The Secretary of State for Transport ( )
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the
progress the Government are making in improving rail services for
passengers.
Let me begin by saying how pleased I am that, today, members of
the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers at
Network Rail have voted to accept a 5% plus 4% pay offer over two
years. Seventy-six per cent. of members voted to accept the
offer, on a turnout of nearly 90%, showing just how many of them
wanted to call time on this long-running dispute.
From the moment I became Transport Secretary, the Rail Minister
and I have worked tirelessly to change the tone of the dispute.
We sat down with all the rail union leaders and facilitated fair
and reasonable pay offers. Now, all Network Rail union members
have resolved their disputes, voting for a reasonable pay
increase and accepting the need for a modern railway.
But not every rail worker is being given that chance. Despite the
Rail Delivery Group putting a similar fair and reasonable offer
on the table on behalf of the train operating companies, the RMT
has refused to put it to a vote. It refused to suspend last
week’s strike action even to consider it. Such a lack of
co-operation is disappointing—and what does it achieve? It
deprives the RMT’s own members of a democratic vote, denies them
the pay rise they deserve and, most importantly, delivers more
disruption to the travelling public.
My message to the RMT is simple: call off your strikes, put the
RDG offer to a vote and give all your members a say because it is
clear from the vote today—the “overwhelming” vote, in the RMT’s
own words—that its members understand that it is time to accept a
deal that works, not only for their interests, but for
passengers.
Let me turn to the steps we are taking to help passengers and fix
the issues on the west coast main line. Members will know that
rest-day working, or overtime, is a common way for operators to
run a normal timetable. However, last July, drivers for Avanti
West Coast, who overwhelmingly belong to the ASLEF union,
simultaneously and with no warning stopped volunteering to work
overtime. Without enough drivers, Avanti had little choice but to
run a much-reduced timetable, with fewer trains per hour from
London to destinations in the midlands and the north. Passengers,
businesses and communities along vital routes up and down the
west coast main line rightly felt let down, facing cancelled
services, overcrowded trains and poor customer information. Put
simply, it has not been good enough.
While the removal of rest-day working was the main contributing
factor, my hon. Friend the Rail Minister and I repeatedly made it
clear to Avanti’s owning groups, Trenitalia and First Group, that
their performance needed to improve, too, because we should
always hold train operators to account for matters within their
control. That accountability should come with the chance to put
things right. That is why my predecessor, my right hon. Friend
the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (), extended Avanti’s
contract by six months in October. She rightly set a clear
expectation that performance had to improve—no ifs and no buts.
I am pleased to say that not only was Avanti’s recovery plan
welcomed by the Office of Rail and Road, but it has led to
improvements on the network, with weekday services rising from
180 to 264 trains per day, the highest level in over two years,
and cancellation rates falling from around 25% to an average of
4.2% in early March, the lowest level in 12 months. Nearly 90% of
Avanti’s trains now arrive within 15 minutes of their scheduled
time, over 100 additional drivers have been recruited, reducing
reliance on union-controlled overtime working, and it is very
pleasing to see Avanti’s new discounted ticketing scheme
benefiting passengers on certain routes.
As you would expect me to say, Mr Speaker, there is much more
still to do to ensure that Avanti restores services to the level
we expect and to earn back the trust that passengers have lost,
but we should welcome those improvements and recognise the hard
work undertaken to get to this point. The Rail Minister in
particular has overseen weekly meetings on Avanti for months and
kept hon. Members from both sides of the House regularly
informed. He deserves credit, along with Avanti, for that
turnaround.
October’s extension was not popular, least of all in parts of
this House, but it was the right decision and Avanti is turning a
corner. Its recovery so far has given me sufficient confidence to
confirm that today we will extend its contract by a further six
months, running until 15 October. However, that short-term
contract comes with the expectation that it will continue to win
back the confidence of passengers, with a particular focus on
more reliable weekend services, continued reductions in
cancellations, and improvements in passenger information during
planned and unplanned disruption. My Department will continue to
work closely with Avanti to restore reliability and punctuality
to levels that passengers have long demanded and have a right to
expect.
I realise some hon. Members will also want to hear about
TransPennine Express. I will update the House separately about
TransPennine Express ahead of the contract expiring at the end of
May, but let me be clear: its current service levels are,
frankly, unacceptable and we will hold it to account on its
recovery plan. We have made it clear that, unless passengers see
significant improvements, like we have on Avanti, all options
regarding that contract remain on the table.
I spoke earlier about holding operators to account, but if we
stand here and rightly criticise poor operator performance, we
should also recognise that across the industry train operating
companies have few levers to change it. Avanti, like others,
relies on driver good will to run a reliable seven-day-a-week
railway. Like others, it is at the mercy of infrastructure issues
out of its control. In fact, seven separate infrastructure issues
affected Avanti’s performance in the first week of March alone.
Outdated working practices and track resilience are why
predictable calls for nationalisation wildly miss the point. Any
operator would face those constraints and struggle to run a
reliable service. Ideological debates about ownership are
therefore a distraction, like wanting to paint your car a new
colour when what it needs is a new engine. Only fundamental
reform will fix rail’s systemic issues, which is what the
Government are delivering, bringing track and train together
under the remit of Great British Railways, taking a whole system
approach to cost, revenue and efficiency, and freeing up the
private sector to innovate and prioritise passengers. Having set
out my vision for rail last month, very soon, I will announce the
location of the headquarters of Great British Railways, another
clear sign of the momentum we are building on reform.
We are getting on with the job of delivering a better railway. It
is why we are finally seeing improvements along the west coast
main line, as we continue to hold Avanti to account. It is why we
are making progress on rail reform. It is why we will always
defend the travelling public from unnecessary strike action. And
it is why we will always play our part in resolving disputes in a
way that is fair to rail workers, the travelling public and the
taxpayer. Unlike others, I am not interested in pointless
ideological debates about privatisation and nationalisation. The
Government are focused on gripping the long-standing issues
facing the industry for the benefit of its customers—freight
customers and passengers—taking the tough but responsible
decisions in the national interest, and building the growing,
financially sustainable and modern railway Britain deserves. I
commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
15:43:00
(Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his
statement. What a relief it is to see him in his place. Since he
announced huge changes on HS2, affecting billions of pounds of
investment and jobs, costs to the taxpayer and particularly
affecting the north of England, this is the first we have seen or
heard from him. You can call the search party off, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the deal on Network Rail, but it is overdue. After 10
months in which the Government refused to negotiate and,
according to the chief executive of Network Rail, engaged in
“noisy political rhetoric” that had been “counterproductive” to
negotiations, a compromise has finally been made. However,
passengers across the midlands, the north and Scotland, Members
from both sides of the House, and possibly you, Mr Speaker, will
be looking on in disbelief today as millions more in taxpayer
cash is handed to an operator that is so demonstrably failing
passengers. For the Secretary of State to stand at the Dispatch
Box and hail a turnaround in the service demonstrates how
staggeringly out of touch he is with the lived reality of people
in this country.
The figures speak for themselves. Over the past six months, under
the Secretary of State’s intensive improvement plan, Avanti West
Coast has broken several records—records for delays and
cancellations: the highest ever number of trains more than 15
minutes late and the highest single month of cancellations since
records began. In one month, almost a quarter of services were
badly delayed. That is higher than during the chaos in August and
during the height of the pandemic.
That is not all. Under the Secretary of State’s so-called
improvement plan, the number of trains on time actually fell to
just one third. If that is what success looks like to the
Government, is it any wonder that people question whether
anything in this country works any more? They look on in
disbelief as the answer to this prolonged failure is always
millions more in taxpayers’ cash.
This issue matters because across the north, services remain in
chaos. Today alone, more than 35 services have been cancelled on
TransPennine Express. This has been an issue for not months but
years. Six years ago, TransPennine Express had exactly the same
issues that it faces today. Then, as now, it blamed staff
shortages and the unions. It said then that it would recruit
drivers and improve resilience. Then, as now, the Government
shrugged their shoulders and let it off the hook as performance
plummeted. The Secretary of State dismisses as pointless debates
about the future of railways—little wonder, when the answer to
the enormous challenges facing the railways is always more of the
status quo.
The Conservatives promised competition that would serve
passengers and lower fares; instead, as is happening today,
contracts are awarded without the faintest hint of competition
while fares rise again and again, and passengers suffer. Their
answer to it all is more of the same: the same failing operators;
the same waste and fragmentation; the same broken system. Labour
will end the fractured, fragmented system holding our railways
back and put passengers back at the heart of our rail network,
prioritising long-term decision making. But the message that
today’s decision sends could not be clearer. Under the
Conservatives, our broken railways are here to stay. Under the
Conservatives, passengers will always come last.
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady must have been listening to a completely different
statement; what she just said bears very little relationship to
either facts or the things I set out. Let me take her points in
turn. I am pleased that she welcomed the acceptance by RMT
members of the deal on Network Rail, and that—she obviously did
not say this—she recognises that my approach since I became
Transport Secretary has clearly been the right one, having helped
lead to the situation we are in today. I did not expect her to
pay me any credit for that, but I note that she welcomed the
result.
The hon. Lady said that the Avanti figures speak for themselves,
and they absolutely do. Weekday services have risen in the new
timetable since December to 264 trains a day. The cancellation
rate that she talked about was last year; the most recent rate is
down to 4.2%, the lowest level in 12 months. That is a clear
improvement. I have said that it needs to be sustained, which is
why Avanti has an extension only until October. Some 90% of its
trains now arrive within 15 minutes of their scheduled time,
which is not good enough—it is in the pack with the other train
operating companies, but at the bottom of the pack. I have been
clear that Avanti needs to deliver improvement in the next
six-month period. But the figures do speak for themselves: they
demonstrate an operator that is turning things around but still
has more to do, which was exactly what I said in my statement.
I was clear that TPE’s current service levels are unacceptable
and that no options were off the table. I am interested in the
hon. Lady’s focus on guarding taxpayers’ money. If I have added
this up correctly, she and her Front-Bench colleagues have made
unfunded promises of £62 billion of rail spending with no
demonstrable means to pay for them. I am afraid that she will
have excuse me for finding her professed concern for the taxpayer
a little incredible.
Finally, I was surprised that the hon. Lady does not seem to have
noticed that far from talking about the status quo, last month I
set out in detail a clear set of proposals for reform to bring
track and train together in Great British Railways, which I
reiterated in my statement. That is what we will continue doing:
not having an ideological debate about who owns the railways but
talking about delivering better services for passengers. That
will remain our relentless focus.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
(Milton Keynes South)
(Con)
May I start by welcoming the resolution of the industrial
dispute? I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Rail
Minister on their constructive work to bring that about.
In his statement, my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out that
there are many reasons behind train cancellations and delays,
including infrastructure works and failures, industrial action
and the weather, as well as those that are the responsibility of
the train operating companies. Would it not help scrutiny and
accountability of those operators—not just Avanti and
TransPennine Express, but all operators—to have available a clear
breakdown of the reasons behind poor performance, so that we can
hold to account those who are responsible for which bits of the
delays?
Mr Harper
I would say two things about that. I will look carefully at
whether there is more we can do to show the public clearly and
transparently the reasons for delays, so that they can understand
their cause. To some extent, I do not think that it is that
important to passengers, because they do not really care whether
the train operating company or Network Rail has caused the
problem—they want it to be fixed. My hon. Friend makes the case
for reform. It is exactly why we need to bring together the
guiding mind on track and train operators—to join up the system,
make better decisions for passengers and, ultimately, deliver a
better service, which is what passengers are interested in.
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
(Kilmarnock and Loudoun)
(SNP)
While the Secretary of State was finishing writing his statement
before coming to the House, Avanti was doing what it does
best—causing more chaos to the west coast. I was glad that I got
the London North Eastern Railway down, rather than Avanti. Avanti
was far and away the worst-performing company for cancellations
in period 11 and the second worst in period 12, according to
Office of Rail and Road tables. It was beaten in period 12 only
by TransPennine Express. Coincidentally, both franchises involve
FirstGroup. By contrast, ScotRail is by far the best performing
major operator for cancellation percentages, and it runs eight
times as many trains as Avanti.
Since the much heralded Government intervention, ORR data for
periods 8 to 11 shows that the number of trains arriving on time
is lower, and hovers around 32% to 35%. The Secretary of State
talks about facts, but the fact is that still only a third of
trains are arriving on time. Does he really think that merits
coming to the Despatch Box and bragging about a turnaround? Even
on Avanti’s 15-minute threshold for arrival, performance has been
consistently lower than in earlier years. In period 10, a quarter
of trains arrived outside that 15-minute window. Period 11 was
only marginally better. Yet again, ScotRail significantly
outperforms it. LNER has had its own issues, but it still
outperforms Avanti by some distance. There is no shareholder
dividend system for ScotRail or LNER. Despite the Secretary of
State saying that there is ideological battle on this issue, why
are the Government still so opposed to nationalising rail
companies and giving them public sector ownership?
The Secretary of State mentioned discounted ticketing, yet no one
north of Preston benefits from that, so passengers in Scotland
are paying full whack for services that barely exist to
cross-subsidise tickets for trains that stop 200 miles away.
Scottish commuters have seen plans to shelve the Golborne link
for HS2, with no replacement identified, and further delays to
the Euston link. Even when HS2 comes into being, our trains will
be slower on the west coast main line than Avanti’s are at
present. Despite the rhetoric about rhetoric, is it not the case
that this Government just do not care?
Mr Harper
Let me deal with those questions in order. First, it important to
focus on the facts. To take today’s Avanti service, 95.5% of
services were running within 15 minutes of their planned time.
There was a service issue today, which I know at least one hon.
Member was affected by. There was a Network Rail points failure
between Carstairs and Carlisle, which resulted in the delay and
part-cancellation of two services, including the 0939 from
Lancaster, which started instead from Preston and arrived three
minutes late at Euston. It is interesting that the issue was
caused by the bit of the industry that is, of course, owned by
the taxpayer, so that does not demonstrate the hon. Gentleman’s
case for nationalisation.
Secondly, on timekeeping, I said in my statement that Avanti’s
punctuality was now within the pack of the train operating
companies, but that it was at the bottom of the pack and there
was more work still to do. I was very clear that Avanti has
improved its performance but it is not where it needs to be,
which is why I have sufficient confidence only to extend the
contract until October. Both I and the Rail Minister have been
clear that Avanti needs to continue to deliver improved
performance.
On LNER, on the east coast, in my view one of the reasons why
good performance is delivered on that route is that there are
open-access operators providing competition and choice to
passengers. It is important for us to bear that in mind when we
think about the future shape of the rail service.
On the hon. Gentleman’s points about HS2, because I have to
consider the interests of the taxpayer and the fact that
inflation is significantly high at the moment, I had to make
difficult decisions. The choice I made was to continue delivering
phase 1, in order to ensure we deliver it as promised; to have a
short delay to phase 2a, to continue to deliver phase 2b on
track; and to look again at delivering a station at Euston,
within the budget that has been set. I think those were the right
decisions to deliver improved infrastructure, to benefit the
country over decades to come.
(West Dorset) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State, the Rail Minister and the leadership team of Network Rail
on bringing this prolonged period of industrial action to a
close. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when an offer is put
to members of the RMT and employees, it must be clear that they
indeed want it and accept it? Does he agree that it is right that
the RMT should now put the offer to the train operators to its
members as well?
Mr Harper
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The offers that have been
made by both Network Rail and the train operating
companies—broadly the same value of offers—are fair and
reasonable, balancing the interests of the workers on the
railways, the passengers and the taxpayer. It is important that
the staff themselves get to make a judgment about whether they
think those offers are fair, and I urge the RMT to put the offer
to the train operating companies to its members, and to let the
members decide. Surely that is the right thing for it to do.
(Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It seems that an assessment has been made by the Secretary of
State that actually the service is just a little less rubbish. Is
that really a just case for extending the contract? My
constituents are flabbergasted.
Mr Harper
I was very frank with the House that the service last summer and
autumn was completely unacceptable. Avanti brought in a new
timetable in December. For the first month, we did not really see
any improvement because there was sustained industrial action on
the railways. Since then, it has delivered improved performance.
Is it good enough? No, it is not—I have made that clear—but I
believe that it has demonstrated that it has turned things around
enough to justify giving it the chance of a further six months to
show that it can do the job. We will see whether it does that job
in the next six months, but it has demonstrated that it can turn
things around.
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
As the Secretary of State suggests, things have started to
improve on Avanti West Coast, including through Stoke-on-Trent,
but we need to see further improvements, particularly when it
comes to services and delays. But that is not just down to the
operators: as the Office of Rail and Road suggests, every single
Network Rail region has seen more delays attributed to Network
Rail than in the previous period. Does the Secretary of State
agree that we must focus on track as well as train if we are to
get the improvements we need?
Mr Harper
I very much agree. The Rail Minister has met Network Rail to
raise the specific issues that my hon. Friend raises and others,
but let me say two other things. First, now that we have resolved
all the industrial disputes on Network Rail, the company’s
management can now focus 100% on delivering improved performance
rather than on dealing with an industrial dispute. Secondly, it
has ambitious plans for reform to deliver improved maintenance of
the network in a safer way for the people who work on it and at a
lower cost for the taxpayer, all of which will deliver better
services for my hon. Friend’s constituents.
(Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I assume from the Secretary of State’s earlier comments that he
is aware of my Twitter thread about my cancelled and then delayed
journey to London this morning. It will have come as no surprise
to my constituents, whose lives have been disrupted by this train
company for far, far too long. Today’s announcement of the
contract extension has been met with anger by my constituents. I
have to say that Avanti really did take the biscuit today when it
even managed to serve mouldy food in its on-board shop. My
constituents would like to know what on earth Avanti has to do,
other than be the worst-performing rail operator in the country,
to actually lose the contract.
Mr Harper
I would say a couple of things. First, I did see the hon. Lady’s
tweet, which is why I set out clearly the position with respect
to the train service that was disrupted this morning: there were
two services that were part-cancelled, and the rest of Avanti’s
services this morning were running perfectly all right. The issue
with the cancellation was to do not with Avanti, but with Network
Rail’s performance.
On the hon. Lady’s second point, I come back to what I said
earlier. I am not pretending that Avanti has fixed its
performance or that it is up there with the best-performing train
operating companies—far from it—but the question I faced was
whether it had done enough to demonstrate that it was capable of
turning its services around. I have set that out, and I will not
try the patience of the House by saying it all again. It has made
a significant improvement—enough to justify an extension until
October. Is there more to do? There absolutely is. The hon. Lady
is right to make that strong argument on behalf of her
constituents, and we will hold the company to account.
(Hazel Grove) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is the antithesis of the Fat Controller, but
may I thank him very much indeed for all his efforts in securing
a satisfactory agreement with the unions recently? Owing to the
complete shambles that at times we see from Avanti, which
purportedly seeks to run a rail service, there will be concern
among my constituents. Has my right hon. Friend reflected on the
question of over-promising in bidding for franchises? Will his
judgment of Avanti’s success or otherwise over the next six
months be conditional on improvements such as the ability to book
tickets further in advance than is currently possible?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend is quite right, and I will take his initial
comment in the spirit that I am sure he intended. We will judge
Avanti in the same way that it is judged on the fee that it
earns: on its operational performance; on the experience of its
customers; on its financial management; on how it works with
Network Rail, other train operating companies and other
stakeholders; and on the fundamental performance that it delivers
in its timekeeping, its punctuality and its level of
cancellations. It will also be judged on its customer service
experience. It is quite right to say that it has had some issues
with the ability to book tickets ahead, and over the past week it
has had some issues with its website. It knows that it needs to
fix those issues and that we will hold it to account, as will my
hon. Friend.
(Arfon) (PC)
I just cannot reconcile the Secretary of State’s statement that
services have improved with my own experience as a passenger over
the past month, from today’s minor inconvenience of no food being
available on the long journey from Bangor to London, to the
delays in last week’s trains, to what happened the previous week
when the trains did not turn up at all—and that is on top of the
withdrawal of direct services on the vital Irish route through my
constituency and Ynys Môn to Holyhead. How can the Secretary of
State have any confidence that in six months’ time the service
from Avanti will be any better?
Mr Harper
There has been an improvement over time. Last year, I made it
very clear that services were completely unacceptable. Avanti
introduced a new timetable in December, but it was impossible to
see any improvement during the first month of its operation owing
to sustained industrial action affecting either the train
operating companies or Network Rail. Avanti has since improved
its performance, but I accept that it is not all the way there,
which is why I extended its contract by only six months. Those at
Avanti are well aware that they are still on probation and have
more work to do, and I shall expect to see sustained improvement
on punctuality and timekeeping, on cancellations, and on the way
they work with their customers. We will be holding them to
account, and my hon. Friend the Rail Minister will continue his
regular meetings with them to ensure that their performance
continues to improve, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and
his constituents.
(Delyn) (Ind)
I am pleased to see that the cancellation rate has fallen to
4.2%, but one swallow does not a summer make, and this service
has been letting my constituents and me down for a prolonged
period of time. What will the Secretary of State be looking for
during those six months, and will he be able to publish the
precise metrics of what he would consider to be a success in
order to allow the contract to be refreshed in future?
Mr Harper
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. I said in my statement
that performance had been poor, but improvements had been made.
This will be a question of punctuality and timekeeping—of whether
Avanti hits the required on-time performance—the number of
cancellations, and how easy its customers find it to deal with
the service. I will also have to judge it on the basis of what is
going on in the industry. It would be much easier to judge the
performance of train operating companies if their staff were not
going on strike, which I why I think that if the RMT puts its
deal to the members, we can resolve the industrial dispute. The
issue of holding management to account would then be very clear,
because it would be the only thing left on which we can focus. It
is very difficult to hold management to account when the workers
keep going on strike and disrupting the service for passengers.
(Manchester, Withington)
(Lab)
The Secretary of State said that the contract would be extended
with the “expectation” that Avanti would win back the confidence
of customers. I have to say that my constituents in south
Manchester are a long way from having confidence in Avanti. I
speak regularly to people who are driving rather than taking the
train because they know it is the only way in which they can
guarantee that they will arrive at their destination on time.
Leaving aside the cancellation statistics, how will the Secretary
of State measure the confidence of customers in Avanti’s
currently shambolic service?
Mr Harper
I made it very clear that Avanti would have to earn back the
trust of its customers, which, for rather obvious reasons, it has
lost over the past year. The only way to win back the trust of
customers in a service business such as passenger rail is to
deliver sustained performance improvement over time. During the
most recent period for which we have statistics, the cancellation
figures clearly improved, but Avanti still has more work to do.
It needs to sustain that performance, making the trains more
punctual and reducing the number of cancellations for a sustained
period. If it does that, it will win back the trust of its
customers. If it does not, it will not, and we will make
decisions accordingly.
(South Derbyshire)
(Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. The
arrangements that will hopefully end the strikes are very good
news, and the RMT should certainly ballot its members. As for
Avanti West Coast, my constituents who use Lichfield Trent Valley
station will be pleased to see what has been done, but we do need
more improvement. He has used the phrase “Great British Railways”
a number of times. I am really looking forward to any
announcement that its headquarters might be in Derby.
Mr Harper
On that last point, I promised to update the House before Easter
on where GBR’s HQ will be, and I will stick to that promise. On
my hon. Friend’s other points, I reiterate what she says: this is
about delivering reform and bringing track and train together in
GBR, which will lead to improved performance across the rail
network.
(St Albans) (LD)
The Secretary of State seems to be celebrating a 4% cancellation
rate on Avanti. May I invite him to look at the cancellation rate
on Thameslink trains from St Albans City station, which is 8%? In
fact, only 47% of our trains run on time, and our tickets are
almost a third more expensive per mile than the average London
commuter route, which means that St Albans is now rated the worst
commuter station into London. Will the Secretary of State look at
those cancellation rates and tell me when the prices affecting my
constituency will go down and when reliability will go up?
Mr Harper
We look at the performance of the rail network overall but, as
the Chairman of the Transport Committee said, we need more
transparent information. The most important thing is that lots of
the issues to do with the performance of train operating
companies are partly to do with infrastructure. Passengers do not
care what causes the problems, which is why GBR, with its new
regional structure, will ensure that we deliver a more joined-up
system and better overall performance, which is what is
ultimately important for the hon. Lady’s constituents.
(Harrogate and Knaresborough)
(Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. It is very positive
that RMT employees at Network Rail are ready to accept the offer,
and therefore disappointing that those who work for the train
operating companies have not been given a chance to express their
views. On the specific points in the negotiations, does he agree
that reforms to working practices in order to modernise and bring
greater efficiency to the railways are critical to their future?
Can he confirm that this is central to the negotiations taking
place?
Mr Harper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for reform in general, but
this is also part of the deals that have been accepted. On
Network Rail, the modernising maintenance programme is central to
delivering the savings that will help to fund the pay offer that
has been made. We need to see similar reforms in the train
operating companies in order to deliver a reliable,
seven-days-a-week rail service that is better for passengers,
particularly given that we have seen a bounce-back in leisure
travel at the expense of commuter rail, which I do not think is
going to come back post-pandemic. We need to see a more flexible
railway delivering for passengers.
(Salford and Eccles)
(Lab)
Last year we saw £4.1 million in bonus payouts despite the worst
performance figures for all rail operators. Today we see contract
extensions despite the Office of Rail Regulation showing that 17%
of trains had been cancelled since December. Does the Minister
think that rewarding failure on this scale is justifiable to the
UK taxpayer or, indeed, to passengers?
Mr Harper
I do not think the hon. Lady listened very carefully to what I
said. I did not say that Avanti had fixed all the problems, but
it has delivered an improvement in performance compared with last
year. As I have said, since it introduced its timetable in
December, we did not see much improvement in the first month
because either train operating company staff or Network Rail
staff were on strike, but since then it has delivered an improved
performance. Has it improved as far as it needs to go? No, it has
not—I was clear about that. We need to see that performance
sustained over the coming months, and that is how we will judge
its performance when we make a decision towards the end of this
next six-month period.
(Buckingham) (Con)
The vast majority of my constituents who use rail rely on
Chiltern Railways, and passengers have faced massive and
dangerous overcrowding on services to stations such as Haddenham
and Thame Parkway and Princes Risborough at commuter times and at
weekends. That is due in no small part to customers frustrated
with Avanti who would ordinarily choose Avanti to go from
Birmingham to London being displaced on to the Chiltern line
instead. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the
impact of Avanti’s failures on overcrowding on other railways,
and what can he do to alleviate that pressure?
Mr Harper
I have not made a specific assessment of the extent to which
Avanti’s poor performance, particularly last year, has led to the
effects that my hon. Friend describes, but he has set them out
clearly. If the improved performance that has taken place over
the past few months is sustained, it will enable a reverse of
that effect, which will deliver better services not only for
those who use Avanti but for his constituents who use Chiltern’s
services, for whom the level of overcrowding will reduce.
(Denton and Reddish)
(Lab)
Frankly, we could do with a Secretary of State who has to use
Avanti West Coast twice a week, as many of us in this Chamber do.
I must be the unluckiest rail user in this place, because I
always seem to be on a train that he says is one of the 10% that
triggers delay repay. Avanti has failed, and it has failed
spectacularly. Even by the Government’s own admission, Avanti has
failed to the point that my constituents genuinely do not
understand why it was allowed to have £4 million of bonuses and
£12 million of dividends. Can he explain to my constituents why
we have a rail service that allows and rewards abject failure?
Mr Harper
I cannot help that the location of my Forest of Dean constituency
means I use Great Western Railway rather than Avanti. The hon.
Gentleman can criticise me, but that is the geographical fact of
the case.
Come and try Avanti.
Mr Harper
I used Avanti when, for example, I went to Manchester to meet the
northern Mayors to discuss Avanti’s performance when it needed
improving. Since I met them, Avanti’s performance has
significantly improved.
On bonuses, the hon. Gentleman is talking about a period that
predates last year’s extremely poor performance. We have not yet
seen the published figures to assess the period since last year.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman is right that we need to see
sustained performance improvement. As I said in my statement, we
will make sure Avanti has done that when we come to make a
decision about the period after October.
(Ynys Môn) (Con)
I am concerned that the Government have extended the Avanti West
Coast contract to 15 October 2023. My Ynys Môn constituents and
businesses are at their wits’ end over Avanti’s terrible and
unreliable service to Holyhead, which is the UK’s second busiest
port. The Minister mentioned that more than 100 additional
drivers have been recruited, reducing reliance on overtime. Is
there a target figure that Avanti needs to recruit by 15 October
for the contract to be extended?
Mr Harper
The majority of pre-covid services to the north Wales coast have
been restored, and there are five trains a day in each direction
between London and Holyhead. Avanti has recruited more than 100
new drivers, which needs to be sustained for it to continue
delivering a reliable timetable without depending on rest-day
working. We will work closely with Avanti to make sure that
performance continues over the coming months.
(Liverpool, Wavertree)
(Lab)
During the period of Avanti’s improvement plan, the operator had
the highest proportion on record of trains running more than 15
minutes late. By the Secretary of State’s own admission, Avanti
has also lost the confidence of its customers. Why are the
Government rewarding this gross incompetence with yet another
six-month extension?
Mr Harper
I was clear in my statement about the facts on Avanti’s
punctuality. Although it is now back in the pack with the other
train operating companies, it is at the bottom of the pack and
still has more work to do. The question for me, as I said in my
statement and as I said in answer to the shadow Secretary of
State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (), is about whether Avanti’s
performance has improved enough to demonstrate it can continue
improving. The statistics I read out show that Avanti is clearly
running a much better service, with 40% more trains, and has
significantly reduced cancellations in the past few months, but I
was very frank that its performance is not good enough today.
Avanti needs to continue delivering service improvements for us
to give it a further contract. That is what we will judge Avanti
by as we run forward to October.
(Clwyd West) (Con)
I must confess that I was disappointed to hear from my right hon.
Friend that he has decided to extend Avanti’s contract by six
months. Avanti has been letting down the people of north Wales
for far too long and I had hoped that he would be coming here to
say that he was terminating that contract. It would appear that
the progress Avanti has made is that it is no longer delivering a
truly deplorable service and instead is delivering something
rather less than a mediocre one. Will he confirm that he will
expect Avanti to be delivering an excellent service by October,
failing which it will be stripped of its franchise?
Mr Harper
I think my right hon. Friend is being a little unfair in not
recognising the performance improvements Avanti has made. I
completely accept that its performance last summer and autumn was
terrible, and I said that, but it has made significant
improvements. It needs to continue those improvements,
particularly in delivering reduced cancellations, improvements at
weekends—its weekday services are better than its weekend
ones—and improvements in how it deals with its customers. All
those things absolutely need to continue happening for both him,
and me, to be satisfied with Avanti.
(Barnsley East) (Lab)
Today, more than 30 services were cancelled by TransPennine
Express. The Minister has outlined his concern about the service,
so will he reassure the House that when performance figures are
published we will find that TPE will not have received a penny in
performance bonuses, given the misery that millions are facing?
Mr Harper
The hon. Lady is right about TPE; I made it clear in my statement
that its current performance is unacceptable. The rail Minister
and I met its senior leadership and made it clear that the
current performance was unacceptable. As I said at this Dispatch
Box, if there is not considerable improvement, all options are on
the table.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
Staying with TPE, the Secretary of State will know that I have
raised this issue on more occasions than I would wish to do so.
The service out of Cleethorpes is supposed to be hourly through
to Doncaster, Sheffield and Manchester, but today there was a
six-hour gap between 8.20 and 14.20, and 10 days ago there was an
eight-hour gap between trains. This is having a terrible effect
on business and leisure facilities, and tourism to Cleethorpes,
and it has been going on for 16 months, so it is not something
new. When he comes to make a decision on TPE, will he please take
an extremely robust position?
Mr Harper
I know that my hon. Friend has had a particularly difficult time
on the route that serves his constituents. I was clear at the
Dispatch Box that TPE’s service is not acceptable, to put it
mildly, and it needs to improve. The one thing I would say is
that it is overly dependent on rest-day working. When I met
northern Mayors, who made this point to me clearly, I ensured
that a refreshed, more generous offer on rest-day working was
made to ASLEF, but again, it did not even put it to its members.
That offer would have made a significant difference in the
performance delivered to his constituents. I ask ASLEF to look
again at the offer that has been made on rest-day working and
take it up, so that we can do the most important thing: deliver
improved services to passengers, rather than continue an
unnecessary dispute.
(Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Avanti’s abysmal performance is not just demoralising its own
hard-working staff on stations and on trains, but causing a huge
blow to our economy. The Lakes is the second biggest visitor
destination in the country, and it is connected with the biggest,
here in London, and the impact on the economy is huge and
massively damaging. During this six-month probation period we are
talking about, Avanti has recorded almost one in five trains
cancelled, with almost one in two delayed. What appalling
additional reduction in the quality of service must Avanti do to
lose the contract? People in Cumbria will be appalled at the
apparent low standards.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me if I have this wrong,
but I do not think he was here for the whole of my statement, so
he may have missed the bit where I set out the improvement that
Avanti had delivered. It weekday services have risen from 180 to
264 trains a day, and cancellations were down to 4.2%. I made it
clear that Avanti had demonstrated enough improvement to justify
the extension until October, but it absolutely has more work to
do to deliver for his constituents and others who use the
service. That is what the Rail Minister and I will be expecting
Avanti to do in the months running up to October.
(Bury North) (Con)
The ideologically driven actions of the RMT have brought chaos to
the wider economy. Rail strikes alone cost the UK hospitality
sector £1.5 billion in December—that affects jobs and
livelihoods. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the
Conservative party will always be the champion of the public and
their right to get on with their daily lives—even in the face of
the RMT’s actions?
Mr Harper
That is a very well-aimed question, because it demonstrates that,
when we have rail strikes, there is an immediate impact on not
just passengers but the wider economy. I reiterate that, with a
90% turnout and a 76% acceptance of the offer, Network Rail’s RMT
staff have demonstrated that they thought it was fair and
reasonable in all the circumstances. They have accepted it, which
seems to me to justify the RMT putting a very similar offer to
its members working in the train operating companies. I would
urge it to do so, and to do so quickly, so that it can call off
next week’s strikes. That probably needs to happen by the middle
of this week so that we do not damage the passengers, or the
businesses that depend on them, any more than they already have
been.
(Stockport) (Lab)
The people of Stockport have to suffer the extremely poor
services provided by Avanti and TransPennine Express. It is
extremely frustrating that the Government have decided to extend
Avanti’s contract by six months. The Secretary of State pretends
that Avanti was an excellent service provider before last summer,
but in 2021-22 it had the most complaints of any operator. Why do
new figures prove that the Government sanctioned a £12 million
dividend for Avanti shareholders, and will the Secretary of State
demand that money back?
Mr Harper
I think I am right in saying that the hon. Gentleman is talking
about the period before the very poor service last year. However,
he will also know that the judgment about whether train operating
companies have hit the performance targets they have been given
is reached independently, not by me, and I think that is a good
safeguard.
On the hon. Gentleman’s general point about Avanti’s and
TransPennine’s performance, and whether it is good enough, I was
clear that TP’s performance is not good enough at the moment. If
TP does not demonstrate improved performance, all options remain
on the table.
(Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister on
successfully working their way through the Network Rail strike.
They have rightly mentioned winning back the trust of customers,
so as they start to consider whether Avanti, TransPennine Express
and others have successfully improved their performance, will
they also consider that open-access operators—which the Secretary
of State mentioned as a shining example of good practice and
which have maintained their customers’ affection—may be the
answer for both these routes? Why do we not have more of them and
fewer monumental, single provider-dominant contracts?
Mr Harper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. On the point about drivers,
almost 100 drivers have been recruited—I said more than 100
earlier, but it is almost 100, and I would like to correct the
record at this early opportunity.
My hon. Friend’s point about open-access operators is right. As I
said in answer to a previous question, that competition and
choice are welcome, but we can only have that when we have
sufficient capacity—that is important. I also note that Avanti’s
announcement today makes it clear that the new managing director
it has brought in to grip its performance and to continue
delivering improved performance has been responsible for two of
those very successful open-access operators. I think that bodes
well for Avanti’s customers.
(City of Chester) (Lab)
I have to tell the Secretary of State that the only cancellation
my constituents would welcome is the cancellation of the Avanti
contract. He mentioned the five services a day between Holyhead
and Crewe, but he may not be aware that two of them have been
cancelled today. For communities in Chester and north Wales, this
ongoing nightmare is affecting lives and economic performance.
When will the Secretary of State stop rewarding failure and get a
grip on this service?
Mr Harper
I think the hon. Lady’s question would be fairer if I had
pretended there was not more work to do. Avanti has delivered
performance improvement, running 40% more services, reducing the
rate of cancellations to 4.2% and running significantly more
trains on time, but I was very clear that it needs to do better
on punctuality and deliver sustained improvement on
cancellations. I know how much cancellations inconvenience
passengers—not just those who wanted to catch the cancelled
services, but passengers on other services that are then
overcrowded. Avanti has work to do, but I think it has done
enough so far to justify a six-month extension. We will consider
whether it has sustained that performance when we have to make a
further decision later this year.
(Newcastle-under-Lyme)
(Con)
The service my constituents endured from Stoke-on-Trent last year
was truly appalling, as my right hon. Friend acknowledged
earlier. Does he agree that, although things have been better
this year—I can testify myself that there are more services, they
are less crowded, and most of them turn up on time—it is still
not good enough, and 4.2% is not an acceptable cancellation rate?
Will he hold Avanti to account before extending the contract any
further?
Mr Harper
I welcome my hon. Friend’s words, which paint a balanced picture.
He recognises that there has been improvement, and I have talked
to colleagues in this House and outside who have recognised that
improvement, but there is more to do. Avanti has more to do on
driving down cancellations and on punctuality, where it is at
least now in the pack with the other train operating companies,
but at the bottom of the pack. That is why we have only extended
the contract for another six months. Avanti must demonstrate to
our satisfaction that it can deliver that improved performance in
a sustained way, which is what is important for my hon. Friend
and his constituents.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
TransPennine’s performance is rubbish. Its cancellation rates are
appalling, Members on both sides of the House have lost
confidence in it, and it cannot even run the toilets at Hull
Paragon station properly. Why do we have to wait until May for a
decision on the future of TransPennine?
Mr Harper
I think I was very clear in my characterisation of TransPennine’s
performance. I was perhaps a little more diplomatic than the
right hon. Lady, who was franker in her assessment, but I said
that its performance was not acceptable. The contract expires on
23 May; I will have to make a decision ahead of that and, as I
have said, all options remain on the table if TransPennine does
not improve its performance.
(Eltham) (Lab)
It is five years since the newly refurbished London Bridge
opened; apart from teething problems at the start, it ran
relatively smoothly until the Government-imposed timetable
changes came in in December. Since then, we have seen several
very dangerous situations occur at London Bridge. At a
stakeholder meeting a couple of weeks ago, Southeastern stated
that one of the problems is that it has to make £10 million-worth
of savings, imposed by the Government. The Secretary of State may
not be a portly controller, but he is the controller none the
less. Is it not the tinkering of this Government that is leading
to a chaotic railway service, whether on Southeastern or Avanti?
Mr Harper
The particular set of circumstances the hon. Gentleman talks
about requires Network Rail to work closely with Transport for
London, as it is doing, to look at those circumstances. I know
there have been issues with the timetable on his particular line
and I remember a conversation he had with my hon. Friend the Rail
Minister at the last set of oral questions, where my hon. Friend
was able to supply the House with some positive news. I have
listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will
take that away and look at it to see whether there is more we
need to do in the short term to improve performance for his
constituents.
(Sefton Central) (Lab)
Many of my constituents are unfortunate enough to have to rely on
Avanti. They thought the Secretary of State’s predecessor should
not have extended the contract last time, let alone this time. I
want to look at some of his claims about improved performance,
because they do not stand up to scrutiny over any extended period
of time. Everybody knows what is going on here, because they have
experienced the service for themselves. The average number of
cancellations between September 2022 and March 2023 was just as
high as over the previous six months, and Avanti had the highest
proportion of trains more than 15 minutes late on record. The
travelling public know it, we know it, and I suspect he knows it
too: Avanti should be stripped of its franchise.
Mr Harper
I think we should judge Avanti’s performance fairly. The hon.
Gentleman is mashing periods together. Before December, I was
quite clear that Avanti absolutely had to deliver an improved
timetable—that did not start until December. Of course, as I said
in response to previous questions, the first month or so of that
was disrupted enormously by industrial action either in the train
operating company or in Network Rail, or in both. Since Avanti
brought it its new timetable, it has delivered 40% more services.
Yes, it has not delivered sustained reductions in cancellations,
but it has delivered reductions more recently.
There is no point in looking at the performance last summer and
autumn, which I have accepted was terrible. There was a problem
to fix, which is why Avanti needed to bring in its new
timetable. Since it has done that, it has delivered improvements.
Are they good enough? No, which is why I have extended it for a
further six months only. Avanti is very clear that it has to
deliver sustained performance improvement, and I judged that that
was the best way to deliver improved performance for the hon.
Gentleman’s constituents and those of other hon. Members.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
The performance and service of York-based LNER is the best across
the network. That service is under the operator of last resort.
By contrast, TransPennine Express, which is operated by
FirstGroup, is failing my constituents abysmally. Will the
Secretary of State look at bringing TPE under the same public
ownership as LNER, and draw on York’s advanced rail and digital
rail cluster to make TPE an effective and efficient service?
Mr Harper
TPE’s contract expires on 28 May, not 23 May. I recognise what
the hon. Lady says about the excellent skills that are available
in York. On LNER, that franchise often delivered very good
performance. The reasons why it ended up being brough under the
control of the OLR were to do with financial performance —the
operational performance was very good. On TPE, we are carefully
considering the performance of the existing company and
structure, and we will make a judgment about that. I have said
that no option is off the table if TPE does not deliver improved
services. I listened carefully to what she said, and I will bear
it in mind when we make a decision.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his statement. For
able-bodied people like us, travel can be a problem, but it is
even more of a problem for disabled people. Will he outline
whether improvements to disabled access will be extended to rural
locations, which, although small in nature, are vital and pivotal
to connectivity, especially for disabled people, who wish to
be—and must be—fully considered and included in this statement
and, indeed, in the delivery of services?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman will know that, in a previous life, I served
as Minister for Disabled People, so I take accessible transport
very seriously. That is why one thing that I did when I became
Secretary of State was to make all my Ministers clear that, in
all their decisions, they had to think about how disabled people
could have access to all modes of transport. He will know about
the services that we have to improve station accessibility. I
will make sure that, as we think about rural services, the Rail
Minister thinks about access for all, because that is incredibly
important, as the hon. Gentleman says.
