Rail Reform: the five-year itch?
The period to respond to the UK Government's consultation on rail reform legislation came to an end on 4th August.
Amoment of uncertainty?
The period to respond to the UK Government's consultation on rail reform legislation came to an end on 4th August. In a few weeks' time, we will have a new Prime Minister and Cabinet. Does this mean the proposed legislation is a 'dead duck'? Are the conclusions of the Williams Rail Review about to be revisited?
My perception is that nature of rail reform has not been high up the agenda of the candidates for Prime Minister - commitments to some infrastructure, yes, but the means to deliver and control it not so much.
An imperative to act will continue to exist
The imperative to act remains no matter who is in No.10 Downing Street. The railway needs to evolve to meet its affordability challenges, to respond to post-pandemic mobility, to deliver the careers that the talented people within it deserve, and to serve and employ every section of the community.
Government finances will increasingly be under pressure thanks to the forecast recession. Previous reviews (McNulty, Shaw, and William's) revealed and repeated some of the industry's challenges: affordability, lack of diversity, opaqueness of accountability, project overruns, reducing private sector participation, failed contracts, timetable collapses, frustrated stakeholders, inconsistent performance, and highly critical and untrusting customers.
A damning list? Maybe, but with the talent of the people in the industry, the right incentives and structures, and the evolution of a more collaborative and innovative culture, there's every reason to be optimistic. A renewed 'white heat' of contribution to the social and economic health of the country could be untapped. Just as the sector grew its patronage, improved its outputs, reduced risk, and innovated in the 1990s, it can do so again to meet society's new expectations.
So what of the legislation?
Will the new Government step away from a customer-focused industry, drop the idea of a guiding mind, move away from greater support for freight, and the delivery of a ticket retailing transformation? In my mind, it seems unlikely.
The areas for potential change could be the scale of private sector involvement, perhaps the extent of devolution, where and how the guiding mind acts, and where it leaves space for local stakeholders or market-led innovation. These choices of policy appear to be the ones that might arise in the next General Election and, potentially, the question of ownership of the railway's assets and its operation.
And the legislation? There are a variety of opinions emerging from the consultation exercise, and I have my own personal views on some of the checks and controls within it. However, in my mind, it is an enabler for Government and ministers of whatever persuasion.
If approved and implemented, it should lead to a simpler industry structure and one in which policy decisions, radically different as they might be, are made between Prime Ministers or political parties, to enact the Government of the day's ambitions.
There does not appear to be any shovel-ready and radical alternative 'Plan B' waiting in the wings for implementation. The longer period to start the evolution of the industry to unleash its potential, the more the risk to its contribution, sustainability and growth.
So no risk then? A slam dunk for progress in the coming weeks?
2023 will mark five years since the Williams Review was initiated. We have had a record of a Government announcing reviews of the industry every five years for last 20+ years! But perhaps I am temping fate by noting this...
"There is a widespread sense that the current system is fragmented, meaning that there is little consistency across the rail system and low accountability when things go wrong" - Williams Rail Review, Improving Passenger Trust in the Rail Sector, May 2021
