Asked by
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the report by Transport Focus Fairer fares: the future of rail
commuting, published on 18 August 2020, in particular the
recommendation to trial flexi-season tickets and other marketing
initiatives to encourage rail travel as Covid-19 restrictions are
lifted; and what discussions they have had with railway operators
about conducting such trials.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport ()
(Con)
My Lords, the Government welcome the Transport Focus report on
the future of rail commuting post Covid. We are working closely
with the industry on a range of initiatives to benefit the
passenger, including looking at solutions that offer better value
and convenience for those who commute flexibly.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response, but to
press her a little further, has the Department for Transport
actually received proposals from the train operating companies to
promote flexible fares to encourage passengers, including less
frequent commuters, to return? Will the department allow any of
the train operators which want to implement trials of such
options to do so?
(Con)
The Government proactively asked the train operating companies to
come up with ideas for fares and other innovative passenger-led
solutions as we come out of Covid. At the moment, we are building
the evidence base to support the proposals—for example, on
flexible season tickets—and assessing the potential commercial
impact of these new products. How they are to be implemented will
be published in due course.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that even before the pandemic,
we were seeing big changes in working patterns? A growing
proportion of the working population no longer expect to go to
the workplace five days a week. Does she accept that the
Government need to show more leadership here so that we can move
on from ticketing systems that reflect the work patterns of the
1950s?
(Con)
My Lords, I believe the Government are showing leadership on this
issue, which is precisely why we proactively approached the train
operating companies and made it absolutely clear to them that,
going forward, we are going to see a very different type of train
system—one that is really focused on the passenger and that
provides punctual and reliable train services, but at a price
that is fair to the taxpayer and the passenger.
(Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Minister referred to the Government looking at a
number of solutions. Will she indicate whether those solutions
include enhanced ventilation systems and particle filtration—and,
ideally, air disinfection protection measures—as part of the
means to encourage people to use the trains in a safe manner?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right; the one thing we are going to
have to do to get people back on to the railways—indeed, the
public transport system as a whole—is to improve passenger
confidence in the system. One way to do that is to be at the
forefront of being able to provide the most up-to-date air
filtration systems and secure the best enhanced cleaning
contracts.
(Con)
My Lords, noble Lords may have wonderful, imaginative ideas for
playing around with fares, and there may indeed be a commercial
case for flexible season tickets, but does my noble friend agree
that the future of the railways is best secured if they maximise
their own revenues and that the fundamental purpose of commuter
fares and season tickets must therefore always be, as with
airlines, to increase yields to the railways, thus saving expense
for the taxpayer?
(Con)
I somewhat agree with my noble friend in that, if this were being
done in purely commercial terms, that would be the case, and we
certainly want to minimise the amount of subsidy from the
taxpayer where appropriate. However, the state might also want to
intervene for other reasons and use pricing levers; for example,
to encourage modal shift and get people out of their cars and on
to the rail, particularly for certain types of journeys, and that
might include commuting.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, the roads are congested and the trains are empty. Does
the Minister accept that, as this report shows, passengers will
return to the railways only if there is reform and modernisation
of ticketing that offers better value for money? As the
Government now control the railways, does she accept that the
Government need a greater sense of urgency in this modernisation?
(Con)
I am afraid the Government do not accept that. We are undertaking
rail reform. As the noble Baroness will know, now is probably not
the right time to do it, in the midst of a pandemic, but as the
course of the pandemic becomes much clearer, we will continue to
work, as we have done for quite a while now, with Keith Williams
on his root and branch review. We remain in close contact with
him and he fully supports the ERMAs we have put in recently. The
noble Baroness also said that the roads are congested. I do not
know whether she has been outside recently, but they are not.
(Con)
My Lords, any trial flexi-season ticket system needs government
approval before it can start. Can my noble friend say whether she
is looking at a national scheme with common rules, to avoid
complexity, or whether each individual franchise will develop its
own scheme? Will she ensure that any new scheme will be
contactless, in order to keep down costs and save time?
(Con)
My noble friend is trying to push me a little further every time.
I cannot say whether it will be a national scheme or whether we
will have competitive schemes from different rail operators.
Certainly, a national scheme would be simpler for the passenger,
so each option will have advantages and disadvantages. We are
looking at those at this time. Smart ticketing, which I think is
the digital solution that my noble friend refers to, is at the
heart of what we want to achieve. We really need to get to a
stage where we do not have paper tickets; we must have smart
ticketing systems that can cope with season tickets or, indeed,
any ticket at all.
(CB) [V]
My Lords, in this part of mid-Wales, just about the only way for
many people to get to Birmingham, Manchester or London is to take
the beautiful Heart of Wales line, which then goes up to
Manchester. The problem, as I see it, quite apart from the fact
that you sometimes have to flag down the train or tell the driver
when you want to get off—not an intercity problem—is that the
fares and timetable are not always co-ordinated to allow an
affordable way of commuting to these cities. Will the Government
look at this when they are talking to the companies? Indeed, will
they talk to their own people about how we could make this work
better?
(Con)
Train services and fares are, of course, devolved in Wales, but I
recognise the noble Lord’s point about passengers who want to go
from Wales to England for work, for example. I encourage him to
raise this issue with Sir Peter Hendy in his union connectivity
review, because it is really important for people who need to
travel for employment reasons that the means of travel are there
in terms of the services, but also that the fares fit as well.
(Lab) [V]
First, how will the pending increase in fares encourage people
back on to our trains, bearing in mind that much passenger
business is optional leisure travel, and commuter traffic will
become more price-sensitive as home working for at least part of
the week is likely to become a permanent option for many?
Secondly, if cheaper fare promotions are going to be used to
encourage people back on to our trains, who, under the present
contractual arrangements between the Government and the train
operating companies, will have the final say on what those cheap
fare promotions will be: the Government or the train operating
companies?
(Con)
The recent increase in fares was 2.6%, 1% below inflation. This
is the lowest increase for four years. In addition, the
Government delayed the increase by two months to 1 March. But it
is case that taxpayers have been spectacularly generous to the
railways in terms of support over the Covid period. We must
ensure that there is a good balance between the taxpayer and the
passenger, so we are content with a small increase in regulated
rail fares. On the potential schemes and other measures that may
be put in place, the Government will be working very closely with
the train operating companies. All ideas are welcome, and when it
is time to get people back on to public transport, we will put
those in place.
(LD) [V]
My Lords, the recent pulling of the funding by the Government for
Transport for the North’s scheme for smart ticketing across the
north of England seems extraordinary in view of what the Minister
has already said. Is this not a blow for the railway across the
north of England and an indication that “levelling up” is no more
than a slogan and has no substance? Will the Minister go away and
get this reversed?
(Con)
Not at all: TfN was allocated £150 million at the 2015 spending
review for this integrated and smart travel programme. It was
always the case that that funding was going to expire at the end
of the current financial year. To date, TfN has managed to spend
£24 million, and that is a good start, but we are now considering
how best to deliver more effectively—and perhaps more quickly—a
rollout of smart ticketing to improve passenger services across
the north.
