Passenger Railways Services Bill HL 2nd Reading

[HerneHill]

I was reading through the Hansard transcript of the Passenger Railways Services Bill’s Second Reading in the House of Lords which took place yesterday, and amidst the back and forth on some fairly expected topics I was very surprised to hear that Transport UK had apparently submitted a briefing to the Lords to suggest amendments to the bill.

(i) I did not expect that a private company could simply suggest amendments to a Parliamentary bill just like that; and,

(ii) The amendments that TUK suggested (at least those referenced during the debate) - performance reporting obligations for the public rail operator and pre-emptive assessment of the public sector entity’s ability to effectively provide rail services - have already been variously raised by members of the Commons and Lords anyway, so I really don’t know what TUK are trying to achieve here?

It feels almost like now that Dominic Booth is supposedly in Louise Haigh’s bad books (due to his bold unfounded assertions regarding when he expects to lose the NRC and media comments), TUK have decided to go whole hog in trying to fight this bill openly.

I for one am sick and tired of the false equivalence they keep trying to paint between TOC staff and Owning Group staff - there is no need to assess the ability of the public sector entity’s ability to provide rail services for the purposes of this bill, because it will simply be the full complement of TOC staff being TUPE’d across to the public sector entity!!

Anyone have any insight on this?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Is it not normal for a wide range of organisations, companies, unions and individuals to ‘lobby’ politicians? Are certain types of ‘petition’ banned?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Hansard transcript makes for interesting reading (the debate yesterday lasted nearly 5 hours!).

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2024/september/lords-debates-passenger-railway-services-public-ownership-bill/

Members speaking ​

Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour) opened the debate and responded on behalf of the government.

Contributing members included:

• Lord Berkeley (Labour), vice president, ALLRAIL (independent rail companies association)
• Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrats), former director of operations, British Rail
• Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green), former green transport adviser to the Mayor of London
• Lord McLoughlin (Conservative), executive board member, XRAIL (rail systems design and project management group).

It's too long and rambling to make a meaningful extract, but several former Transport Secretaries make serious contributions (Young, Grayling, McLoughlin).
Surprisingly Lord Hendy did not take part, the bill being sponsored by Baroness Blake, the government whip in the Lords, and former leader of Leeds City Council.
The contributions included some from people who were MPs at the time of privatisation in 1994, and who know how government rail policy (Con, Lab, Coalition) changed over the years since then.

As far as I can see the committee stage is now set for Monday October 21, with the whole house as the committee.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

This is just a good example of democracy in action. People are entitled to lobby their MPs, share research and considered opinion etc, even if that contrasts or otherwise isn't quite aligned with the view of the government.

I for one, think that the views of senior executives within the rail industry should at least be heard as we go through one of the biggest changes to the rail industry in our lifetime. Nobody is saying they have to be accepted or ideas implemented, but worth spending a little parliamentary time on anyway.

Also reduces the likelihood of legal challenges down the line when people claim there hasn't been sufficient consultation or consideration of XYZ....

 

[yorksrob]

This is just a good example of democracy in action. People are entitled to lobby their MPs, share research and considered opinion etc, even if that contrasts or otherwise isn't quite aligned with the view of the government.

I for one, think that the views of senior executives within the rail industry should at least be heard as we go through one of the biggest changes to the rail industry in our lifetime. Nobody is saying they have to be accepted or ideas implemented, but worth spending a little parliamentary time on anyway.

Also reduces the likelihood of legal challenges down the line when people claim there hasn't been sufficient consultation or consideration of XYZ....

I hope that transport focus and other passenger groups are afforded as much lobbying access, if not more.

 

[Djgr]

This is just a good example of democracy in action. People are entitled to lobby their MPs, share research and considered opinion etc, even if that contrasts or otherwise isn't quite aligned with the view of the government.

I for one, think that the views of senior executives within the rail industry should at least be heard as we go through one of the biggest changes to the rail industry in our lifetime. Nobody is saying they have to be accepted or ideas implemented, but worth spending a little parliamentary time on anyway.

Also reduces the likelihood of legal challenges down the line when people claim there hasn't been sufficient consultation or consideration of XYZ....

It's hard to believe that their intervention is in any way focused on improvements for the customer or the public in general.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It's hard to believe that their intervention is in any way focused on improvements for the customer or the public in general.

Do you think that some other types of lobbying, e.g. trade unions on behalf of their members (rather than the customer or the public in general) should be ignored or ‘banned’ too?

 

[Djgr]

Do you think that some other types of lobbying, e.g. trade unions on behalf of their members (rather than the customer or the public in general) should be ignored or ‘banned’ too?

I didn't say thst they should be banned. What I said was that they were trying to look after their own interests...which is undoubtedly the case (aka gravy train...castles and islands all round)

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Do you think that some other types of lobbying, e.g. trade unions on behalf of their members (rather than the customer or the public in general) should be ignored or ‘banned’ too?

Knowing a bit more about the precise circumstances here, it's part of an exercise by TUK in lobbying that comparatively well performing WMT and Greater Anglia should have their nationalisation delayed, and priorities switched to other operators first. They still concede that GBR is inevitable, and it's just a matter of timing.

Greater Anglia is paying a significant return to the government at the moment, and it's performance and customer experience scores are excellent. It's probably a valid point, why upset that when there's much worse elsewhere.

 

[Djgr]

Knowing a bit more about the precise circumstances here, it's part of an exercise by TUK in lobbying that comparatively well performing WMT and Greater Anglia should have their nationalisation delayed, and priorities switched to other operators first. They still concede that GBR is inevitable, and it's just a matter of timing.

Greater Anglia is paying a significant return to the government at the moment, and it's performance and customer experience scores are excellent. It's probably a valid point, why upset that when there's much worse elsewhere.

So kind and thoughtful of them, bless.

 

[Irascible]

It's probably a valid point, why upset that when there's much worse elsewhere.

Because establishing & getting the new organisation moving is much easier if it's taking on a well performing unit rather than a wreck.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Knowing a bit more about the precise circumstances here, it's part of an exercise by TUK in lobbying that comparatively well performing WMT and Greater Anglia should have their nationalisation delayed, and priorities switched to other operators first. They still concede that GBR is inevitable, and it's just a matter of timing.

Greater Anglia is paying a significant return to the government at the moment, and it's performance and customer experience scores are excellent. It's probably a valid point, why upset that when there's much worse elsewhere.

It’s not paying any return at all. That is spin. The Government pays the bills and takes the revenue. It is on a strict cost budget.

What it is costing the Government is fees to the owning group. The better the performance, the higher the fee. By taking GA into OLR, it saves money and has a reasonably well run TOC in the bank in order to base the changes around.

TUK are about to see a significant part of their business depart and they are desperately trying to stave off the evil, in their eyes, day. They will not succeed and their relationship with Government could be irrecoverably damaged in the process.

 

[sprunt]

Knowing a bit more about the precise circumstances here, it's part of an exercise by TUK in lobbying that comparatively well performing WMT and Greater Anglia should have their nationalisation delayed, and priorities switched to other operators first. They still concede that GBR is inevitable, and it's just a matter of timing.

Greater Anglia is paying a significant return to the government at the moment, and it's performance and customer experience scores are excellent. It's probably a valid point, why upset that when there's much worse elsewhere.

Isn't the idea that the nationalisations will happen as contracts expire? That being the case, there's no question of prioritising nationalisation of one TOC over another, it's just whichever order the contracts expire in.

 

[185]

Greater Anglia is paying a significant return to the government at the moment, and it's performance and customer experience scores are excellent.

As government pays literally every bill as mentioned on previous threads, extremely high & inflated exec salaries are included in that bill. Regardless of the performance, if it costs less for the taxpayer to run that company rather than johnny contractor, then so be it. Sooner the better imo.

 

[Dr Hoo]

As government pays literally every bill as mentioned on previous threads, extremely high & inflated exec salaries are included in that bill. Regardless of the performance, if it costs less for the taxpayer to run that company rather than johnny contractor, then so be it. Sooner the better imo.

So you see benefits in cutting the ‘extremely high & inflated exec salaries’ paid to TOC managers?
I thought that we had previously established that the ‘owning groups’ basically do no work but got a ‘fixed fee’ that goes straight into directors’ bonuses or shareholder dividends regardless, i.e. not salaries. Is this widely-held belief incorrect?

 

[Clarence Yard]

No, but as you bring the TOC structures into a larger GBR structure, say for argument a regional set up, you need far less of them.

There has been a bit of grade drift since privatisation and some functions, like commercial and train planning, have seen an increase in numbers. Other functions have seen a decrease, mostly in the early years when middle management were culled, brutally in the case of some TOCs.

So, even in DOHL, you could combine functions in one TOC per NR region, to make the transition easier. The speed of transition depends on how much Rachel Reeves sets the DfT to save and in what year.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Thank you @Clarence Yard . I completely get that a ‘regional’ structure could mean fewer ‘self sufficient’ operational entities.

The origins of the current setup go back to BR’s sectors and sub-sectors. In broad terms these were the basis of the original 25-TOC franchising model (albeit with a few variations such as Gatwick Express and Island Line). I know that there were subsequent ‘re-mappings’ under the Strategic Rail Authority.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Well whatever way you view it, Dominic Booth on behalf of Transport UK, is briefing politicians and other groups that Greater Anglia is returning an anticipated £100m premium to the DfT/Treasury for this year alone. Further advising that £65m was returned last year.

The franchises are clearly performing very well, and you can argue about how the premiums have come about, who's responsible for what etc, but ultimately you have two "franchises" in a strong financial, net positive position, alongside some of the best customer experience and performance scores, and a reasonably happy workforce.

I don't think it will make any difference to the order of how franchises are brought under GBR, but I can see merit in at least making the point that there are probably less well performing operators that need urgent attention.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

No, but as you bring the TOC structures into a larger GBR structure, say for argument a regional set up, you need far less of them.
There has been a bit of grade drift since privatisation and some functions, like commercial and train planning, have seen an increase in numbers. Other functions have seen a decrease, mostly in the early years when middle management were culled, brutally in the case of some TOCs.
So, even in DOHL, you could combine functions in one TOC per NR region, to make the transition easier. The speed of transition depends on how much Rachel Reeves sets the DfT to save and in what year.

I suspect all that will happen at a glacial pace, just like the franchise remapping pretty much ceased when the SRA was abolished.
There's no sign of the "integrated railway" that the GBR proposals advocated - not even in the DOHL-managed TOCs.
I note you use the term "NR Region" - but there is no sign of GBR integration in that direction.

 

[Clarence Yard]

This is where the egos of the major players in GBRTT/DfT/NR come in. What is going to be the GBR structure? Plenty of views - no clarity.

What may affect the decision is the desire to cut costs and by what date. That will also affect the rate of progress required. It may well be quicker than some people realise or indeed some people want.

 

[HerneHill]

By taking GA into OLR, it saves money and has a reasonably well run TOC in the bank in order to base the changes around.

This is my main argument for nationalising GA first. Ultimately, as many in this forum and beyond have already pointed out, nationalisation (a-la DOHL) in its own right does not inherently lead to improvements in TOC operations. If we truly believe that GA’s superb performance in recent years is due to some secret sauce in how the TOC’s organisation is run (rather than just by fluke of being the first TOC with a whole fleet of brand-new trains), then all the more reason to bring it into DOHL first so that whatever management and operational best practices etc that it has can serve as a template for improving the poorer performing TOCs!

 

[Kettledrum]

The Hansard transcript makes for interesting reading (the debate yesterday lasted nearly 5 hours!).

https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2024/september/lords-debates-passenger-railway-services-public-ownership-bill/

It's too long and rambling to make a meaningful extract, but several former Transport Secretaries make serious contributions (Young, Grayling, McLoughlin).

Grayling made a serious contribution????????

That's more than he did when he was Secretary of State for Transport!

 

[Scanderina]

Some of this debate seems to suppose that GBR is going to be created soon (so there is a benefit to nationalising a 'good' operator to base GBR around), when it is at least 18 months away.

 

[HerneHill]

Some of this debate seems to suppose that GBR is going to be created soon (so there is a benefit to nationalising a 'good' operator to base GBR around), when it is at least 18 months away.

For something that big to be 18 months away, I would think now is exactly the right time to make concrete plans!

 

[Washington]

Could the success of GA be down to the good quality trains they obtained whilst other operators received cheaper poorer quality trains as dictated by DfT?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Could the success of GA be down to the good quality trains they obtained whilst other operators received cheaper poorer quality trains as dictated by DfT?

Quite a number of TOCs acquired big Aventra fleets, but they have had widely different experiences on introduction.
Crossrail and GA seem to have done much better than WMT and SWR with essentially the same product.
(I know you were probably referring to GA's Stadler trains; but would Merseyrail/TfW be quite so positive about theirs?).

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

For something that big to be 18 months away, I would think now is exactly the right time to make concrete plans!

The first franchises will almost certainly be folded into some form of GBR (shadow or otherwise) in early 2025.

 

[Clarence Yard]

They will going into DOHL first. And they aren’t franchises anymore either.

The transfer to GBR will happen when the GBR legislation gets passed. We haven’t seen that Bill yet.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Could the success of GA be down to the good quality trains they obtained whilst other operators received cheaper poorer quality trains as dictated by DfT?

Down to excellent leadership and management team in reasonable harmony with its workforce. James Burles should be the outsider to run GBR.

 

[Skie]

Knowing a bit more about the precise circumstances here, it's part of an exercise by TUK in lobbying that comparatively well performing WMT and Greater Anglia should have their nationalisation delayed, and priorities switched to other operators first. They still concede that GBR is inevitable, and it's just a matter of timing.

Greater Anglia is paying a significant return to the government at the moment, and it's performance and customer experience scores are excellent. It's probably a valid point, why upset that when there's much worse elsewhere.

That's a bloody good argument for doing them first and making sure the people who are getting it right get to steer the incorporation of other poorly performing operators when they get absorbed.

Worst thing you could do is add a lot of dross to the mix first, they'd just drag a good operator down to their level and beat them with experience.