact of train crew availability on performance. That will look at issues such as staffing levels, recruitment, training, overtime and planning efficiency. It will outline recommendations to address those issues in the short, medium and long term.
On disruption due to infrastructure incidents, GTR and Network Rail continue to work closely to improve the reliability of the infrastructure used by Thameslink services to help to reduce associated delays and cancellations. A programme is currently under way to upgrade the overhead wires on the midland main line, and the central London Thameslink core had most of its rails replaced over the Christmas break, which will help to prevent track faults.
The Government are focused on restoring rail performance. We have been clear that rail services have been failing our passengers. The Rail Minister has met GTR and Network Rail to ensure that they are delivering on their plans to address Thameslink’s poor performance. Department officials, the Rail Minister and I will continue to closely review Thameslink’s progress for a sustained recovery in performance to deliver the punctual, reliable services that passengers and taxpayers deserve.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I apologise for being an interloper from the west midlands. The Minister rightly and importantly mentioned passengers being failed, but the fragmentation of our network has meant that we have been failing not only passengers but businesses, particularly those that want to invest in constituencies such as Redditch. Improved services are improved not only for passengers but for businesses deciding where they may relocate and invest.
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must ensure that passengers are at the core of what we deliver, but the knock-on effect on businesses is also important. GBR will also focus on freight: how do we get some of the cargo transported by our roads on to our trains?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) talked about the need for more train crew. GTR is particularly vulnerable to the effect of train crew availability issues—the problem tends to be the availability, rather than the number, of train crew—and of all Thameslink’s cancellations, 50% are attributed to train crew. That is largely due to historical terms and conditions and legacy agreements that mean that there is a high level of reliance on rest-day working.
I will close by confirming that this Government will continue to put passengers at the heart of what we do and deliver a railway of which, in its 200th year, we can be proud once again. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire again and acknowledge the importance of this matter to him and his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.