Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Matt Rodda and Alex Chalk(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend is a champion of SMEs, and rightly so: they are at the heart of a vibrant and flexible UK defence industry. That is why this Department helps to find and fund exploitable ideas from SMEs. To his point, however, there is nothing contradictory between the principles of ESG and the defence industry. On the contrary, strong national defence is the ultimate guarantor of the freedoms that all too often are taken for granted—human rights, democracy and the international rules-based order.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
GWR and Network Performance
Debate between Matt Rodda and Alex Chalk(5 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read 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
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The train line between Cheltenham and London is critical—I have likened it in the past to an artery, because it is responsible for nourishing so much of Cheltenham’s prosperity. That has never been truer than it is today, because Cheltenham has exciting prospects with things such as the cyber-park, which will allow start-up businesses in that crucial sector to grow and develop, and will bring prosperity and opportunity to people from all walks of life. However, there is no doubt that the service provided by Great Western Railway is not at the level we need it to be.
Last summer we had a really concerning situation because, as I said to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), there were insufficient train crews. When I raised the issue with GWR, it said, “Well, some people are training and so on”, and although that was terribly interesting, it was not a satisfactory explanation. To be fair, GWR recognises that it needs to improve, but even if it does I have a lingering concern about one crucial factor: the cost. Even for somewhere such as Cheltenham, which has a higher per capita income than the national average, the cost of a walk-up ticket is completely prohibitive. Again, it is not a complete answer to say that people must book in advance. If we want an agile economy in which people need to get on a train and go to London, it is not appropriate to say simply that that option is effectively not available to people because of the cost.
What is so invidious is that the cost per mile from Cheltenham to London is so much higher than in other parts of the country. The reasons for that seem opaque and are lost in the mists of time; they are linked to the structure that prevailed at the time of British Rail. That has got to change, particularly because although the cost per mile from Cheltenham is so much higher than it is elsewhere, the speed is slower. For example, a train journey from Exeter to London—200 miles—is quicker than one from Cheltenham to London, which is less than half the distance.
It is important to place this issue in a wider context, because it has not been all bad. GWR has been responsible for significant investment in Cheltenham Spa station, and we look forward to the opening of the car park in due course, with more than 80 additional spaces and an improved forecourt. The Swindon to Kemble line has been redoubled, and we look forward to sub-two-hour trains to London later this year. Those important service improvements cannot come soon enough, however, because the risk is of a modal shift away from trains as my constituents decide that instead of getting on a train at Cheltenham they will drive to Swindon, Kingham, Kemble or elsewhere—the point about pollution and so on has already been made.
Where does that lead us in terms of public policy? The drumbeat for renationalisation is growing louder—one can hear that from those on the Opposition Benches—but I respectfully counsel against it, because it is not the solution that a lot of people hope it might be. First, it would be extremely expensive to renationalise the railways, and that would mean taking precious resources away from other sectors. Secondly, my real concern is that were the railways to be nationalised, if it came to a bidding war between the NHS and railways, the NHS would win. If it came to a bidding war between schools and railways, schools would win. If it came to a bidding war with any other precious public service, railways would be likely to come off second best.
I am just about old enough to remember the state of British Rail. It was atrocious: old, dirty, clunky rolling stock, and unspeakably awful food. Although I have some sympathy with the idea of renationalisation—there can be limits to privatisation, particularly when dealing with public goods that have a natural monopoly—we should be careful what we wish for.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes interesting points about public spending. Does he agree that the current Government are already making a significant investment in High Speed 2? Surely, any Government would balance their investments and spending on a number of different projects. In addition, the current franchise system is hugely costly and is using large amounts of public money very badly.
Alex Chalk
It is true that the system uses public money, but it comes down to how much public money, and what is the proper balance. I simply make the point that although it is easy in the abstract to suggest that if the railways come into public ownership, fares will come down and quality will go up, I suspect that is unlikely in reality. If I am looking for additional funding for my local oncology centre, compared with more rolling stock, I think I know which one I and many colleagues would prioritise.
If train operating companies want to enjoy public support—they do not enjoy enough public support because they are the author of their own misfortune in many circumstances—they must raise their game in two particulars. First, they must be more reliable, and secondly they must be more competitive in their pricing structure. Otherwise, the people of Cheltenham, who I represent, will feel that they are getting a raw deal. Public services must be for the people, and GWR needs to raise its game.