Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Henry Smith and Gordon Henderson(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Rail Fares
Debate between Henry Smith and Gordon Henderson(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
I am in a difficult position because I support the sentiment, but oppose the motive behind the motion. The motive is opportunism of the worst kind.
I support the sentiment because I am very concerned about hard-pressed rail commuters in Sittingbourne and Sheppey, and I want them to be helped. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) compared his constituents and commuters in the south-east. I should point out to him that only a small percentage are bankers travelling to the City of London. The vast majority of my constituents are no better off than his.
Let me read out part of a letter—one of many—that I have received. It states:
“Dear Mr Henderson,
Once again I find myself writing to you on the subject of rail fares. As you will have seen in the press, the Government announced that rail fares will rise in January by an average of 6.2%. By my calculations, this will bring the cost of a non-High Speed, train only season ticket from Sittingbourne to Victoria to £3,954.88. My wife and I both commute from Sittingbourne to Victoria to work in Westminster and the increase will mean the cost of getting to work will take 22% of our combined take home pay—the increase will hit my wife particularly hard as it will represent 30% of her monthly income. The rises come at a time when many people, including us, are experiencing frozen pay or pay cuts.
Theresa Villiers said on the BBC yesterday that the increased fares will ‘make life better’ for rail users by paying for improvements.”
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The point about investment in rail is important. I commute into London most days, and I welcome the £26 million investment going into Three Bridges station, and the £53 million investment that will go to upgrade track capacity at Gatwick station.
Gordon Henderson
My hon. Friend is right about investment, but commuters on Southeastern railways have heard the same tired old tune, year in, year out, and frankly they have stopped believing it, if they ever did. We may have the Javelin service into St Pancras, but that is hardly high speed as it spends most of the journey on the tortuous route through Strood and Gravesend.
The letter continues:
“High speed also means higher cost, due to the supplement charged to travel beyond Gravesend. The service into Victoria has deteriorated over the years to the point where most “fast” trains take almost an hour and 10 minutes to travel from Sittingbourne to Victoria”.
Only 30 years ago the journey was 50 minutes, so travel times have gone up rather than down. I suggest that those who support High Speed 2 consider the impact of High Speed 1 on my constituency.
That letter just about sums up the frustration felt by my constituents—frustration that did not happen overnight but has been bubbling up for many years. The motion calls on the Government
“to restore the one per cent above inflation cap on annual fare rises”.
My constituents, however, have had to pay fares linked to the retail prices index plus 3% for many years because that formula was written into the franchise agreement for Southeastern railways, which runs trains in north Kent. That greater fare increase in Kent was to pay for improvements that were allegedly introduced in the area prior to April 2006, although my constituents often wonder what those improvements were. If those improvements were HS1, that would add insult to injury because people find themselves either paying for a superfast service that is not fast and goes to a London station to which few of them want to travel, or paying for a standard train service that takes longer than it did 30 years ago.