West Anglia Taskforce Report

Debate between Mark Prisk and Lord Haselhurst

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the West Anglia Taskforce report.

It is a pleasure and a unique honour for me to address you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I hope that I will not give you cause for intervening on me any more than I did on you when our roles were reversed.

I am conscious that on this particular subject I could be done for repetition. Already in his relatively short time as rail Minister, the Minister has had to hear me on this subject and similar points on several occasions. The message that is coming forth, which has been put by individual Members over the years and is now reinforced by the report, needs to be heard. If repetition is necessary, repetition will occur.

The West Anglia Taskforce was launched by the former Chancellor and the former Transport Secretary in 2015, but with the intervention of the general election, it did not get down to work until halfway through last year. The terms of reference were to look at opportunities to improve connections to Stansted and Cambridge from Liverpool Street station and to encourage opportunities for economic growth along the route, including the expansion of services in the Lea valley. I was asked to chair the taskforce and was supported by a very distinguished group of people, who freely gave of their time and brought their great experience to bear on the subject. We quickly found that, both geographically and politically, we were as one on what needed to be done.

We concentrated particularly on the need for four-tracking the railway between Coppermill junction, just south of Tottenham Hale station, to Broxbourne junction, just north of Broxbourne mainline station. We resisted all the various embellishments and extras that were pressed upon us, such as the four-tracking going further north, extensions of lines or new stations in various places. We took a very limited view, because they would simply add on to the cost.

South of Tottenham Hale remains a problem on the railway because from there it is a two-track railway through Clapton station and three other inner London stations, to Bethnal Green. Services to those two stations frequently hold up other trains seeking to move as fast as journeys allow to the more northerly outer London stations. By recommending the four-tracking of the railway, we believe that nothing would be spoiled. Other things could be done later, but four-tracking the railway impedes no other embellishment.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this excellent report, which has cross-party support, as I hope the Minister knows. My right hon. Friend is right to focus on four-tracking. In his view, are the short-term improvements the report recommends supportive of the long-term goal? That is what many of my constituents will want to know.

Rail Services: East Hertfordshire

Debate between Mark Prisk and Lord Haselhurst

Tuesday 1st March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered rail services in East Hertfordshire.

The railways that serve my constituents encompass six stations and three branches, and they are run by two different companies. We have Govia Thameslink on what we call the Hertford loop, and the West Anglia route is run by Abellio Greater Anglia. All of our rail lines lead in and out of London, so as in most of Hertfordshire and, indeed, west Essex, they run north-south. Since Dr Beeching, we have had little east-west rail provision in Hertfordshire, which matters because it means that our economic links with London are fundamental. We face London, and our households are therefore increasingly reliant on London’s economy to provide work, which is why the quality of rail services matters so much for the people of Hertford and Stortford.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this issue as part of my ongoing campaign to ensure that we get a fair deal for my commuters. Today, I will focus on three principal issues: the reliability of the service and the compensation when things go wrong; the state of the rolling stock; and last, although perhaps most fundamental, the capacity of the system, particularly the need for four-tracking into London. I hope that the Minister will respond positively, as she always does, to the points I raise and the questions I ask.

I will start with punctuality and reliability. For many of my constituents, this has been a really bad year for commuting. It is true that punctuality has recently improved, but for many weeks in the past 12 months we have had periods in which, day after day, simply getting in and out of work has been a struggle. People fail to understand the cumulative impact. Of course it makes it difficult for people simply to do their daily work, but it also has a wider impact on family life and on the wider economy, too. The huge variation in performance, often between neighbouring days, simply makes people feel that this is not a service on which they can realistically rely.

Over the past year I have organised face-to-face meetings with the managing director of one of the rail companies, and I pay credit to Mr Burles from Abellio Greater Anglia for being willing to sit down and deal with the concerns of my commuters and his customers. Although he has accepted blame when his company has got things wrong, he has pointed out, not unreasonably, that 70% of the delays have been due to track or signalling problems, which are of course the responsibility of Network Rail. Although that is true, it is of no comfort to paying passengers from my constituency.

That leads me on to the question of compensation when things go wrong. As part of my campaign for a fair deal, I have lobbied our rail companies to ensure that when trains are delayed, commuters, who have paid up front, must be compensated. I have pressed both companies to make their rules clearer, which they have, and to move to automatic repayments for commuters, as c2c recently did on its lines. At present, both Govia Thameslink and Abellio Greater Anglia offer refunds for delays of 30 minutes or more, but taking into account that total journey times are often only 60 minutes, a 30-minute delay starting point frankly is inadequate, which is why I strongly support the Government’s—indeed the Minister’s—plans for phasing in refunds for delays of 15 minutes or more. When will that rule be introduced, both for Govia Thameslink and for the new Greater Anglia franchise, which starts in October? For example, will the new 15-minute rule be written into any new franchise agreement? I hope my hon. Friend can update us on that point.

There is also the question of how people claim compensation when things go wrong. Compensation should be automatic for regular commuters. They pay their money up front and, given that the rail company already has their financial details, an automatic electronic refund seems both fair and practical. I am delighted that the consumer body Which?, which has its principal base in my constituency, is now also campaigning for change, and I welcome its recent super-complaint to the regulator. Many hon. Members will know that the rail sector has been dragging its feet on this issue, so I hope that when the regulator replies later this month, we will get firm support for change and a positive reaction from the Department. Will the Minister set out the Government’s approach to that point? I appreciate that she cannot tell us what the answer will be, as we do not yet know the question.

The state of rolling stock on our lines is very poor indeed. We have carriages that go back 20 years or more—indeed, on the Hertford loop we have the old 313s that go back to the late 1970s. It is true that both of the current rail companies have invested substantial sums—many millions of pounds—in refurbishing what they inherited, but all too often we daily face clapped-out carriages with broken heating and very bad seating. Of course, looking at the wider infrastructure implications, trains in such condition will break down more often, so we have a cyclical problem. The key is the franchising system, which sets the standards. The length of any franchise tends to determine both the level and the timing of any investment.

Two years ago, I lobbied hard in this Chamber for new rolling stock to be a clear condition of the Great Northern-Thameslink franchise, including the Hertford loop. With that franchise let, I am pleased to see that Govia Thameslink is now committed to £200 million-worth of investment, which will deliver some 25 new climate-controlled, six-carriage units from 2018. That is a welcome improvement. Many of my commuters would say that it is a little overdue, but it is welcome none the less. I make the same point for commuters on my West Anglia route. That franchise is due to be awarded during the summer.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject, on which, certainly in the case of the West Anglia line, we have worked together closely and in united fashion to try to get improvements for our constituents. Does he agree that, although it is true that most of the problems have stemmed from Network Rail’s area of responsibility, failure of the rolling stock has been increasing lately as it is so tired and old? It is crucial not only for reliability that we have new rolling stock on the West Anglia line but that that rolling stock can take advantage of improvements in the rail line speeds that can be achieved. Those improvements cannot be achieved using the existing rolling stock.

Airport Expansion: East Anglia

Debate between Mark Prisk and Lord Haselhurst

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think there is something called “the golden triangle,” and I certainly do not reject the idea of the east-west connections in any way, but we do not have the money to do everything. I concentrate on this line as a priority, simply because, at the moment, it is the main link between the city and the airport and it has had so much neglect over these past years.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on securing the debate, but on his remarkable leadership over many years in fighting this corner for his constituents, and indeed, for mine, given that we are from neighbouring constituencies. A lot of people are concerned about access, which he has mentioned. The airport is very important for the wider economy, but for many of my constituents, being unable to get into London because of the inadequacy of the rail connections is the core issue.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I agree with that, without ignoring the points that other colleagues have made. It cannot just be seen in terms of north and south—there are other considerations—but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I, in neighbouring constituencies, probably suffer the weight of the complaints from quite a lot of rail passengers.

There is also the A120 which, I was told 38 years ago, was to be a critical route across to the M11 for traffic coming from the east-coast ports. The section between Braintree and Marks Tey is still not in place, which is an absolute scandal. We then have the other minor scandal of junction 8 on the M11 motorway. My hon. Friend’s predecessor, Bowen Wells, and I appeared bravely at the public inquiry into the motorway services area. After it was decided that the airport access should be from junction 8, it was then decided that we should have the motorway services area access at another quadrant of it. The result was chaos, and yet, Bowen Wells and I were told in the inquiry—of course, we really knew nothing and were not experts—that they had got it absolutely measured. It has been a disaster. There is consideration even now that perhaps the only way of overcoming the inherent difficulties of that junction will be to shift the motorway services area. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that that might have to happen. There are also the demands from my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for a junction 7A to ease the pressures from people getting to the airport.

I want to feed these points into the bigger picture of airport provision. Stansted undoubtedly has the spare capacity to soak up a lot of the pressures that are going to arise until the decision on the Davies commission has been made and, perhaps more importantly, implemented. Without a decent railway, however, Stansted will struggle to address that demand. The bigger airlines expect a high standard of connectivity and quality rolling stock to go with it, and as local MPs, our concern has to be, as much as anything else, for our long-suffering commuters, who are having to pay more to travel in not very good conditions. There is problem after problem, and they extend across the region to the Great Eastern line—not least already this week.

Even Davies concedes that the quickest increase in runway capacity can be achieved at Gatwick. It has multiple rail access. That is currently being upgraded, which is fine for them, but it is galling that there still has been no upgrading on the West Anglia line. Stansted has absolutely nothing to compare in rail access with either Gatwick or Heathrow, yet to fulfil the role of that airport in our region, four-tracking of the West Anglia line is the minimum needed now. Four-tracking between Tottenham Hale and Broxbourne is needed, not in 2025 or 2030, but now, just to sustain the existing level of demand, let alone what is in prospect from north to south of the line. Four-tracking is also the vital precursor to the Crossrail 2 project, which would naturally follow on from that.

The Anglian region needs to be plugged in better to Greater London, not just to Liverpool Street, but to Stratford and to places that Crossrail 2 will reach. I say to the Government that, if only to buy time on their airport strategy, they need to sort out the West Anglia line.

West Anglia Rail Line

Debate between Mark Prisk and Lord Haselhurst

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I certainly do not disagree with that in any way, and I would think that quite a number of other colleagues whose constituencies are served by this railway line would echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments. I acknowledge his support in the campaign to bring the Government’s focus more sharply on to this line.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

I strongly endorse what has been said: my right hon. Friend is an informed and persistent challenger of what has been a poor service for all our constituents. Does he share my concern that, while we understand the problems created by the storm this autumn, we noticed that it was our line that was least able to cope? We had three days—not one—of disruption. Does he share my view that alongside the overcrowding, poor service and rising fares, we simply seem to be getting what I would describe as a Cinderella service?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been another staunch ally in the fight for a better deal for regular passengers on the line. I agree that that is another example of how our service has fallen below the standards, which have been raised in certain other parts of the country. In terms of statistics, it is possible to argue overall that a higher performance rating has been achieved, but when the lapses occur, they are very serious indeed.

I could add to what my hon. Friend has said by describing my experience this morning. At the Audley End ticket office there are two counters. Both were closed, with a notice up to say that the one person who was in on this particular morning would be back at 9.45, which was one minute after the departure of the train to London. The rumour was that the ticket agent was having a break, but that meant that there were no tickets available to purchase except from one of the machines on the platform, and those machines are not flexible in what they can offer—they can only provide fairly simple fares. It would certainly appear to be a shambles that we do not have a proper standard of service in that way.

As I have said, there is a new train operator and a new airport owner, and there is seemingly a new franchise policy because when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet spoke in response to my Adjournment debate in 2011 she suggested that good times would come when we had new longer franchises, but I am not sure that that policy still holds; that may have now changed to having rather shorter franchises. I would be interested to know what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say on that subject.

Indeed, in addition to those other new circumstances, we have a new Minister. In fact he is the second since the previous debate. [Interruption.] Yes, I have no doubt at all that he is an excellent Minister, but he will be judged in part by the nature of his reply to me and my hon. Friends.

What is absolutely incontrovertible is that there has been no investment in the line. That is the problem.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I am sorry that my hon. Friend was inconvenienced on those occasions, but that illustrates a further problem that we experience on the line. I hope that the problem did not prevent him from collecting the honorary degrees that he was no doubt going to Cambridge for.

I might have suggested that not much has been happening, but in fact I suspect that things are now stirring, although not necessarily in a helpful way. The Mayor of London has shown great interest in acquiring control over part of this railway. More disturbingly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seems to have given assent in principle to that taking place. The Mayor would then have control over the services to Enfield Town, Chingford and so on, although not further up the main line between Tottenham Hale and Broxbourne. That is interesting, because one of the justifications for bringing together the services out of Liverpool Street in a single franchise was that it would make the operability of Liverpool Street more effective. If a second franchise holder were to be introduced, that could start to complicate matters in what is already a very constricted station.

My next point is that, to run those services, the Mayor will need some rolling stock, and I suspect that a portion of the rolling stock currently being operated flexibly by Greater Anglia would be painted a different colour and handed over to the Mayor. It is not clear, however, what would replace that rolling stock. I regard this as an aggressive, acquisitive policy on the part of the Mayor. I am not denying that it could be good for the people he serves, but it would have an adverse effect on the people served by me and by my hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and others. Also, it cannot be right if there is to be no investment in the track. The situation would become altogether different if we had four-tracking. It might then be possible to accept that the two operators could work without the one interfering with the other.

A further disturbing matter, from the point of view of railway passengers, is that Stansted airport is starting to expand again in terms of passenger numbers, and I imagine that, under the dynamic new ownership of the Manchester Airports Group, those numbers will continue to rise over the next few years. That will build demand to a point at which we will look back on the history and say to Ministers, “Excuse us, but we would now like to have back those trains that you allowed to run on the Cambridge line to serve the commuters, so that the original intention of having 12-car trains going to the airport can be fulfilled.”

I have no particular complaint about there being a decent rail service to the airport; indeed, I am in favour of it. However, it could pose a second threat to the fleet that is available to Greater Anglia. The question would then arise: where are the substitute carriages to come from? I am advised by Abellio that there are no trains that can obviously be cascaded down to us. We would, I suppose, be grateful for second-hand trains, but we have been living with second-hand trains for far too long anyway and we deserve a full fleet of new trains.

A report has appeared recently from an organisation called London First. It puts forward what, on the face of it, seems a reasonable proposition. I replied initially to Baroness Valentine, the chairperson of the organisation, to say that I welcomed the contribution to the debate, and that anything that brought attention to the needs of the line was to be welcomed. But the more one examined the proposal, the more one became aware that the clue was in the title—London First; the approach was just that, and it would not be to the advantage of those of us who are further away from London and rely on services on that line. London First is proposing a third track over a short distance north of Tottenham Hale, as much as anything to facilitate services to Stratford. In principle, I see nothing wrong with that, but the proposal is not going to be to the benefit of the passengers we represent in ever-increasing numbers. It is a diversion from the real need of the line, which is to get four-tracking so that flexibility can be achieved.

[Mr Prisk]

My right hon. Friend mentions the London First report, and perhaps I might add my thoughts on that in a moment, if I can catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The report is a distraction, but is he aware that, worse for my constituents, it includes ideas of looping around Bishop’s Stortford and Sawbridgeworth, which would leave my commuters watching visitors from abroad getting a better service than those who actually pay for it?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I agree. I do not represent people in Sawbridgeworth and Bishop’s Stortford, but I am sufficiently familiar with the two places, and passing through on the train, to wonder exactly how these passing loops are going to be effected without the most appalling disruption. In any case, I do not believe they serve any real purpose. Four-tracking between Coppermill junction, south of Tottenham Hale, and Broxbourne is the way in which most people’s interests can be served. If we take our eye off that goal, we will end up with miserable scraps. I worry that, if London First gains favour for its proposal, which is not only inadequate but very damaging the further north one goes, it will be all too easy for Network Rail or the Department for Transport to say, “Job done, we have helped there, at last” and for that to be it. It would not do anything to transform the railway.

We must also consider the interest in Crossrail 2 and suggestions that perhaps it would serve to bring people back and forth from Stansted airport. I am in favour of the regional version of Crossrail 2, because it makes sense to link at Cheshunt, bringing in to the west end people who do not necessarily want to go to the City, where Liverpool Street station is situated. But it is not helpful to have eyes diverted from the West Anglia line and suddenly say that we might start spending money on Crossrail 2. I found it extraordinary that that possibility was apparently being touted by another representative of London First in a different forum, with the suggestion to get Crossrail 2 and then four-track between Cheshunt and Broxbourne. That seemed entirely at odds with what is in the main London First report. Therefore, I am not too happy about being diverted in that direction; we need to concentrate on the main line and seek investment there.

I have been saying that the Mayor, London First and the airport activity are stirring, but, sadly, not a great deal appears to be stirring in the Department for Transport. I wish to say straight away that I am absolutely behind what is being invested in our railway network throughout the country, and I am also a strong supporter of HS2 and a great believer in the railway. As such, it is understandable, surely, that I am a great believer in the railway that serves my constituents, and that is the one that is constantly forgotten. It has been forgotten since 1985 and something has to be done to reverse that position. Our line has simply not been favoured. I accepted that it was reasonable to wait for the report by Sir Roy McNulty, but surely the lessons to be learnt from his report have been digested by now. Unfortunately, what has happened is that we have seen an extension to a franchise. There will not be a new franchise—we are not sure of what length—until 2016. The scope for continued indecision is considerable and deeply worrying, because fares will no doubt continue to rise in that time.

I say to the Minister, who I am delighted has this portfolio—he might feel slightly less delighted after my remarks—that we need more than warm words. We are looking for cast-iron assurances that the problem of the West Anglia line is understood and that something meaningful will be promised within a reasonable time. We are looking for investment in track and trains, as that is, after all, investment in people.