How much power do devolved bodies and local authorities have over the railways?

[thenorthern]

Earlier this week I was reading several reports which said for its size the United Kingdom is the most centralised state in Europe as in power coming from a single national government rather than lower levels of government. If you think about though thats largely true as although Wales, Scotland and sort of Northern Ireland have had devolved governments since the late 1990s a lot of governance there as well as well as almost all in England still comes from Westminster particularly in the area of taxation.

Anyway it got me thinking how much control to non-Westminster authorities really have over the railways? Also how does this compare to other countries? I am aware that the United Kingdom rail network is privately operated but from what I could see:

• Intercity services - These are almost entirely controlled by the Department for Transport with the franchises being awarded by the DfT who also allocate most the funding. This is also true for cross-border services between England and Scotland or Wales.
• Local services in and around London - Other than London Overground services are still largely controlled by the DfT with franchises being awarded by the DfT, TfL have some powers however not that much. (I know that annoys Sadiq Khan who wants to control Southern Railway).
• England Local Services outside London - Largely controlled by the DfT with PTEs having some control over fares and services within their boundaries, non PTE local authorities may request more services or more stations but in reality they have little control over the matter. Merseytravel however has some degree of control over Merseyrail.
• Scotland and Wales Services - Services within Scotland and Wales are somewhat decided by the local authorities there however certain things to do with the franchises such as some rolling stock allocation are still done by the DfT.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

In terms of comparison to other countries I'm not sure there is one. Without wanting to get too political this country missed a trick some 25 or so years ago. The Treaty of Maastricht of 1992 contained within its provisions the establishment of the principle of subsidiarity, effectively the devolvement of decision-making to the lowest appropriate level. The legalese is rather more complicated but the basic idea is easy enough to grasp.

Unfortunately the implementation of that principle in this country was essentially to ignore it! Of course since then there has been wider devolution to Scotland and Wales, and to Northern Ireland if only their politicians would accept it, but for England most significant political decision-making takes place within the Westminster/Whitehall establishment. I suspect this was initially due to a Conservative government being unwilling to cede any power to the predominantly Labour-run metropolitan authorities but of course New Labour carried on with the "tradition". So it is that you can go to France and see all sorts of regionally planned and funded rail networks, and not just around their biggest cities, but here the English local authorities, of whatever type, have rather limited power albeit with some influence during consultations.

And just a reminder that not only was John Major somewhat responsible for the overly complex method of railway (quasi-)privatisation he was also the PM who signed the Treaty of Maastricht.

The formation of Transport for the North ought to bring some improvement to this situation but it seems unlikely that it will have sufficient independence to finance very much without the explicit support of HM Treasury. We can only hope that once Brexit has been implemented our politicians will return to this issue.

 

[thenorthern]

The formation of Transport for the North ought to bring some improvement to this situation but it seems unlikely that it will have sufficient independence to finance very much without the explicit support of HM Treasury. We can only hope that once Brexit has been implemented our politicians will return to this issue.

I was thinking this the other day with the "Northern Hub" and "Northern Powerhouse" which despite being projects in the North of England with a particular focus on Manchester they are both very much still Westminster lead projects.

 

[Bromley boy]

Without wanting to get too political this country missed a trick some 25 or so years ago. The Treaty of Maastricht of 1992 contained within its provisions the establishment of the principle of subsidiarity, effectively the devolvement of decision-making to the lowest appropriate level.

Unfortunately the implementation of that principle in this country was essentially to ignore it! Of course since then there has been wider devolution to Scotland and Wales, and to Northern Ireland if only their politicians would accept it,

I’m not entirely sure where you’re coming from here and, with respect, I’m also not sure you actually understand what subsidiarity is.

Subsidiarity is an EU law principle rather than a U.K. law principle. It’s supposed to prevent the EU from legislating where a member states can do so more effectively at local level, and therefore only applies to areas within the EU’s competence (it hasn’t really worked as intended and, somewhat perversely, has never even been fully embraced by the EU itself! But that’s by the by).

Subsidiarity as a principle may have parallels with Scottish devolution, for example, but most certainly isn’t the mechanism by which it was actually achieved: for one thing, Scottish devolution is ultra vires of the EU; for another it somewhat predates the EU since it has been happening, in varying degrees, since Victorian times!

Devolution is similar to, but distinct from, EU subsidiarity and is fundamentally a matter of U.K. constitutional law.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Crucially, Network Rail is still an integrated organisation, regulated, to a degree, by the equally integrated ORR, all to a structure defined by Westminster.
It does have a separate funding stream for Scotland controlled by the SG, and Wales may get some similar funding powers.
Merseytravel lobbied for the control of the Merseyrail infrastructure, but when it was offered by the DfT it refused, as the risk to local funds was too high.
Wales is about to take control of the Valley lines infrastructure for its Metro service, and several PTEs now own their metro infrastructure (eg Metrolink taking over Manchester-Altrincham/Oldham routes).

Network Rail is about to restructure itself, with the operational power devolved to its nine Routes.
However these do not map at all well onto the local authority structure (except in Scotland and Wales).
The unions are also dead against any fragmentation of Network Rail.

Northern MPs want more control of their infrastructure and services, but have a very weak hand on the DfT from a funding point of view, not least because the several authorities involved find it very difficult to think outside their specific local box.
The view is the control will be devolved over time as experience builds up, but the May timetable meltdown suggests that Rail North has almost nothing to say about complex rail issues in its area.
It's Chris Grayling under fire for what happened in the north, not the boss of Rail North.

Other countries (France and Germany certainly) have a well-developed regional political structure (Regions in France, Länder in Germany), with a recognised funding hierarchy.
We have no such institutions (outside Scotland and Wales, and London to a degree) and recent attempts to build a regional layer have not gained traction.
If rail did fragment into regional structures, the services at risk would be those that cross boundaries, eg XC, TPE, Liverpool-Norwich etc.
They are the kind of national services that have no local "sponsor".

 

[yorksrob]

New Labour did have a stab at regional government and set up a layer of regional authorities. There were even referendums in a couple of these on whether to make them elected bodies, albeit not taken up by the electorates. The regional authorities were swept away as part of Osborne's austerity experiment.

 

[Gareth Marston]

You have to be careful with these demands - sometimes calls for more devolution can be little more than non Westminster politicians on a personal crusade to gain more powers/importance and to "get one over" Westminister. Whether they have the passion/knowledge/skill sets to actually make things better once they have them is another thing.

I would ensure that everyone has to have devolution not cherry pick certain areas.

 

[B&I]

You have to be careful with these demands - sometimes calls for more devolution can be little more than non Westminster politicians on a personal crusade to gain more powers/importance and to "get one over" Westminister. Whether they have the passion/knowledge/skill sets to actually make things better once they have them is another thing.

I would ensure that everyone has to have devolution not cherry pick certain areas.

I can certainly agree with the latter sentiment. The current mess of a patchwork of 'city regions' eith wildly inconsistent levels of power is either an attempt by central government at divide and rule, or rank incompetence, or both. Given the way central government has used local authorities as a figleaf for its austerity drive, by destroying their budgets and forcing them to make frontline cuts, I'm afraid that I have difficulty believing anything this government says about devolving power (or anything else)

 

[Confused52]

Merseytravel however has some degree of control over Merseyrail.

Rather a lot of control indeed, Merseytravel is in fact the awarding authority for the concession agreement used by Merseyrail Electrics. The DfT ministers will not answer questions in the House of Commons about Merseyrail!

 

[Confused52]

I can certainly agree with the latter sentiment. The current mess of a patchwork of 'city regions' eith wildly inconsistent levels of power is either an attempt by central government at divide and rule, or rank incompetence, or both. Given the way central government has used local authorities as a figleaf for its austerity drive, by destroying their budgets and forcing them to make frontline cuts, I'm afraid that I have difficulty believing anything this government says about devolving power (or anything else)

As a rule incompetence is more likely than subterfuge, because it is easier! The patchwork of deals was because the carrot was higher levels of business rate retention in return for giving up Revenue Support Grant and some other funding. Each are wanted different things so an a la carte system was proposed. The government wanted to run pilots to trial business rate retention to stop the constant whinging about government cuts. They are trying 75% retention out next year but the intention is to get the services to be mostly funded by Council Tax, retained business rates and charges. Then they will get the ability to charge extra rates for development to make local government under local control. Not popular with local government, of course, because then they will carry the can for their own mistakes. So devolved services in action and on the way, just that it isn't what the Local Councils want you to hear!

 

[Edgeley]

An English parliament and an English government based in somewhere like Manchester or York might bring an appropriate focus to the issue. 'City regions' and the like are just another divide-and-rule tactic.

New Labour did have a stab at regional government and set up a layer of regional authorities. There were even referendums in a couple of these on whether to make them elected bodies, albeit not taken up by the electorates.

John Prescott's proposal for an elected regional assembly in the North East (thought to be the most amenable region) was rejected in a referendum in 2004 by a margin of nearly four to one. Proposed referendums for similar bodies in Yorkshire & Humberside and the North West were abandoned after this.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Devolution is similar to, but distinct from, EU subsidiarity and is fundamentally a matter of U.K. constitutional law.

I did say the legalese is rather more complicated than the principle! Nevertheless had Major and his successors taken the hint and actually devolved more responsibility away from the centre we might by now have an electorate that was rather better engaged with the political process than is currently the case. The alternative should have been to not sign the Treaty of Maastricht in the first place.

Subsidiarity has its roots in the early Christian democratic movement (as distinct from Church involvement in politics) and one of its expectations is a higher degree of public trust and support for the political process. Surely we could do with some of that these days!

 

[HowardGWR]

Not a lot (is the answer to the OP).

 

[B&I]

As a rule incompetence is more likely than subterfuge, because it is easier! The patchwork of deals was because the carrot was higher levels of business rate retention in return for giving up Revenue Support Grant and some other funding. Each are wanted different things so an a la carte system was proposed. The government wanted to run pilots to trial business rate retention to stop the constant whinging about government cuts. They are trying 75% retention out next year but the intention is to get the services to be mostly funded by Council Tax, retained business rates and charges. Then they will get the ability to charge extra rates for development to make local government under local control. Not popular with local government, of course, because then they will carry the can for their own mistakes. So devolved services in action and on the way, just that it isn't what the Local Councils want you to hear!

Translation: how to make most of the country bankrupt. You do realise that economic activity is centralised to an absurd degree in this country, as well as political power ?

 

[Bromley boy]

Nevertheless had Major and his successors taken the hint and actually devolved more responsibility away from the centre we might by now have an electorate that was rather better engaged with the political process than is currently the case. The alternative should have been to not sign the Treaty of Maastricht in the first place.

Subsidiarity has its roots in the early Christian democratic movement (as distinct from Church involvement in politics) and one of its expectations is a higher degree of public trust and support for the political process. Surely we could do with some of that these days!

Certainly agree with you there.

The Welsh assembly and Scottish Parliament have clearly been a good thing for those regions. Perhaps even more devolution should take place.

Personally I’m generally in favour of the smallest government possible administered as locally as possible (which might help explain why I’m not the EU’s biggest fan ).

 

[Highlandspring]

Scotland is not a ‘region’.

 

[yorkie]

Scotland is not a ‘region’.

Almost any 'area' could be considered a 'region'...
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/region

"A region is a large area of land that is different from other areas of land"

"an area considered as a unit for geographical, functional, social, or cultural reasons"

Back on topic now please

 

[thenorthern]

Officially I think the correct terminology is "Country" for England, Scotland and Wales where as the correct term for Northern Ireland is a "Province". Wales until 2011 was a Principality.

 

[thenorthern]

Looking at the map had the North East voted yes in 2004 it would have caused issues with what is devolved and isn't with railways with who would control what.

In November 2004 in the North East that Virgin CrossCountry, GNER and Transpennine Express would be seen as inter-city services and remain with Westminster. At the time the local operator for the area was Arriva Trains Northern with devolution would pose an issue with who would control which routes as both the Newcastle and Carlisle line and the Esk Valley Line run into other regions.