Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to bring forward
legislation to create Great British Railways and progress
contractual reforms for train operators.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, we will progress legislation to establish Great British
Railways when parliamentary time allows. New passenger service
contracts will balance the right performance incentives with
simple, commercially driven targets that will ensure a central
role for the private sector in delivering for customers.
(Lab)
My Lords, the short response to that would be to ask why it has
not been done before. The current subsidy to the railway industry
is about three times more in real terms than it was to the
much-maligned BR in the 1990s. Legislation to bring forward an
organisation that will put together the disparate but essential
parts of the railway industries, such as track and train, is long
promised and long overdue. The present system pleases neither
passengers nor staff.
(Con)
I am seeking a question in that comment. I can say that the
number of passenger journeys is now significantly higher than
ever it was under British Rail. Between January and March 2023,
there were around 400 million journeys, which is an astonishing
achievement. There are so many things that we can get on with
when it comes to Great British Railways—just one example being
the long-term strategy for rail. We have received hundreds of
responses to the consultation for that, which we will be
publishing later this year.
(LD)
My Lords, at the George Bradshaw address in February, the
Secretary of State for Transport said that Britain has
“a broken model. Unable to adapt to customer needs and
financially unsustainable”.
Given this devastating judgment by the Secretary of State only
five months ago, why have the Government abandoned the plans they
had to introduce legislation to create Great British Railways
within this Parliament? Why is it now possible to adapt, when in
February the Secretary of State said it was not?
(Con)
I think the noble Baroness is reading a little too much into
those comments. The Secretary of State is completely right that
the current financial situation is unsustainable, but at no time
did he say that plans to set up GB Railways had been abandoned.
He also set out all the different steps that we can take without
legislation—for example, contactless payments, simplifying fares,
looking at the existing national rail contracts and entering into
local partnerships. All those things are being done.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of Transport for the
North. I agree with my noble friend the Minister about the
remarkable transformation we have seen in the railways since
privatisation and the huge increase in passenger take-up, from
700 million journeys to 1.8 billion in the year prior to the
pandemic. Does my noble friend agree that there is a malaise at
the moment within the industry as to what the future direction
should be? Too much at the moment is being controlled by the
Department for Transport, which is, of course, controlled by the
Treasury. That is not the best way to run a very successful
industry. That is why we need GBR as soon as possible.
(Con)
I point my noble friend back to the long-term strategy for rail,
which will help the industry to understand what the medium-term
future for the railways looks like. As to what we have been doing
to increase revenues and free up the train operating companies,
we are looking at the current railway contracts and at ways to
put in stronger revenue-incentive mechanisms and allow train
operating companies to put resources into increasing
revenues.
(Lab)
The Minister will have heard strong support for the establishment
of Great British Railways across the House. This is an innovation
that I think would survive a change of government, if one were to
occur next year. Would it help her if she took a look at the
Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, and the establishment
of an SI under that Act, which would enable the department’s
franchising functions to be devolved to GBR if we are not to have
primary legislation?
(Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful
intervention.
(Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend provide assurance about some of the
small schemes that are in waiting, such as the Ely junction
enhancement which will have benefits east, west, north and
south?
(Con)
The Government are investing record amounts in the railways. In
control period 7, between 2024 and 2029, we will be investing £44
billion in infrastructure. Obviously I cannot comment on specific
schemes at this time, as the RNEP will be published which will
set out which enhancements we are able to prioritise.
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a regular champion of LNER on the north-east coast,
a nationalised rail company run by the Minister’s department, can
I ask whether there has been any assessment by the Government of
why this train company appears to be head and shoulders above all
other privately run train companies in the UK in public
acclaim?
(Con)
There are so many factors involved in looking at comparative
performance between the different train operating companies, and
the Government publish as much data as they can. I pay tribute to
staff at LNER, and agree that it offers a great service. However,
I took a train up to Norwich last week, and I had great service
on that too.
(Lab)
My Lords, amid the claims about the number of journeys, what
about the cost? It is now cheaper to fly to New York than to
travel from Manchester to London on the train.
(Con)
The Government are always looking at what we can do to improve
the services and passenger experience on our railways. We are
looking at simplifying fares. The noble Lord will know that we
have introduced single-leg pricing on LNER and are looking to
potentially do a trial around demand-based pricing. All of these
things will serve to put downward pressure on prices.
(Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a regular Avanti user. I have
been in correspondence with the Minister about the train service
fairly frequently. Does she accept that, if one of the big
objectives of this Government is to level up between the north
and the south in England, and to provide good connections to
Scotland, a decent service on the west coast main line is
absolutely essential? That does not exist. The proposed
legislation, as I understand it, is very short; it is enabling
legislation. The fact is that the Government have taken a
political decision not to go ahead with this, and I would like
her to explain why.
(Con)
I cannot explain the reason why because that decision has, of
course, not been taken. The noble Lord mentions Avanti, and I pay
tribute to Avanti, because the quality of its services has
improved enormously recently. At the end of May, cancellations on
Avanti were just 1.4%—which is very good among train operating
companies—and 93.8% of services were “on time”, meaning within 15
minutes of arrival time. Those figures do compare favourably.
(Con)
Does my noble friend find echoes in the exchanges this afternoon
of that old adage of the steam train going up and then down the
hill: “I think I can. I think I can. I think I can. I thought I
could. I thought I could. I thought I could”?
(Con)
Most certainly.
(LD)
My Lords, I think the Minister said in an earlier answer that the
Government planned to bring forward a Bill when parliamentary
time allowed. Does she accept that there is virtually no
legislation in the Commons at the minute? The Commons finished
last week, or the week before, at 2.37 pm, before we had hardly
started. There is parliamentary time. It is a short Bill.
Frankly, that is not a reason or an excuse; it is a
smokescreen.
(Con)
I do not want to be the one to remind the noble Lord that there
are two Houses in Parliament. Your Lordships’ House actually has
quite a lot of legislation going through.
(Con)
Does my noble friend agree that there would be more parliamentary
time if the Liberals did not table so many amendments, and speak
at length on them, at late stages of Bills?
(Con)
Yes, I do.
(Lab)
My Lords, in May 2021, in CP 423, the Government set out their
vision for Great British Railways:
“Under single national leadership, our railways will be more
agile: able to react quicker, spot opportunities, make
common-sense choices, and use the kind of operational
flexibilities normal in most organisations, but difficult or
impossible in the current contractual spider’s web”.
Given the delay since then, are the Government still committed to
this vision, or do they accept the ongoing chaos that is the
national railway today?
(Con)
The Government remain committed to that mission. Indeed, so much
of what we are doing with the railways at the moment is in
pursuit of that mission. For example, the Rail Minister has asked
the Great British Railways transition team to look at
simplification of the railways—at how to simplify the complex
rules and processes which exist in rail and which do not need to.
That process will be completed later this year.
