Calls to assess and rank existing rail franchise agreements rejected by MPs
Louise Haigh argued that assessing franchises as part of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill would create ‘unnecessary cost’.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.MPs have rejected calls from peers for the Government to assess and rank rail franchise agreements based on performance.
Transport Secretary Louise Haigh argued that assessing franchises as part of the Government’s plans to nationalise the railways would create “unnecessary cost” to taxpayers.
A second Lords amendment to the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill stated that its purpose of improving passenger experience should be written into law, but this was also voted down in the Commons on Tuesday.
I am more than happy to reassure the House that improving the performance of the railways is at the top of my priority list, especially in view of the mess this Government inherited. I really do not need a purpose clause to remind me of it
Shadow transport secretary Gareth Bacon accused the Government of rejecting the amendments in order to “fulfil an ideological project untethered from the wishes of the public”.
Ms Haigh said the Bill does “not need a purpose clause” and improving the performance of the railways is at the top of her priority list.
A third amendment, which applied public sector equality duty to the Bill, was passed by MPs.
This means the Government will be legally required to consider how rail services impact people with protected characteristics, such as those with disabilities.
During the consideration of the Lords’ amendments, Ms Haigh said: “Amendment one seeks to insert a purpose clause into the Bill and to require me to have regard to it.
“I am sure the amendment is well intentioned and I’m delighted that after years of declining performance the party opposite now recognises that reliability and punctuality actually matter to passengers.
“I am more than happy to reassure the House that improving the performance of the railways is at the top of my priority list, especially in view of the mess this Government inherited.
“I really do not need a purpose clause to remind me of it.”
She added: “Of course, improving performance is a vitally important objective, but it is certainly not the only one – saving millions of pounds each year in fees to private operators, stripping out inefficiency and waste, simplifying the arcane fares and ticketing system, making rail services more accessible.
“All these things and many more, are priorities that we will address through public ownership and our wider plans for rail reform.”
MPs voted to reject amendment one, with 344 voting in support of the Government’s stance, 172 against, majority 172.
The railways have not done enough to meet the needs of disabled people. We simply must, and we will, do better
On Lords amendment two, Ms Haigh said: “The practical effect of this amendment would be to delay the programme of transfers into public ownership and prolong the failed franchising system that has inflicted so much misery on passengers.
“Delaying the transfers would mean deferring the benefits of public ownership, as well as the taxpayer having to pay millions of pounds more in fees to private operators.
“Clearly, the Government cannot accept this, especially given we promised the electorate that we would manage this transfer without unnecessary cost.”
Following this, 350 voted to disagree with amendment two, 108 voted in support of the amendment, majority 242.
Referring to amendment three, Ms Haigh said: “The railways have not done enough to meet the needs of disabled people.
“We simply must, and we will, do better.
“Amendment three would send a very clear message by making it explicit on the face of the Equality Act 2010 that publicly owned train operators are subject to the public sector equality duty.”
In justifying this ideological legislation, the Government has made clear its intention to utilise selective performance data, rather than clarifying for its own administrative use or for passenger understanding, the relevant performance information
“Amendment three was universally supported in the other place, and I am grateful for the constructive discussions that have taken place in relation to it.
“I am confident that we can continue to work across parties to improve accessibility on the railways and I urge the House to support the Government’s position today,” she added.
Mr Bacon said he could not understand why the Government opposed “such a clearly reasonable protective measure”, in regards to amendment one.
He said: “It is the Passenger Railway Services Bill and yet it says nothing about the passenger.
“So amendment one attempts to put this right and to put the passenger back at the head of the Bill as the driving force of what the Government are trying to do and to require ministers to test their actions under this Bill against the standard of whether it will improve matters for the passenger.”
He added: “How could anyone oppose that?
“There is little public appetite for ideological measures which are not based on the improvement of passenger experience and to reject this amendment would be a tacit mission that the Government is rejecting the principle that legislation directed at the passenger services should be in line with service improvements, and in doing so, it would reject the general public consensus.”
Mr Bacon also said: “I fail to understand why the Government will be opposed to such a clearly reasonable protective measure, but of course, I can guess.
“In justifying this ideological legislation, the Government has made clear its intention to utilise selective performance data, rather than clarifying for its own administrative use or for passenger understanding, the relevant performance information.
“Instead, obscuring it and allowing the Government to fulfil an ideological project untethered from the wishes of the public to see their experiences on the railways improve.”