Alex Robertson, Emma Vogelmann, Ben Plowden and Michael Roberts gave evidence.

The next panel consists of representatives of Transport Focus, Transport for All, the Campaign for Better Transport and London TravelWatch. Will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record? We will start with Emma, who is joining us by video link.

Emma Vogelmann:

Morning, everyone. I am Emma Vogelmann, the co-CEO of the disabled persons organisation Transport for All.

Alex Robertson:

I am Alex Robertson, the chief executive of Transport Focus.

Ben Plowden:

Good morning. I am Ben Plowden, chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport.

Michael Roberts:

Good morning. I am Michael Roberts, chief executive of London TravelWatch, the statutory watchdog for the travelling public in London. I should perhaps add that between 2008 and 2015, I was chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies, otherwise known as ATOC. For the latter two years of that tenure, I was also director general of the Rail Delivery Group, which was an early attempt to bring track and train together.

Thank you very much. I call the Shadow Minister.

Q Thank you all for coming in person or, Emma, for joining online. I am going to focus on Clause 18 of the Bill, which is on the general duties of Ministers, GBR and the ORR. In particular, I will jump straight to clause 18(2), which sets out the functions and how they should operate those functions. Paragraph (c) states that one such function is

“to promote high standards of railway service performance”,

itself defined in clause 18(3):

“‘railway service performance’ includes, in particular, performance in securing each of the following in relation to railway services—

(a) reliability…and

(b) the avoidance or mitigation of passenger overcrowding

My question about that definition of service performance, which is very narrow, is for everyone, but I will start with you, Emma. Are you concerned that the focus is primarily on reliability and overcrowding? What about comfort, heating, wi-fi, food, frequency, cost and all the other good stuff—and disability access?

Emma Vogelmann:

I completely agree that accessibility really needs to be explicit in the requirements set out in the Bill. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make sure that we are not making the same mistakes of the past in having accessibility not explicitly enforceable and not having it in the Bill as much as possible. Disabled passengers already experience accessibility being deprioritised in the name of efficiency and other considerations. We absolutely agree that it needs to be considered.

Ben Plowden:

I certainly echo that point from Emma about accessibility. The broader point is that in the absence of any duty on GBR to grow passenger demand over time, which we might come back to, one can imagine a scenario in which, in meeting those two specific duties on passenger service standards, GBR might be incentivised to improve reliability on a route by reducing service frequency and then to deal with the crowding duty by pricing people off the network.

That would be rational.

Ben Plowden:

It would be perfectly rational, and I understand from media reports that that may indeed be what is happening on the west coast main line. It seems to us that you either need to broaden the number of things that GBR must take into account in terms of passenger service standards and/or introduce a growth duty, which would help deal with some of the other issues.

Michael Roberts:

I believe that the impulse should be to try to improve the passenger experience in the round, including all the things that you mentioned, such as accessibility, as Emma said. My personal view is that the place for that to be expressed in detail, potentially through targetry, is through a combination of the long-term rail strategy and the business plans over five years.

Neither of which we have seen.

Michael Roberts:

Correct, and I think the Committee would want the reassurance of understanding what content covering this aspect will be in those documents, as it considers whether the Bill is appropriately written.

Alex Robertson:

I agree with a lot of what has been said, particularly the point that accessibility must be a top priority of the railway in the future. How you achieve that is the question we are looking at now. As Michael said, the business plan, the long-term rail strategy and GBR’s duty to consult us and others on those, and to do so transparently, are where you will make sure that the railway focuses on the things that are most important to passengers.

Q The second issue I wish to draw out is the fair treatment of other fare providers. At the moment, a number of independent retailers have very good tech that facilitates passengers using the railway. In the new environment, Great British Railways will be the holder of the data—the holder of the ring—but it is also intending, perfectly reasonably, to be part of the game as well: it will have a retail operation, so it will be directly competing in that retail market. This issue has been considered in other state-owned organisations, such as SNCF, where it was recognised that there was a structural conflict of interest; as a result, the retail side of SNCF is a stand-alone, independent organisation. The Government have chosen not to do that. Do you not think that that is surprising? Would it be beneficial to have GBR retail carved off as a stand-alone?

Ben Plowden:

The Government’s own documentation acknowledges the benefit that independent ticket retailers have brought to customers in terms of competition, ease of buying tickets and so on. The Government intend managerially to separate GBR’s ticketing and retail operation from its commercial and operational arm. It seems to us that if the Government are not willing to set up a stand-alone ticketing operation, as SNCF has done, it is important to hold GBR to the same standards as the independent operators in terms of how it does fares and ticketing. It will be required to comply with ORR guidance on ticket retailing, but that is simply about how it engages with the other retailers. Clearly, it should operate on the same terms as the independent retailers, and there should be independent regulatory oversight to make sure that GBR does not use its position as the core ticketing provider essentially to crowd out the other suppliers.

Q What if the Government refuse to carve it off, as has been done in other international examples? The Bill does not require a level playing field. Would you support improving the Bill by expressly stating that GBR must provide a level playing field on data and access for all retailers?

Ben Plowden:

We would. In particular, it should be subject to the code of practice on retailing that the ORR issues, rather than simply guidance on how it deals with its relationships with the other retailers.

Does anyone else on the panel disagree with that assertion?

Michael Roberts:

indicated dissent.

Q I am proud of the passengers and accessibility duty and pleased that it was welcomed by accessibility groups. Am I right in saying that there is no comparable statutory duty that applies to Network Rail or the TOCs—in other words, that this would be an entirely new requirement?

Alex Robertson:

You are right that we are introducing a new duty and that that is extremely important in terms of accessibility. The general point I would make is that it is important that Parliament and the Government set out their intent in the legislation. How that is enacted and delivered will depend on a lot of things that are not in the legislation, such as the culture of the railway and how disabled passengers are engaged in the co-creation and delivery of it. As the passenger watchdog, we are very conscious that we have a duty to make sure that we do that as well. It is a definite step forward, but whether it delivers on the ground for disabled passengers in the way that is intended depends on a lot of things that are yet to come.

Emma Vogelmann:

An important consideration is the Transport Committee’s finding that the reason accessibility standards are failing and disabled people are having really negative transport experiences is that there are no statutory obligations. I completely agree that the Bill is a big step forward, but the duties themselves are very vague and do not necessarily at this point look at enforceable rights and corporate actions.

Ben Plowden:

It is welcome that there is a duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled people in the Bill. We think there is a case for strengthening that duty so that it aligns with the duty in relation to freight, which is to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers. There should also be an equivalent duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target, as she is required to do in relation to freight, so that, as we picked up on a minute ago, GBR does not end up being incentivised not to grow the network in order to meet its crowding and reliability duties, for example. It seems to us that giving it a statutory incentive to increase passenger use over time would be very helpful to build on the existing duty in the Bill.

Q I have a quick follow-up for Transport Focus. Will you be able to work effectively with the ORR to deliver for passengers?

Alex Robertson:

Yes, definitely. We are already in dialogue with the ORR about its change in responsibilities and the transfer of functions from it to us. We will put in place an MOU to make sure that works in practice. We are comfortable with it. As you will have heard from the earlier panel, it aligns very well with our general consumer functions, which I think makes sense. Having one single enforcement body on the licence in the new system also makes sense.

Q Emma, further to your previous comments, will you say a little more about the current general duty in the Bill to promote the needs of disabled passengers being vague and unenforceable? Do you have any further suggestions for how it could be strengthened, perhaps using examples from other sectors? I am interested to hear what the rest of the panel has to say about that as well.

Emma Vogelmann:

In the Bill now, the power is very much centralised with the Secretary of State. We feel that there is already a lack of sufficient safeguards in place to make sure that accessibility does not become beholden to political will and the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill as drafted depends too heavily on discretion, future strategies and changeable licences. We want to make sure that the accessibility considerations and requirements are meaningful and enforceable and do not leave disabled people politically vulnerable.

Michael Roberts:

For my part, rather reiterating my earlier comments, what is important is the expression of what GBR wants to achieve in accessibility, which is not necessarily to be written on the face of the Bill but should be part of the long-term rail strategy or the business plan. Alongside a duty, however it is expressed in the legislation, there must be some clear milestones and outcomes to which GBR aspires—for example, a milestone for the proportion of stations that should have step-free access by a certain point in time, as the Mayor of London and TfL currently have in the capital, or aspirations for the quality of provision of passenger assistance. There has been a rapid increase in the demand for that sort of service by mobility-impaired passengers, but the level of resource has woefully fallen behind the need. Expressing the stepping stones to a truly more accessible railway in strategic documents needs to go alongside the duty, however it is expressed.

Alex Robertson:

I agree with Michael about the important milestones. We need to see real shifts in the ambition on accessibility. One of the other things that has been mentioned is that we will have the ability to set the consumer standards for accessibility. Alongside taking over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman, I want to see a really good, strong set of standards on which we would consult and engage with disabled passengers. If they were not complied with, they would be passed to the ORR for enforcement.

On complaint handling, at the moment, if you have a failed passenger assist, it is possible for some of the train operating companies to refund you only the price of your ticket, and not compensate for the distress and inconvenience that caused you. That is completely wrong. We would be in a position where that could be looked at properly and changed, so we could take an individual’s complaint and get better redress for them, but also use it to identify systemic issues that might be affecting other people as well. It puts us in a stronger position to do all those things.

Ben Plowden:

It is not clear to us that the Bill gives GBR a sufficiently strong incentive to increase accessibility over time, in the same way that it does not give an incentive to increase passenger use over time. One issue might be whether you could amend the Bill to require an increase in accessibility over time to be determined through the other documents that the Government and GBR will produce.

Michael Roberts:

I want to pick up a point that Transport for All made separately on the public sector equality duty, which GBR will be obliged to fulfil. The observation from Transport for All is that the impact of that duty is felt retrospectively and depends on disabled members of the travelling public challenging a failure in service when they find it. There might be some merit in the industry—GBR, ORR—co-creating a definition of what the exercise of that duty feels like in practice. That should be up front, as part of the strategic documents against which GBR will be held to account, with the passenger watchdog monitoring and the ORR enforcing.

Q This question is predominantly for Michael and Alex, but others can come in. On the watchdog and current enforcement, I understand that under the new regulations, the enforcement power would go to the ORR. Could you expand on whether that is an improvement or a backwards step from the current arrangements? Many years ago, I was a member of the London TravelWatch board. There are clearly continuing issues with cross-borough arrangements in London—I speak as a London MP. How do you see the new arrangements working for my constituents, for instance, who will sometimes take a London-only journey but sometimes take a London-into-Kent journey?

Alex Robertson:

I will pick up the first point. For us, it is quite a significant increase in our powers and it might be worth setting those out. I will start with the duty on GBR to consult us so that we do not get into a position where we are having to call out something that is not right. That is there in both particular documents and strategies and in decisions made by GBR that might affect passengers. That is an important change. We have the power to request information and require it to be provided to us within a reasonable timeframe. That is a stronger power than we have now, as is the ability to ask for improvement plans.

You highlighted the ability to refer across to ORR. Making sure that works in practice will be important, but the ability is there. One thing we have said that we also need, which we understand the Government will include in the licence, is the ability to call officials in front of us to explain and account for what they have done. We have talked a lot about accountability. There will be ways in which we can work collaboratively and publish information to try to make sure the right thing happens, but a big part of the change we need is GBR being held to account in public, and the powers we have will assist with that.

Michael Roberts:

There are two separate dimensions to your line of questioning. First, there is the model where the national watchdog sets standards and monitors compliance, but enforcement ultimately rests with the ORR. I think we are comfortable with that approach. It has been mentioned that the more the watchdog moves into the role of regulator, the more its ability to act as passenger champion and to speak in an unvarnished way on behalf of the passenger is diluted, because as the regulator it has to take into account a broader range of considerations when opining. I think the model is fine. The “but”, or the “if”, depends on how independent one feels that watchdog will be in its ability to point out failures and speak truth to power, and the Committee may want to come back to that later.

Your other point was about how the two watchdogs work together. At one level, I think we are reasonably comfortable. Transport Focus and London TravelWatch have a collaboration agreement whereby we share resources within our respective areas for the common good. It is not quite fit for purpose for the new world. We will need to refresh that and set out how we expect to work together in a world where Transport Focus, or whatever it is called in the future, has a standard-setting role.

Where we have a concern, and where we think the Bill is currently flawed, is with regard to our independent ability to be consulted within key industry processes. I heard the evidence given by the chief executive of the DFTO, and I believe that he was slightly mistaken. Transport Focus—or passengers’ council, to give its formal title—is not the only statutory passenger representative body. We are that body for London, as you will know.

We have responsibility for reviewing the provision of rail services within what is known under statute as the London railway area, which covers approximately 400 stations out of a national total of about 2,500— so getting on for about 20% of the national footprint. Around 70% of all railway journeys start or finish within our remit, yet there are probably four or five places within the Bill where GBR’s duty to consult is with the passengers’ council—for example, on its business plan—but there is no explicit reference to us, despite the fact that we are a statutory body. We think that needs remedying.

Q My question relates to the interconnectivity of rail services and other public transport. We have heard evidence today about the Bill supposedly offering potential for integrating rail-to-rail connections. Let me give an example: a rail ticket from London Waterloo through to Ryde Pier Head can be bought through National Rail—one ticket, one payment—but the train that leaves Waterloo at, say, 3.30 pm will get into Portsmouth Harbour five minutes after the ferry departs for Ryde Pier Head to complete that journey. This Bill gives no powers over, for example, Isle of Wight ferry companies, which are privatised and unregulated. Is there anything in the Bill that might help to deal with that? I use ferries as an example, but clearly buses and other travel providers are relevant elsewhere. Is there anything in the Bill that can deal with that sort of timetabling issue, so that it becomes a thing of the past? If not, do you see an opportunity to bring in some provisions in this Bill, and perhaps you could identify what that would look like?

Ben Plowden:

As we heard in the previous panel, the provisions in the Bill for GBR to engage with and to take account of the strategies and interests of communities in the regions and localities are very important, because understanding of anomalies is likely to be much greater closer to where they occur.

Whether the Bill could require the list of people that GBR is required to engage with to be extended—for example, to ferry operators—to make sure that services, including the planning of timetabling and fares or ticketing, were more properly integrated, is an interesting question. I do not know how you would do that in the Bill, but certainly the involvement of mayoral combined authorities and local authorities in this process will help. It is an interesting question whether the Bill could make specific provision for the additional transport providers and operators that GBR would need to engage with to achieve that integration.

Emma Vogelmann:

At Transport for All, we very much look at every journey as multimodal—exactly what you were describing. We have found through our research that interchanges, specifically those between modes of transport, are one of the most significant barriers that disabled people experience on any journey. Where in the Bill this could be dealt with is a really interesting question, but as well as integration with other transport modes, such as ferries and so on, we also need to look at the immediate surroundings of stations, where I do think this Bill could have some influence.

We know that disabled people may not use a particular station because, although it is step-free, there is no blue badge parking around the station, meaning that there is no way for them to get safely to it, or there no dropped kerb to allow them to use that station. If we are going to look at journeys as multimodal, we really need to see this as an opportunity, potentially in this Bill, to look at the areas surrounding railway stations themselves.

Alex Robertson:

I do not know what could be changed within the scope of the Bill to directly address your issue.  It is partly a question of how effectively local transport is integrated, and then how that integrates with national transport.

I did want to mention that we are passenger watchdog not just for rail, but for buses and the strategic road network, and we look at it through the lens that has already been talked about. Emma particularly highlighted that the perspective we would bring is to ensure that, when decisions are made and priorities are set, they are thought about in the round—how they affect people in their door-to-door journeys—and not narrowly in terms of rail.

Q Can I just check that you do not have any oversight of ferries?

Alex Robertson:

We do not.

Michael Roberts:

Your question prompts a slightly different line of thought from me. I apologise, because my focus is very much on travel in and around the capital, rather than the Isle of Wight, as important as it is. I have a concern about the extent to which the provisions in the Bill about fair and open access to GBR’s assets—the future of its track and signalling systems, for example—may compromise the degree to which effective integration can happen in the capital. I say that because TfL runs a significant number of services over GBR assets today. The busiest line in the country—the Elizabeth line—is a GBR asset that is run by an operator that is mandated by TfL. The London Overground runs over GBR assets, and so do parts of the London underground; if you are a user of the District line or the Bakerloo line, you are using GBR assets.

The ability of TfL and the operators under its oversight to have fair and open access to those assets is extremely important to the travelling public, in whom I am particularly interested. I know that open access is a broader issue, rather than a London-specific one, but, for the Committee’s deliberations around that, I would flag that it is not immediately clear from a London perspective that the provisions are strong enough to give TfL, for example, the comfort that it will have the degree of access that it wants, to continue providing those services effectively.

Q Ben, I want to come to your proposals around the duty to grow passenger use. Could it not be assumed that that runs throughout the Bill? Why do you think it is needed as an additional explicit provision?

Ben Plowden:

Clearly, in broad terms, GBR will be incentivised to increase passenger demand, not least because of the revenue that would flow from that, as well as its ability to deliver its other duties, such as the public interest duty. It seems odd to us that there is a difference between the way that incentive is expressed for passengers versus freights; there is a very clear requirement in the Bill to promote the use of the network for the carriage of goods and for the Secretary of State to separately set a freight growth target.

We think that, for consistency, and to give a statutory incentive for GBR to grow passenger use alongside its commercial incentives, there should be an equivalent duty to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers, and a separate duty for the Secretary of State to set a growth target for passenger demand over time. The Secretary of State will obviously need to determine that growth target in the light of financial circumstances, network capacity and all the other things that will determine what could realistically be achieved. But, unless there is a statutory incentive for GBR to grow passenger use over time, we think it may find itself perversely and unintentionally, or at least in terms of its other duties, reducing service frequency and crowding people off the network through fares, because of the specific requirements about passenger service standards that we discussed before. I think it would be very helpful in the drafting to provide an equivalence for GBR for passengers so that is like the freightduty.

Q Do you think that duty could help to ensure that inclusivity is taken in the widest possible sense? I travel with my toddler, and there is a risk when I go to the toilet with him that he will hit the emergency open button and I will be exposed to the train. There is a conflict there: I absolutely recognise that disabled people need to be able to use those facilities and get support, but I also need to be able to use the train safely as a mother with a small person.

How will we ensure, if we move to co-creation in how we deliver accessibility, as Alex was proposing, that we consider a slightly wider group of people—as much as disabled people are absolutely the priority—to ensure that we deliver inclusive railways? Could that duty help to provide a bit of a framework for that to be considered going forward?

Ben Plowden:

Yes. By definition, if you want to increase the volume of travel by rail, you need to make that network meaningfully usable by the broadest segment of the population that you can. That also relates to issues around affordability that we might come back to. If GBR had a legal incentive to increase demand over time, as well as a duty to demonstrably increase accessibility over time, I think that would encourage it to think very broadly about how to get the largest number of people possible using a safer, more accessible, more reliable and more affordable network.

Emma Vogelmann:

In terms of true co-production, you are really looking at how to create universal design. That universal design is beneficial to everyone. I want to stress that if accessibility provisions and things that are built in to promote accessibility are done correctly and in consultation with disabled people and other passengers, you will not have that conflict in access needs. Universal design would allow everyone to benefit from those improvements.

Alex Robertson:

I agree absolutely with what Emma has said and what we are trying to achieve with this. The question, and this is obviously why you are asking it, is how much you can legislate for that.

We had an experience with Merseyrail developing its new trains in and around Liverpool. You completely need to engage disabled passengers throughout the process, from the specification to the design and implementation, because things that you think are possible at the beginning may lead to trade-offs later on. You want to have people in the room making those decisions with you and balancing the competing the interests of different passengers, and you have to do that throughout. That did lead to—I hope this is reflected by people’s experience in Liverpool—a much better experience for disabled passengers and for the general travelling public. How much you could legislate for that I am not entirely sure, but it will have to be absolutely integral to how GBR goes about its business.

The other advantage you will get through having GBR at the network-wide level is that we know that we have trains of different sizes, platforms of the wrong height—it is a mess across the network. Putting GBR in a position where it can make those decisions, plan long term, and get some consistency to a higher and better standard is what we are hoping for, and I believe we can do that with the changes that are being made.

Michael Roberts:

I think at the nub of your line of inquiry is the need for inclusion in its broadest sense. However a duty is expressed around the interests that GBR needs to take into consideration, whether in the Bill or in other statutory documents, I think some consideration ought to be given to, for example, diversity in its widest sense—that is, the nine protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 rather than just necessarily one of those, important as the needs of disabled travellers are. There are needs of other travellers that also need to be taken into consideration.

Q One of the things that has been touched on in that conversation, particularly around universal design and the Bill’s aims to improve accessibility, is that we already have huge discrepancies around the country on each individual line. It is worth asking, for the record, whether you agree that there will be a significant time lag in when this accessibility aim will actually be delivered to the general public. The Minister eventually suggested that it may take 30 years for some of these things to come into place, so do you think it is important for us to be realistic with the public about what the accessibility provision in the Bill will actually mean on the ground?

Emma Vogelmann:

Overall transparency and really clear expectations and timelines are absolutely what disabled passengers need. However, there are still grounds for that rate of change to be challenged. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee said that at the current rate of change, it will take another 100 years before all train stations are made step free in the UK. We need to be transparent about that rate of change, but also be prepared to challenge it.

Alex Robertson:

We need to be serious about the change: it is a huge change that we need and some of those things will take a long time. The infrastructure cannot be changed overnight. You had a conversation earlier about the need for long-term planning that puts you in a position to do that. You have to be realistic and up front about that and recognise that it draws on public money to do that.

There are other changes, however, that could happen much more quickly. You could get a much clearer signal about the priority given to accessibility, and you could get a change in how effective passenger assistance is delivered. I do not want to suggest that that can change overnight, because it is not straightforward; it is dependent on how you operate the railway and different expectations—for example, of staff members, their systems and so on—but you can make a more rapid change in relation to that.

I mentioned earlier the redress that people receive when passenger assistance fails—and when turn up and go fails. Turn up and go is completely unreliable, which is why people often have to rely on booking passenger assistance, but even that fails about one in five times so those people do not get the full service. You would want to see some pretty rapid progress on those things, and recognise that some of the longer-term changes to infrastructure are not straightforward. However, you would also want to have confidence that there is a sufficiently ambitious plan in place, and that people are going to hold the feet of those who are delivering it to the fire.

Q As I understand it, one of the ways that a lot of it will be delivered—the detail of what GBR has to provide—is through the licence. Do you think it is a problem that the Committee has not had sight of the draft GBR licence yet, setting out what we expect accessibility to look like in the Bill versus the reality of what it will look like?

Ben Plowden:

I would make a slightly broader point, which is the number of other documents and processes that will need to be in place either in parallel with the Bill or subsequent to it being passed—I stopped counting at 19. There is a long-term rail strategy, the GBR business plan, the licence that you have just mentioned, the statement of funds available, and the list goes on.

One of the questions for the Committee is whether it sees some of those documents as part of its scrutiny, and understanding how all the different components of the system that GBR will operate within are going to work, when they are going to materialise and how they will interact with each other. Even though the Government’s intention is to simplify the system, it will still be quite a complex system of delivery, regulation, oversight, investment and so on. A broader understanding of the entire system that the GBR Bill will create is important. Not having had sight of some of those critical documents is part of that uncertainty.

Q Do you agree that the accessibility duty, if combined with detailed targets in the business plan, will improve the whole system for disabled passengers?

Emma Vogelmann:

From our perspective, having accessibility targets and so on that are not built into statutory instruments is not a guarantee of change in accessibility. We have seen accessibility requirements or targets being spread across all transport sectors, and particularly in rail, but the amount of change and enforceability is very low. As much as possible needs to sit in the primary legislation.

Alex Robertson:

It is a difficult balancing act as to how much you put in legislation and how much comes later. It is absolutely critical that the GBR business plan properly sets targets for accessibility. One of the things that we touched on earlier is that the licence will give us the power to set the standards in relation to accessibility. We will do that in the way that I talked about, by co-creating them with disabled passengers. We will do it in a way that makes sure they are right.

There is a whole series of things that will need to happen. Ultimately, it is for you all to decide the extent to which you need to see that up front, as opposed to recognising that the direction, intent and duties are clear in legislation, and that the organisations that will be responsible for delivering it are in a position to do that.

Q If those targets are in the business plan, they cannot just be ignored, can they?

Alex Robertson:

Absolutely not. The ORR will have a role to play in highlighting progress against that. We would have a role in being consulted—we have to be consulted in the development of the business plan—and our duty to reflect the interests of disabled passengers would be at the forefront of our mind as that happens. Obviously, GBR will be accountable to the Secretary of State for how well that plan is delivered in practice. I have said before that a very important change that we will need to see through the creation of GBR is how GBR is held to account in public. Those targets will be public, and it will have to account for how well it is delivering against them.

Michael Roberts:

I have a lot of sympathy with where Emma is coming from. When one thinks about the experiences of disabled travellers, which are regularly reported in the media, you can understand why there is a wish to have as much certainty and traction over whatever commitments are made. Having said that, I think that the arrangement that you have indicated could be made to work. I am mindful that in London, the mayor has a transport strategy. In that, he has set out targets that TfL are delivering against for improvements to the number of step-free tube stations. For example, the strategy includes a target to reduce the difference between the time a journey takes for somebody with reduced mobility and the time it takes for somebody who does not have those impairments.

It comes down to making sure that there are the resources to back up the targetry in the plans, that there is an energetic passenger watchdog ensuring that GBR and the industry more generally are doing what they are expected to under the plans, and that the ORR is ready to enforce if and when necessary.

Q I want to pick a little further at the accessibility point, particularly on step-free access. By way of example, last week I got a letter from the Minister—neither of the two excellent Ministers in the Committee—saying that Sileby station in my Constituency, which can be reached only by very steep steps, along with 40% of other stations in the current programme, was being cut from works to improve accessibility on the grounds of funding pressures.

The reality is that there will always be tensions between what is desired and what is affordable—that is in the nature of government. Building on what you have already said, how can those tensions be resolved to meet the duties envisaged in the Bill and the aspirations that all parties in this place have for improved accessibility, while recognising that there will always be a funding tension in anything the Government do?

I was a Health Minister and wrestled with such issues when deciding what to put in primary legislation, in secondary legislation and in statutory guidance. I would argue they have greater weight than, for example, a business plan, which is vaguer, less enforceable and less tangible than each of those other layers. You have to strike a balance of proportionality. Where do you think the specific obligations on accessibility would best sit in that hierarchy, from primary legislation in the Bill, which is right up at the top and cast in stone, to a business plan, which is much less enforceable, vaguer and can be changed?

Alex Robertson:

That is a good question. You have set out the challenge and the dilemma that is true for this aspect of public services, as it is for many others. I will try to answer it in this way: wherever you put it, it must allow for the consideration of the ambition to significantly—it must be significantly—improve the service that disabled passengers receive, with decisions about funding. If you separate those two, you will get into a position where you have set a target, but it is not realistic and has no plan behind it.

You have to do that and, as I have said before, do it in a way that involves disabled passengers in the decision making. Whatever the scale of the ambition, it is perfectly possible to spend good public money inefficiently and ineffectively, and not on doing what is in the best interests of disabled passengers. It is about doing it right, as well as the amount you do.

Emma Vogelmann:

From Transport for All’s perspective, as has been picked up by many others, unless accessibility is enforceable, it is treated as an optional and a nice to have: “We will get to it when we get to it, or when there is a surplus of money,” which of course there rarely is.

We have seen initiatives to make changes in the name of affordability; I am thinking particularly about the proposals to close ticket offices at stations in England a couple of years ago. That was very much an economic argument about staff not being confined to the ticket office, but in practice, for disabled people that meant that the network would become increasingly unusable and a completely unviable mode of transport for some.

I agree with what was said about needing a balance between ambition and the reality of how far those ambitions can go, but we need to be ambitious. We need to make sure that we are not accepting a slower rate of change because it is more economically secure.

Ben Plowden:

Going back to a point I made before, I think the Bill should set the strategic intent that accessibility should increase over time, not just that it should be taken into consideration by GBR and the Secretary of State. The Bill should also set out how that increase is delivered. To Alex’s point, that could be done in a number of different ways, such as through service provision, infrastructure investment and so on, that would then be set out in the subordinate documents such as guidance, the licence and the business plan. The intent in the Bill would clearly be that, over time—in a way and at a rate to be determined by those other processes—accessibility would increase, not just be taken into consideration,

Michael Roberts:

You have exposed exactly the difficulties in trying to navigate through all these challenges and priorities. At the risk of motherhood and apple pie, I think co-creation with the disabled community is extremely important in trying to find a way of managing these different priorities that carries the confidence that that is being done with the full consideration of the needs of the disabled travelling public.

I also think legislators ought to think, “What are the mistakes that we want to try to avoid next time around?” and then think about what levers can address those mistakes. It is extraordinary that the industry is spending over £1.5 billion building a new station at Old Oak Common, and there is no level boarding for the Elizabeth line, which is the busiest railway in the UK. I am not sure that legislation is going to fix that—that is as much about the quality of decision making within the industry—but thinking about what good looks like and then working back and thinking, “Right. What are the ways in which we can best promote that?” seems like a good way of trying to think around the problem.

Q I have a follow-up about passenger growth targets and freight growth targets. This question is not new: the freight growth target is inherited and was included or announced in the Williams-Shapps plan for rail White Paper. Mr Plowden, I am conscious that this was before your time in your present post, so perhaps this is for other witnesses. Given that we cannot question the previous Government in this Committee, based on your conversations and representations, why did the previous Government decide not to bring forward a passenger growth target alongside a freight growth target?

Alex Robertson:

I do not know—I mean, I really do not know. We never got as far as having the Railways Bill in Parliament; we are fundamentally redesigning the railway, and that creates a different framework and a different set of responsibilities. I do not know; I have struggled with that question a little.

Ben Plowden:

The Government did say, in their response to the consultation, that there are two reasons why, having considered the possibility of a passenger growth target, they decided not to include one. One reason was that GBR would be sufficiently incentivised through a whole variety of other means to increase passenger demand. The second reason, which I think is less convincing, is that it might lead to infinite growth over time in principle. Clearly and logically, that is possible, but the point is that the Secretary of State would set a growth target that would seek to strike a balance between what is feasible and practical, and what could be afforded in terms of taxpayer investment. It seems to us that neither of those arguments necessarily stands up, and that logically you would want to include a passenger growth target alongside the freight one.

Q Forgive me; I am particularly interested in policy development over time with this question.

Ben Plowden:

I see.

A discontinuity or a change is that the draft Rail Reform Bill, published at the start of 2024, did not include a statutory freight target. I am interested in your views about the interaction between freight and passenger services, and whether the freight target is in place of a Bill or not.

Alex Robertson:

I do not think I have a particular problem with freight—we represent passengers, and we have looked at it from a passenger perspective. I am comfortable that passengers are sufficiently represented in the Bill as it currently stands. That is the easiest, most direct answer I can give you.

Andrew Ranger, you have 50 seconds for question and answer.

Q It is a very quick one, so you could please just give me a one word answer. It is a question to the whole panel. After all we have discussed, in your opinion, will this Bill produce a railway service that better serves its passengers?

Emma Vogelmann:

Hopefully. That is my one word answer.

Michael Roberts:

Not by itself.

Ben Plowden:

In principle, for sure. It is subject to various changes that we have discussed during the course of the session.

Alex Robertson:

I agree with Ben.

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Nesil Caliskan.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.