(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to
make a statement on the future of Great British Railways.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport ()
The case for rail modernisation is now stronger than when Keith
Williams set out the plan for rail in 2021. Covid-19, recent
macroeconomic events, industrial relations and financial
challenges have increased the need for it. The railways are not
meeting customers’ needs, with delays, unreliability and
uncertainty exacerbated by the rail strikes. When people look at
the rail sector, we need them to see a system that stands for
reliability and sustainability, so it is clear that we have to
change.
This Government will therefore deliver the most ambitious changes
to our railways in a generation, and will deliver for the people
who matter: our passengers, customers and taxpayers. Although we
will not be introducing rail reform legislation during the
current Session, due to limits on parliamentary time, we are
committed to introducing the legislation necessary to create a
guiding mind, Great British Railways, as soon as possible.
As many Members are aware, a competition was run to identify the
location for the Great British Railways headquarters. I welcome
the support of colleagues for the six shortlisted towns and
cities, and I note that the hon. Member for York Central () has been vocal in her
support for York to be the winner. I hope to be able to announce
the successful location shortly—subject to other events outside
the Chamber. Ahead of the legislation, we will continue to work
with the Great British Railways transition team and the wider
sector to push ahead with our ambitious modernisation programme
to deliver real benefits for customers.
Reforming our railways means more reliable trains, faster journey
times—in all, a modern, future-facing rail industry; a sector
with an unswerving focus on meeting the needs of its customers,
creating a simpler, better railway for communities across
Britain. There will be a GBR at the heart of our rail network,
with its headquarters located in one of our great railway
communities. The details will be confirmed shortly, but our
commitment to deliver is unchanged.
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent
question.
Following the publication for the House of the Williams-Shapps
review, the Government announced in the Queen’s Speech on 10 May
2022:
“Legislation will be introduced to modernise rail services and
improve reliability for passengers”.
As part of this process, the then Transport Secretary launched a
high-profile competition for the location of the headquarters
outside London. Forty-two locations bid and six were shortlisted,
including York, as part of the levelling-up agenda. Each location
shortlisted hosted a ministerial visit over the summer of 2022,
involving public sector, rail industry and community
stakeholders. In parallel, the public participated in a public
vote over their preferred destination. All this was at
significant cost to local authorities. Last Wednesday, the
Secretary of State shelved her plans for this Session. No written
or oral statement has been made to the House until today.
Let me therefore ask the following questions. Why did the
Secretary of State not have the courtesy to announce her U-turn
on Great British Railways to the House? If the relocation of the
new headquarters is to proceed, what will the process be, and if
not, given that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent
by local authorities, how will the Secretary of State compensate
shortlisted authorities? What was the result of the public vote?
What are the reasons for shelving the plans for the future of
Great British Railways in the current Session? How, in the
interim, will the Secretary of State address the failure issues
across the rail network that Great British Railways was to
resolve, including contract failure on the west coast main line
and elsewhere? What discussions has she had with the trade unions
on abandoning her plans, and on the implications for the
workforce across the rail sector? Is she now abandoning
Williams-Shapps, levelling up, and any semblance of government?
The Great British public deserve better.
I think it is worth pointing out that the comments referred to
were made to a Select Committee of this House, the Transport
Committee, and that the Secretary of State was therefore giving
information in her role as Transport Secretary and keeping
Members up to date. As I touched on in my initial answer, there
will be a Great British Railways HQ located in one of our great
railway communities. I am sorry to disappoint people, but I will
not be announcing from the Dispatch Box today where that will be,
but it is something that we are committed to doing. It has been
inspiring to see the excitement about the competition; it shows
what rail can bring to local communities. Certainly there will be
a successful bidder, so to speak, and they will be announced in
the not-too-distant future.
Yes, the Secretary of State has met the general secretaries of
the leading trade unions involved in the rail sector, but that
was not to discuss abandoning the plan, because we have not
abandoned the plan. We are still taking forward a range of work
to reform and modernise our railways, and there is plenty we can
do, even in the absence of a Bill in the third Session. I am
confident that Great British Railways will make a difference to
our rail network. It would be tempting, in these interesting
circumstances in which I come to the Dispatch Box, to make a raft
of pledges on things I would quite like to do with the railways,
but we are certainly conscious that we need to reform and move
forward, and that is something that most people across the sector
realise. There might be slightly different views about exactly
how to go about that, but I am keen to see it taken forward to
make the difference for our customers and communities, who
deserve a rail network that delivers for them.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee, .
(Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It was in the Transport Committee that the Secretary of State
gave us this news about Great British Railways. I understand the
concern about her not coming to the Dispatch Box to do so, but
surely everybody supports the concept of a Select Committee
getting fresh information from those who come before it. The
Secretary of State also told us that the guiding mind of Great
British Railways can still be advanced without legislation,
because there is a lot that can be brought forward and very few
parts of it need legislation. Can the Minister set out some of
the ideas that would see the guiding mind being brought forward,
notwithstanding the fact that the legislation would be slightly
lagging behind?
The Chair of the Transport Committee is absolutely right to
highlight the role that his Committee can play as a group of
experienced, and in some cases expert, Members who can analyse
issues and question Ministers on their performance. It is
appropriate to use a Select Committee as a place to engage and
discuss where Government’s thinking is going. What can be
achieved without legislation includes workforce reform,
delivering local partnerships, bringing forward a more long-term
strategy for rail and reforming how we use ticketing. I think we
all recognise that post-pandemic far fewer people are buying
season tickets compared with on-the-day tickets, and we are
looking at the changes that may flow from that changing pattern.
There is still plenty that we can be cracking on with and
delivering at the initial stage of reform without having primary
legislation as part of it.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Minister, .
(Slough) (Lab)
As usual, this Government are in chaos of their own making. We
would not be standing here today if they were capable of making
commitments and sticking to them. They are stopping a project in
its tracks despite millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money already
having been spent. They are asking towns and cities to invest
precious time and money in their headquarters bids but completely
mothballing the relevant legislation in any transport Bill within
this parliamentary Session. They are showing a serious lack of
ambition and long-term vision and leaving the whole of the rail
industry in the lurch.
I asked the rail Minister about this very issue in the last
Transport questions but was effectively fobbed off. We should not
be surprised at that, considering the mess they have made of our
railways. Last week 55 services on the TransPennine Express were
cancelled in just one day, and two of our northern Mayors could
not travel to Liverpool for a press briefing on train
cancellations because of train cancellations. Avanti West Coast
has slashed more than 220,000 seats per week, but despite this,
one of the Transport Secretary’s first acts was to ensure that a
lucrative contract extension was in place. As usual, the Tories
are rewarding failure. People across our country are paying the
price for a system that the Conservative party has already
admitted must change but refuses to say how or when. The
Conservatives promised at their party conference, with a straight
face, to get Britain moving, yet all we have seen is stoppages,
strikes and the managed decline of our railways, and now they are
abandoning their flagship policy as a direct result of their
aimless and distracted party. They are a shambolic Government
with no plan and no ideas.
Will the Minister clarify the future of Great British Railways?
Has it been stopped in its tracks? When will his Department get a
grip on the railways and deliver a proper service for passengers
across our country?
Luckily, I have already answered the hon. Gentleman’s first
question. We have certainly not brought Great British Railways to
a halt. Again, we said the location of its headquarters will be
announced shortly. This has not been stopped, abandoned or any of
the other things we are hearing from the Labour party. We are
very clear that we want to look forward to a rail network that is
seeing massive, almost unprecedented investment, and in which
customers can look forward to better facilities and better
services that deliver for their communities. I leave it to the
hon. Gentleman to look back wistfully at British Rail.
(Harrogate and Knaresborough)
(Con)
It is clear we have a very busy legislative programme, but that
does not necessarily mean we have to stop things like fares
reform, network efficiency, flexible ticketing or encouraging
more people back on to our railways. Those things do not need
legislation; they just need progression. This time will allow my
hon. Friend to ensure a significant role for the private sector
in rail reform and, of course, to further consider the merits of
York as the location of the headquarters of Great British
Railways.
I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend is
absolutely right that there is a range of things we can take
forward, not least fares reform and innovative practices such as
last year’s rail sale. There is plenty of work that can still be
done, and we will certainly be getting on with it.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson, .
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
The rail industry and GBR are in stasis, and there is little
evidence of progress coming from the Department for Transport.
Six months ago, the previous Secretary of State promised we
“would not be disappointed” with the legislation to create GBR,
but I am feeling distinctly underwhelmed. The Williams review
promised that GBR will
“take a whole-system view, allowing it to make choices and
decisions more effectively. It will enable the railways to be run
as a public service”.
That vision lies in tatters for now. We know that long-term
thinking and planning are key, but instead we have a piecemeal,
stop-start process that will take years, if not decades, to
achieve real change in a key part of our national infrastructure.
When can we expect anybody, GBR or otherwise, to take a
whole-system view of rail in this country? With ScotRail back in
public ownership, there is one part of the UK where the railways
are run as a public service. Will the Minister use the transport
mini-Bill to devolve Network Rail to Scotland, to ensure that a
fully integrated and fully publicly owned railway can be run
somewhere in the UK?
I can understand why not having an integrated rail network across
Great Britain is a particular priority for the Scottish National
party. It clearly is a priority for this UK Government. We will
not be looking to devolve responsibility for rail infrastructure,
not least because the SNP’s main idea at the moment seems to be
stopping the trains for passport control at the border.
On the wider pitch, we are determined to make a difference with
our railways. We are seeing real innovation, and I am sure the
hon. Gentleman will have looked at, for example, the experience
of Lumo trains from Edinburgh to London. Lumo is an open-access
operator that is pulling traffic away from air and on to rail,
which is exactly what we want to see. We will get on with the
many reforms we can make without primary legislation, but one of
them will not be creating a disjointed rail network.
(Wokingham) (Con)
When will the Government and railway companies come forward with
proposals for an improved pattern of services that attracts many
more fare-paying passengers? We need to get the deficit down very
quickly and the best way of doing so is by getting more people
paying fares willingly.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Clearly, demand
patterns have changed dramatically during the pandemic. For
example, a lot fewer people are commuting into London at 7 am to
9 am and then leaving between 5 pm and 7 pm, or they are doing
that three or four days a week rather than five, so there is a
need to look at how we can adapt. We are giving slightly more
flexibility to some operating companies, and looking at how we
use our ticketing and, in particular, our ticket pricing. The
rail sale was a great way of getting a lot of people on to trains
that might otherwise have been relatively quiet, producing new
revenue to the railways. In addition, as I said in response to
the SNP spokesperson, Lumo is targeting traffic that goes by air
to get it on tracks.
(Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
My constituents would really struggle to describe British
railways as “great”, because their lives are made a misery by
Avanti and TransPennine, which continually cancel trains, leading
to their missing job interviews, school and education. Today, a
commute that should have taken me two and a half hours took me
almost five—I only just made it in time for Education questions.
May I ask the Minister why on earth his Government extended the
contract with Avanti? Frankly, my constituents do not understand
why.
We made it clear when we extended the contract for only six
months that it was a probationary period, to allow Avanti to
implement the recovery plan that it has and is intending to bring
forward in December. We will judge whether to extend its contract
any further based on how that goes.
(Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The rail Minister is right to talk about the need for rail
reform, but may I urge him to use the couple of months of extra
time that he has won by postponing legislation to revisit some
core conclusions of the Williams-Shapps review, which are out of
date because they are based on work done before the pandemic? He
has mentioned the changes in customer demand and we need to
rethink some crucial things, particularly the role of Great
British Railways as the fat controller and a central planner
rather than a genuine slimline system operator.
I am keen that GBR adapts to the changes we have seen since the
pandemic, but we are seeing this across the whole industry and in
the discussions the train operating companies want to have with
Government. We will certainly use any time we have to ensure that
our proposals make a difference and have the most positive impact
for customers and communities.
(Lewisham West and Penge)
(Lab)
My constituents were recently informed by Southeastern of huge
timetable changes, with the result that they will have to make
significant amendments to their commutes. Southeastern did that
with no public consultation, despite being a publicly owned
franchise. Will the Minister ensure that Southeastern goes back
to consult, so that rail users have their voices heard before
such significant changes are made?
I am aware that Southeastern is taking feedback on its proposals.
It is important that it engages with communities and, in
particular, with their representatives in this House. Given the
number of changes that have had to be made in the past couple of
years, there is more flexibility for operators, including those
that are publicly owned, to react to emerging patterns of demand.
However, I understand that Southeastern will be listening and
looking at the feedback it gets on its proposed changes.
(Surrey Heath) (Con)
The Minister has been brilliantly clear that the creation of GBR
will play a significant part in levelling up transport
connectivity in the north and midlands, but he also knows that it
is vital to ensure that London and the home counties are better
connected. Travel times from my constituency, and particularly
from Camberley, Frimley and Bagshot, to London have not improved
since the age of Queen Victoria. Will he put a Stephenson’s
Rocket up the fundament of those bureaucrats who have been
standing in the way of the progress my constituents require?
Presumably it would be more like putting an electrified Michael
on the case as well. Demands have changed, particularly in London
and the south-east. We are seeing the results of investment,
particularly that which my right hon. Friend was instrumental in
helping to secure during his time in the Cabinet, for example,
with the opening of Bond Street station to passengers this
morning. People are starting to see major improvements in London
and the south-east, but I accept that they will also look to what
is happening on their local line and I will be happy to discuss
with him what could be done on the one he cites.
(Richmond Park) (LD)
The setting up of Great British Railways was meant to include
ticketing and pricing, and the cost of commuting continues to
weigh heavily on my constituents, particularly during the cost of
living crisis. Furthermore, if we want to encourage people on to
the trains and out of their cars, it is key that we make trains
affordable. The Department for Transport has said that it will
not put up regulated rail fares by 12.3%, in line with July’s
retail prices index, but will the Minister commit to freezing
rail fares next January, to help with the cost of living crisis
and the fight against climate change?
It is worth saying that there are a range of fares available on
our railways, particularly in London and the south-east, where
people use pay as you go and contactless bank cards. We have said
that we will not take the normal approach—which also existed
during the coalition—of using the RPI figure to set fares next
year, and a fair rise has been delayed. We look forward to
introducing plans that strike a balance between a railway that is
affordable for not only the taxpayer but customers and
communities.
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
The pandemic and the reckless strike actions we have seen have
caused significant disruption to our rail services. Does my hon.
Friend agree that the focus should now be on restoring services
and maximising investment in improving stations—for example, by
reopening the stations at Meir and Trentham in my constituency?
I am always pleased at the Dispatch Box to hear colleagues argue
passionately for the reinstatement and further expansion of parts
of our rail network. It has also been good to engage with Members
on both sides of the House on the Restoring Your Railways
project, and our goal is to get services restored. A lot of
passengers are coming back on to the railways, and we are keen to
see that, but people must have the confidence to come back, and
that is where industrial action is so damaging. We are looking to
restore many services, but we also have to take account of the
fact that patterns of demand have changed, particularly in
relation to commuting between 7 am and 9 am and between 5 pm and
7 pm, given the changes in the wider economy.
(Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
As the birthplace of British railways, Newcastle has bid to be
the home of GBR, so will the Minister tell us what we would win
if we were to win? The last Prime Minister, or perhaps she is
still the Prime Minister—I am not sure, because I cannot keep up
with Tory chaos; anyway, it was a recent Prime Minister—committed
to the implementation in full of Northern Powerhouse Rail, so
will the Minister also tell us whether that commitment will
outlast the transport Bill?
The NPR statement from the Prime Minister was very welcome, and
it was welcomed on both sides of the House. The winning community
will be very much the headquarters of the UK’s railways, and I
very much look forward to announcing—subject to some of the
things that have been alluded to—the successful town or city in
the near future.
(Don Valley) (Con)
In the spring and early summer this year I spent many days
campaigning and collecting signatures for a petition for
Doncaster—the greatest railway town in the country—to become the
home of the Great British Railways headquarters. Will the
Minister confirm that my boot leather was not wasted and that
Doncaster is still very much in the running?
I am glad to hear of the effort my hon. Friend put in. I can see
a couple of colleagues in the Chamber who will agree with his
views about Doncaster, and others who might suggest other
communities instead. As I have said, there will be a winner and
there will be a headquarters for Great British Railways, and I
genuinely hope to be the person to announce that fairly soon.
(Easington) (Lab)
I am sure we would all agree that failure should not be rewarded
with promotion or long contract extensions. I hope we would also
agree that Great British Railways will never be truly great
without the considerable investment needed in infrastructure
across our rail network. Will the Minister take this opportunity
to clarify the Government’s progress on the Network Rail
enhancements pipeline, given that a report published today noted
that there had been no progress on one third of all the projects
since the plan was published for 2019-24?
The updated rail network enhancements pipeline will be published
in due course—shortly might be another way of putting it. But I
look at the investment that we are putting into our railways and
see £96 billion in the integrated rail plan. I look at the fact
that the first major mainline in this country since the Victorian
era is under construction now and is on its way to Birmingham,
then Crewe and then Manchester. That level of investment in our
railways is unprecedented in most of our lifetimes, and it is
very welcome.
(Stretford and Urmston)
(Lab)
I declare a very personal interest in this matter, Mr Speaker. In
the past three days, I have tried to make four journeys between
Manchester, Edinburgh and London. Two were more than half an hour
late, three were cancelled and one was then uncancelled when the
driver of the preceding cancelled train turned up after all and
was able to drive my train. However, I say to the Minister,
because he has talked about ticketing and pricing, that there is
a particular issue where different companies serve the same
destinations and charge different and non-interchangeable prices.
Can that be addressed ahead of legislation?
The hon. Lady makes a fair point about making sure that ticket
prices are able to be clearly understood by customers and
consumers and that they are fair overall. However, open access
operators, for example Lumo from Edinburgh, provide a different
pricing plan which is of benefit to customers. It is something
that we are keen to see simplified and an area on which we look
to work.
(Bedford) (Lab)
Bedford residents are sick and tired of waiting for a detailed
decision on East West Rail. Some are finding it difficult to sell
blighted homes. Others are living under the spectre of their
homes being demolished if plans in their current form go ahead
through Bedford. Shockingly, we are still waiting for a response
to the consultation that ended a year and a half ago, in which
time there have been three rail Ministers. Will the Minister put
an end to this chaos and confirm when the plans will be
published?
I thank the hon. Member for raising East West Rail, a major
investment we are making in improving connectivity across our
country, driving economic growth and revitalising rail lines,
some of which have some of the least used stations in the whole
country, which will soon become much more vibrant hubs for their
local community. We look forward to confirming further details on
stages 2 and 3, in particular between Bedford and Cambridge, in
the near future.
(Eltham) (Lab)
It seems to my constituents that improving efficiency involves
cutting trains altogether; they cannot be late if they do not
run. I have lost three peak-time train services on the Sidcup
line that serves New Eltham and Mottingham and two peak-time
train services in the morning at Eltham and Falconwood on the
Bexleyheath line and at Kidbrooke. The Minister says that
Southeastern is listening, but the reason it is not, as
Southeastern told the scrutiny panel at Greenwich Council last
week, is that it sought and got permission from the Department
for Transport to make these cuts without consultation. Will the
Minister go away and ensure that there is proper consultation and
that we run train services that people actually want?
I thank the hon. Member for his points. As he will be aware, the
process for changing timetables has been altered over the past
couple of years, again, because of the radically changing demand
during the pandemic. As traffic returns, we can see that it is
not returning in a uniform way across the whole network. A quick
look at some of the rail usage statistics would show that. But we
do expect Southeastern to be responsive to the feedback that it
is getting, although I take on board the fact that, particularly
at peak times in London, there have been shifts in public demand.
(Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The former Transport Secretary was very keen to try to steal
Labour’s clothes with the announcement of Great British Railways,
no doubt mindful that the overwhelming majority of voters support
nationalisation. Sadly, his version of Great British Railways was
not the real deal. I am sure that my hon. Friend on the Front
Bench will be more than happy to take the Minister or his
successor through Labour’s White Paper, “GB Rail: Labour’s plan
for a nationally integrated publicly owned railway”. Would the
Minister like to take up the offer?
It is extremely kind of the hon. Gentleman to offer to take me
through a Labour party policy document. However, I would rather
stick with the plan for rail that is the Government’s policy—the
one that we will continue to take forward. My focus will always
be, not on dogma, but on whether customers and communities are
being served. Considering the way Labour Members try to portray
British Rail as a panacea of customer services, I suggest they
look back on some of the old news reports about how it used to
operate.
(Exeter) (Lab)
The long-awaited transport Bill, which has now been abandoned
despite having been in the Queen’s Speech just months ago, was
not just going to deliver Great British Railways, but address a
whole range of pressing and long-overdue transport problems in
this country: the menace of pavement parking, regulating
e-scooters and so on. Is not the reason for this chaos that we do
not have, and have not had for some months, a functioning
Government? Would it not be more democratic and better if there
was a general election and we had a Government with a mandate
that was united to address the pressing problems the country
faces?
It is interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he wants
to see the legislative timetable accelerated and, in the same
breath, that he wants to dissolve Parliament. We will get on with
the job and leave the politicking to others.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
The Minister says he is getting on with the job, so can he please
get on with the job for passengers facing daily misery in Hull?
TransPennine Express cancels dozens of services every day,
causing real problems for commuters. It is also responsible for
the toilets at Hull station, but cannot even manage to keep those
clean and maintained. Can he ensure that TransPennine honours its
contractual obligations and, if it cannot, that he terminates its
contract?
Certainly we will be keen to ensure TransPennine is not just
offering a bog-standard service to the right hon. Lady’s
constituents. If the company is not honouring its contract, we
will certainly be happy to pick that up with it and ensure that
it does.
(Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as a big supporter of the Doncaster bid,
but I share the frustration of many across local government who
have committed time and money in good faith to a process that so
far has not delivered an outcome. Given that uncertainty, and the
need to confirm the Government’s intentions for Northern
Powerhouse Rail, which the Minister mentioned a moment ago, does
he agree that there is an urgent requirement for the Secretary of
State or a senior member of the Government to come to the House
and provide clarity about the Government’s intentions in this
particular area?
I have already made clear that we will—hopefully I will—look to
make an announcement around the result of the headquarters
competition for Great British Railways. I take on board the
points made by a number of hon. Members about wishing to have a
decision on which of our great railway communities will host that
HQ. On the second point about Northern Powerhouse Rail, the hon.
Gentleman will have heard the commitment. We are keen to engage
with the region and key stakeholders, including Members of
Parliament representing the communities, about how we turn the
vision into a hard plan for delivery.
