Who holds the power in a future Great British Railways was the focus of the latest transport select committee hearing into the draft rail reform bill on 22 May.
The scrutiny into the bill offered more questions than answers in some areas but there was also praise for its structure by some of the industry’s key players.
Fiona Hyslop, Scottish cabinet secretary for transport told the committee that she thought rail reform would deliver for England, but challenges remained for Scotland.
“The reality of the rail reform bill is that it has the potential to make things more difficult for Scotland and would in fact damage the devolution that we currently have.
In its current form, it will deliver for England and will be a step forward for them, but it will leave us isolated.”
Under the reform bill, the Integrated Rail Board (IRB) will have responsibilities stretching across Great Britain including Scotland, with its regulatory powers sitting in Westminster. This will mean that the Scottish parliament will not have powers to hold the IRB to account, an issue which Hyslop would like to see corrected.
“As a government, we will not have any legal recourse, and the IRB which will be making decisions on Scottish rail, will not be compelled to answer to Scottish parliament. We won’t be able to properly hold them to account.
“So, in that sense, it is flawed.”
The issue of TOC’s returning to private ownership from operators of last resort was also raised.
Network Rail’s chief executive, Andrew Haines told the committee he thought the current paralysis within the industry was partly to blame and making the market attractive was fundamental to the DfT returning some operators to private hands.
“I do think that having contracts that are attractive and minimise risk to operators is key to this. That allows you to go back into competition. But operators need certainty on the infrastructure and architecture it will be operating in. It currently doesn’t have that”, he said.
Independence from the state was of keen interest to the committee, with concerns over the IRB’s separation from the DfT remaining a potential issue for the committee.
On this, Lord Hendy, Network Rail chair commented, “It’s naïve to think that the railway shouldn’t be held to account by the secretary of state. As an organisation, we spend huge sums of public money so it’s only right, that we are held accountable.
“The bill in its current state gives us the right flexibility to make the decisions that need to be made. However, it will depend on the secretary of state not delving into detail.
“You wouldn’t expect direction on the length of trains or times they left but you would expect direction on what the government wants from the railway.”
This view was echoed by Haines who said that the balance of power in the bill was right but would ultimately hinge on the level of involvement the secretary of state would want.
Accountability was also raised by Lord Hendy, who argued that the reason why rail reform was needed at all was because nobody within Network Rail could account for the total performance of the railway during the 2018 timetabling crisis and was an element of the bill which is much needed.
The backdrop to the hearing was an appearance by rail minister, Huw Merriman, who hours before a general election was called for July 4, stated that he felt it was “unlikely” that the bill would pass before a November election.
It remains to be seen what shape the bill will be in once a new government has settled in and the summer recess is over.
Comment as guest
Comments
No comments have been made yet.