Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
reports of analysis by Network Rail that the funding plans for
the next five years are insufficient to maintain current levels
of reliability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, the Government published funding objectives for Network
Rail for control period 7—2024 to 2029—on 1 December 2022,
placing the highest priority on punctuality and reliability. The
funding provided £44.1 billion—a real-terms increase of 4% above
the current settlement. This demonstrates the Government’s
continued commitment to the railway.
(LD)
My Lords, from a leak from Network Rail itself, we now know that
funding is so bad that basic infrastructure cannot be repaired
and that we should expect more delays and more accidents. We need
to know what the Government are planning to do to reverse this
downward spiral in our railways. Can the Minister promise that no
more train operators will be rewarded for failure with new
contracts? Can she specifically guarantee that, at last, there
will be legislation in the King’s Speech to create Great British
Railways with the independent power to reform this ailing
industry?
(Con)
The noble Baroness referred to the source of her Question being a
leak in the Independent. It was not really a leak, because we are
not even half way through the process of the business planning,
and, as I said, the real-terms increase in funding is up 4%. In
fact, it was some slides prepared by a mid-level National Rail
employee presenting the industry with some ideas for different
funding scenarios for CP7—so never believe everything that you
read in the newspaper. On contracts for TOCs, we look at each TOC
on a case-by-case basis, and I am aware that another contract
will be up for consideration in due course. Legislation for rail
reform will arrive as soon as parliamentary time allows.
(CB)
My Lords, I would like to know what the Minister considers to be
the current levels of reliability. I commute from Oxford. The
main line from Oxford to Paddington is closed until at least
June, because of a broken bridge which should have been fixed
ages ago. The main road from west Oxford to the station is closed
at the end because another bridge is being repaired. Without any
co-ordination, it is almost impossible to leave the city. Should
it not be a human right to be able to get in and out of one’s own
city?
(Con)
The noble Baroness raises some very important points, which
demonstrate exactly why we need this uplift in funding. However,
it is not always about just funding; it is about how we make the
necessary repairs and how we do maintenance. She mentioned
bridges, which are incredibly important, as there is a bow wave
of older assets which need to be maintained. However, by using
box structure flyover bridges to replace old flyovers and
bridges, one could do that at a vastly reduced cost. Those are
the sorts of modernisations we need to get into our maintenance
regime.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, if a list
of the major projects awaiting attention were published, this
might attract support from industrial sources and local areas?
The additional station in Cambridge is a case in point.
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that there are many sources
of funding for improving our transport sector. The discussion
today around the £44.1 billion of funding does not even include
enhancements—that would be in addition. Those projects will be
set out in the RNEP, the pipeline of public sector projects, but
there is also the opportunity for local government and the
private sector to get involved.
(Lab)
The Minister cautions me not to believe everything I read in the
paper. Recently, I read in the paper that Avanti West Coast was
rewarded with over £4 million in taxpayer-funded bonuses and that
the payout was awarded for a
“period in which Avanti was UK’s worst train operator for
delays”.
Should I believe that?
(Con)
Funnily enough, I do not wholly recognise those figures, but all
the contracts and the rationale behind them are set out and
published. All the performance information that goes into the
award of any financial returns is assessed by an independent
evaluator, and discussions are made on that basis. The contracts
are prepared well in advance, and we must abide by them.
(PC)
The Question refers to the maintaining of “current levels of
reliability”, but is the Minister aware that the current levels
of reliability on the Holyhead to London line are totally
unacceptable? In the recent past, we have had trains going the
other way, from Euston to Holyhead, turning round at Chester and
leaving the passengers to their own devices to find connecting
trains. Only this week, trains from Holyhead to London were
advertised as fully booked and not available for that reason. Is
not that totally unacceptable, and what are the Government going
to do to improve the service?
(Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord. I am not content with
current levels of reliability. That was obviously in the
Question, and it would not have been in any response that I have
given. We are aware that, despite 10% lower passenger demand on
our trains at the moment, and slightly fewer trains running,
performance is unacceptably low. The causes of that are many.
Industrial action has had a huge impact on the performance of our
railways, but we are working with the industry, and we would like
to improve our relationship with the unions such that everybody
can work together to give us the reliable and modern railway that
we need.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister in responding to my noble friend Lady
Randerson’s supplementary question said, “Don’t believe what you
read in the press”, and that this was not a leak, simply some
work-in-progress from a mid-ranking official. Could she then
confirm to the House that it is the view of His Majesty’s
Government that Network Rail has sufficient funding for the next
five years to maintain the current levels of reliability? If not,
what will it do to improve things—and, if it does, could it
consider improving reliability?
(Con)
If I may, I will explain to the noble Baroness what the process
actually looks like. It is one that goes on for the whole of the
year. The statement of funds available has been set and the
Secretary of State has set out very high-level objectives. That
is then given to Network Rail, which spends the process of the
year doing the business planning. It does not do that in
isolation; it does it under the scrutiny of the independent
Office of Rail and Road. There are two determination periods—one
that will happen in June and one that will happen by the end of
the year, by when we will see how the £44.1 billion, which is
quite a lot of money, will be spent, and what the performance
outcomes will be.
(Lab)
Has Network Rail really run out of money, or have some of the new
projects been paused—or has all the money been put into HS2,
leaving nothing for the rest of the railway?
(Con)
My Lords, none of the above.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, over the past few months, passengers across England
have continued to suffer from really unreliable services, as we
have heard this afternoon. Fares have increased by 5.9%. Between
October and December last year, 4.5% of all trains were
cancelled—the highest rate since 2014. Can the Minister therefore
explain why the FirstGroup franchise
and Govia Thameslink have recently reported dividend payments of
£65 million and £16.9 million respectively in their annual
accounts for 2022, despite their continued failings? Does the
Minister not agree that that would be better invested in the
future of railways?
(Con)
My Lords, once again we shall address the notion of dividend
payments, because it is really important that we are clear about
it. The dividend payments declared during the financial year 2022
related to periods far preceding that 2022 period, and therefore
were earned by the train operating companies under contracts that
were in existence at that time. One cannot retrospectively go
back and take away money without completely tearing up the
contracts and starting again. Maybe a Labour Government would do
that, but we will not. We will stick to the contract and work
with the industry, and we will get improvements to our rail
system that way.
(Con)
Can my noble friend reassure the House of the vast importance
that the Government attach to the whole rail industry, and the
fact that it is incredibly important to our economy? To get that
investment, we also need to see levels of service, which is the
responsibility of the train operators but the rail unions too. To
make the case for investment, we have to have good services.
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Sometimes it saddens me
greatly how some of the unions are potentially undermining the
long-term future of our rail sector. ASLEF train drivers
withdrew, without warning, their rest-day working agreement. I
now understand that a new rest-day working agreement was agreed,
which would have vastly improved services on the TransPennine
Express. However, within 24 hours, ASLEF then withdrew again on
an entirely unconnected matter. Once again, we are left without
rest-day working. There is a very easy way to improve services,
which is to encourage the unions to reach an agreement with the
TOCs, particularly on rest-day working.
