House of Commons · Westminster Hall
14 June 2023 · 7 other contributors · 8,724 words
Opened by Martin Vickers Con Brigg and Immingham
Responding minister: Huw Merriman
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Martin Vickers raised concerns about williams-shapps plan for rail in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key points
Key requests to Government
Vickers urges for reforms including a public-private partnership model through Great British Railways, more flexible national rail contracts, fares reform, introduction of single-leg pricing on LNER extended to private operators, and the ratification of the Luxembourg rail protocol.
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Martin Vickers is concerned about the current state of Britain's railways, which he describes as a 'broken model' with unsustainable finances. He highlights issues such as high fares, poor services, restricted operator freedom due to pandemic-era contracts, and lack of transparency in funding. He notes that while open access on the east coast main line has boosted competition and innovation, it is not enough to solve all problems.
Chris Loder highlighted the Great British Railways initiative, stemming from a timetable disaster in May 2018. He discussed the influence of trade unions on train driver training during the covid pandemic, leading to manpower deficits and increased overtime needs for operators like TransPennine Express. Loder advocated for releasing some specification control to allow private sector innovation and commercial capabilities to improve railway services.
Mr Newlands expressed concern over the removal of high-speed rail plans north of Manchester, questioning the government's prioritisation of rail investment. He highlighted £64 million spent on GBR transition in two years and criticised the privatisation of railways as an ineffective system.
Iain Stewart praised the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail and urged the Minister to argue strongly for its inclusion in Parliament's next Session. He highlighted that the Department for Transport's level of command and control is not conducive to developing the railway, particularly due to the split responsibility between cost and revenue. He suggested setting up Great British Railways (GBR) in shadow form as a way to progress with ticketing reform and other initiatives while waiting for legislation.
Jack Brereton supported the enthusiasm for the Williams-Shapps plan but expressed concern about a potential revival of the Beeching mindset. He emphasized the importance of competition and consumer choice in rail services, citing examples from Birmingham New Street to London Euston and Stoke-on-Trent's fare issues. Brereton also highlighted the current revenue crisis on railways despite high passenger numbers and called for innovation and incentives to win back fares. He advocated for flexibility within GBR (Great British Railways) operations and regional management to reflect local needs, while stressing the need for proper coordination in regions like Stoke-on-Trent.
Everybody hated British Rail due to its poor staff morale and industrial relations, which were not conducive to a positive work environment.
My hon. Friend's analysis is correct in that centralised control of the railway system under Great British Railways could stifle private sector initiative and investment, leading to continued poor performance by Network Rail, which is responsible for at least 78% of current rail delays.
The MP highlighted the failure of the Williams-Shapps plan for rail, citing issues such as high fares, cancelled services, and strikes. He criticised the Government's lack of commitment to Great British Railways (GBR), questioning whether they remain committed to delivering GBR in full. The MP also mentioned that local authorities spent time and resources on a competition to host GBR's headquarters but are now left in limbo.
Government Response
Huw MerrimanIt is a pleasure to serve under the chairship of Ms Fovargue and to reply to this debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). The case for rail transformation is now stronger than ever, as the railways are not delivering services customers deserve. Establishing Great British Railways will enable a single guiding mind to co-ordinate the network, bringing infrastructure and operational decisions together, planning coherently for the future with robust levers of accountability, developing local partnerships, and enhancing the role of the private sector. New passenger service contracts will balance performance incentives with commercially-driven contracts, encouraging competition and innovation. Legislation is needed but we are working on delivering reforms and tangible benefits ahead of it. The transition team at Great British Railways has analysed hundreds of responses to the first-ever long-term strategy for rail call for evidence, which will be published later this year. We recognise a multitude of train company websites with different service standards can confuse passengers and we are looking closely with industry partners to review the best way to address that issue. We have launched national flexi-season tickets and over 700,000 have been sold since launch; single-leg pricing has also been extended to the LNER network. We continue to press ahead to deliver reforms, workforce reform, developing the new commercial model, simplifying fares, and rolling out pay-as-you-go ticketing ahead of legislation.