Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) I beg to move, That this
House has considered the future of rail. It is a pleasure to serve
with you in the Chair, Sir Charles. On 27 September 1825, as
Stephenson’s Locomotion powered its way up out of Shildon towards
Stockton, the eyes of the world marvelled at the height of British
engineering. As we prepare for rail’s bicentenary against the
backdrop of a different set of challenges, the excellence of
British...Request free trial
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of rail.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Charles. On
27 September 1825, as Stephenson’s Locomotion powered its way up
out of Shildon towards Stockton, the eyes of the world marvelled
at the height of British engineering. As we prepare for rail’s
bicentenary against the backdrop of a different set of
challenges, the excellence of British engineering can once again
capture the imagination of what can be achieved and ignite a new
transport revolution.
2.31pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
3.06pm
On resuming—
Today, I will set out why consolidation and intersection with
other forms of transport and energy technologies is essential if
Britain is once again to lead the transport revolution, and why
it is vital that the Government invest in this unique global rail
supercluster for rail’s bicentenary. I am ambitious for rail and
I am ambitious for Britain.
It will not be lost on anyone in this debate that York is where
that revolution will occur. After all, York made the railways and
the railways made York. The partnership between York University
and Leeds University centres the future of digital and advanced
rail, including the Institute for High Speed Rail and System
Integration at Leeds University, bringing together the very best
of transport, academia and digital technologies with the 13
leading rail education providers in the region, including the
Institute of Technology at York College, which I visited
recently.
We love our steam trains; whether it is the Mallard or the Flying
Scotsman that fills people with greatest pride, our rail heritage
is a natural draw for anyone across the network. Today, York has
over 100 rail companies, which are at the forefront of
engineering, operations, software development, timetabling and
planning, providing over 5,500 of York’s top jobs and 9,500 jobs
in the surrounding region, and consolidating York’s rail cluster,
which is the largest outside London and now eager to take us
forward once more.
(East Yorkshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this excellent debate.
Does she agree that there is not a good case, but an overwhelming
case, to make York the headquarters of Great British
Railways
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Where else
can Great British
Railways locate itself but in York if it is to level up the
whole country? That really must be the argument we make.
The York Rail Innovation Community already oversees the
intersection of rail businesses and innovations, enabling the
northern rail economy to generate over £42 billion, according to
the University of Leeds. It draws on the University of York’s
Institute for Safe Autonomy, bringing new technologies and
robotics together, and opening up a new conversation for the
future of rail and the future of transportation, and modernising
how we think about rail and transport. The institute’s £12
million programme leads global research to provide industry,
regulators and researchers with guidance on assuring and
regulating robotics and autonomous systems, including those on
rail. York’s work is setting global standards and ensuring that
such systems are safe.
Taking the search for answers into applied testbeds, such as the
advanced rail test facilities, widens possibilities and the
collaborations between York, Leeds, Sheffield, Huddersfield and
Hull. This is not just a rail cluster, but a transport cluster.
Interlink that with the new headquarters of Active Travel
England, and we will have end-to-end connectivity and endless
possibilities. Now that the Government are seeing such enthusiasm
for BioYorkshire, Yorkshire’s green new deal and advancing a new
generation of fuels, including links to the Teesside and Humber
energy clusters, even more future technologies open up, with new
innovations between transport and energy clusters.
The electric vehicle revolution is too slow, too expensive, with
too little infrastructure and too few people engaged, and it is
not sustainable enough. We need travelling by train to be
competitive with travelling by road. Pricing matters. Rail
advancement will be far more efficient, faster, cleaner and
greener, if we are to decarbonise and claim the climate dividend
to keep the target of 1.5 degrees alive. That must be our
bicentenary challenge.
As a nation, there are significant challenges we need to address.
Post pandemic, the trains need to see patronage restored and
advanced, better timetabling and intermodal end-to-end
connectivity, not least connectivity from main lines to improved
branch lines, to consolidate opportunity. The very best industry
expertise across the railways in York is ready to rise to the
challenge. With fuel prices escalating, the Government must seize
the moment to achieve a sustained and sustainable modal
shift.
Although the integrated rail plan came as a bitter blow to us in
Yorkshire, centring Great British Railways’ future on driving up
patronage, accessibility, connectivity and reliability across the
towns and cities of our region will address some of the
Williams-Shapps plans. I know other colleagues will reinforce the
point and urge the door not to be closed on our ambition.
(Kingston upon Hull East)
(Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate.
Entire sections of the transport infrastructure, especially in
the north, are just not up to the job. A good example is the Hull
to Selby route. We have been begging and pleading for years for
that rail line to be electrified. Does my hon. Friend agree that
it is about time the Government got their finger out?
My hon. Friend is always to the point in expressing the
frustration of his constituents, and detailing the opportunity
that electrification of the Hull to Selby line would draw to the
whole region.
(Bradford East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The problem in the
north is much greater, because most of the north suffers from the
situation identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston
upon Hull East (); we lose the economic benefits
that would be brought by electrification. If the Government are
serious in their levelling-up rhetoric, the people of the north
need to see that. The Government need to take action.
My hon. Friend is right. I know his frustrations for Bradford,
and the opportunity he wants to bring to his constituents and his
city through greater connectivity.
The reason for this debate is to lift the sights of the Minister
beyond York and Yorkshire, and beyond even our railway nation.
The UK could once again take pride of place in marketing the very
best in railway planning, operations and engineering globally. If
we are looking for a reason for global Britain, the operational
and engineering expertise grown in our rail cluster in York,
mixing the intermodal intersections with the next generation of
energy, could be globally marketable and transformative. Already
students from 120 countries study in Yorkshire. Global companies
already understand the power of what is happening in York. Bosch
has just made a significant investment in the city, building
partnerships and integrating with other high-tech initiatives.
The Government must invest if we are to move forward over the
next 200 years of rail.
York also stables the Network Rail trackside repair fleet. My
recent visit to Holgate engineering works showed me how the most
advanced trackside safety developments are being integrated into
the fleet, with robotics, digital and high-end scanning equipment
filling these yellow mechanical engines. That will give the UK
the reputation for having the safest railway anywhere in the
world. Again, that will be priceless when exporting our safety
capability.
York’s Rail Operating Centre—the largest in the UK—has tech that
mirrors that of a spaceship. Every inch of the network is mapped
live, overseen and monitored across a series a sophisticated
digital tools, which enhances rail operations. It is preparing us
for the future, playing a key role in plans to introduce the next
generation of digital signalling on the east coast and beyond.
Network Rail’s training centre for professional development is
already in the city and helping to take this revolution forward,
with more than 1,000 Network Rail staff already working in
York.
Every time I meet York’s engineers, excitement for the next
development greets me. My thinking is transformed, my mind left
marvelling. This is what we can do when we build a sustained rail
cluster. When the network’s guiding mind is anchored and embedded
in the midst of such developments, and the sparks of each rail
entrepreneur are joined together, the future of our rail is set
ablaze. That is why I am calling for investment for the rail
bicentenary. The Minister will see its return.
As for freight—perhaps the most challenging but neglected area of
the network—investment in innovation has never been more needed.
High Speed 2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail were partially about
freeing up track for freight. That argument got lost as the
debate turned to speed and costs. Our freight capability is
woeful. Now coal remains in the ground, and while the likes of
Drax see biofuels slowly chug their way from Liverpool docks to
Selby, investment is urgently needed to drive freight
forward.
(Sefton Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her speech. She mentioned the port of
Liverpool; trading goods through the port of Liverpool has
expanded dramatically, but it has put far more freight into
lorries in an area with some of the worst air quality in the
country. The Government’s answer is to build another road, which
will increase roadside emissions and go through a much-loved
country park. Through her, may I make a plea to the Minister that
it be reconsidered and that rail be seen as the option not just
to address those short-term challenges, but because the long-term
success of our freight transport depends on massive investment in
rail?
To harness the opportunity provided by the bicentenary of British
Rail, investment in the freight industry will be the gamechanger
for our logistics and transport.
Those living in Kent are constantly reminded of the challenges of
road haulage. However, the last couple of years have exposed the
risks that the logistics industry is facing. Short-term fixes do
not address the twin challenges of climate and workforce. As
motorways turn into motels, a modal shift from road to rail for
freight must be a priority. Cutting emissions, addressing the
skills shortage and moving goods reliably is not only good for
the climate, but better for business, which can become more
dependable, meeting just-in-time demands that are essential in
logistics. Moving goods from road to rail must be the rail
cluster’s bicentenary challenge and the Minister’s focus. If we
get the engineering, logistics, planning and operations right on
freight, we can be confident of export demand for another product
from global Britain: not just capability, but know-how, too. That
is the prize for the industry.
The brilliant minds that serve our industry are the people who,
at the height of the pandemic, got on our trains, repaired our
tracks and advanced the network. Some, such as Belly Mujinga,
gave their lives. We truly honour our transport workers and their
unions—ASLEF, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport
Workers, the Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association and Unite—who
have worked tirelessly to keep staff and us safe, and to keep
people in work.
We have difficult months ahead, but the Government must guarantee
job security and good wages as staff work to rebuild the future
of the industry to be even better than before. We need to enable
all—from the station porter and train cleaner, to ticket office
staff, trackside engineers, operators, designers, controllers,
electricians and train drivers—to know that they are valued in
our rail family, as they keep us safe and take our industry
forward. Although consolidation of York’s rail cluster will level
up our city, address the low-wage economy and accelerate inward
investment for York and the region, it is what York’s rail
cluster can deliver for levelling up across the whole country
that excites our city the most. We believe that can be achieved
only if Great British
Railways is anchored in York and if investment in the
sector’s research and development powers that opportunity.
York has the very best of our rail past and present, but in
politics we cannot change the past; it is the future that is
placed in our hands. I look at the girls and boys in my city, who
are all mesmerised by our rail story. The National Rail Museum’s
new galleries will give them the first taste of rail engineering
and spark their ambition to be the planners, operators and
engineers of the future as they embark on their science,
technology, engineering and maths journey. Our collective
ambition will realise the potential power of York’s rail
intersectional clusters to deliver the very best rail future—all
delivered on the site of the old British Rail carriage works,
adjacent to just about the best-connected station in the
country.
Great British Railways will be no add-on in York; it will anchor
Britain’s rail future, ignite Britain’s rail ambition and deliver
the next chapter of our Great British
Railways revolution like no other place can. The bicentenary
of rail gives the Minister the opportunity to invest in the
future of passenger and freight. That will be the pride of my
city, and that is our offer to the future of rail.
Several hon. Members rose—
(in the Chair)
Order. There will be a four-minute time limit on speeches.
3.21pm
(Harrogate and Knaresborough)
(Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir
Charles.
I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central () on securing this debate.
She spoke very well about why the headquarters of Great British
Railways should be located in York, and about the
opportunities that transport investment delivers for levelling up
and decarbonising for the future. I want to support that
argument.
Lots of Members will put forward the case for their areas. Some
of those cases are, quite frankly, a bit on the thin side. I
understand why they are doing it, but I believe that the correct
way to approach this question is to look at the criteria that the
decision makers in this competition have set.
Let me start by suggesting what the challenges for rail are, and
how they influence what Great British
Railways needs. The rail industry is a huge success. The
pre-pandemic data, which I use for obvious reasons, tells us that
it had 1.8 billion passenger journeys per year and 140,000-plus
services per week—more than ever before. The question for
Ministers and the industry is how to cope with the growth. The
answer has been, through a variety of mechanisms, to increase
capacity with new lines, improve existing lines, and provide new
rolling stock and better signalling. The pandemic has clearly
changed things, and it is too early to see how the trends will
settle, but we can see that demand is returning already, although
the commuting sector is still weak. The long-term problems have
not gone away, and Great British
Railways will need to address them.
The Government have published six criteria for judging the bids,
and a critical element is the opportunity for Great British Railways
That is the third of the listed criteria, and I will focus on it
for a few moments. It is against that criterion that York emerges
head and shoulders above the others as the strongest bid. The
question is: how do we deliver the future? The digital
signalling, the planning of line enhancements, the new systems of
power to drive the industry as the sector decarbonises, the
expertise, the skills, the wider rail ecosystem with companies
based in York and beyond in Yorkshire, the partnerships with
academic institutions—they are all in place in York now, ready to
be expanded and play a greater role.
Let me give one small example. The UK has been developing a
series of rail operating centres—12 in total—that will control
all the country’s signalling. They have been operating for some
years and have taken on more services over time. York hosts one
now, and it is in fact the largest of them all. It was part of a
Network Rail campus, and it includes a workforce development
centre, so York is already at the heart of the digital rail
future.
The other criteria against which the bids will be judged are
again met by the qualities of York: connectivity north-south and
east-west is excellent; it is centrally located, half way between
London and Edinburgh; the railway heritage is obviously second to
none; and it hosts one of the major rail museums of the world. I
know that the Science Museum Group has already made an important
representation to the Minister in the bid process in favour of
York. Public support has been demonstrated by the work undertaken
locally by political representatives, not least in this debate.
York is Yorkshire’s choice.
The hon. Member for York Central did not mention that in
Yorkshire we are famous for liking value. [Interruption.] That is
not really a joke, but a truth. We are famous for liking value,
and with the York Central development we have an enterprise zone,
with much of the land already in Network Rail ownership, so there
is a ready-made value solution.
The last criterion is levelling up. Some of the most left-behind
communities in the country are within a short journey time from
York. The halo effect, building upon the current cluster, would
have the positive effect of providing opportunity across these
communities. Looking at the criteria as a whole and seeing what
York can deliver, I see the York bid as being head and shoulders
above the others, which is why I support it. I am grateful for
the opportunity to share my views this afternoon and to support
this bid.
3.26pm
(Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles, and
to take part in this debate. I congratulate my good friend, my
hon. Friend the Member for York Central (), on securing the
debate.
We hear a lot from the Government about the decarbonisation
agenda, and it is important to highlight that we can cut
congestion on the road, as well as noise and air pollution, by
investing in good quality public transport across the country. My
constituency of Stockport is in Greater Manchester, and
unfortunately the rail capacity through Stockport is currently
insufficient to operate any extra services. The rail network
around Stockport and south Manchester is among the most congested
in the country. The Government have to address that issue to
ensure that decades of under-investment is reversed and that
people in my constituency and across Greater Manchester get good
quality public transport options.
I associate myself with the comments that my hon. Friend the
Member for York Central made about transport workers and
transport unions. They do a really good job in difficult
circumstances. The pandemic has not been easy for any of us, but
people in that sector do a very important job with long hours and
low pay, and we are grateful to them.
Two businesses based in my constituency provide services to the
rail industry: Sella Controls, in Manor ward, which I visited
last year, and Lundy Projects, a few minutes’ walk from my
constituency office, which I visited only a few days ago. Rail
electrification has to go far beyond the Government’s current
ambition. Lundy Projects is a specialist company that focuses on
signalling and electrification. I want to see more skilled,
well-paid, unionised jobs in my constituency, and the Government
should come forward with investment.
In Manchester, Mayor Andy is doing a very good job with the
Bee Network, which integrates walking, cycling, trams and buses
into integrated systems similar to those in London. It is a long
time coming, because people in my constituency in Greater
Manchester have suffered from a disintegrated public transport
system at very high cost, so bus franchising is a good move. I
will not go into that too much because we are here to talk about
trains. We all love trains, so I will stick to trains rather than
going on about buses.
I will come to a conclusion in just over a minute, but I thank
two groups in my constituency: the Friends of Heaton Chapel
Station, who visited me last week in the Palace of Westminster
and who I was pleased to give a tour to, and the Friends of
Davenport Station. The platforms at both stations lack tactile
safety tiles, which is a serious issue. Unfortunately, we
recently had a fatality on the railway network. The Government
must come up with a timetable to ensure that all train stations
have that provision, so that people with disabilities or visual
impairments are not injured.
There are four stations in my constituency, but the main
Stockport station on the mainline to Birmingham, London and
Manchester, is not in a good shape. Platforms often flood, the
roof leaks and the lift is often broken, which makes staff
members’ lives difficult as well as creating discomfort and
inconvenience for passengers. We need a significant capital
investment in the station, so I hope the Minister will address
those issues at Stockport train station.
Finally, the Greek Street bridge has come to the end of its life
and needs to be replaced. We need a new bridge that will
safeguard the future of the Metrolink tram system coming into
Stockport, which provides better integration with Manchester and
wider areas. I could go on, but I will leave it there, Sir
Charles. I hope the Minister will address these issues.
3.30pm
(Thirsk and Malton)
(Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Sir Charles. I thank
the hon. Member for York Central () for bringing forward this
important debate. I will confine my remarks to supporting York’s
bid, as others have, for the Great British Rail headquarters. My
constituency is a little further north of York, but will
nevertheless form part of the new York city region, which we are
all very excited about in our neck of the woods. We will see an
elected mayor for the region in 2024. Economic development is a
key part of that role and what elected mayors are all about.
I am a little parochial in making my arguments, of course. Other
people will obviously make their very good cases for other
places, be it Derby, Darlington or wherever else, but I feel that
York is the best option. I have been keen to support other cases
for other investments in other parts of Yorkshire and further
afield. I am very keen for us to look again at Northern
Powerhouse Rail having a proper independent line between Leeds
and Bradford through to Manchester. That would transform the
economy in Bradford.
I am very happy to support the cases of other areas where they
make sense, but the York case makes so much sense. It makes sense
primarily, as the hon. Member for York Central said, in terms of
the proven economic effect, called the cluster effect, which is
huge. We only have to look down the road at the City of London to
see how important the cluster effect is for economics. It works
on the basis of three important fundamentals: it enhances
productivity and brings forward innovation, and a huge amount of
new business is created in the supply chain and direct supply
into the particular cluster.
It is very important that, when we talk about moving jobs out of
London and potentially into our regions, we do not put them just
anywhere, so that we can say we are levelling up and distributing
those jobs around. We have to put them in the right place,
because after all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and
Knaresborough () said, we need to make sure
that the money spent represents good value.
The cluster effect will mean there is enhanced value by putting
these jobs near to other jobs and other businesses that
specialise in those areas, so that we get the productivity
benefit. Clearly, if people can walk across a street to talk to
somebody about a certain innovation, or if they work together on
an innovation, that is hugely important. The businesses that are
created are on wonderful sites, such as the brownfield sites of
York central, which is a wonderful opportunity for an entire city
and region.
Some 5,500 people work in the rail industry in York: engineers
and skilled people, clearly consultants and people involved in
the new digital world of rail. Some 10% of UK workforce work in
York, so it is pretty compelling. Again, the heritage has been
mentioned by others. People recognise York as the nation’s
capital when it comes to rail, and we are of course proud to host
the wonderful National Railway Museum.
The city is hugely well connected. It is connected directly to
one third of UK stations. The wonderful thing is that when the
public across Yorkshire were asked the best place to put the
headquarters of Great British Rail, six out of 10 said it should
be York—three times the number that said any other location. Let
us support the #yestoyork campaign and make sure the headquarters
of Great British Rail come to York.
3.34pm
(Ealing Central and Acton)
(Lab)
Ealing and Acton would not be here without the railways. Both
have stations underground, overground—not wombling free—east,
west, south, broadway, common, central. They are in “that there
London”, so people might be thinking, “You’re all right, Jack,”
but I want to counter this misperception that has grown up around
the Government’s levelling up rhetoric. It is in the suburbs of
London that we feel this most acutely. Our trains are full and
getting fuller, fares are rising faster than wages, and west
London, the sub-region with Heathrow, is a key driver of our
national economy, but it needs transport fit for purpose, not
just to and from central London but between the suburban
bits.
An obvious solution would be breathing life into the old Beeching
line, the west London orbital. There is Ealing, the centre of
west London, and to the north Brent Cross, with lots of jobs, and
to the south, Brentford, but good luck to anyone trying to get
between any of those three. There is the super-development
opportunity area of Old Oak, which has promised 24,000 dwellings
and jobs, jobs, jobs. Again, this proposal could link them all,
but there is no chance in sight, because the Government will not
commit long-term funding to TfL.
Instead, we have the ignominious situation of cap-in-hand,
eleventh-hour settlements, being marched to the top of the hill
and down again. We are pretty much the only capital city on
earth—I am not counting Singapore—where there is no central
Government subsidy. We need reliability, predictability and all
those things. When the current Prime Minister was Mayor of
London, he was bequeathed a load of goodies from his Labour
predecessor: the bikes that bear his name, the TfL rail
Overground—it used to be quite scary when it was the Silverlink;
it is brilliant now—the DLR extension and bus investment. But for
Sadiq Khan—bless his cotton socks—the cupboard is bare.
(West Dorset) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central () on securing the debate. I
have been listening intently to what the hon. Member for Ealing
Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said about the finances for TfL. Does
she agree that if the National Union of Rail, Maritime and
Transport did not strike so often in London and bring the whole
of London to a standstill, the TfL finances might be in a better
position?
Dr Huq
The hon. Gentleman is falling into the Tory trope of union
bashing. I am a proud trade unionist, and the unions are there to
better the conditions of their members. We do not want
exploitation, do we? Is he going to be shoving kids up chimneys
next? I fear the track he is going down. This issue is a bit of a
smoke screen. We need long-term funding and a dependable model
for London, which we used to have. Every other London Mayor had
that, but in 2016 suddenly cut the support
grant. I think that had something to do with the complexion of
City Hall, but—[Interruption.] I am not going to give way,
because I do not get any extra time.
With covid giving way to a cost of living crisis, what did we see
from the Chancellor? A cut in fuel duty and a 3.8% rise in fares,
and I am not counting that gimmicky video—that thing, whatever it
was—about the 1% of journeys where someone can get a cheap fare,
going to the right place on the right day. That is not going to
affect any of my constituents.
Meanwhile, we can only marvel at what they are doing outre-Manche
in the rest of Europe. Look at Austria’s climate ticket. In
Germany, there is a €9 a month regional transport ticket. In this
country, no one between 25 and 65, which is probably most of the
people here, is eligible for a national railcard, which is
available elsewhere. I urge the Minister to look at something
like that.
In conclusion, the future of rail should include projects that
complete vaguely on time. I have an Oyster card holder that says,
“Crossrail—new for 2018”. Ha! The future of rail would have
considerate construction. HS2 goes through my seat and has made
life a misery for the residents of Wells House Road, NW10. The
future of rail would also have a visionary Government that could
think long term, rather than say, “It’s all Sadiq Khan’s fault,”
any time a London MP stands up to say anything, when we know that
our London Mayor is doing a fantastic job against the odds. The
country cannot be levelled up by levelling down London. The new
Piccadilly line trains, due in 2025, are being built in
Yorkshire. Level up London and the whole country benefits. Let us
get Ealing, Acton and Chiswick back on the rails. Now that’s what
I really call levelling up.
(in the Chair)
, with three minutes.
3.39pm
(West Dorset) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Sir Charles. Well, with three minutes I
will just get to the point, if I may.
I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Ealing Central
and Acton (Dr Huq). I should just say that the RMT does not quite
agree with her about the London Mayor. I respectfully make that
point, because the RMT has itself said that it is the London
Mayor who is causing the logjam, and ultimately that has a
considerable impact on the finances available. I represent a
constituency that I am afraid has a three-hourly train service
frequency, and when I see Transport for London getting such
considerable amounts of money, it is a matter of great concern to
me. That is money going to support the good people of London,
rather than to support the Heart of Wessex line. I know that my
hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of my strong views on that
point.
I will move on to the future of rail. I spent 20 years working
for the railways before being elected to Parliament. I am not
sure whether there are any Opposition Members present who used to
be members of the RMT. I was once a member and should give it a
big shout-out for its policy briefing, which was very interesting
and for which I am grateful. The railways are very important for
the future of this country. I appreciate that lots of people have
strong views on where the new GB Railways HQ should be, although
personally I do not think that will make much of a difference to
the future capability of the railway; what will make an enormous
difference is where the Government look to invest. The Government
have supported the railway to the tune of £14 billion during the
worst time of the pandemic. They have kept thousands of people in
jobs, and they have done so to ensure that the future of our
railways is extremely good and supports the future of our
country.
It is really important that we also consider the wider things
that the railways have to change going forward. The railways have
been marvellous in lots of ways, but the fact that it can take 12
months to change a timetable is not acceptable in the current day
and age. Why is it that we have a timetable that is the same on a
Monday as it is on a Friday, when we know that the demands are
very different? There are fundamental changes that need to happen
in order for our railways to excel.
I am conscious of time and am grateful for the opportunity to
speak in this debate. As a final point, it is really important
that we remember it is not all about the cities; it is about
connecting the rural areas as well—areas such as West Dorset and
other parts of the country that would greatly benefit from that
in the future.
3.42pm
(Ellesmere Port and Neston)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles. I thank my
hon. Friend the Member for York Central () for introducing the
debate. I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for
City of Chester () here, because I want to
talk about the journeys that we used to take together when we
were first elected in 2015. Those hourly direct services from
Chester to London have all gone during the pandemic and are yet
to return. I understand that we are due to get some back next
month, but not all of them will be restored. I have to ask the
Minister, why are we waiting longer than everyone else to get a
lesser service restored? Who is accountable for that decision?
Will we ever get back to what we had before? What evidence are
those decisions based on?
Those questions are important because the Department is also
planning to award a new 10-year franchise to run the line later
in the year. How can decisions be properly made on future service
provision when the service is not yet back to pre-pandemic
levels? What evidence base will the Department be working on for
that decision? There needs to be a crystal-clear commitment that
the new franchise will restore hourly direct services from
Chester to London. I would like the Minister, when she responds,
to say that is exactly what will happen. If she cannot do that,
will she at least meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for City
of Chester to discuss what we would like to see in the new
10-year deal?
We cannot continue to have decisions made about our rail services
without reference to Members in this place and our communities. I
have suggested to Avanti already that if it does not want to run
the service at the previous level, it should not only not bid on
the current franchise but give the current one up. I am due to
meet Avanti on Friday, and I will be interested to hear what it
has to say. In the meantime, I hope that we have the Department’s
support in restoring services to pre-pandemic levels.
Perhaps when I meet Avanti I will be told that it has been unable
to restore services because of a lack of demand. Of course, if it
does not put the services on, we do not know what the demand is.
It may be the case that a huge increase in home working as a
result of the pandemic has affected travel patterns, but I would
not be surprised if there were other issues at play. If there is
a feeling that businesses are using rail less, perhaps the answer
may lie in the eye-watering costs attached to such travel.
Let us look at journeys of a similar distance between cities in
England, Germany and France: Chester to London is 165 miles;
Hamburg to Berlin is 159 miles; and Calais to Paris is 147 miles.
The cost of a single rail ticket for the morning to arrive by 9
am for each of those journeys tells its own story: Hamburg to
Berlin is £26; Calais to Paris is £39; and Chester to London is
£155. Travelling from Chester to London costs nearly six times
more than a similar journey in Germany and nearly four times more
than a similar journey in France. In fact, I can get to Sharm
el-Sheikh in Egypt or to Tel Aviv in Israel for less money than
it costs me to get to London by train before 9 am, so I can
actually get to another continent for less money. Therefore, if
we are going to do something about rail travel in future, let us
make it affordable for everyone.
3.45pm
(York Outer) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I
congratulate the hon. Member for York Central () on securing the
debate.
This debate is about the future of rail, but understandably the
question on everyone’s mind at the moment is which of our towns
or cities will be given the huge honour of hosting the public
body tasked with delivering that future. Right hon. and hon.
Members will not be surprised to hear that I very much support
what the hon. Member for York Central has set out, and what my
hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough () and for Thirsk and Malton
() have set out. There is
also support from other north Yorkshire MPs.
Members have previously heard me set out at length why I think
York is the best site for Great British Railways
but in the short time available I will briefly reiterate what I
consider to be the main points in support of York’s strong case.
First, there are York’s existing Network Rail facilities, strong
connectivity and rail heritage, as well as the availability of a
range of convenient city-centre sites. That last point has
already been touched on, but the York central site stands out
proud in terms of what it can deliver. It is also shovel-ready—it
is ready to go—and that must add huge weight to York’s bid.
Secondly, York has a skilled workforce, which accounts for over
10% of the national rail industry’s workforce, and it is also
situated at the centre of the north-east Yorkshire rail cluster,
which is the largest in the UK.
Thirdly, York has leading status in training and innovation,
which has been driven by local businesses, colleges and
universities. I could add so much more to this point, but I
cannot do so in the brief time available, although I know that
other Members have already touched on it.
Fourthly, York’s position at the heart of the UK rail network
makes it an ideal national administrative base. Moreover, York
would potentially contribute to the Government’s goals of
strengthening the Union and levelling up in the north of England,
based on York’s strong links to Scotland, the north-east,
Manchester and all parts of Yorkshire.
Yorkshire and, in particular, York have not only a proud rail
history but a vital role to play in the future, by leading the
way in developing new technologies and providing new skills that
will revolutionise rail travel in York. For me, the case for
York’s bid is absolutely overwhelming, and I am proud to be
supporting it here today. I am also proud to support Members from
across our region in supporting York’s case, and I very much look
forward to learning how the Government will take this matter
forward.
3.48pm
(Bedford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles,
and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central () for securing this
important debate.
It has been a year since East West Rail gave the devastating news
to my constituents that their homes and land were at risk, but it
was only this week that they have received letters from EWR to
inform them that they “may be” affected or “probably” will be
affected by the scheme. The letters arrived after months of
pushing for them from my office and from councillors in the
impacted wards, during which time we pleaded with EWR and the DFT
to be much more open and honest about where my residents stand
and what their options are, whatever the outcome of the
scheme.
Communications from the Government and EWR—whether on the
consultation or on answering the many questions my constituents
have about the project, such as its environmental impact—have
been deplorable from day one. Both the Government and EWR have
been happy to allow local representatives, who have no real
influence on or knowledge of the plans, to take the flak and try
to fill a void where their information and transparency should
have been.
The consultation response, which was due in March, has been
delayed, so we are still none the wiser; we cannot even be sure
whether the project will go ahead. I do not know why the
Government will still not commit to electrifying the line from
day one, given their net zero targets.
I want to explain the cost of dither and delay for my
constituents. Residents have written to me in distress at being
in limbo. One describes her home as feeling like a prison. People
cannot make plans. They do not know whether to make home
improvements, or whether they will even have a home. They fear
the loss of their community. Many worry that they may not be able
to move house. This situation is taking its toll on people’s
mental health and wellbeing.
The uncertainty cannot go on. The Government are now in the
process of reviewing the strategic and economic case. In my view,
the only thing the Government are assessing is whether they will
risk running a train line through the Tory shires before the next
general election. If the Government are minded to U-turn on their
plans, I urge them to level up with the public about what is
going on. What I see is East West Rail forging ahead with
meetings and mailouts, and a Government in reverse.
If the Department for Transport is to proceed with the
investment, it needs to bring the proposals forward immediately,
so that the public understand what they are dealing with. The
Rail Minister will be aware that I was broadly in favour of the
fantastic connectivity and investment opportunities that a green
rail link between Oxford and Cambridge would bring to the people
of Bedford, but not at any cost.
3.51pm
(Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. I
congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central () on securing today’s
debate. I agree that rail and our wider public transport network
are essential to tackling the climate crisis and meeting our net
zero commitment, but we do not have a Government willing to drive
a transformative strategy that encourages more people to travel
by train.
In the midst of a cost of living crisis, the Government decided
to increase rail fares by a brutal 3.8%. Average fares have now
risen by 48.9% more than in 2010—that is twice as fast as wages.
In my constituency of Luton South, that means commuters to London
now pay £4,717 for a season ticket, an increase of 46% since
2010. The Government’s short-term “Great British Rail Sale” does
not scratch the surface of tackling the broken system of
overpriced fares. A flash sale is not a strategy. My constituents
and our country have suffered 12 years of rail mismanagement and
under-investment.
I am here to say, again, that Luton station is not fit for
purpose. The patching up of roof leaks, licks of paint and basic
renovations are not sufficient to provide people in Luton with
the modern-day train station they deserve. Accessibility remains
a major issue. Disabled and elderly people and young families are
marginalised, as there are no lifts to four out of five
platforms.
The long-awaited Access for All funding for lifts at the station
is welcome, although I understand that works will not be
completed until early 2024. Luton needs a comprehensive station
revamp in line with our town’s modern 21st century ambitions.
Will the Minister explain whether additional capital funding will
be allocated to redeveloping town train stations such as Luton as
part of the Government delivering on their levelling-up
commitments?
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central
on the importance of rail unions. Long-term rail reform must have
the interests of rail workers at its heart. I send my solidarity
to RMT members who are opposing pay freezes, threats to their
jobs and attacks on their terms and conditions. Staff are not
being properly rewarded. Commuters are not getting value for
money and the public are not getting a plan that helps tackle the
climate crisis.
It does not have to be this way. For every pound spent on rail,
£2.50 is generated for the wider economy. There are European
comparisons, too, with cheaper journeys, punctual trains and
publicly-owned railways. European state-owned companies are
making profits delivering our rail services. Essentially, British
taxpayers are subsidising European countries’ rail services. That
is absurd. We know the benefits that UK-owned East Coast and
London North Eastern Railway have delivered to the Treasury.
Reform of rail cannot come soon enough. We need accessible,
affordable and better connected railways that work for
passengers, our community and rail workers.
3.54pm
(Bolton South East)
(Lab)
It is a pleasure to appear before you, Sir Charles. I thank my
hon. Friend the Member for York Central () for introducing this
debate on the future of rail. I say, “What future?”
Many of the problems with rail can be traced back to 1993, when
British Rail was privatised into more than 100 separate companies
under the Conservative Government. It was supposed to bring
greater efficiency and innovation. Instead, it brought
fragmentation, confusion and extortionate fare increases.
In 2018, the Government finally admitted that privatisation was
not working when the east coast franchise collapsed and was taken
into public ownership. It is now making profit. Instead of doing
the right thing, putting passengers before profit, and bringing
our rail franchises back into full public ownership, the
Government are now proposing a joint system under which taxpayers
will continue to pay hundreds of millions of pounds in profit to
rail companies to run the network. It is unacceptable.
For years I have had constituents write to me about the impact of
daily overcrowded trains and infrequent, unreliable train
services. They have lost jobs, missed lectures and medical
appointments, and in some cases have been sanctioned by the
Department for Work and Pensions for arriving late to their
appointment. The cost to commuters has grown by 50% in the past
12 years of Tory government, and Transport for London is now
facing a 40% loss of its core funding.
In January, a report was published on behalf of the Minister’s
Department that said that only major Government funding would
solve the accessibility problems at stations across the country.
One of the rail operators interviewed said that 60% of stations
lacked step-free access from street level to the platforms. Just
last month, elderly constituents from Farnworth in my
constituency were returning from a holiday and took a train from
Manchester airport to Bolton with heavy luggage. When they got to
Bolton, the station lift was not working. What were they supposed
to do? Another woman behind them was carrying a pram.
We know from reports that ticket offices are set to close across
the country. That will impact those who need face-to-face
services, such as the elderly, the disabled, pregnant women and
other people. What will happen to them, especially if trains are
not running at night?
We were told that there was going to be an integrated plan on
infrastructure for the north, which was then scrapped. For a
whole year, I sat on the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands)
Bill Committee. We had seven sessions a week. HS2 will run from
London to Birmingham, and we were told that there would be a
continuation of the line to Manchester and Leeds, but that
integrated rail plan has now been scrapped. It is wrong. We need
transport infrastructure in the north. We also need proper train
services connecting the east and west along the M62 corridor—
(in the Chair)
Order. Sorry, I am trying to get everybody in.
3.57pm
(Blackley and Broughton)
(Lab)
If William Gladstone, when he was Prime Minister in the 1880s,
had organised a debate such as this on the future of the railways
and came back today, I imagine he would be shocked. The UK was
the great industrial powerhouse, and he would have expected the
railways to have improved. However, as the Transport Committee
found when it looked at regional railways, the timetables are
slower than they were in Gladstone’s time.
There are three primary reasons for that. First, the
over-application of public sector borrowing requirements starved
the railways of investment for decades. Secondly, as my hon.
Friend the Member for Bolton South East () said, there was the
privatisation of the railways. The railways were under-sold—the
National Audit Office recognised that they had been massively
sold at a loss. They were then prey to unregulated rolling stock
companies, which hired trains at massive profits. Thirdly,
Railtrack—the people running the railways—decided it was a
property company, not a railway company, and killed people. That
is what privatisation did.
Now the Government are showing some faith in the future, and we
are going back to a similar structure to British Rail, but we
need integration. The hon. Member for West Dorset () said that we could have
different timetables every day of the week. Privatisation meant
that when people sat down to work out timetables, there were
about five times as many people as there were under British Rail.
It was inefficient.
I have three quick points. We need investment in the pinch points
in the rail system. In Manchester’s case, we need platforms 14
and 15 at Piccadilly station, which would help the whole of the
north of England. We need HS2. My hon. Friend the Member for
Bolton South East correctly pointed out that HS2 should benefit
the whole of the north of England. In fact, it should go to
Scotland. HS2 should be the backbone of our rail system.
Finally, a point that everybody else has made, although it is not
necessarily about the future of the railways: the site of the
Manchester Exchange Station in Salford, which had the longest
platform in the world, going to Victoria Station, should be the
home of GBR. This was the home of the first scheduled passenger
rail service between Manchester and Liverpool.
4.00pm
(Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central () on securing this
important debate.
The climate emergency really does require that we change the way
we travel. Radical and urgent action is needed, as well as a
transformative plan to switch to more sustainable forms of
transport and at the same time create new and innovative jobs for
our workforce. As in other parts of the country, rail plays a
pivotal role in Wales as a public transport network, with
millions of passengers dependent on rail for commuting and
leisure. It is a critical asset and must have a greater role in
Wales if it is to achieve an integrated, intersectional,
accessible, affordable, efficient and sustainable transport
system that meets the needs of the present while protecting the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The Welsh
Government have set out an ambitious vision for transport in
Wales, as set out in their strategy, Llwybr Newydd.
As in other parts of the country, Wales faces many
challenges—similar challenges to the rest of the United Kingdom.
When he was Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, , Member of the Senedd, said that rail delivery in
Wales was “complex, fragmented and underfunded.” In Wales, the
rail service continues to suffer from infrequent services,
unreliable infrastructure and indirect routes. Only last year the
Welsh Affairs Committee, on which I sit, published a report on
rail in Wales that exposed a raft of issues: performance issues,
poor service experience, inadequate stations, the cost,
infrequency, accessibility and low standards. There is an urgent
need for the network in Wales, as in the rest of the UK, to be
upgraded.
I want to focus on three priorities for Wales. Again, these apply
to the rest of the UK. First is bringing rail back into public
ownership. In 2020, the Welsh Government decided to take the
Wales and Borders rail franchise into public ownership in order
to protect services, safeguard jobs and deliver infrastructure
improvements, particularly in light of the ongoing challenges
associated with covid. Second is fully devolved rail in Wales. In
the words of the Welsh Government:
“Rail devolution is essential for us to deliver the
comprehensive, integrated, and efficient transport network needed
across Wales”.
Finally, we need a fair funding settlement to improve rail
networks in Wales. HS2 should be reclassified as an England-only
project. That would provide Wales, through the Barnett formula,
with around £5 billion—not million—to spend on rail
infrastructure in Wales. We are taking a llwybr newydd—a new
path. We have set out a new way of thinking that places people
and climate at the centre of our transport system so that we can
deliver a transport system for the whole of Wales, but we need
action by Westminster as well, and action needs to happen now.
Diolch yn fawr.
(in the Chair)
, you have 10 minutes. You
do not have to take it all, but we will put you on a countdown
clock.
4.03pm
(Paisley and Renfrewshire
North) (SNP)
I hear you, Sir Charles. It is a privilege to serve under your
chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central
() on securing this
important debate. She set the scene very well and spoke
proudly—quite rightly—about York’s magnificent railway heritage.
She spoke about modal shift, including freight—a point that was
echoed by the hon. Members for Sefton Central () and for Luton South (), who, along with many
other Members, brought up pricing.
Decarbonisation was mentioned. The hon. Member for Stockport
() mentioned that the
Government are not electrifying the track quickly enough. I
completely agree and I will come to that in my speech. The hon.
Member for Bedford () mentioned East West Rail
using diesel on its trains. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley
()—apologies for my
pronunciation—mentioned decarbonisation and HS2 with regard to
Wales, and the fact that Wales gets no Barnett money, but
Scotland gets 100% Barnett. It is a point I have raised
before.
Connectivity and capacity were issues mentioned by the hon.
Members for Kingston upon Hull East (), for Bradford East (), for Ealing Central and
Acton (Dr Huq), for West Dorset ()—who is my comrade on the
Transport Committee—and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (). This debate became about
the location of GBR’s headquarters. Many strong cases were made
for York, not least by the hon. Member for York Central and the
hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (), for Thirsk and Malton
() and for York Outer
(). If I have missed any hon.
Members, I do apologise. It is a very good case that they made,
but it is one that I cannot support, because there are six
Scottish bidders—Dundee, Edinburgh, Fife, Motherwell, Perth and
Stirling—and I am not choosing one of them either.
The hon. Member for York Central finished her contribution with a
tribute to all our public transport staff for the work they did
to keep us moving through the pandemic. It is a tribute I very
much echo. Despite the significant impact of the covid pandemic,
I believe that the future of rail is bright and green. I believe
also that the future of rail is in public ownership. I think it
is a policy that both the hon. Members for Bolton South East
() and for Blackley and
Broughton () would also support.
I want to talk about the future of rail in Scotland. The future
of rail in England and Wales is a little more debatable. The
action by the Scottish Government to take ScotRail back into
public control just under four weeks ago should be a template for
railways elsewhere. Public ownership is a fresh start for the
railways in Scotland. Already we can see innovation in the shape
of the spring fare deals that far exceeded DFT’s plans. If the
issue is about tempting travellers to use rail on a national and
transformational basis, it should be up to Government to set the
priorities of our railways and, more widely, set out how those
priorities integrate with other modes of transport.
It is disappointing that the Williams review ruled out real
public ownership, instead opting for operating concessions. It is
a real missed opportunity to begin revitalising rail services in
England and across borders. The chance to provide real
accountability within the system has been missed. Instead, the
DFT has settled for a halfway house, where blame continues to be
placed on operators where expedient. Meanwhile, the real
direction of travel is set by GBR and the DFT.
I know that the team at the top of GBR are leaders in the
industry. The Transport Committee recently heard Andrew Haines
give evidence, and we were impressed by his track record,
knowledge and genuine enthusiasm for building a railway fit for
the future. However, all the talent in the world will struggle
against a structure that is not fit for purpose from the start. I
worry that behind the glossy reports that the Secretary of State
likes to show off on his bookshelves whenever he appears on the
TV, the new GBR will simply be a rebranding of Network Rail, with
some of the DFT and Office of Rail and Road’s current
functions.
There also must be an appetite for real change right across the
industry from those who hold the purse strings, and the signs
from the DFT and Treasury are not good. We have a ludicrous
situation where ScotRail is paying over double the amount of
track access charges that Northern Rail is liable for—£340
million versus £150 million—while running only slightly fewer
services by distance travelled.
Indeed, ScotRail pays the third-highest total access charges of
any train operator in Britain. That might be worthwhile if that
funding gave Scotland the kind of railway of the future that
people and passengers in Scotland are looking for, but even with
that kind of expenditure, Transport Scotland and the Scottish
Government had to plough in an additional £630 million in capital
and infrastructure investment in 2020-21, in line with the
Scottish Government’s plans for decarbonisation of our passenger
rail services by 2035. That is £1 billion toward track and
infrastructure every year, funnelled to Network Rail and under
its command, while Network Rail remains out of devolved control
and reports to the DFT and the Office of Rail and Road.
As things stand, GBR will take over control of infrastructure in
Scotland in the same way that Network Rail controls it. That is a
missed opportunity to do the sensible thing and fully devolve
responsibility and control of the entire rail network to the
Scottish Parliament. Already ScotRail and Network Rail work
closely together as part of the ScotRail Alliance. Full
devolution would strengthen that alliance and finish the work of
fully integrating track and train that started in 2005 with the
transfer of franchising and services to Holyrood. We will have a
situation whereby a publicly owned train company will have to
negotiate with the publicly owned network operator, whose primary
job will be dealing with private concession operators that are
running services on behalf of the Government-owned GBR.
Inevitably, the culture and institutional knowledge of GBR will
skew towards that needed to deal with the private operators
rather than a publicly owned company. Full devolution of Network
Rail in Scotland, before it ends up under the auspices of GBR,
will avoid that happening. Given the inevitability of all
transport in Scotland coming under the control of the Scottish
Parliament once we are independent, it would be real planning for
the long-term future, but that future has to be cleaner and
greener.
Scotland’s rail decarbonisation target of 2035 is hugely
ambitious. It is 15 years ahead of DFT’s target for England.
Hundreds of miles of our network run through areas of extremely
low population, and maintaining and improving them over time is
technically challenging. At this stage, full electrification of
such routes would be disproportionate to passenger numbers, but
in the longer term we should be looking to invest in these
railways in the same way that Norway has electrified many of its
rural routes. However, the development of alternative fuel
trains, such as the zero-emission train developed under Transport
Scotland and fuelled by hydrogen fuel cells, along with battery
electric solutions, shows that no corner of our rail network will
be untouched by the zero-carbon revolution that is not just
desirable but critical for the future of our society and the
planet.
That all said, our track record—apologies for the pun—on rail
electrification since devolution has been excellent. Over the
last 20 years or so, Scotland has electrified track at more than
twice the rate that DFT has in England, which has resulted in a
44% increase in routes electrified since devolution, compared
with just 17% across Britain as a whole. Moreover, this rolling
programme of investment, which has been much lauded not just by
me but by the industry, has resulted in far lower costs, with
electrification costs 50% higher per single track kilometre in
England than in Scotland, and there is a target to lower the cost
to around half of the current English electrification cost.
In Scotland, we already have the Edinburgh-Falkirk
electrification scheme, with the Shotts line, Paisley canal and
Alloa all seeing the wires go up. Future projects will connect
East Kilbride and Barrhead to the electric railway, and some
lines have been reinstated after the short-sighted closures of
decades past, including the Borders railway—a huge success story,
as passenger numbers hugely exceed expectations. The Levenmouth
link is currently under construction.
It pays to invest, to give certainty and to allow decisions to be
made closer to the local people, communities and businesses that
they affect. The fact that it took devolution for Scotland to get
on and start our decarbonisation journey should be a red flag for
the Government, and it makes an indisputable case for full
devolution of rail. By the end, if there is one, of what has so
far been a two-decade-long process—a process, incidentally, that
was ignored by Westminster when it had control of rail in
Scotland, but which has been driven forward by all political
parties in Scotland, bar the Conservatives—we will have a railway
that is fully fit for the future.
I want the future to include constructive relationships with GBR
and the Department for Transport across borders—not just in
Scotland but in Wales—but I fear that the overriding urge to
centralise and the inability to let go, even when it makes very
little sense not to do so, will mean that we still have the same
outdated and outmoded structures of railway governance that have
dragged the industry down over recent years. That cannot be
allowed to happen, and if the Minister takes on board one thing
from today, I hope it is that the new GBR cannot follow the
centralising model that has been a dead hand preventing the
devolved Administrations and many areas of England from taking
the decisions that best support their priorities. Decisions on
investment and growth are best taken by those on the ground, not
by a DFT trying to extend its reach across the UK. That needs a
real transfer of power to national Parliaments and regional
authorities, and I hope that the future plans for rail mean that
that task can be completed sooner rather than later.
4.13pm
(Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be taking part in this crucial debate, and I
thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central () for securing it. As my
predecessor in this role, she certainly has superb knowledge in
this field. I also applaud her for being an amazing champion of
her constituents, and for her dedication in supporting York in
its bid to be the new headquarters for Great British
Railways Indeed, there was a lot of harmony in the room
when the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (), for Thirsk and Malton
() and for York Outer
() all supported York’s bid
because of the city’s global rail cluster and digital technology
firms, which contribute immensely to UK rail innovation. I
applaud them all for their dedication, and I am sure that York
will be a very strong candidate. Indeed, as a nation we must
ensure that we increase exports of such cutting-edge technologies
to other parts of the world.
We cannot debate the future of rail without considering its past.
Understanding first where rail has come from in the past decade
is crucial in understanding where it is going in the next. As the
phrase goes, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it”, which we definitely do not want for our railways. The
2010s can only be described as a disastrous decade for rail, with
fares rising twice as fast as wages, as my hon. Friend the Member
for Luton South () eloquently highlighted,
cuts to rail services up and down our country, a network unlikely
to be decarbonised and net zero by 2050, and a consistently vague
communications approach for future development and investment in
rail. Despite the Tory rhetoric of investment and expansion, the
Government’s actions speak far louder than their words.
Passengers travelling by rail today compared to 12 years ago are
paying twice as much for a lot less. Year on year, rail fares
have ballooned, increasing by 49% since 2010, while wages across
the UK have stalled, with weekly median earnings increasing by
just 23% since 2010, all while incomes are being squeezed by a
pressing cost of living crisis. How do this Government expect
people to be able to keep up with these brutal hikes? Increasing
passenger numbers while simultaneously pricing them out does not
seem like the most robust strategy from the Government.
The Government solution appears to be the “Great British Rail
Sale”, touted to offer huge savings on many off-peak intercity
routes, but Labour findings suggest that these discounts will be
applied to a mere 1% of all journeys taken, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) eloquently
explained. Perhaps we are being far too generous, Sir Charles, as
even the Tory press are running stories that only 0.66% of
journeys will be discounted. This is nothing more than a gimmick,
and rail staff, unions and passengers know that all too well. No
wonder it has been called the “Great British Rail Fail”.
Short-term sales and political gimmicks should not be the future
of our railways, but a permanent, affordable, efficient and green
network should be. Given the steep cost of travelling on our
railways, passengers would be expected to experience an equally
steep improvement in services. Sadly, that has not been the case.
This Government are imposing cuts of 10% on operators,
threatening jobs across the network and reducing network
capacity.
Furthermore, industry anxiety about omicron, used as a front to
permanently reduced timetables, seems to have materialised, with
19,000 pre-pandemic services yet to return, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston () eloquently explained when
he talked about services to and from Chester. In areas of the
south-west, there is a distinct lack of services, as the hon.
Member for West Dorset (), who has considerable
experience in the rail industry, highlighted. It is evident to me
that while the Tories might talk up the bright future of rail,
all I can see is managed decline. Will the Minister tell us what
plans the Government have to bring back these lost services and
provide passengers with a future in which rail travel is better
value for money?
A key part of rail’s future, and of all of our futures, is the
climate crisis, but Government failures on rail are a pattern,
with an equally poor record on electrification, despite increased
climate change awareness during the last decade. This is the view
not just of the Labour party but of industry professionals and
stakeholders with whom I have had several meetings. The Railway
Industry Association’s 2021 report, entitled “Why Rail
Electrification?”, puts forward the case for a rolling plan of
electrification, which is necessary for network decarbonisation,
adding that that is how the UK will reach its net zero
targets.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Dhesi
I can see several Members want to get in and normally I would be
well up for taking interventions, but Sir Charles has intimated
the lack of time. I apologise to Members on both sides, but I
have only a few minutes.
Despite Conservative boasts in the Chamber about the record on
electrification, the facts show that there is absolutely nothing
to be proud about. The Government have reneged on plans to
electrify east-west rail, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Bedford () highlighted. According to
Network Rail, 13,000 single track kilometres of rail or 88% of
the total network should be electrified by 2050. However, between
2010 and March 2020, just 1,786 kilometres of rail track were
electrified, meaning that only an additional 5,358 kilometres
would be electrified by 2050. At the current rate, the Government
will not get even halfway to their net zero target on
electrification.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify this point, rather than just
harking back a couple of decades to the days of the last Labour
Government. How will this Government reach net zero targets on
our rail network? We all know that the last Labour Government
invested billions to modernise the old inefficient rolling stock.
That is what their priority was. The priority now should be to
tackle the climate crisis and electrify.
Part of the issue with the Government’s approach to the future of
our railway infrastructure is its lack of detail, specificity and
long-term commitment to investment. The devil is in the detail.
Much to the dismay of the rail industry, the “Rail Network
Enhancements Pipeline”, the document providing the detail on
infrastructure delivery, which the Government have told the House
will be published annually, is a mere 900 days out of date.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport ()
It’s coming!
Mr Dhesi
Oh, it’s coming—only 900 days late, severely hindering industry
players’ investment in their skills and technology and making
future infrastructure programmes even more expensive and slower
to deliver. Given the unheeded warnings regarding the enhancement
pipeline, including a plethora of my own written parliamentary
questions on this subject, perhaps the Minister will enlighten us
today as to when the updated document will finally appear.
Then, of course, there is the distinct lack of accessibility, as
ably highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport
(). I appreciate that the
Minister has only recently taken on the rail brief, but
considering the Government’s decade of rail mismanagement, what
prospects are there for a promising future in rail under this
Government? No doubt, the Ministers today will extol the virtues
of Great British
Railways as their innovative solution to revolutionise the
railways and herald a bright future, but despite consisting of
113 pages, last year’s Williams-Schapps plan for rail lacked the
detail necessary for the industry to understand its day-to-day
operations.
As the barrister and legal commentator Max Hardy recently
tweeted:
“A car journey costs the same if it’s planned 6 minutes ahead or
6 months ahead”.
If trains are not competing on price, comfort or convenience,
what is the point of them? We need devolution and integration of
our public transport, as was ably highlighted by my hon. Friends
the Members for Cynon Valley () and for Blackley and
Broughton ()—and, indeed, my hon.
Friend the Member for Bolton South East (), who explained why the
fragmentation and privatisation of the rail industry has ensured
that there is such a disastrous impact on our railways. I hope
that the Government will look back into taking the railways back
into public ownership, so that we put people before profit.
(in the Chair)
Well done. Minister, you have 10 minutes and then Rachel Maskell
has 90 seconds to wind up.
4.22pm
The Minister of State, Department for Transport ()
It is a privilege to respond to this debate under your
chairmanship, Sir Charles. I start by thanking the hon. Member
for York Central () for securing this
important debate on the future of the railways, and all hon.
Members who have made contributions today.
As some hon. Members will know, the railways are close to my
heart: both my paternal grandfathers worked on the railways, one
in Wensleydale in North Yorkshire—for those who are not Yorkshire
colleagues—and the other in County Durham. My dad was actually
born in a railway cottage, so I like to think that I have a
little railway heritage or railway stock in my blood.
I understand the importance of the industry and the magnificent
railway heritage of this country. There is a lot to respond to in
this debate. I will respond to as much as I can. It has been a
very broad debate—a good debate—but there are some specific
points that I want to cover, particularly the point about GBR HQ,
which I will come to shortly.
The Government are committed to securing the heritage of our
railways, now and in the future. Although I cannot comment today
on specifics of the initiative in York, our plans for the future
of rail will benefit the UK as a whole.
I will start with the Williams-Shapps plan for rail. The case for
change has long been clear, and the need to move away from a
model that delivered multiple franchise failures, falling
passenger satisfaction, a timetable collapse, spiralling costs
and a one in three chance of delays across the network. That is
why we commissioned Keith Williams in 2018 to carry out the first
root and branch review of the rail industry in a generation.
Keith and his team identified six key problems facing our
railways; I am sure hon. Members will be familiar with some of
them.
The rail sector too often loses sight of its customers, both
passengers and freight. It is missing opportunities to meet the
needs of the communities it serves. It is fragmented, and
accountabilities are not always clear. It lacks clear, strategic
direction. It needs to become more productive and tackle
long-term costs. It struggles to innovate and adapt.
The pandemic has only exacerbated those problems, with revenues
down and costs up. The Government rightly stepped in with
emergency financial support, from the start of the pandemic to
the end of the previous financial year, spending almost £14
billion funding on passenger services. I also recognise the work
of the industry in keeping services going through the pandemic.
But that support cannot be open-ended and the need for change is
greater than ever.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Williams-Shapps plan for
rail, published in May 2021, set out the path towards a truly
passenger-focused railway, underpinned by new contracts that
prioritise punctual and reliable services, the rapid delivery of
a ticketing revolution with new flexible and convenient tickets,
and long-term proposals to build a modern, green and accessible
rail network. We are confident that our ambitious programme for
reform will address the problems that Keith identified and
support recovery from the pandemic. To that end, we are now well
on the way to the biggest transformation of the railways in three
decades.
Central to our vision is the establishment of a new rail
body, Great British Railways
which will provide a single familiar brand and strong unified
leadership across the rail network. Once established, GBR will be
responsible for delivering better value and flexible fares, and
the punctual and reliable services that passengers deserve.
Bringing ownership of the infrastructure, fares, timetables and
planning of the network under one roof, it will bring today’s
fragmented railways under a single point of operational
accountability, ensuring that the focus is delivering for
passengers and freight customers and encouraging integration
across the system as a whole.
GBR will be a new organisation with a commercial mindset and
strong customer focus. It will also have a different culture to
the current infrastructure owner, Network Rail, and different
incentives from the beginning. It will also be accountable to
Ministers, ensuring that its focus is on providing value for the
taxpayer, enabling innovation and delivering for passengers and
freight customers.
Dr Huq
I am grateful for what the Minister is saying about the GB focus
and the new thing coming. Will she look at the European examples
that I mentioned? As a member of the Select Committee on Digital,
Culture, Media and Sport, I know that tourism is a big thing in
this country. It is worrying that people land in London and
cannot get to Manchester without its costing a three-figure sum.
Can the Minister sort that out, too?
The hon. Lady is demonstrating the need for a railway system that
is not fragmented, and highlighting the importance of the rail
industry, not just for commuters and travel to work, but for the
tourism sector and leisure.
Private businesses have always played a big role on the railway,
originally as its creators, then as providers of passenger and
freight serves, and suppliers and partners to Network Rail.
Privatisation has been a success story for the rail network, with
passenger numbers doubling in the 25 years before the pandemic,
and passengers travelling more safely. [Interruption.] Some hon.
Members might not like that, but numbers have doubled in 25
years. The private sector has invested billions into new, modern
trains and the upgrading of stations.
Our reforms are about simplification—
It would be helpful to remind this debate of what has happened in
our railways over the past few years. After decades of decline,
we reached the point where we had only 760 million passenger
journeys per year. The situation transformed, under
privatisation, to 1.8 billion passenger journeys a year. I think
the Minister should continue her history lesson to the Opposition
Members, who really haven’t got a clue.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention. Let me
continue, because he does make some very important points on the
private sector. GBR will harness the very best of the private
sector—innovation, an unrelenting focus on quality, and
outstanding customer service—and fuse it with a single guiding
mind, empowered to drive benefits and efficiencies across the
system as a whole.
I will quickly touch on some of the points raised by hon.
Members. A number spoke of reform; I want to be absolutely clear
that we are committed to workforce reform, which will make the
railways financially and operationally sustainable for the
future, to deliver in the ways that passengers want, and provide
greater opportunities and more flexible roles for employees.
We talked about GBR; we also have the GBR transition team in
place. While transformation on this scale cannot happen
overnight, the Government and the sector are committed to
ensuring that benefits for passengers and freight customers are
brought forward as quickly as possible. Since our plan for rail,
we have set up the GBR transition team, fulfilling the plan for
rail’s commitment to start interim arrangements immediately.
The hon. Member for York Central referenced her bid for York to
be the GBR HQ, as did others—my hon. Friends the Members for
Thirsk and Malton (), for York Outer () and for Harrogate and
Knaresborough (). GBRTT is currently
overseeing the competition to select the national HQ for GBR,
which is to be based outside of London, ensuring that skilled
jobs, investment and economic benefits are delivered nationwide
and in line with this Government’s historic commitment to
levelling up across the nation.
I am pleased to say that we have received an amazing 42
applications—an incredibly positive response to the recent
expression of interest phase. Obviously, there was one for York,
and six others were mentioned by the hon. Member for Paisley and
Renfrewshire North (). I am conscious of time,
and I know that there have been other debates on GBR’s possible
HQ locations, but I do commend the hon. Member for York Central
for her tireless advocacy of York in the past.
I want to quickly touch on other points in the time that I have.
On RNEP, please be patient; we will be coming forward with that
in due course. There were very specific requests from the hon.
Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston () around services, new
franchising, and a request for a meeting. I am happy to pick that
up after the debate.
Various points were raised around accessibility and tactiles by a
number of colleagues. That is something that I feel is very
important, and we are absolutely committed to increasing the
tactiles to 100%, and Network Rail has received an initial £10
million to install tactiles.
(in the Chair)
Rachel Maskell, you have one minute and 20 seconds.
4.33pm
Thank you, Sir Charles. I thank all hon. Members for their
participation in today’s debate. We truly have debated the future
of rail. It has been outstanding, with all of the contributions
mentioning safety, stations, staffing and local services, as we
try to grapple with the real challenges ahead of us around
connectivity and the climate. Of course, centred in that is the
opportunity that Great British
Railways will bring to our network, to our country and to
our future.
I trust that, in today’s debate, not only was the case for York
made so strongly, but also the plea to look to the next 200 years
of our railways, using the bicentenary for real investment in our
rail cluster, to ensure that we truly can be global Britain once
more on our railways.
(in the Chair)
Thank you very much, colleagues; you performed magnificently—a
team effort.
|
