Mark Lazarowicz: Edinburgh North & Leith

•

•

•

•

•

	Debate on The East Coast Rail Franchise
	Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): I am grateful to have secured this debate. I see that a number of hon. Members who represent various constituencies along the east coast are present; doubtless they wish to speak about their particular interest in the subject. I shall try to be reasonably succinct, so that they have a chance to take part. I start by declaring my interest in the subject, not in a formal or financial sense, but as a regular user of the rail services on the east coast main line. I share that interest with many of my constituents, who use the line south to London and north to Aberdeen, Inverness and Glasgow. Like many of those constituents who have recently contacted me by email or letter, I am generally impressed by the quality of service offered by GNER, the current franchise operator. That fact certainly forms part of the background to a debate about the future of the franchise for the east coast main line. Obviously, as with any operator, things can go wrong from time to time, and my experience of the line has not always been of the highest, but I have generally experienced a good service under the present operator. My starting point is therefore to say that I hope that the Strategic Rail Authority and the Department for Transport, in their respective roles in awarding a new franchise, will allow GNER to continue to operate it. I know that that view is shared by the nearly 50 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion on the subject tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). It is pretty unusual for MPs to support the continuation of a franchise in such a way. We normally see people demanding that franchises are removed. That is a reflection of the quality of the service provided by GNER. Mr. Iain Luke (Dundee, East) (Lab): My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the SRA's involvement in awarding the franchise for the east coast main line. Does he accept that, with the SRA's involvement in reducing the strategic value of the line from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, the franchise should be framed so as to ensure that the good service that we seek serves all the communities on the east coast, from Aberdeen, through Dundee, to Edinburgh and the south? Mr. Lazarowicz : I know that my hon. Friend has been a consistent champion of the rail service north of Edinburgh to Dundee, including the long-distance mainline services. He makes a valid point, and I agree with him. There has been speculation in the press that, in the process leading to the awarding of a new franchise, the Treasury is trying to extract the maximum return to the taxpayer from whatever arrangements are eventually made. It is clearly the Treasury's job to extract the maximum return for the taxpayer; and one would expect such thinking to be going on in government, but I hope that today's debate will make it clear that it would be unacceptable for the Treasury's interests to override the importance of maintaining a high-quality service on the line. The message that must come out of the debate is that we do not want the quality of the service offered to the customer to be reduced; it would certainly be a seriously retrograde step if the current GNER service were replaced by a poorer service offered by another operator or, indeed, if the existing operator were forced to run a poorer service as a result of the eventual franchise arrangements. Mr. Luke : My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the integrity of the service. I know that he reads The Scotsman intently because it is produced in his home town, and he will have been upset by a report on 8 October—my birthday—that some of the proposed options include the possibility of longer journey times, unregulated non-core fares and replacement bus services. Many people along the line in the north-east of Scotland will see that as a clear threat to their direct services to London. Does my hon. Friend accept that such things should play no part in the final decision on who gets the franchise? Mr. Lazarowicz : I certainly accept my hon. Friend's point; indeed, I hope to deal in a second with some of the specific service issues to which he referred. There is also concern about the possible effect of a change in operator on the passengers who use the existing services. Where there has been a change of operator elsewhere, there have sometimes been difficulties in the changeover period, and there is a worry that the service could be disrupted in the transition to a new operator. That in itself would drive passengers away, and they might not return in the long term, whatever services then prevailed. There is also concern about the position of the staff who currently work for GNER; the issue has a particular constituency interest for me and for other hon. Members with constituencies along the east coast line. Almost 400 staff, many of whom live in my constituency, are employed in various operations in the Edinburgh area, and they are concerned about what a change of operator will mean for the future of their jobs. I accept that it is in the nature of a franchising process that the Government have to consider all the proposals made by the various bidders. If another operator suggested a wonderful alternative, it would certainly not be right to rule it out, and any such proposal will no doubt be given proper consideration. However, given what we know of the various options unveiled so far, there is no reason to change the operator on the east coast main line. The right way forward is to build on the strengths of the existing operator, enhance the services offered to the passengers who use the route at the moment and attract more customers from the airlines and the roads. If we are to ensure effective competition, particularly with air travel, there must be a high-quality service, which is another reason why any moves that would result in a poorer service should be resisted. I want briefly to highlight the improvements that I would like to see on the agenda, particularly to meet my constituents' interests. First, we need to consider the timings for the duration of journeys from Edinburgh to destinations further south. It is technically possible for trains to make the journey to London in four hours, but those of us who have used the service in recent decades notice that journey times have not been reduced; in fact, with one early morning exception, they have actually increased in recent years. That trend must be reversed if we are to provide an attractive alternative, particularly to air services. Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want his constituents to be able to reach Aberdeen as well. However, in terms of journey times, Edinburgh is almost halfway between London and Aberdeen, so it is important that the operator of the east coast franchise recognises that the line goes all the way to Aberdeen, especially when it tries to improve journey times. Mr. Lazarowicz : Indeed. The franchising process must see how maximum advantage can be gained from the franchise operator working with the Scottish Executive in the exercise of their responsibility for rail infrastructure north of Edinburgh, following additional powers being given to them recently by the Secretary of State for Transport. Journey times, particularly for trains going south from Edinburgh, certainly need to be shorter, but I fully accept the point about services northwards and westwards. Secondly, there needs to be greater integration between the mainline services and local rail and bus services. Integration is not as good as it could be, and work needs to be done to make the most of proper integrated transport services so that passengers can transfer from mainline express services to local services and make bus connections. There also needs to be more imaginative use of the timetable to provide links and direct services, not only along the main line from Aberdeen and Edinburgh southwards to London, but to other cities that can be served by the line. Services to Leeds could certainly be improved, and connections to cities such as Nottingham and Sheffield could be better integrated with the mainline services. Several constituents raised the issue of smoking carriages on the east coast service, which they do not believe to be conducive to their health. As has been pointed out, presumably the possibility of separate legislation in Scotland on smoking in public places will have to be considered, or there will be difficulties when the trains reach a spot 400 yds north of Berwick. It is essential that the franchise is for a long period, whichever company wins it. We cannot have the sort of two-year extension of the franchise that we had in the previous round, which would clearly create uncertainty for any operator. I understand that a franchise of up to 10 years is suggested. That is the sort of period that should be covered in the current round. Certain associated improvements to the infrastructure could be linked to any bid. During the previous franchise round, some major upgrades to the network were suggested as part of the bid. Obviously, upgrades to the network or anything else that is done in the right place in the right way would be very attractive to us all, but I would be concerned if part of the price of the final successful bid was to link the franchise to excessively complicated changes to the infrastructure. We have learnt from the experience of the west coast main line, and we should be wary of major improvements to the infrastructure on lines on which services are operating. It would be far better to return to the agenda the possibility of a north-south high-speed line. That is the way forward for the UK as a whole, and we need to pursue it. We need a 20-year vision for direct high-speed links from London to the north of England and to Scotland—the vision, and the links, that exist elsewhere in Europe. Such a network might make possible a three-hour journey from London to Edinburgh, and needs to be constructed in a way that does not cause disruption to existing services for an extensive period. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Transport indicated in a speech last week at a conference that the issue of a north-south high-speed line is back on the agenda. I hope that he will take that idea forward, as such development is needed if there are to be real alternatives to air travel to Edinburgh and Glasgow, not to mention between Aberdeen, Dundee and London. If the Treasury is to harvest more return from the new franchise, whichever operator it is granted to, what better way to recycle that extra income in its coffers than to use it to develop the first phases of a north-south high-speed line of the type that I have described?
	continued
	Back to Speeches
	8th February 2005, Column 349-52, 366-70 Westminster Hall