Peer review: Steve Norris
Minister for Transport 1992–96.
Commissioner, The Independent
Transport Commission
|
It is not surprising that so close to the election none of the political parties want to disclose their manifesto on an issue which, however important it is to us in the industry, does not actually alter voters’ minds as much as we think it should. |
One of the lessons you learn as a Minister for Transport is that while everyone grumbles about fare increases, crowded carriages with standing room only, overflowing ‘loos’ and curled-up sandwiches, they don’t associate any of this with one particular party. They think we’re all as bad as each other, and in my experience over the past quarter of a century they’re probably right!
So what to make of all these promises? They are all largely ‘mom and apple pie’. We all think rail is a good thing and the three major parties support HS2 and in all likelihood will support HS3. Control Period 5 is unlikely to be tampered with, although the next government will need to look closely at how well Network Rail is spending the billions in its stewardship.
One of the counter-intuitive features of this Parliament has been NR’s virtual renationalisation under a Conservative-led coalition. The challenge for the next Secretary of State will be to translate that formal status into better accountability to taxpayers and passengers alike.
Lack of accountability has been a key reason for Network Rail’s poor performance over the past decade.
The Member governance model has been largely ridiculed in the industry for its lack of effectiveness. Now we know who is in charge and that person needs to engage with Richard Parry-Jones and Mark Carne quickly and forcefully. The two major parties are both aware of this and whoever leads the next administration, their approach is likely to be very similar.
The same cannot be said of their approach to franchising. The Conservatives have not handled this well. They came to office preaching (correctly) the virtues of longer franchises as the way to generate private investment in stations and other infrastructure. In the event, they became the creatures of DfT civil servants who argued that long franchises would mean the Department would lose control – to which the correct response should have been “precisely”.
Sadly, that was not what they heard. Short franchises turn operators into little more than ticket collectors and there is no evidence yet that this fundamental lesson has been learned by either the Tories or Lib Dems. That said, the Tories do believe the record growth in ridership since privatisation is proof that the current model has worked.
Labour cites East Coast as an argument for renationalising operators and re-creating government-owned regional railways. The mathematics do not support their assertion, but the debate identifies the key battleground. If you believe that the state runs services well, you back Labour. If you believe the state is demonstrably hopeless at running services and that the private sector does the job much better, you support the Conservatives. The Lib Dems will go with whichever party rescues them from oblivion.
So what’s missing? It was recently disclosed that passengers are now paying a bigger share than ever before of the cost of the railways. So while the deficit is reducing, the cost is being borne increasingly by individual travellers.
Is this right? Should we look to a continental model that recognises the non-user benefit of public transport? None of the parties is keen to address this, but it is probably the most important issue confronting the industry.
Are current commuter fares seriously value for money or is there an element of ransom? It would be good to hear the parties discussing this thorny issue - but I fear we shall be disappointed.
