First Great Western Franchise

: My right hon. and learned Friend must have seen the later parts of my speech, although of course I do not accuse him of cribbing from it. There has been a 40 per cent. increase in commuter traffic in rural areas, but a reduction in the rail service; it is absolutely mad. I shall come on to that. I am most grateful for his intervention, and I am sorry about his house; perhaps he should move. I have some figures that hon. Members will be interested to hear on carbon dioxide emissions, in kilograms per passenger per journey, for the journey between London and Bristol. By modern diesel rail, the amount is 10.6 kg, and by car it is almost double: 21.3 kg. Recent Government figures show that, on the journey between London and Edinburgh, the average passenger travelling by electric train is responsible for about 12 kg of CO2 emissions; by car, the journey burns up 70 kg of CO2 per passenger. By air, the figure is nearly 100 kg. If we really have concerns about the environment, we should be encouraging the maximum number of people on to the railways, not the roads. Paradoxically, although road transport emits six times more CO2 per passenger mile than rail, motoring costs have fallen, and although rail is far more carbon-efficient, rail fares continue to increase sharply. A moment ago, I illustrated that with the fact that it is cheaper to fly economy with British Airways from Heathrow to San Francisco, return, than to get a London-Plymouth first class rail return. That gives some idea of the level of fares. Rural Devon roads cannot handle any more traffic. The same point was made about Wiltshire by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). My Urban Regeneration and Countryside Protection Bill, which I introduced six years ago, was talked out by the Government, but it would have played a part in not allowing more building or development if the infrastructure was not in place, and that would include roads and rail. The economic growth of the south-west depends on modern and efficient transport corridors, pre-eminent among which must be a top-class rail network. I want to deal with the minimum specifications in the Government franchise document. It is important that we get the subject out of the way, so that the Minister has an opportunity to answer on this point. In preparing the franchise document, the Department for Transport came up with the minimum service level commitment timetable. I do not know how it was worked out, but the civil servants who produced it clearly did not know the region, or understand the work patterns of the people living in it. It was hopeless, inappropriate, inadequate and against the interests of those living in the west country. The December 2004 timetable should have been the baseline for the Department for Transport's timetable. Why? Because it was developed over a three-year, post-Hatfield period in open collaboration between the train operators, Network Rail, the local authorities, passenger groups, and business and tourism groups. For that reason, it was welcomed and accepted by all such groups. Yet the timetable that emerged from the Department for Transport took no account of the 2004 timetable, and completely ignored the objective 2 status of Plymouth and its need to be within three hours of London. The Department for Transport timetable has done the Government considerable harm and has caused immense friction and anger throughout the region. It is as inexcusable as it is inexplicable. One thing that the Government did get right was their decision to continue the franchise with the First group. The company understands the area and responded quickly and correctly to the avalanche of representations made by the county and district councils, commercial and voluntary organisations, the TUC and others. I thank the company for its measured and sensible approach, in dramatic contrast to that of the Government. The Government were content to allow trains to and from Totnes to be reduced by 50 per cent. I was deluged with letters from angry and concerned constituents, and that anger spilled over into a protest on the platform itself. I must pause to deal with two questions that I tabled and their answers, because they show the Government's view on the subject. I asked the Secretary of State"““why his Department's tender document for the West of England franchise specifies a reduction in the number of trains calling at Totnes””," and the Minister who will reply today said:"““The Great Western Franchise specification was designed to improve the overall operational and financial performance of the train service and to ensure resources were used to best meet market needs. The timetable on each route, including Totnes is derived from these requirements.""Most passengers in the Great Western Franchise area will see the same or improved service””," but not those in Totnes. He continued:"““First's consultation on their draft timetable has now closed and First are in discussion with the Department””.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 27 March 2006; Vol. 444, c. 630W.]" In a second question, I asked the Secretary of State"““what criteria the Department used in deciding to specify in the Greater Western Franchise that the first train from London to Totnes should not arrive before midday on weekday services.””" That is what was going to happen. One would not be able to get to Totnes, which serves the whole south Devon area, before midday. The answer was:"““The specification for the Greater Western franchise was set to achieve value for money for the taxpayer and the travelling public and provide the best service for the greatest number of passengers across the franchise.””—[Official Report, House of Commons, 19 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 711–12W.]" That is just not true. The Government were proposing not the best service, but the worst possible service. So much so that at the first round of discussions, First Great Western ensured that the first train will stop at Totnes way before midday. In my view, all that the Government were concerned about was getting their £1.2 million a week, with no regard for the consequences for the travelling public. If they did not like it, they could go by road—that was the Government's attitude. I pay tribute to First Great Western's management team for understanding the west country people and for listening to the rightful concerns of public authorities, businesses, private companies and, above all, local people. As a result of the appalling muddle and the Government's mismanagement, there can be only a few people in the west country who feel that the service is better run by the Government.