Rail Reform Bill published

[AdamWW]

I'd hope for something eyecatching/popular for passengers (as opposed to industry structure, which will be of secondary interest to most prospective passengers).

It wouldn't be at all eyecatching but I'd like a committment to be honest about fares reform rather than the somewhat misleading information we're getting from LNER at present.

 

[yorksrob]

It wouldn't be at all eyecatching but I'd like a committment to be honest about fares reform rather than the somewhat misleading information we're getting from LNER at present.

Equally not eyecatching, but I'd rather they ditched anti-passenger "reforms" such as the removal of off-peak altogether.

 

[AdamWW]

Equally not eyecatching, but I'd rather they ditched anti-passenger "reforms" such as the removal of off-peak altogether.

Well so would I but I can see there may be genuine reasons for reform, and indeed there is no reason that a structure put in place at privatisation is necessarily still the most appropriate.

But if there is to be change I'd like to see it done honestly, not in the horrible way it's being done at present.

 

[Nicholas43]

No, but applying that to BR makes the error of thinking rail transport is the industry. It's not, it's transport, and the competitor is the car, which is so often ignored.

Exactly. And you don't get 20 different prices for car fuel, depending on whether you commit to buying it between 1100 and 1105 on a wet Tuesday.

 

[AdamWW]

Exactly. And you don't get 20 different prices for car fuel, depending on whether you commit to buying it between 1100 and 1105 on a wet Tuesday.

Or indeed a road pricing scheme where you need to book a slot months ahead of time to get an affordable mileage rate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly.

The number one aim for GBR needs to be "we need to reduce the amount of driving and flying by becoming an attractive alternative to both in both premium and budget markets, while keeping subsidy levels affordable".

That results in rather different decisions than that LNER mess.

 

[YorkRailFan]

​

I feel that this is overstretching NR by giving them more responsibilities, NR is struggling to properly maintain infrastructure with the current resources they have at the moment and this bill just wants to add more burdens for them.

​

​

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Tuesday's George Bradshaw Address is now on Youtube (90 minutes):

 

[yorksrob]

Alas, the treasury will sabotage any attempts to implement policy successfully by micromanaging it. The other Government departments are effectively just fronts.

 

[Verulamius]

How are the cashflows going to work? Will there be a single/multiple grants from DfT to Network Rail/IRB to cover running trains/maintenance & repairs, etc./enhancements? Network Rail/IRB then make/receive payments from the TOCs which constitute access charges and subsidies/premia?

What is the roll of the Office of Rail and Roads in these finances? At the moment it only covers the maintenance & repairs, etc. element through the 5 year periodic reviews. Will this be extended/reduced?

Changing the financial plumbing can have significant implications (for example bringing Network Rail into the Government debt borrowing figures resulted in Network Rail not being able to borrow separately from the Government and thus the "regulatory credit card" was taken away with less funds available for enhancements.)

 

[WAB]

I feel that this is overstretching NR by giving them more responsibilities, NR is struggling to properly maintain infrastructure with the current resources they have at the moment and this bill just wants to add more burdens for them.

I can't say I'm entirely enthused by the idea of using Network Rail as an organisation and organisational culture to build on.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Finally listened to all this and the subsequent Q&A on the Bradshaw Address. Not much new emerged.
I would paraphrase the policies as:
- Huw Merriman: more of the same, but with a single guiding mind
- Stephen Morgan: public ownership, with a single guiding mind

They don't really disagree on the aim of the legislation to set up GBR or whatever Labour would call it, which simply gives GBR powers to let contracts.
They only disagree on the ownership model, and how to resolve the current industrial disputes.

Morgan only seemed able to repeat the public ownership mantra, holding back on any detail until their rail reform proposals were announced.
He did seem to allow private freight and rolling stock, saying their priority was the passenger railway.
Vague on allowing open access.
He couldn't even say the initiatives by Labour mayors (Andy Burnham, Sadiq Khan) to set up public/private partnerships to run local services would continue.

If people were expecting this event would unveil a more detailed Labour policy, they were disappointed - available "in a few weeks" Morgan said.
I suspect they don't really understand what they are about - Morgan is quite a new shadow minister.
He's nice enough, but not over the detail like Merriman was.
Some senior rail industry figures were there, but I didn't notice any union representatives, or anyone from Network Rail.
Asked which would be the first TOC contract to be nationalised, Morgan said it would be part of the Railway Act they intend to introduce.
That will be at least 2 years away.

Morgan had no answer on the industrial disputes, and Labour might well find it hard to resolve in line with Rachel Reeves' fiscal rules.
Merriman said the ball was in ASLEF's court, and that a 7-day railway, as a reform, was urgently needed.

 

[Meerkat]

Because...

(1) That's a stupid idea
(2) It's mandated by the EU

Separate accounting is required for Open Access so a fair price can be calculated for access, but an actually separate organisation to the main state operator just introduces cost and inefficiency.

The EU does some very silly things to induce artificial markets in things that work better as state monopolies, this is one of the worst things about it.

It makes even more sense in the EU due to the ease of cross border operation.
The regions are also very keen as they are on the wrong end of expensive state operators that restrict the regions' service ambitions.
Also isn't there more potential for savings in Germany and others due to the lack of TUPE as we have it?

All this talk of "arms length body" is a bit of a nonsense. The railway occupies a totally different political position than things like National Highways, that can be pushed off into the distance and forgotten about. Spending on railways is seen much more as a subsidy (bad) that needs to be reduced (not helped by the railway kicking out expensive public debacles at regular intervals), and politicians are held far more responsible for the detail. This is partly because they are widely seen as something the government should provide but the users also pay at point of use (unlike roads or the NHS). The politicians are too electorally exposed to allow GBR to really be arms length.
Any government that reinstates BR will soon be nostalgic for when they could just blame the private TOCs!

 

[yorksrob]

It makes even more sense in the EU due to the ease of cross border operation.
The regions are also very keen as they are on the wrong end of expensive state operators that restrict the regions' service ambitions.
Also isn't there more potential for savings in Germany and others due to the lack of TUPE as we have it?

All this talk of "arms length body" is a bit of a nonsense. The railway occupies a totally different political position than things like National Highways, that can be pushed off into the distance and forgotten about. Spending on railways is seen much more as a subsidy (bad) that needs to be reduced (not helped by the railway kicking out expensive public debacles at regular intervals), and politicians are held far more responsible for the detail. This is partly because they are widely seen as something the government should provide but the users also pay at point of use (unlike roads or the NHS). The politicians are too electorally exposed to allow GBR to really be arms length.
Any government that reinstates BR will soon be nostalgic for when they could just blame the private TOCs!

"Seen much more as a subsidy".

Isn't this to some extent subjective, and a viewpoint engendered by the wealth and motor-centricity of the Establishment in Whitehall.

 

[43066]

Spending on railways is seen much more as a subsidy (bad)

It’s seen as bad by you and the current government, perhaps, but you don’t speak for the entire population. A lot of polls of the electorate recently have (IIRC) shown strong support for increased spending on public services.

 

[AdamWW]

It’s seen as bad by you and the current government, perhaps. You don’t speak for the entire population. A lot of polls of the electorate recently have (IIRC) shown strong support for increased spending on public services.

But also strong support for them to pay more taxes?

 

[43066]

But also strong support for them to pay more taxes?

Depends on how the question is framed, but there are examples of majorities in favour of higher taxes generally, whereas reducing taxes generally isn’t popular, see (for example):

Public opinion and taxation: the surprising reality - UK 2040 Options

Our polling reveals insights into perceptions of government challenges and responsibilities

options2040.co.uk

What does the public feel about the level of tax we pay? If you were to consult the British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey for an answer to this question, the answer is that a majority of the British public are in favour of higher taxation, with 52% of survey respondents saying so in 2021. They’ve been reporting on this for decades, and while the “raise taxes” and “keep them the same” options have both vied for the top spot over the years, “reduce taxes” has never come close, staying in the single digits.

Hence the idea propagated by certain parts of the Conservative Party - namely that the public will never support anything other than tax and spending cuts - or the suggestion above that subsidy is generally seen as bad, are a nonsense.

No great surprise, we moan about the state of the railway (and other services) but we spend less on it than other similar European countries, a position that has been exacerbated by the political choices of the past 15 years; an approach that isn’t particularly popular with the electorate. However, with only two parties to realistically choose from, the Murdoch press, and people voting for a whole plethora of reasons, it’s difficult for the main parties to use that unpopularity to frame different policy choices.

 

[SamYeager]

Data from Personal Incomes Statistics Tax year 2018 to 2019

A relatively small number of taxpayers (4.1 million, 13%) have total income over £50,000 but
these taxpayers account for a significant proportion of total income (£429 billion, 38%) and an
even greater proportion of total tax (£121 billion, 65%).

Most taxpayers (26.3 million, 83%) are basic rate taxpayers and account for £61.6 billion
(33%) of tax. Higher rate taxpayers (4.2 million, 13%) account for £65.6 billion (35%) of tax.
Additional rate taxpayers (0.4 million, 1%) account for £58.6 billion (31%) of tax.

I'm sure the proportion of taxpayers with total incomes over £50,000 is somewhat larger nowadays. Fiscal drag and salary inflation work wonders. Assuming the polls on voting intentions are correct we should soon have an opportunity to judge how accurate the polls showing a majority of the adult population supports higher taxes. I still believe the railways will come a long way down the list.

 

[Meerkat]

It’s seen as bad by you and the current government, perhaps, but you don’t speak for the entire population. A lot of polls of the electorate recently have (IIRC) shown strong support for increased spending on public services.

Not sure why you are accusing me of that, I just believe we need to be clearer about what we subsidise and whether it is desirable.
But political party policies would suggest that people don't vote for higher taxation.

Depends on how the question is framed, but there are examples of majorities in favour of higher taxes generally, whereas reducing taxes generally isn’t popular, see (for example):

Public opinion and taxation: the surprising reality - UK 2040 Options

Our polling reveals insights into perceptions of government challenges and responsibilities

options2040.co.uk

Hence the idea propagated by certain parts of the Conservative Party - namely that the public will never support anything other than tax and spending cuts - or the suggestion above that subsidy is generally seen as bad, are a nonsense.

No great surprise, we moan about the state of the railway (and other services) but we spend less on it than other similar European countries, a position that has been exacerbated by the political choices of the past 15 years; an approach that isn’t particularly popular with the electorate. However, with only two parties to realistically choose from, the Murdoch press, and people voting for a whole plethora of reasons, it’s difficult for the main parties to use that unpopularity to frame different policy choices.

That's misleading as its a general question - 'should the government raise taxes?', not 'should the government tax YOU more?'. Usually turns out that people mean someone else should pay more taxes (bankers bonuses...yawn).
Have you got the data for which services they think taxes should be raised to fund? I very much doubt rail is anywhere near the top of that list.

 

[43066]

Not sure why you are accusing me of that,

Because you said “spending on the railways is seen more as a subsidy (bad)”. It’s very clear what you meant, but that is merely your own opinion, and you can’t claim to speak for everyone, or even the majority.

I just believe we need to be clearer about what we subsidise and whether it is desirable.

What is clear is that we don’t subsidise our public services (including rail) as much as other similar economies, hence ours tend to be worse. We get what we pay for.

But political party policies would suggest that people don't vote for higher taxation.

I’ve explained above why it can be difficult to sell that as a message, and how it’s sold really is key; the current government have imposed the highest tax burden ever (albeit still relatively low by international standards), while also running down public services. Yet still people reflexively assume that the Tories = lower taxes.

That's misleading as its a general question - 'should the government raise taxes?', not 'should the government tax YOU more?'. Usually turns out that people mean someone else should pay more taxes (bankers bonuses...yawn).

They probably do, because most people aren’t high earners, so won’t be affected as much as those who are. As noted attitude surveys show people are prepared to pay more tax (or at least to see the burden increased), and don’t share your (simplistic) view of subsidy = bad. Unless you’re suggesting the majority of people in the country would be against (say) the additional rate tax on the small % of taxpayers who earn over £125,140?

The Tories proposed abolishing that not so long ago (trickledown economics, yawn) and look how they’re polling currently…

Have you got the data for which services they think taxes should be raised to fund? I very much doubt rail is anywhere near the top of that list.

Again, it’s misleading (and simplistic) to suggest public spending choices are a zero sum game. It’s also an irrelevant question to ask, because people aren’t ever going to be asked to indicate a list of public spending preferences. However they might well favour a government that approaches public services overall more sensibly and responsibly than the current one.

I’d suggest many sensible taxpayers would rather the country’s public services actually function, and large parts of them have not done so over the past couple of years, directly due to penny pinching. I don’t currently use the NHS, but I’d still rather the government settled the doctors’ dispute, rather than prolonging it for ideological reasons at greater cost than settling, and I say that as a long term higher rate tax payer.

 

[Chester1]

Because...

(1) That's a stupid idea
(2) It's mandated by the EU

Separate accounting is required for Open Access so a fair price can be calculated for access, but an actually separate organisation to the main state operator just introduces cost and inefficiency.

The EU does some very silly things to induce artificial markets in things that work better as state monopolies, this is one of the worst things about it.

There will be issues within the Labour party with agreeing with divergence from the EU. Senior figures outside of the front bench team e.g Sadiq Khan want to rejoin the single market. I suspect its the main reason the SNP hate GBR because as far as I can tell its just reorganising federal government stuff in Scotland and Wales, not taking devolved powers.

Unless Tories and Labour agree a compromise to pass legislation before General Election (does occasionally happen) then I can't see GBR happening.

 

[AdamWW]

There will be issues within the Labour party with agreeing with divergence from the EU. Senior figures outside of the front bench team e.g Sadiq Khan want to rejoin the single market. I suspect its the main reason the SNP hate GBR because as far as I can tell its just reorganising federal government stuff in Scotland and Wales, not taking devolved powers.

Unless Tories and Labour agree a compromise to pass legislation before General Election (does occasionally happen) then I can't see GBR happening.

Do the Irish railway systems now have entirely separate organisations for infrastructure and operations?

It would seem a bit inefficient if they do.

 

[Meerkat]

Because you said “spending on the railways is seen more as a subsidy (bad)”. It’s very clear what you meant, but that is merely your own opinion, and you can’t claim to speak for everyone, or even the majority.

It is my opinion of general opinions and particularly political/treasury opinion.

What is clear is that we don’t subsidise our public services (including rail) as much as other similar economies, hence ours tend to be worse. We get what we pay for.

Not sure that is clear

As noted attitude surveys show people are prepared to pay more tax

Noted where? And unless it’s specifically ‘pay more tax to make rail fares cheaper’ then it’s not that helpful

Again, it’s misleading (and simplistic) to suggest public spending choices are a zero sum game. It’s also an irrelevant question to ask, because people aren’t ever going to be asked to indicate a list of public spending preferences.

It is pretty much a zero sum game - there is a limit to how much tax people are willing to pay and if they value the black hole of the NHS higher then that means taking money from public transport.

I’d suggest many sensible taxpayers would rather the country’s public services actually function

Sure, but the important questions are how they define that, and whether they are willing to personally pay even more tax to fund that.
It’s easy to say you want more stuff and someone else should pay for it (a major problem with democracy)

 

[Clarence Yard]

Unless Tories and Labour agree a compromise to pass legislation before General Election (does occasionally happen) then I can't see GBR happening.

GBR will happen but not until after a GE. The only real difference between the two parties is the outsourcing of train operations for the DfT TOCs.

The “King Henry VIII” powers for Government that are proposed will mean the DfT will still remain in charge and that GBR will be subject to political mandate. There will be some discussion as to the extent of those powers in relation to outsourcing.

 

[ainsworth74]

Do the Irish railway systems now have entirely separate organisations for infrastructure and operations?

It would seem a bit inefficient if they do.

I think, but am open to correction, that NI Railways remains fully vertically integrated. That's to say that it runs the trains and the infrastructure.

Whilst Irish Rail on the other hand is split but only enough to keep the EU happy rather than in any significant degree. In reality it's basically the same company under the hood.

 

[Topological]

Exactly. And you don't get 20 different prices for car fuel, depending on whether you commit to buying it between 1100 and 1105 on a wet Tuesday.

Where do you buy petrol?

Everywhere I have seen the price changes all the time because of the volatility in the oil market. Then there are differentials created by location, service stations are more expensive than supermarkets and stand-alone petrol stations sit in the middle. Then there is the fact that you can earn Clubcard points on fuel with Tesco (Other loyalty schemes are available) and therefore there is variety as a result for exactly the same fuel at the same time.

Admittedly, asymmetries in demand do not support differences in the £100's, but there are still substantial differences in fuel prices.

Then there are the behavioral differences induced by road tax tiers, incentives to buy electric vehicles etc.

Therefore, I suspect there are just as many different petrol prices out there.

 

[dax123]

Doesn't the potential structure of the railways in England under Labour already exist in Scotland?
Scottish government own ScotRail and Transport Scotland set the direction and budget of ScotRail and manage Network Rail in Scotland.

In Wales, Welsh Govt own TfW and set it's direction, and the Core Valley Lines are now devolved to Welsh Govt and managed by TfW.
Network Rail in Wales otherwise remains managed and funded by DfT in London. (Needless to say Welsh Govt are not happy with this and would much rather have the Scottish setup in Wales).

 

[43066]

It is my opinion of general opinions and particularly political/treasury opinion.

It isn’t at all clear what that opinion is based on, and it’s contradicted by the attitude survey I’ve linked to upthread.

Not sure that is clear

It is clear from various statistics freely available online. We spend less per capita on health and rail transport by most measures.

Noted where? And unless it’s specifically ‘pay more tax to make rail fares cheaper’ then it’s not that helpful

The attitude survey linked to above. It isn’t a question of paying more tax to make railway fares cheaper, it’s being prepared to pay more tax to ensure decent public services. Many voters are in favour of this, as linked to above.

It is pretty much a zero sum game - there is a limit to how much tax people are willing to pay and if they value the black hole of the NHS higher then that means taking money from public transport.

It isn’t - albeit its’s presented as such by the government who claim we can’t afford decent public services, but who seemingly think we can afford tax cuts for a minority of high earners - it could mean reforming the existing system, reforming the rolling stock leasing market etc.

Sure, but the important questions are how they define that, and whether they are willing to personally pay even more tax to fund that.
It’s easy to say you want more stuff and someone else should pay for it (a major problem with democracy

Not sure how that is a “problem with democracy”? Most tax is paid by a minority of high earners so, by definition, most people will be voting based on spending other peoples’ money.

Perhaps you think only people earning £50k+ should be allowed to vote?

With respect, you appear to be repeating the same points but not engaging with the replies, so I’m not sure there’s much point in continuing this discussion!

 

[TUC]

Exactly. And you don't get 20 different prices for car fuel, depending on whether you commit to buying it between 1100 and 1105 on a wet Tuesday.

The difference is that you will use that fuel at multiple different times in the week.

 

[HSTEd]

Do the Irish railway systems now have entirely separate organisations for infrastructure and operations?

It would seem a bit inefficient if they do.

NIR got a derogation by virtue of having less route mileage than some metro systems (London Underground).

IE is completely split I believe.