First Great Western Franchise

First, I wish to thank you, Mr. Chope, for ensuring that this debate takes place, if you did so; if you did not, I must thank Mr. Speaker. The debate could not be more timely, or better attended, as Back Benchers of all parties are present and will wish to catch your eye. That is most unusual in a 9.30 am debate in Westminster Hall. I have been a train enthusiast all my life. I have two historic steam train lines in my constituency, with which I am actively involved—if not on the footplate, I certainly give them all the enthusiasm I can. Trains have a long and prestigious history in my constituency. Every train journey offers a sense of adventure. Everyone feels that rail travel has a romantic mystique; rail journeys provide a sense of wonder to us, as we whistle past the countryside. Train transport has been one of the great and most glamorous means of getting around the world. An illustrious former resident of my constituency, the late Agatha Christie, set many of her adventures and murder stories on trains. I have been an MP for south Devon constituencies since 1983. The total train miles that I have travelled during that period would have taken me around the world several times—if not to the moon and back. Transport is allegedly one of the three priority policy areas of the current Government. However, in spite of an enormous growth in passenger rail travel, there has been absolutely no improvement in the western region rail network as a whole. The south-west is one of the most neglected regions in the country in respect of public transport. Although Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world, the west country still has a 1960s rail infrastructure, making it difficult to run fast, frequent and reliable services there. The importance of fast, frequent and reliable services for the economy and for tourism cannot be overstated. We need to have a three-hour Paddington to Plymouth service. The December 2004 timetable demonstrated that Plymouth was, at last, again located three hours from London, as it had been in the '70s and '80s, with two daily services up and three down achieving the three-hour timing. The Transport Committee repeatedly recognised a three-hour threshold—not three hours and a bit, but three hours—as the maximum time that most inward investor location search engines regard as their cut-off period. The Plymouth three-hour journey time has also acted as the benchmark requirement for Network Rail to deliver sustained maintenance standards and new investment in order to allow the necessary line running speeds. The Government have announced the commissioning of a new fleet of 125 mph high-speed trains, but they will not come into service until 2015—in nine years' time. That is simply to replace the current 125 mph trains that were introduced in the 1970s. Therefore, in nine years' time we will get trains that go no faster than those running in the 1970s. Worse, the new and existing 125 mph trains are operationally restricted by the maximum speed that is permitted along the entire 300-mile length of the Reading to Penzance main line, which is merely 110 mph, and in many places very much less than that. If the speed limit were 125 mph, Paddington to Exeter would be attainable in less than one hour and 50 minutes, Plymouth could be reached in less than two hours and 40 minutes, and the time to Penzance would be four hours and 30 minutes. The Government must upgrade the Great Western main line so that high-speed trains can travel at the speed they were built to travel at in the 1970s, and will again be built to travel at in 2015. The high cost of travel acts as a deterrent to business and tourists. The first class return train fare from London to Totnes is now more expensive than a British Airways economy return fare to San Francisco. People can fly to the European Union capitals in less time than it takes to go from Totnes to London at the weekends. The impact of a reduced rail service on CO2 emissions and road congestion might be of interest to the House—it is also an extremely topical issue. One would have thought that the Government would have done everything possible to ensure that train travel was more attractive in terms of both speed and cost than car travel, but they have not. If they were environmentally conscious in any way, they would have understood the impact of CO2 emissions from road congestion, which will get worse if services to and around the west country continue to be reduced. The Government policy should be to get people off the roads, but we learn from last Sunday's newspapers that, on the contrary, thousands of miles of new roads are planned, but no new railways. A new track should be laid between Exeter and Plymouth along the line of the A38. That would cut half an hour from the journey time to and from the capital. If the speed limits were increased from 110 mph to 125 mph from Reading to Exeter, the journey to and from Exeter would be about one and a half hours. If we were in China or the Chinese were here, that new track would have been built within a year, but the Government have not even given it the consideration it deserves. Instead, the track follows the Brunel line of the 19th century, hugging the coastline, which is threatened by global warming. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the leader of my party, said yesterday, we must give people, and particularly those living in our towns and cities, serious travel options that do not involve the car. As the TUC said in ““Making South West Work Better””, its 2005 regional economic strategy paper:"““Carbon emissions from transport in the UK are rising rapidly. Transport is currently responsible for 26 per cent. of the UK's carbon emissions. The growth of road and air transport has resulted in a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the past decade.””" Although the Department for Transport recognises that, and is responsible for helping to deliver reductions in CO2 emissions, it has totally failed to do so. Last year, cars emitted 19.39 million tonnes of carbon equivalent into the atmosphere, and 11.68 million tonnes of carbon equivalent came from other commercial vehicles. Domestic and international aviation accounted for 8.67 million tonnes, buses for under 1 million tonnes—970,000, to be exact—and diesel rail for only 260,000 tonnes. That gives some idea of the scale of the problem from motor vehicles: to repeat, 19.39 million tonnes of carbon equivalent that goes into the atmosphere comes from cars, and 260,000 tonnes comes from diesel rail.