Engineering news
Last week (24 April), the government published a response to 21 recommendations made by the Transport Committee ahead of the publication of the Railways Bill. The main purpose of the bill will be to establish GBR as a single organisation overseeing both track and train, which the government hopes will tackle unreliable services, unhappy customers and taxpayers getting poor value for money. The organisation is expected to start operating a year after the bill, which was introduced in the House of Commons in November last year, becomes law.
Published in February, the committee’s report said the legislation provided only a partial picture of the framework for a new regime under GBR. It called for more detail and publication of a comprehensive list with target dates for decisions and key documents.
In its response, the government agreed with this recommendation, stating that it “recognises the value in providing further clarity to parliament and stakeholders in the run up to GBR establishment”, and that it would publish a document this spring outlining key documents and target dates.
In response to another recommendation, the government said it agreed with the committee that “micromanagement and political involvement has become a common feature of the current rail landscape”, and that this would need to change to provide a successful rail system for passengers and freight. “The railway should be run by experts, not politicians. The establishment of GBR is therefore the only answer,” it said.
Elsewhere, the government agreed on the importance of increasing passenger numbers to increase revenue and taxpayer subsidy, but it disagreed on the need for a passenger growth duty.
Following the government’s response, Transport Committee chair Ruth Cadbury said: “In our scrutiny of the Railways Bill, the Transport Committee identified a host of key documents that were yet to be published and we called on ministers to clearly set out the outstanding pieces of the puzzle. I’m pleased that the government has now agreed to do just that and the committee therefore looks forward to getting further clarity about the plans in the next few weeks.
“In response to some of our other recommendations, the government argued on a number of fronts that it would not be necessary to amend the Railways Bill to achieve the outcomes we are looking for: from avoiding political micromanagement to growing passenger numbers and ensuring representation for disabled passengers.”
In November last year, Cadbury spoke at the launch of the En route to Inclusive Public Transport report from IMechE, which highlighted the issues faced by people with accessibility needs on the transport network. The report recommended measures including improved funding, better use of data and meaningful engagement with disadvantaged groups during transport design.
Concluding her remarks after the government’s recent response to the committee, Cadbury said: “It is useful to have the government’s intentions on the record, but intentions can change and future ministers may not see things the same way. We think changes to the bill could help ensure that Great British Railways is set up to deliver for passengers well into the future.”
Want the best engineering stories delivered straight to your inbox? The Professional Engineering newsletter gives you vital updates on the most cutting-edge engineering and exciting new job opportunities. To sign up, click here.
Content published by Professional Engineering does not necessarily represent the views of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.