(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered open access operators for rail services.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I am sure you will witness a stimulating debate.
I start by drawing attention to the progress made on the east coast main line, where today three privately owned open access inter-city operators compete with the Government-run LNER. This successful and mature model is now 25 years old and sees open access operators connect towns and cities across the north that were traditionally not served, or that endured poor inter-city connections. Open access is a great success. The statistics reflect that on many fronts, and I will come on to the detail.
One group of towns that open access has not yet reached consists of Grimsby, Cleethorpes and the intermediate stations. I am determined that the Brigg and Immingham constituency and the wider northern Lincolnshire area enjoy more direct and fast trains connecting with London and other key cities. I have been campaigning for such a service since 2011 and remain committed to delivering this key and long overdue connection. I hope Members will indulge me if I focus on this constituency matter for a few minutes before moving on to the wider arguments.
From a Grimsby point of view, it matters not whether the service leaves the main line at Newark and runs via Lincoln, or whether it leaves at Doncaster and takes the route through Scunthorpe. Either route will also serve Grimsby, Cleethorpes, Barnetby and Habrough. Habrough is just two miles from the country’s largest port, Immingham. For that reason alone, it surely deserves a direct service to the capital.
Some years ago, Grand Central submitted an application to run services via Doncaster, which was turned down by the regulator. I have been raising this issue with successive Ministers for many years, and I have been given no end of reasons why it cannot happen. First, there was the question of capacity on the main line. That is not a problem if the existing services to Lincoln are extended to Cleethorpes, however, because they already have a path from King’s Cross through to Newark. LNER ran a trial of their Azuma units through to Cleethorpes and found no serious issues, other than at Market Rasen, which requires a new footbridge and some work on the platform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) may have something to say on that during the debate.
It now appears that the problems at Market Rasen are being put forward as the reason why services cannot go ahead. If the reported costs of between £15 million and £20 million for the work at Market Rasen are to be believed, Network Rail needs to improve its procurement process and find new contractors. Quite simply, those figures are ridiculous, and it sounds more like a tactic to convince Ministers not to go ahead. I trust that the Minister will address that point in his response.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this debate, and I am very pleased to support him in it. He has been a long-standing campaigner on this issue. On the point about platform improvements at Market Rasen, is he aware of other areas in the country that are getting modular platform extensions, which are proving to be much cheaper than the price he mentioned?
Martin Vickers
My Member of Parliament makes an excellent point. There are indeed other examples, up and down the country, where modest improvements have been made at minimal cost. It needs the Secretary of State to realise the economic benefits to the area, and she will surely see that this is an easy win to deliver on the Government’s growth agenda.
The establishment of Great British Railways represents the biggest change in the way we run the railways since privatisation 30 years ago. We must keep and improve what clearly works, and we must not weaken or undermine key roles, such as that of the rail regulator, so that we can make GBR fit for purpose, alongside open access, and deliver the best services for passengers across the country.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking very well about the usefulness and benefit of having a good rail system. He will be aware of the new timetable that the national rail operators are proposing. For my constituency, Berwick-upon-Tweed is the most important station, although it is in England. It will be losing services to London, and the journey time will be increased to allow greater capacity for links to Edinburgh and Newcastle. Does he agree that we need to ensure that small towns across the UK do not lose rail connectivity for the benefit of larger hubs?
Martin Vickers
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the key arguments in favour of introducing more open access operators, which have widened the number of destinations served.
If we drill into the latest passenger and financial figures, we see that there is a key lesson for those who are designing and planning GBR. We can all agree that we need better trains serving more places, with more reliability and competitive fares. But there is a huge caveat. This hinges on Ministers choosing to copy the east coast operating model, which, as I mentioned, has proven such a success; there are evidence-based statistics to show that. The Chancellor and the new Transport Secretary must take note of that model if they want to avoid a future of soaring subsidies and flatlining passenger numbers. It should now be encouraged and rolled out across Britain’s railway network, including, of course, northern Lincolnshire. Office of Rail and Road statistics show that where inter-city trains do not compete for passengers, services are expensive, require big subsidies, have struggled to get their finances and passengers back since covid, and endure poor passenger satisfaction. Importantly, the east coast main line has seen the fastest post-pandemic recovery on the network, enjoys the highest passenger satisfaction as LNER’s subsidy continues to fall, and could soon be subsidy-free.
The Minister will know personally about the benefits of open access competition, because Grand Central connects Wakefield with London, in competition with LNER. Those services provide valuable choice and competition for his constituents, who can choose between operators when they travel. The services also help to deliver inward investment, growth and regeneration, as direct rail services are invaluable when investors look at locations outside London.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
We all agree that better choice and more services—in particular, direct services—are an objective that we all want. Unfortunately, in Keighley, we do not have any open access provision at the moment. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we achieved a direct link between Skipton and London or Ilkley and London, with more opportunities through open access, it would not only be better for the commuter, but deliver better economic growth in my constituency and lead to cheaper rail prices for commuters in my constituency?
Martin Vickers
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and highlights yet another group of provincial towns that would see benefits for their local economy and for leisure.
I hope that open access rail policy features among the Chancellor’s new tests on how to deliver growth across the country. As a Yorkshire MP, the Minister will know of the clear benefits so far across the county—whether it be in Hull, Bradford, York, Doncaster or Selby—where open access has established and grown large rail markets. The new evidence shows that rail competition delivers not just growth on a significant scale, but a critical competitive discipline whereby all passengers enjoy choice and more routes. In 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority produced a 200-page report on passenger train competition and reached that very conclusion. I would not normally urge the Government to look to Europe for good practice, but Italy and Austria are two countries where the benefits of open access can be clearly seen.
Replicating the east coast model could help to prevent any risk of GBR sliding into financial and sector decline, which should be a huge concern for the Treasury. Crucially, open access is also a key component for British train building. Just before Christmas, the Prime Minister welcomed a significant £500 million investment in new train build at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe plant, but it is important to consider that that private sector order was for new trains to serve existing and new open access routes. An option on a follow-up order worth a further £500 million depends, I understand, on more open access routes being awarded by the regulator.
Melanie Onn
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time, and I am pleased that he has mentioned the Italian rail system. Obviously, Italy is very similar to Grimsby, and we would certainly benefit from the kind of rail system that operates in Italy, which is very smooth and good value for customers. Italy has good stock as well.
If we are to achieve a direct rail service from Cleethorpes to King’s Cross, for which the hon. Gentleman has campaigned for many years, open access operators need quick decision making in order to be able to place their stock orders with manufacturers to make sure that they can get services up and running for passengers quickly. Does he agree that the Minister should look very closely at these things and make decisions as quickly as he can?
Martin Vickers
I agree that Italy and Grimsby are very similar. I will come to the hon. Lady’s point about the speed of the regulator’s decision making, which is absolutely crucial.
In addition to my desire and ambition for direct services to my constituency, it is vital that the significance of open access is fully acknowledged, and that nothing is done to weaken or undermine it. Why would the Government not want more unsubsidised, direct and fast rail connections across the country? Why would they not want to secure hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in forward orders for new trains to be built in Britain? Why would they not want GBR to face robust and innovative competition on key routes, which would inevitably see standards rise, and fares and subsidies decline?
Passengers in York, Hull, Wakefield, Bradford, Doncaster, Sunderland, Newcastle and Edinburgh all now enjoy up to three competing high-speed train services to London, where open access services compete with Government-run LNER. A plan to introduce a new and fast open access service to connect Sheffield and Worksop with King’s Cross is awaiting the green light, as is one to connect Rochdale with London Euston, and one to connect Cardiff with Edinburgh. Hopefully, the plans will be swiftly approved so that passengers can enjoy more direct fast trains and real fare competition, and they will all help those cities’ respective leaders to make their case for inward investment. Sheffield has not enjoyed a direct service to King’s Cross since 1968, and a new service would rival the existing East Midlands service between the city and London St Pancras.
In debates and at Transport questions, we frequently hear tales of woe about Avanti and the services that it offers travellers on the west coast main line. That could change if we took the east coast main line as a model, and I urge Ministers to get on with it. New economic analysis from Arup shows what can be achieved. Hull Trains’ open access service, which connects Beverley, Hull, Selby and Doncaster with London, has delivered between £185 million and £380 million in extra local benefits since it was approved by Tony Blair’s Government in 2000, and those figures are expected to grow to between £325 million and £700 million by 2032. Prior to Hull Trains’ operations, there was just one direct daily train in each direction between London and Hull. Similarly, the Blair Government oversaw the approval of new and fast Grand Central services to the north-east and Yorkshire in the mid and late 2000s.
On average, Hull Trains’ fares are 30% cheaper than those for traditional services. As I said when I met representatives of Hull Trains a couple of weeks ago, they could do for the south bank of the Humber what they have done for the north bank. Direct rail links have boosted inward investment and done more for levelling up and regeneration than a host of Whitehall schemes. There are also significant environmental benefits, as more people abandon the car and coach, and instead use the well-priced high-speed trains. The popular and fast Lumo open access service between London, Newcastle and Edinburgh continues to eat into the aviation market and delivers a crucial modal shift from air to rail.
I welcome the fact that many colleagues wish to speak in this debate, and I make the point that the Office of Rail and Road has recently approved new long-distance open access services up to Stirling on the west coast main line, and between London Paddington and south Wales on the Great Western line. The Go-op application to run new open access services between Weston-super-Mare, Taunton and Swindon has also been approved. We need to speed up track access applications for operators, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) said, because they can take up to five years. That is another example of where the Government could boost their growth agenda. The last thing that is needed is more barriers to open access. Let us speed up the process and get Britain moving.
A recent survey conducted by Virgin showed that around two thirds of all passengers welcomed competition between train operators on price and quality. That is encouraging, and it shows how an independent regulator can deliver good decisions in the national interest. A key question for the Minister will be: is more open access to be encouraged and approved, and will an independent regulator retain powers over this critical area after GBR is established? If decisions on open access are subsumed into GBR and taken off the regulator, many of us will be concerned that the hand of civil servants and other rail planners who have been proven wrong in the past in their opposition to open access will stifle and weaken this valuable part of the railway sector. If GBR is to be genuinely at arm’s length of Whitehall, as Ministers pledge, the future of the regulator and open access will be a key test.
I look forward to Ministers’ working with me and colleagues across the House to encourage and deliver new open access inter-city services to northern Lincolnshire and destinations across the country.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this important debate on open access operators.
Rail transport in the north has suffered long-term neglect, with new plans left to gather dust. From George Osborne’s northern powerhouse speech in 2014 onwards, they have essentially been an unfunded wish list passed from one Government to the other. But under our new Government we have Great British Railways on the table, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how we will incorporate open access operators into our plans, because the north-south divide is real.
Total Treasury spending on rail in Yorkshire and the Humber last year was £1.25 billion, compared with £9.3 billion for London and £3.1 billion for the south-east. The current funding structure for transforming regional transport also makes it very difficult for areas such as the one that I represent in Scarborough and Whitby, incorporated into the York and North Yorkshire combined authority, to address the desperate lack of connectivity that exists. The main funding scheme that the Government inherited is the city region sustainable transport funding settlement, but combined authorities like ours do not qualify as they are not a city region. That funding gap has left York and North Yorkshire struggling to even plan a transport strategy. I hope that the Government will address that in the spending review.
Open access operators could step in to help. Coastal communities such as Scarborough have suffered for too long from poor rail services, and that has had a major impact on our economies. I have been campaigning for a half-hourly service between Scarborough and York, which would be taken for granted in other areas, but it seems an impossibility. The line was opened in July 1845. It took just one year and three days to complete the 45-mile route, but TransPennine Express, which now runs services on the line, today appears to have little of that urgency about it.
Scarborough is, of course, our first coastal seaside resort and is beautiful. We also have the North York Moors national park on our doorstep. The growth of staycations and holidays means there is real potential for visitors, as well as for the residents who are crying out for a better service. With the creation of Great British Railways, we have the chance to have one body responsible for the strategic direction of our railways, ensuring, as the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham said, that infrastructure and services work together and drive regional growth. I urge the Government to look at open access operators, because although they currently account for only 0.6% of total passenger journeys, they have massive potential to open up new routes, such as the Scarborough to London via York route. Look at the success of Hull Trains: in 1999 there was only one train a day between Hull and London, and now there are seven each weekday and six at weekends. As the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham said, new direct services are being approved and opened all the time.
I appreciate that there is a question whether open access services put extra pressure on network capacity and I look forward to the Minister’s response. However, unless we look at how we serve coastal communities such as mine, given the poor connections we will not move forward. If any operators are listening, I would love to see a direct service between Scarborough and London.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a really important point about coastal communities. Rural communities find themselves in a similar situation, where they may have lost a direct service. Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway has an excellent plan to run a direct-to-London service through Wrexham, Shropshire and the Midlands but it is taking an inordinately long amount of time for it to get through the Office of Rail and Road. Does the hon. Member agree that we need not just keen operators but to process their applications quickly, to give the people the service they deserve?
Alison Hume
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. She makes an important point about time. Time is of the essence as we strive to deliver better rail services. Perhaps we need a little of the spirit of the 19th century’s rail pioneers to fully connect coastal communities at last.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), for securing this important debate and for emphasising the national importance of open access. His point about Hull Trains and the opportunity it has given us is very powerful. I want to speak about our little local problem, to which he and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) alluded.
Originally, there were two trains every day going up and down to London via Lincoln and Market Rasen, ending up in Grimsby. That was then cut to one train and we were given a solemn promise that that train would never be taken away, but decades ago it was taken away. I have been campaigning for decades to get that service up and running again. We are talking about a catchment area of a quarter of a million people with no direct train to London. I cannot think of any other country in Europe that would have such a situation for huge conurbations like Grimsby and Cleethorpes and a place like Market Rasen—which is a small station but serves a vast rural area, perhaps 20 miles in every direction, going all the way to Louth. Yet every time we have been to see Ministers with campaigns, over many years, we get fobbed off with every single excuse. I cannot count the number of times we went to see the Transport Minister in the last Government; now I am boring this Minister instead, but I will go on boring him and we will go on making this point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham said, we were first fobbed off with the view that there was no capacity on the main line. Yet the Azuma train runs perfectly well to Lincoln and it would make no difference to capacity on the main line if that train carried on to Grimsby via Market Rasen, so that point does not hold. We made some progress eventually and I thought that we finally had a commitment that this train would happen. Indeed, we had a test run in June 2023. I was there—I saw it. Everything worked perfectly smoothly. The train arrived from Grimsby, there was no problem, we had our photograph taken, everybody was very happy, but we have still had no progress.
Now we have had this bolt from the blue: it is no longer the capacity point, but apparently we cannot have this train because the platform in Market Rasen is too short and there is no bridge. That is an absurd point. I go all over the country and I see trains stop at short platforms, and they announce, “Will you please go to the first four carriages because it’s a short platform?”
Then we got the excuse that if the Azuma train stopped at Market Rasen, it would somehow cover the pedestrian crossing, which is apparently unacceptable. Is somebody going to try to go across the railway line and climb underneath the train to get to it, stopped at the platform? It is ridiculous. I am not sure that it is even possible to climb underneath a train. Are people going to sprint down the track, leaving the platform altogether, to get round the back of the train? This is all just ludicrous. There is absolutely no reason why the train could not stop there, blocking the existing pedestrian access. Perhaps once in 100 years there might be some sort of injury; in fact I doubt whether there would ever be any injury. So, why are we stopping the whole service because, apparently, the existing pedestrian access could be blocked?
It is funny—the operators never give an explanation. They say, “Oh, we now have a problem with the disabled access and it must be in a certain part of the train.” But surely there are solutions. This is a sort of not-can-do attitude, which is driving the country crazy.
Whenever we write to bodies such as Network Rail, instead of their having the attitude of, “Let’s work together, let’s make this work,” once again we get fobbed off with ridiculous excuses and they never actually explain their actions. Then they say, “We have got to build a bridge.” All right, they build a bridge. Then they have come up with a ridiculous figure of £24 million. How could it cost £24 million to build a bridge? This is only a small country station with just one footbridge. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham campaigned for years for a bridge, did he not? And he got it for far less—£1 million, was it not?
Martin Vickers
My right hon. Friend will remember from the last Parliament that I campaigned for a footbridge over Suggitts Lane in Cleethorpes. Thankfully, I was supported by the then Prime Minister—Boris Johnson—who on one famous occasion at Prime Minister’s questions said:
“Suggitt’s Lane is never far from my thoughts”. —[Official Report, 23 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 963.]
I hope that the Market Rasen situation will not be far from the Minister’s thoughts.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. This is a serious issue. There is absolutely no reason why the great conurbation of Grimsby and Cleethorpes should not have a direct train to London, and there is no reason why the good people who live in the rural areas around Market Rasen should not have a direct train.
What has actually happened—one might argue that this is not really LNER’s fault—is that since we have had the Azuma train going directly from London to Lincoln, our indirect service has got worse. There are more delays and there is a reduced service. It really is hard work to get from that part of my constituency to London.
So, enough of excuses. We had a tremendous relationship with the Transport Minister in the last Government and we look forward to our relationship with this Minister in this Government. There is nothing party political about this matter. What we are doing—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham and I—is begging the Minister to please intervene to knock some heads together to get this train going and stopping. That is all we ask.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this Backbench Business debate and I thank our colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. Along with other colleagues here in Westminster Hall today, the hon. Gentleman has made such a good case for increasing open access services to his constituency and beyond.
In my contribution today, I will celebrate the successes of an open access agreement that benefits my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend. So, I am showing off a bit, but I make no excuse for doing so. First, however, I reaffirm my support for the Government’s legislative action on public ownership since taking office. I supported the overhaul of our broken rail system in the voting Lobby and I still support it today.
Open access was left out of the scope of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024. It is worth noting that in the year 2022-23, domestic open access passenger services accounted for only 0.6% of passenger journeys and 2.4% of passenger operator revenues. Throughout the legislative process, Ministers advised that they saw a continuing role for such arrangements where they add value and capacity to the network and, during a statement on railway performance in November, the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), cited FirstGroup’s Lumo as a successful example.
The Lumo service runs between Edinburgh and London via Newcastle. Of course, Members know that most trains running to and from King’s Cross on the east coast main line are operated by LNER. However, Arup estimates that at least £480 million of economic benefits have been realised since FirstGroup’s Lumo launched in 2021. Lumo has built capacity as a complementary service on a core route in the UK, running five services a day. It has given my constituents additional choice by increasing the number of trains to the capital, for instance adding a new option for travellers between Newcastle and London to leave before 6 am and arrive in London at about 8.30 am.
Open access arrangements, if done properly, should drive up the number of journeys on our rail and not abstract value from existing services. According to FirstGroup, Lumo has helped to generate 6.2 million additional journeys, with 3.9 million of those taking place on Lumo services. Overall usage of the east coast main line rose by 18% in the 12 months to September last year compared with the year 2018-19, including an 11% growth in the usage of LNER services.
Modal shift will play a critical role in our journey to net zero. Decarbonising the grid, which this Labour Government have taken firm action on, is a sizeable part of that journey. Encouraging behavioural change in the transport sector represents some of the other hard yards that we must cover.
I support the Secretary of State’s ambition to ensure the benefits provided by open access operators outweigh the impact they have on taxpayers, and to ensure the ability to operate the network efficiently. I have sought today to advocate for a successful example of open access, which has benefited my constituents and the broader region.
On that broader region, I thank FirstGroup for the investment of £500 million into new British-built trains by Hitachi at Newton Aycliffe and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on his part in securing that successful investment. I hope FirstGroup can gain approval from the regulator to serve more destinations, as that would lead to a £460 million follow-on order for new trains.
The most efficient use of our east coast main line is deeply important for me and all other north-east Members of Parliament. Growth and productivity in the north-east of England have been held back by our infrastructure. In closing, therefore, I seize this opportunity to lobby the Minister for the reopening of the Leamside line, which would be a game changer for the north-east, freeing up capacity for more LNER and Lumo trains to operate on our busy east coast main line.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. We have heard lively contributions from across the House, and underlying all of them is a simple truth: in the UK, open access rail operators have a clear track record of improving services, increasing access and driving economic growth.
However, the recent letter from the Secretary of State to the Office of Rail and Road makes it very clear that the future of open access services in this country is at risk. Although the Government’s position is just one of the issues that the ORR has a statutory duty to consider, the fact that the Government are asking the ORR to take a more cautious approach is clearly a concern. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s views on that point and any assurances that he can give.
Although the Secretary of State might have legitimate concerns regarding capacity and abstraction, I fear there is an ideological element to her intervention. The Government are in danger of being led by doctrine rather than facts. Again, an assurance would be gratefully received.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham, the record of three open access operators—Lumo, Grand Central and Hull Trains—competing against the Government-owned franchise LNER on the east coast main line has shown how competition for passengers drives down fares and drives up passenger numbers. Research has shown new open access operators competing on the same routes as incumbents typically offer fare reductions of 20% to 60% in the long term.
At a time when fares are sky high, competition helping to drive down costs for passengers should be encouraged, particularly when it is compensated for by a commensurate increase in passenger numbers to more than cover the revenue lost per customer. On the east coast main line, passenger numbers bounced back faster than in any other area after covid, due in no small part to the competition on that part of the network.
Open access is not only good for passengers, but good for the planet. Cheaper tickets and better access to services, since Lumo has been running services from London to Edinburgh, have meant that rail’s market share, compared with air travel, grew from 35% in 2019 to 57% in 2022.
That is not just a UK phenomenon. Unlike the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham, I am delighted to look to Europe for inspiration. In Italy, competition between the open access operator Italo Treno and the Italian state operator has driven a 90% increase in passenger numbers between Rome and Milan, while in Spain competition between Ouigo and Iryo on the Madrid-to-Valencia route has resulted in fares 50% lower than on routes with no competition. It is somewhat ironic that, while Europe is liberalising its railways and seeing positive results, we are potentially moving in the opposite direction.
Open access rail can also play a vital part in increasing services to many of our other underserved communities. As we have heard from the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Brigg and Immingham about Cleethorpes, from the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) about Skipton, and from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) about Scarborough, there are many towns and regions in this country where open access can make a real contribution to improving connectivity across the country. With an eye to revenue, private companies have found gaps in the timetable and delivered for residents where the Government have not.
As we have seen in this debate, any changes to open access arrangements by the Government are likely to provoke ire from their Back Bench colleagues in Hull, Sunderland and elsewhere. The hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and for Scarborough and Whitby know the value of open access, and I am sure they will keep the Minister’s mind concentrated on its importance.
The same will be true of MPs representing areas where open access is still in its infancy or gestation. In Somerset and Wiltshire, concerned residents are taking the lack of rail provision into their own hands, with the formation of Go-op, the first ever co-operatively owned railway operator, which plans to increase vital regional services in an often neglected area. Meanwhile, in north Wales, the proposed Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway will bring back direct services from London to Wrexham, helping to bring passengers and further growth to a town already on the up—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) noted, it has taken far too long to get through the bureaucracy and get the service approved.
While we will hear from the Minister about concerns regarding capacity on the network, there are definitely areas with capacity for a greater number of services. Take the channel tunnel, for example: the French owners of the tunnel, Getlink, have said that it was designed for double the capacity, and an application for a new open access operator on the line to compete with Eurostar is with the regulator. Introducing welcome competition on the line will help to grow international train services to and from the UK and to reduce ticket prices.
It is clear, therefore, that open access should have a part to play in the future of the rail network. While my party and I are agnostic regarding rail nationalisation, the Liberal Democrats firmly believe that the private sector should play a part where there are clear benefits for passengers. We should be led by evidence, which shows that open access operators have made a positive addition to the network, and that the regulator has been successful in addressing concerns about abstraction. The Government, in their upcoming Rail Reform Bill, must therefore ensure that a fully functioning, properly resourced regulator is maintained.
As we move to a model where 75% of rail activity is under public ownership, we must ensure that that near-monopoly does not crowd out others, such as freight and open access. Not only is maintaining a competitive element on the railway good for passengers, but it will help the Government to guarantee that GBR is delivering the best outcomes, and—of course—grow the economy.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck, especially because it is my first speech from the Front Bench. I am told that you never forget your first time, but I do hope the Minister is gentle on me.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) for securing this debate. He has been a strong advocate for open access rail services, and I welcome his contributions today. He rightly highlights the importance of these services to regions across the country. I am told that in 2013 he was among a group of MPs who wrote to the Office of Rail and Road in support of expanding long-distance open access services. While I think we would all agree that more progress would have been welcome, it remains vital that Members like my hon. Friend across the House ensure that regulators are doing everything they can to encourage competition.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of open access intercity train competition on the east coast main line, connecting London, the north-east and Scotland. The benefits are clear: lower fares, more choices, more routes, increased innovation and higher passenger satisfaction. This proven model should be used as a blueprint in shaping Great British Railways and the upcoming railways Bill. It remains frustrating that, despite its success, the model has not been replicated on other intercity main lines.
As a Conservative, I value competition. When opportunities arise to introduce it into our transportation systems, we should take them. The evidence is clear: open access services create new travel opportunities, especially for underserved or more rural communities, such as my Farnham and Bordon constituency. These services support economic growth and encourage a shift to greener transport. That is why it is encouraging that new services were approved in 2024, including two entirely new routes on the west coast main line and the great western main line, along with eight approvals for smaller-scale improvements.
Recently, the Prime Minister and the Transport Secretary visited the Hitachi factory in Newton Aycliffe to celebrate FirstGroup’s £500 million order for 14 new Class 80X units, which will be a key part of their open access plans. Those units will operate on Lumo’s east coast main line services, as passionately described by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), and on the newly secured London Paddington to Carmarthen service, launching in December 2027. Crucially, the expansion of services means more British train orders, boosting domestic industry. I urge the Minister and his Department to continue supporting further applications to sustain that investment.
A regulatory framework that supports the sector’s investing in UK-built rolling stock and improving passenger services ultimately benefits both fare-paying passengers and the wider economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) mentioned. The Government must ensure that they facilitate services that serve the public interest. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I will also focus on a couple of local issues—he has said that he bores on, but if anyone has the right to bore on, it is the Father of the House, and long may he continue to do so.
Southwestern Railway has been chosen as the first service to be nationalised this year, but the Government remain unclear about the impact that will have on open access services. My constituents in Farnham and Bordon rely on regular and reliable trains from Farnham, Liphook, and Haslemere stations to commute into London. As it stands, those services are frequently disrupted by strike action from the Labour party’s largest donors. While the fate of Southwestern Railway may be sealed, the potential Guildford to Heathrow terminal five connection, which would greatly benefit my constituents travelling to the airport, is under threat if open access services are restricted. I hope the Minister can reassure my constituents that nationalisation will not stifle open access operators, which play an important part in filling gaps in the delivery of rail services.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham said, the Minister’s own Wakefield constituency benefits from popular open access intercity services, which have led to lower fares, greater choice, and better connectivity with London and the wider region. Furthermore, the open access operator at Wakefield has invested in station facilities. Despite that, the Government’s overall approach to rail has marched towards centralisation and nationalisation. While the merits of that direction are a debate for another time, it is worth noting that the Government, both before and after the election, have recognised the value of open access services. The key question is whether that recognition will translate into tangible support for expansion.
In September 2024, the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) clearly stated in a written statement to the House:
“Open access operators have a proven track record in driving competition and better passenger outcomes, and where there is a case that open access operators can add value and capacity to the network, they will be able to.”
Does that position still hold with the new Secretary of State and her Ministers? A clear reaffirmation would provide much-needed confidence to the businesses ready to invest.
Open access operators not only add financial value but improve accessibility and convenience. In my own constituency, there is a strong case for reopening the Bordon line and the station, or at least for a rail-bus link from Bordon to Liphook to enhance connectivity and increase train usage. We should remain open to innovative transport solutions that improve infrastructure just as we do with open access. However, despite positive statements in the past, the Secretary of State’s letter to the ORR in January raised concerns, signalling a shift in tone from the earlier commitments. Furthermore, some troubling rhetoric has emerged.
Last year, a rail union leader described open access firms as parasitical during testimony to the Transport Committee. The RMT has also explicitly campaigned for Great British Railways to absorb open access operations and rail freight. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), in her usual BAFTA-nominated style, referred to the spirit of the 17th century, but the danger with these unions is that they will take us back to the 1970s, and I am sure none of us wants to go there. Given the Government’s previous concessions to the rail unions, it is fair to question whether open access services could be curtailed in future negotiations. Can the Minister assure us that these services will not be sacrificed in such discussions?
Another concern is that while the UK seems to be moving towards greater state control, as has been mentioned, Europe is heading in the opposite direction, embracing private sector involvement in rail. A European Commission report published in September last year highlighted that open access competition led to a 31% reduction in ticket prices in Italy and a 41% increase in service frequency in Austria. The report’s conclusion was clear that open access competition,
“across a variety of different cases, both decreased ticket prices and improved the quality of the service as compared to the situation prior to the start of competition.”
The Government have now raised concerns about the impact of open access on overall rail revenue, as we heard mention of today. However, the ORR has conducted thorough cost-benefit analyses, including cost consultations, on the monetised impacts. If the new Secretary of State is questioning these findings, is it because the Government believe that the ORR has made errors in awarding the contracts, or is this part of a broader policy shift?
The future and independence of the regulator is critical. Under plans for Great British Railways, will the ORR retain its authority over open access applications? Any move to transfer these decisions to Great British Railways or to the Department would undermine transparency, accountability, and independence, and the Opposition would strongly oppose such a change. The Government’s position, I am afraid, remains unclear. Are they a genuine supporter of open access operators, or do they merely tolerate them as a costly inconvenience? We need clarity.
With the ORR currently considering 13 applications, can the Minister confirm whether new guidance is forthcoming? More importantly, can he reassure the sector that any new guidance will not obstruct the growth of successful rail businesses that offer more choice and lower fares for passengers? The Government face a choice: embrace the benefits of competition and build on a proven success story, or retreat into centralisation at the expense of passengers. I urge Ministers to choose the former.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is an absolute pleasure to see a fellow sand dancer in the Chair today, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) on securing this debate on open access—a matter of importance to many in this House and their constituents. I also welcome the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) to his place on the Opposition Front Bench. I look forward to our sparring in future debates.
Open access can open up new markets. We only need to look at Hull Trains, where the private sector identified opportunities that the Government had missed, to see how open access can benefit passengers and grow the market. However, it is also true that parts of our rail network are growing increasingly congested and, although open access operators can generate new income from the network, they can also abstract revenue from existing operators, including those funded by the taxpayer. We therefore need to ensure that there is a balance when we consider new open access applications. The Secretary of State was clear about that when she wrote to the Office of Rail and Road on 6 January.
Some Members have raised concerns over the Secretary of State’s letter, so let me be clear: the letter did not signal that the door had been closed on open access. Indeed, the letter makes it clear that there remains a role for open access, but new applications will have to demonstrate that their benefits are sufficient to justify any money they abstract from Government-funded services or the negative impact that they could have on publicly funded infrastructure projects. They must also demonstrate that they will not damage performance by increasing the complexity of the running of the network. I am aware also that the Secretary of State’s letter caused some concern with freight operators, so let me again be clear that the letter related only to passenger open access.
The benefits of open access to passengers on the east coast main line have been highlighted by hon. Members. I have already mentioned Hull Trains, but it would be remiss of me not to mention both Grand Central and Lumo, which also run on the east coast main line. Both those operators have increased choice for passengers. For example, Lumo now offers choice between short-haul flights and rail with its fast services between London and Edinburgh.
Open access services will increase choice and provide benefits for passengers on other parts of the network. Services have already been approved to operate from London to Stirling on the west coast main line from later in 2025, and between London and Carmarthen from 2027. We are also aware of, and considering, a range of new applications that have been submitted by open access operators. These include proposals on the east coast main line and also more broadly across the country, including on the west coast main line. Whether these applications are successful is currently a matter for the Office of Rail and Road in its role as an independent regulator. Alongside a range of other stakeholders, the Department will provide views. The Office of Rail and Road will consider them alongside its statutory duties and will make decisions in due course.
Both open access operators and the operators contracted by the Department deliver services to passengers, but there are key differences. Open access operators are not bound by public service obligations. Whereas an operator delivering services for the Department will be required to serve all stations on a particular route, an open access operator can choose which stations to serve. For that reason, it is not possible to simply replace the Department’s operators with open access operators. Were we to try to do so, we would risk depriving certain communities of any rail service at all.
Although constrained to a degree by the availability and capacity on the network, the lack of public service obligations means that open access operators can design their timetables to maximise commercial opportunities. That means that open access operators can choose within wider operational constraints what time they wish to run their trains and at which stations their trains will stop. That freedom means that they can be more challenging for Network Rail in setting the timetable. We have seen delays in agreeing the timetable for the east coast main line precisely because there were so many competing demands, including open access operations.
It is not just timetabling that is more complex. When Network Rail wants to undertake engineering works, it needs to ensure that the views of all operators are factored in. Obviously, where there are multiple operators with different operating models—for example, there are those with a greater focus on weekend and leisure travel rather than commuting—Network Rail will find it harder to keep everybody happy. That can reduce efficiency and increase journey costs, as Network Rail may have to close the network over a number of weekends and nights, rather than for a single block, to ensure that all operators are treated fairly.
I have talked about possible operational challenges. I want to be clear: we expect, as does the regulator, that Network Rail will make all efforts to manage the network in the most efficient manner and in a way that will accommodate the optimum number of Government-funded services. Although open access operators can drive new revenue to Government-funded services, they can also abstract revenue. The Office of Rail and Road recognises this through its “not primarily abstractive” test. The test is not binary and failing it does not mean that open access operators will not get access to the network, but it does highlight the potential impact on the taxpayer.
We have a responsibility to the taxpayer to move the railways on to a financially sustainable footing. Therefore, if we see applications that will abstract a significant amount from the Government’s operators, we need to carefully consider whether, when providing the Government’s view, we can support the application. Where there are wider socioeconomic benefits that arise from open access applications, we will, when we provide our views to the Office of Rail and Road, balance these against the abstraction, but we have to be honest about the financial pressures the railways face and factor them into our considerations.
I appreciate that I have just talked at length about the challenges that open access can create as well as the benefits it can bring. I highlight the challenges not to say that open access is bad—there can be real benefits—but as a Government, we need to be mindful of the full implications of each new open access application.
People have said that the move to public ownership means that the Government will seek to take open access off the network. I can categorically say that we have no intention to remove open access operators from the network. We were clear during the passage of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 that it only applied to operators contracted by the Government. I know that there has been speculation that we would look to bring open access operators into public ownership when their existing rights expire. Again, I reiterate that that is not our intention. Regarding our future plans for access to the network, we intend to bring forward a consultation on our proposed railways Bill shortly. That will provide Members with the opportunity to review, consider and respond to our proposals. I cannot pre-empt the consultation, and ask for Members’ understanding in this matter.
I will now address some of the specific issues raised by Members today. We have talked about the complexity of timetable challenges. Obviously, open access can and does make that a little bit more complex and challenging at times. Regarding passenger growth on the east coast main line, although open access operators have opened up markets on that line, they are by no means the sole reason for passenger growth. The Department has invested heavily in infrastructure, leading to improvements in resilience and reliability, and has taken the lead on fare trials on LNER to simplify the passenger offer. Underpinning all that is the fact that demand was already present on the east coast main line, even before the intervention of either Government or open access operators. On charges, open access operators pay variable access charges, but do not fully cover the costs of fixed- track access charges towards long-term maintenance of the network.
International comparisons were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). Although there are examples of open access competing with state-backed operators to offer choice to passengers in Europe, it needs to be noted that there are many differences between the British network and the rail networks in other countries. That makes it really difficult to make direct comparisons. For example, some countries operate completely separate rail networks for inner city and local services, creating a totally different environment for comparison than that here in Britain.
In terms of additional services in her constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) talked about the potential for open access to step in. We are clear that where there are gaps and it can be accommodated, we will consider that positively. GBR will look at the entire network to ensure it is used as fully as possible.
I am sure the Rail Minister will have heard the message from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) on the Leamside line. If not, I will make sure that I mention it to him. I thank her for her enthusiasm for public ownership and GBR. GBR will ensure the highest level of customer standards and operational performance as a directing mind for our railways. It will have a relentless focus on delivering for our passengers and, crucially, for freight as well.
Some Members raised, quite rightly, the speed at which the ORR is making decisions. We recognise that it can take too long for decisions to be made by the ORR, and we are working with operators, including open access and Network Rail, and the regulator to improve that. I believe it was the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who raised new services for Cleethorpes and Grimsby. We are working with industry to understand the timetabling, financial, operational and infrastructure issues that need to be resolved. I recognise the frustration, but we are actively considering what can be done.
Open access plays an important role on the network and it will continue to play an important role on the network. We look forward to considering and providing our views on new applications and to our continued work with open access operators. However, we must and will balance the benefits of new applications with the impacts that they have on both the taxpayer and the operational efficiency of the network, in line with the letter that the Secretary of State sent to the regulator. I am incredibly grateful to all hon. Members here for their contributions. They have given us further food for thought and a useful insight into the benefits of open access to their constituents.
Martin Vickers
I thank all the hon. Members who have taken part in what has been a very worthwhile debate. This is the shadow Minister’s first time on the Front Bench, and I am sure he will go far. I emphasise that the demand for a direct service to Grimsby and Cleethorpes also has widespread support in the business sector. The Hull and Humber chamber of commerce did a survey some time ago and there is overwhelming interest.
The Minister mentioned the problems with abstraction from the main operator, and that was one of the reasons the Grand Central Rail application was turned down eight to 10 years ago. He talked about the impact on the taxpayer of the subsidy, but with LNER the subsidy is going down at the same time that there is greater competition, so I urge him to bear that in mind. It is, as I say, an easy win for the Government’s economic growth strategy.
I thank everyone for their presence. I will now rush off to King’s Cross to catch the train, but unfortunately I will have to change at Doncaster. The one advantage of changing at Doncaster—a station I know very well—is that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and I often exchange interesting gossip about life at Westminster there.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered open access operators for rail services.