Railways: Trans-Pennine Express
Question
Asked by
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the rate of cancellations of Trans-Pennine Express trains, and
what criteria they are using to consider the renewal of the
contract for Trans-Pennine Express.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, for many months we have made it clear to TPE’s
management that its services have been unacceptable. Passengers
have faced significant disruption and the northern economy has
not had the reliable railway it needs. To allow for the reset
that passengers need and expect, the Secretary of State has
confirmed that TPE will be brought under the DfT’s operator of
last resort when the current contract expires on 28 May.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, which was so
prompt that it was given on 17 May, before I had a chance to ask
the Question. The appalling service that customers received from
TPE highlights again the lack of co-ordination across the
privatised rail service—problems that were supposed to be
resolved through the implementation of Great British Railways.
Now that the Prime Minister has announced that Great British
Railways has been scrapped, can the Minister tell us whether
industry reports that £52 million has already been spent on it
are correct? Is that money now wasted if GBR has been scrapped?
(Con)
I must have missed the Prime Minister scrapping GBR, because the
Secretary of State has set out his ambition for a
customer-focused, commercially led industry. The creation of GBR
is, of course, the guiding mind for the sector, but it is true
that we can get many of the benefits now. The programme is
simplifying and rolling out single-leg pricing across the LNER
network, and trialling demand-based pricing to ensure that
passenger demand is more evenly spread between services. Of
course, the GBR transition team is working on the long-term
strategy for rail, which will simplify industry practices and
explore new opportunities for the private sector.
(LD)
My Lords, TransPennine Express is the fourth train operator to be
taken over by the Government in the face of prolonged failure.
Although the Minister has outlined some work that can be done in
the face of the current situation, Great British Railways in all
its aspects cannot be created without full legislation. I
understand that the Bill to create GBR is largely drafted, and is
short and straightforward. Why do the Government not just get on
with it? If they do not, what do they plan to do instead to deal
with the current decline of our railways?
(Con)
I have already outlined to the noble Baroness some of the things
that can be achieved now. The creation of Great British Railways
in full does require legislation, which we will progress when
parliamentary time allows.
(Lab)
My Lords, why do the Government not face up to the reality that
TransPennine Express is a small player compared with the problem
of cancellations on the west coast main line, especially by
Avanti? I understand that there were three yesterday morning
alone. When can we have a proper mainline service on the west
coast?
(Con)
I am not aware of the reasons for those cancellations, but I
remind all noble Lords that sometimes cancellations have to
happen that are not the fault of the train operating companies.
We have worked very closely with Avanti, and we know that the
proportion of Avanti-caused cancellations fell from an average of
13.2% in early January to just 1.4% at the end of March.
Occasionally, it is not Avanti’s fault, and it is right that it
does not take the blame in those circumstances.
(CB)
My Lords, disruption on our national rail system is now
commonplace. Only yesterday, I took a train to reach Parliament
that was exactly 60 minutes late. Recently, my wife and I spent a
delightful three weeks holidaying in Japan. We criss-crossed
every part of Japan on the Shinkansen, the regional network and
the local network, and on every single occasion bar none the
train arrived precisely, to the minute, as advertised, and
deposited us at our destination exactly to the minute. When will
we be able to achieve Japanese levels of reliability on our
national rail network?
A noble Lord
Never!
(Con)
My Lords, I hope to take a trip to Japan soon to go and see those
fantastic railways. Of course, they are incredible, but they were
not built quite at the time that our railways were built. The
Government are very focused: reliability is the Secretary of
State’s number one priority, aside from safety. That is why we
are investing £44.1 billion in our railways in the next control
period. Network Rail published its strategic business plans a few
days ago, and they are now with the independent regulator, the
Office of Rail and Road, for further scrutiny.
(Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest in the register as
chairman of Transport for the North. While I welcome what the
Secretary of State has brought forward, which takes effect next
Monday—the operator of TPE being the operator of last resort from
next week—does my noble friend agree that it will not necessarily
be a silver bullet? Until industrial relations are brought back
to reality and a good working relationship with train drivers is
accepted, we will still have disrupted services—and the huge
amount of money that is presently being spent on the
trans-Pennine upgrade.
(Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. The railways are in a
very poor financial place at the moment, with revenues between
£50 million and £130 million less than they were before. That is
why we must see reform of the railways if they are to have a
viable future. That reform can happen only if we get the
co-operation of the unions, which I am sure want to ensure a
long-term future for their workers. I am grateful for all the
work that my noble friend does in the north. The Secretary of
State has asked officials to review services across the north to
look for performance improvements and delivery certainty, and is
looking to work with northern mayors and other stakeholders to
make those improvements.
(Lab)
My Lords, before the strikes took place, the railway was still a
shambles. Can the Minister tell us why every European nation
seems to be able to run a train service, while Britain cannot? Is
it because the dogma that runs this Government means that they
will not look at privatisation and bringing the railway system
back into public ownership, like many other countries?
(Con)
I am not wholly sure where the noble Lord gets that evidence
from. Certainly, if he goes back to look at the period before
industrial action really took hold, he will see that many of the
train operating companies were working exactly to contract and
better, and therefore getting performance fees. I want to point
out as well—I think it is important—that while I absolutely note
that some noble Lords will have had trouble travelling recently,
those noble Lords who have not, such as me, will not say that
they actually had a very good service. But I have had a fantastic
service on LNER, on South Western Railway and on Avanti.
(Con)
Following what my noble friend has just said, could I just put in
a good word for LNER, and encourage noble Lords in all parts of
the House to come and explore the glories of Lincoln? They will
almost certainly get there on time, and get back on time, unless
there is a strike.
(Con)
My noble friend has hit the nail on the head. It is likely that
any noble Lord will get there and get back on time, unless there
is a strike.
(LD)
My Lords, could the Minister persuade the Prime Minister to use
the railways himself a little bit more often? We know that he
flies around the country rather a lot. I think if he were to do
so, particularly in visiting his constituency, then services to
Northallerton and Thirsk would improve very considerably.
(Con)
I am sure that the Prime Minister is well aware of what is going
on on our railways, because one of the key priorities of the
Department for Transport is to make sure that they run reliably,
and that in the future we have a reformed railway which services
all passengers, not just the Prime Minister.
(Non-Afl)
Does the Minister agree that probably the single thing that could
best bring forward levelling up to the north of England would be
to get a decent railway system in place, operating so that people
can travel on it with confidence?
(Con)
Obviously, there are many strands to what is a broad levelling-up
ambition, but I agree that we must focus on investing in our
railways in the north. That is why HS2 is proceeding and why we
are spending £44.1 billion on the traditional infrastructure. It
is very important that we maintain what we have to make sure that
reliability, to the north and indeed all parts of the UK, is
good.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, what is the purpose of Transport Ministers? All they
seem to do is read out the excuses from the railway companies,
then shovel lots of money into them, and then cancel their
contracts because they are not performing. Is it not about time
that Transport Ministers did what they ought to do and take
control of the railways—take it into public ownership?
(Con)
Nationalisation is a soundbite; it is not a solution. One would
be left with the same infrastructure, the same workforce, and the
same challenges that the railways currently face. It is
absolutely important that Transport Ministers—all Transport
Ministers, including the Rail Minister, which is not me—have good
relationships with the train operating companies, and allow that
engagement to happen with the unions so that we can take our
railways forward.
