First Great Western Franchise

I apologise to Members in the Chamber as I shall not be able to observe the usual courtesies and prolong my presence here beyond my speech. I am going to uphold the honour of the Commons against the Lords in a charity swim that is a long-standing commitment. I hope that Members will forgive me. It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), whose knowledge of rail matters is well known. From his comments, it is clear that his postbag, like mine, has been filled with letters expressing concerns about the rail service in the south-west. Rail transport in the south-west has been one of the dominant issues that I have encountered since I became the Member for Plymouth, Devonport a year ago. The transport needs of the south-west are many, including air and road links, and they are all equally vital. It is the largest geographical region in the country, and it is very sparsely populated. If we are to avoid complete dependence on the car, branch lines feeding into cities such as Plymouth are essential, as are inter-city links. Plymouth, which suffers serious peripherality concerns, is a city with an ambitious growth strategy. There are plans to increase its population significantly, by up to 50,000 people. Our economy is doing well. Our skyline is marked out with cranes, and business is looking favourably at the city. However, all those inquiring about establishing in Plymouth ask what the rail links are like. Rail journeys in the south-west have generally increased; they are up by 42 per cent. since 1995. A fifth of the journeys end in London, which indicates just how important the inter-city links are, particularly for business. We need those fast links, and the three-hour journey is essential. We also need the branch lines and the cross-country links that bring workers to workplaces, students to schools and universities, and people to the city for shopping or playing, and for their entertainment generally. Historically, we have been living with the threat to our rail links. It was thought in 2004, following a detailed consultation, that we had got a timetable with which we could all work. The 2004 timetable seems simply to have been junked, despite the broad support for it, during discussion of what was needed after the Railways Act 2005. That point has been well made. People in the industry, who have much more experience than I do in such matters and who understand the intricacies of rail timetables, did not understand and were not happy with the process that followed that Act. The fact that the detail of the timetable was treated as commercially sensitive and was not published early on along with all the other franchise documentation caused problems. The people who were best placed to spot the anomalies, clashes and gaps in services—the rail users—were not brought into the process, except by the back door, when people got leaked copies of the timetable. That is not how things should be. The users of the service well understand whether their connections will work or whether, as was the case in the proposed timetable, two trains are scheduled on the same piece of line at the same time. Given that the Secretary of State had inferred prior to the opening of the franchise process that he did not intend to cross all the t's and dot all the i's, we were all surprised at the degree of detail that was apparent in the franchise when we saw the detail of the timetable. That proved not to be the final word on the matter. There did seem to be some flexibility for the franchisee to make changes. First Great Western listened to the issues that colleagues from across the region and I raised, along with other lobbyists and members of the public, and it has made some changes: there will be four three-hour journey services for Plymouth, not one, and many of the local routes have been reintroduced. However, the vague language sometimes used by First Great Western gives me cause for worry. Terms such as ““expected to”” and ““may”” are used in its press releases. Expectation is one thing, reality is another. That is why I am seeking a meeting with Alison Forster, the managing director of First Great Western, and MPs from all parties to discuss, and I hope nail down, some of the suggested changes. We also want to discuss the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about the subsidy and the rail utilisation strategy. The final document has only just been released, although it was apparently published to inform the development of the Government's specification for the south-west franchise. It all seems a little late in the day.