Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

That is exactly what they said, and that is exactly what I said, too. As I said, we are seeing not only £1.6 million this year, but £1.6 million next year, and almost £8 million on top of that, but that is to ignore the huge amount—half a billion pounds—of city region sustainable transport settlement funding going to South Yorkshire for this period, which will almost triple for the next period, too. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady can shout at me from a sedentary position, but the truth is that she is just adopting our new position. It is not really opposition anymore; it is just “adopt the Government’s position”, including on HS2.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

When do Ministers anticipate being able to give LNER the go-ahead to extend the King’s Cross-Lincoln services through to Cleethorpes?

[Mr Harper]

I am afraid I will have to give my hon. Friend the answer that Ministers often have to give, which is that I hope to make an announcement shortly. I also hope that when an announcement is made, he will be able to welcome it.

Zero-emission Vehicles, Drivers and HS2

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

It was not deleted from the Network North document. The Network North document that was published on the website has not changed, so— [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) keeps going on about illustrative stuff. As I have said, £12 billion of the £36 billion was allocated to combined authority Mayors, so what it gets spent on is ultimately their decision. I know that that is a priority for the north-east, so it is one of the things on which we are working with them on a business case.

I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) are both campaigning—it is always good when these things are done on a cross-party basis. I know that this is a priority for a region. The money is now there to pay for it, which was not the case before we took the decision to cancel the second phase of HS2. These things are only now able to happen because we took that decision. If the Opposition decide that they want to campaign to build the second phase of HS2, things such as the Leamside line will not happen.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

If the seaside resorts, industrial towns and rural villages of Lincolnshire are to expand their economies, it is essential that the road network be improved. The A15, A16 and A46 are just three examples. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that some of the redirected £36 billion will head towards Lincolnshire, and will he arrange for me and neighbouring colleagues to meet the Minister with responsibility for roads to discuss future plans?

[Mr Harper]

I would be very pleased for the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), to meet my hon. Friend and colleagues. Yes, there is money going to all local authorities to address the quality of their local roads. A number of road schemes, including the major road network and large local majors programmes, were funded in partnership between the Department and local authorities, but we are now able to pay all the costs to bring them to fruition more quickly. On specific local schemes, I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and local colleagues to talk them through that in more detail.

High Speed 2

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Holden]

Ministers will continue to keep the House updated regularly regarding HS2, as they have done to date. As we all know, the first stages are set to be completed by 2033, linking London with Birmingham.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

As a member of the Bill Committee, I have had the good fortune to visit a number of sites involved in the construction of HS2, so I appreciate what a major project it is and how many people are involved. Companies up and down the country are reliant on the project for the continuation of their business. The future of hundreds of jobs and businesses depends on it. Can the Minister give an assurance that that will be taken into full consideration in discussions with the Treasury?

[Mr Holden]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There are thousands of people working on site at the moment, with more than 350 construction sites up and down the country, and companies will be updated. Even from today this project will last well into the 2030s, if not beyond, so those construction jobs will be secure for a long time.

Railway Ticket Offices

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I am fortunate to have 10 railway stations in my constituency, but only one, Cleethorpes, currently has a ticket office. TransPennine, which manages Cleethorpes station along with neighbouring Grimsby Town station, has issued the following statement:

“If a customer specifically needs station staff assistance to access rail services, by providing help through the station, then outside station staffing times, alternative transport to the nearest accessible station or to their destination will be provided”.

That is complete madness. Not all journeys are planned: an elderly lady might receive a call at 4 o’clock in the afternoon from her daughter saying, “My husband’s gone into hospital and I need your help,” or some other scenario. How is that lady to get a ticket, arrange a journey and somehow get TransPennine to provide a taxi or—the dreaded words—a replacement bus service? This is nonsense. How is it going to apply?

Considering that TransPennine and other railway companies are subsidised by the taxpayer, who is actually going to pay for the taxi driver or the ticket? Is the taxi driver going to collect money on behalf of TransPennine? Is it ever going to reach the company? The whole thing is a nonsense. Grimsby Town station, which is used by many Cleethorpes residents, had its ticket office modernised a few years ago in partnership with North East Lincolnshire Council. Public money was used to modernise the ticket office, which is now proposed for closure.

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for rail, I can tell the Minister that the officers of the group have met and are unanimously opposed to this. It is madness. Stop it now.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

I thank colleagues for their co-operation while we got through so many speeches.

Scunthorpe Station Ticket Office

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

My hon. Friend is spot on in his observation. I am also concerned about the impact that the closures could have on disabled people, and that issue has been raised with me by disabled members of my community in Scunthorpe.

According to the UK consumer digital index from Lloyds bank, people with a disability are 35% less likely to have digital skills for life, meaning that in the absence of a ticket office they may be left at a disadvantage. It is just not acceptable that we would make it harder for disabled people to travel around the country.

On top of the difficulty in accessing tickets, the reduction in staffing time is of huge concern. In relation to disabled members of the community and passengers who need extra help, customers with hearing impairments, for example, may find it difficult to obtain information if staffing hours are reduced, particularly if they rely on lip reading. The screens that have the information up for the trains do not always work.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I can give my hon. Friend a practical example. I used Scunthorpe station last Thursday after attending an event just outside the town. The ticket office was closed. I checked train times before, and everything was running. I got on to the platform, the information board was not working and no train turned up at the due time. People were left scratching their heads, trying to find out the information from their phones. The information has to be readily available for all people, including blind people and the disabled, and I fully support my hon. Friend in her efforts to keep the ticket office open.

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which we did not even set up.

Ticket machines are, of course, not infallible. They can break, and can take a while to be replaced or repaired. It will simply be more difficult for some passengers to get the best deal possible without having a person there to speak to. I am also concerned about having waiting rooms open without staff supervision, which may make them a magnet for antisocial behaviour—something that we work really hard in Scunthorpe to tackle. We do not want to invite that.

I am not alone in making these objections; they are shared widely by residents in Scunthorpe. Ahead of the debate, and immediately after the proposals were announced, I reached out to my constituents on this issue. We are not backward in coming forward in Scunthorpe, and my constituents have been very clear what their views are. Of the respondents to the survey, an overwhelming 95%—these are broadly people who use the station; we have recorded that information—did not support the closure of the ticket office and the changes to staffing hours.

One of the key issues that respondents highlighted was the importance of recognising the impact that the sole use of ticket machines or online purchase would have on elderly or disabled people. Respondents pointed out that some people might not be able to use the ticket machines or purchase online without assistance, with 37% highlighting customer service. Many stated quite simply that they prefer a face-to-face service and the ability to ask for advice on the quickest routes and make other general inquiries, regardless of what time they are at the station.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

My hon. Friend has made some good points today, including about the design process. I encourage hon. Members to continue to come up with the examples of where things need to work better. Ninety-nine per cent of all tickets are available from ticket machines or online, but that means that 1% are not. I am working at pace to increase that number. My hon. Friend is right about the whereabouts and location of staff; they need to be there so that passengers can buy the ticket and then access the barriers. We will follow that through, and I encourage him also to continue to come up with examples.

Some operators are proposing changes to staffed hours at stations, such as TransPennine’s proposal for Scunthorpe station, as mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe and for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe). TransPennine has told me that it is clear in its consultation that all currently staffed stations will remain staffed, but I take the point about the hours. I reiterate to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe the point about the consultation process and the appeals process, should an appeal need to be made.

[Martin Vickers]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I have stirred my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes from his place.

[Martin Vickers]

If we take at face value what the train companies are saying—that this is an effort to save money—and they are moving staff out of the ticket office on to the platform, is the Minister reassured by them that there will be a saving?

[Huw Merriman]

There will of course be some members of staff who will not wish to make that journey, as their job changes to being multi-skilled and multifaceted within the station as opposed to solely working behind the ticket office. In such cases, where there are a number of ticket office staff available, perhaps one may come out and do that multifaceted role, but the other two may not wish to go on that journey. That may be an issue for them and the station. I recognise, though, that Members have highlighted the challenge of situations in which only one staff member is present and perhaps the hours are not exactly the same. I refer again to the live consultation: that should be fed back. People will be aware of the appeals process because I have just detailed it, and we will of course see what occurs at the end of the process.

I hope I am not repeating myself when I say that passengers will remain able to secure staff assistance and will continue to have access to station facilities such as waiting rooms and toilets as currently provided.

Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered progress on delivering the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. Reform of our railways has long been a contentious issue. There are countless opinions on the best way to run the rail system—from 100% nationalisation to 100% privatisation, with a plethora of views in between—but one thing the House can agree on is that rail is a good thing. Passenger rail can unlock economic growth across Britain’s regions; it connects communities, and is the greenest form of public transport. There is an ambitious growth target to treble rail freight by 2050, which will deliver huge economic and environmental benefits to Britain. The rail sector is a force for good. It ought to be obvious to anyone that we need more of it, not less.

We can also agree that the status quo is not working. We have an unhappy halfway house between privatisation and nationalisation, which clearly is not working as intended. Across much of our rail network, fares are high, services are poor and passengers are unhappy.

Some elements do work well. One example is open access: on the east coast main line, a public sector operator is competing with private sector open access operators on full revenue risk, which are able to make the best offering to the customer. That has boosted competition, lowered fares, increased the quality of services and created greater innovation. Operators on the east coast main line have recovered beyond pre-pandemic levels, proving that competition, not over-centralisation, is in the customer’s best interests. If we had open access across the network, I am confident that we would be in a much stronger position.

However, open access alone is not a silver bullet that will solve all the problems. Unfortunately, as the Secretary of State for Transport illustrated in his Bradshaw address in February, Britain’s railways operate on

“a broken model…unable to adapt to customer needs and financially unsustainable.”

That is sadly true. The modelling produced during the pandemic was appropriate in a crisis, but is now stalling recovery and pleasing no one. The key to creating a successful railway is correctly diagnosing the problems that the industry currently faces, and prescribing the right solution.

Opposition Members would attribute the woes that the railway faces to the fact that it is not entirely in public ownership. However, that is simply not the case. A perfect storm of factors has converged to create the levels of turbulence that we have become used to. The pandemic disrupted long-established travel patterns, causing passenger numbers to drop as low as 4% at one time. In 2023, they have recovered to around 90% of pre-pandemic levels. However, revenue levels are at around 85% of pre-pandemic levels, with costs fixed at 100%. That is financially unsustainable and needs to be changed.

The temporary contracts introduced during the pandemic are blunting operators’ abilities to attract passengers back, with such contracts making the railway effectively quasi-nationalised, with operators’ hands tied. The Department for Transport has never been so involved in the running of the railways, not even in the British Rail days. The operator of last resort now commands four former franchises, as well as a rolling stock company. Those services are afforded significant freedoms in comparison with normal franchises, and they compete with open-access operators on full revenue risk.

Then there are the Department for Transport-contracted operators, which are on a quasi-nationalised contract with their hands tied and must look to DFT officials to get the most basic things approved. There is also an unacceptable lack of transparency around OLR funding, which ensures that organisations are not operating on a level playing field. The OLR has stated that it

“maintains constant readiness to take responsibility for other train companies…as required”,

but we must implement the reforms required to ensure that that is not necessary. The last thing we need is nationalisation by stealth.

I reiterate that we have a broken rail model with unsustainable finances and restrictive contracts. Further to that, we have industrial action on certain routes, with the public left feeling frustrated and rightly demanding improvement. What is to be done? The nationalised models are supposedly a panacea, where high-quality trains run at cost price for the greater good, never cancelled or delayed, and tying together communities that would otherwise rely on gas-guzzling cars to keep connected.

So we are told, but the reality is the opposite. Bean counters at the Treasury keep a hawkish eye on operations. Their chief concern is the revenue produced by the network. At the first sign of difficulty, revenue has flatlined at around 85% of pre-pandemic levels. Remember: they order the Department for Transport to make savings. They, in turn, have little option but to cut services, staff and customer benefits. This further reduces revenue, compounding the problem, which then spirals out of control. If hon. Members do not believe me, they need only look at a real-world example, not from some far-flung socialist country but from here in the UK. What was the result of British Rail’s reign over our railways? Huge operating deficits, lines starved of investment, and dire need of modernisation, culminating in the Beeching cuts of the 1960s. I fully accept that privatisation is not entirely perfect, but I will not take lectures from the Opposition about the fairy tale of nationalisation.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

The other thing everybody hated about British Rail was that it was monumentally disliked by its staff. Staff morale was at rock bottom and industrial relations were not great. It was not a worker’s paradise either, even while it was awful for customers.

[Martin Vickers]

I entirely agree.

I concede that even under the current system, the separation of cost and revenue across two departments creates perverse incentives. No business that wanted to grow would structure itself in that way. Only with major reform can we break a cycle of decline.

I hope we can agree that the solution will utilise a public-private partnership to bring train and track back together and provide strategic leadership of the railways. The Conservatives, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have all identified the need for a body to oversee track and train, and the rail industry has long called for a guiding mind to co-ordinate the network. That is why the Government are creating Great British Railways, which will be responsible for both track and train, as well as revenue and cost.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend’s analysis of what the Government are creating is correct, in that it would be very good if Great British Railways were to be the guiding mind. The trouble is that it looks as though there will be centralised control of the system, driving out private sector initiative, driving out investment and underpinning the underperformance of Network Rail, to which at least 78% of the current delays on our railways are directly attributable.

[Martin Vickers]

My hon. Friend the former Minister identifies some of the downsides, although, as I mentioned earlier, there is no perfect solution. My next sentence was going to be that creating a big, monolithic public body will not solve all the problems unless there is a mix of public and private working together. The private sector has more than doubled passenger numbers in the past two decades, has increased services by more than a third since 1997, and has increased jobs by 27% since 2011. The private sector must have a role.

I recognise that the private sector has not got it all right. There are significant concerns today around particular services linked to industrial action and rest-day working agreements. I was a keen advocate for TransPennine Express to lose its franchise and for the service to be taken under the wing of the OLR until a new private operator could be found. But colleagues across the House must look to pragmatic solutions to fix the railways, with the private and public sector working together. We need to create a market in which the private sector can deliver for customers. We need to let customer-facing operators act in the interests of the customer, not constantly seek permission from the centre. That is not an ideological argument, but one based on reality: command and control from the centre is not helping the sector to bounce back after the pandemic. If we get the balance right, a public-private partnership will enable operators to deliver for customers.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rail, I hear from all manner of stakeholders in the rail sector, including operators, trade associations, those involved in the supply chains, community action groups, industry journalists and, of course, passengers. It is clear that the vast majority agree that legislation is required to make the public body a legal entity and give it the powers necessary to be truly effective. In November 2019, the all-party group published a report, “Rail Reform: A Guiding Mind”, which called for a similar body. The report was presented to the then Rail Minister. I recognise that the next parliamentary Session will be tight, but a Bill to establish GBR would be relatively thin and ought not to be controversial. I urge the Minister to lobby within his Department to ensure that a Bill appears in the King’s Speech.

Having said that, and without wanting to give the Minister the impression that anything other than a Bill is the preferable way of underpinning the long-term success of the railways, some important reforms can be done in the meantime without legislation. The national rail contracts are one of the last vestiges of the pandemic. They were right in a crisis, but now they need to evolve to provide operators with more flexibility to use their commercial nous and attract customers back. That would restore some financial sustainability and allow the Government to spend more on other priorities.

The independent economic expert body Oxera estimates that the Treasury is missing out on as much as £1.6 billion over two years because of restrictive contracts for operators. That reduces operators’ ability to drive the recovery of passenger numbers. Money is also being lost through the lack of ticket checks on board. Many commuters will be aware of journeys on which their tickets are checked once in a blue moon. That means they could travel for free, knowing that if they did happen to be caught, the savings they would have built up would vastly outweigh any fines they might have to pay. However, at present there is no incentive for rail operators to ensure the collection of fares.

Beyond reforms to the current National Rail contracts, we must look ahead to the end state, as envisioned by Keith Williams, and the passenger service contract, which must be flexible enough to reflect the varying rail market. The public instinctively understand that when they book a flight earlier, the ticket should be cheaper than if they were buying it closer to when they travel. That approach needs to apply to longer-distance rail journeys.

For shorter commuter journeys, we need to introduce more turn-up-and-go services with tap-in, tap-out technology and some degree of flexibility for operators to entice customers on quieter days. I was delighted that in the George Bradshaw address, the Secretary of State signalled that this anti-one-size-fits-all approach is being adopted for future contracts. As a key principle, the future passenger service contracts should be developed to reflect the geography and markets that they serve. They should incentivise operators to use all their creativity and capability to deliver the best possible outcomes for taxpayers by growing revenues and reducing costs.

The Government also need to drive forward fares reform, which the public rightly and understandably care greatly about. Why has it been 18 months since the Government announced the tender for the consolidated online retail solution to deliver radical and long-awaited fares reform? Can we get on and start the tender process? As the Minister knows, it does not need legislation. The prior information notice for CORS was published in December 2021.

The Government have announced one measure relating to fares: a single-leg pricing trial extension on LNER. That is something that should be rolled out more widely to private sector operators. The use of single-leg pricing removes the anomaly of some single tickets being almost as expensive as a return ticket. It means passengers can more easily choose when to travel in the knowledge that the fare offers value for money. For example, if someone commutes in at peak-time in the morning, but then attends an event after work and comes back off-peak, why should they pay for a peak-time return? This is a good step forward that ought to be utilised more widely.

Moving on to freight, I had the pleasure of hosting a cross-party parliamentary reception on this issue in March. Freight makes sense for the environment and the economy. The longest freight trains can ease road congestion by removing up to 129 heavy goods vehicles from the road. If the Government set an ambitious target to treble rail freight by 2050, the sector would deliver nearly £5.2 billion in economic benefits as a minimum. The freight sector would flourish by setting a supportive policy environment and also by opening the east-west freight corridor, which, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, would be beneficial to industry and the development of the Humber freeport, and would take a significant number of HGVs off the M62.

I want to highlight the Luxembourg rail protocol, which is making progress internationally and is expected to come into force towards the end of the year. However, the UK is yet to ratify it. There has been extensive engagement with the DFT and the Great British Railways transition team, with the DFT including it as part of a consultation last year. Will the Minister confirm today the Government’s position on the protocol? Is he still supportive in principle, and when will the Department issue a response to the consultation? Is there a particular legislative vehicle envisaged to see it implemented? Those involved in the protocol from the UK perspective would appreciate clarification.

The rail model is broken, and both legislative and non-legislative reform is crucial. Misdiagnosing the problem will not make it any better; it will make it worse. Over-centralisation is not in the interests of passengers, the economy or the environment. All parties have identified the need for a public body, but it is important to get the design right and ensure that the private sector is allowed to do what it does best with the package of reform I have outlined today. Along with much-needed changes to ticketing and fares, the Government can deliver rapid and much-needed improvements for passengers, trade customers and the taxpayer.

I know the Minister would be disappointed if I did not raise a couple of local issues, which I have spoken to him about on many occasions. One such issue is the return of the direct train service from Cleethorpes to London King’s Cross. Perhaps he could update us on that. Another issue, which I have not raised with him previously, but perhaps he could look into for me, is that for the past 30 years there has been a Saturday-only train from Sheffield via Gainsborough and Brigg to Cleethorpes, with three trains each way. A few weeks ago, Northern announced that it would make that a daily service, which on the face of it is welcome, but it appears to be more for the convenience of the operator than the passengers, because the one train to Cleethorpes arrives at 11.14 am and the return train is at 1.20 pm. An hour and a half in Cleethorpes is simply not good enough; people need at least a week there to enjoy all the facilities. More seriously, one train arriving mid-morning with a return train at, say, 6 pm would be sensible, but allowing people 90 minutes in Cleethorpes or Grimsby is not ideal if they want to do some shopping.

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I will move to the wind-ups at 5.9 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Vickers]

I think it is fair to say that it has been a lively debate, with contributions from many colleagues. That shows how rail issues always arouse the passions of hon. Members. In contributing, they highlight the interests of their constituents. It has been a helpful debate. I thank the Minister for his response, which I think continues the debate. I hope that as we move forward, the guiding mind, which of course is the Minister, will produce some results.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered progress on delivering the Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 8th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

I do not agree at all. The Secretary of State was quite clear in his Bradshaw talk that Great British Railways would be put forward. It is being put forward, and that Bradshaw address was endorsed by the Treasury and all parts of Government. We are absolutely committed. Later today I will have a discussion with all the team involved in rail reform, as I do on a weekly basis, as we look to transition this project from the Department to Great British Railways. Legislation delivers certain parts of it, but it does not deliver the project. We are delivering the project, and we will look to deliver the legislation when time allows it.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be delighted if rail companies, some of which take a rather lax approach to ticket inspection, ensured that passengers had a valid ticket. I can give an example. I, along with seven other members of the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill Select Committee, went to Manchester on Tuesday. We paid an extortionate amount for our tickets. On the outward journey, no one inspected the tickets, nor did we pass through any barriers. If the Chancellor had more money, he could use it to improve rail services.

Rail Services

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman rightly speaks up for his constituents. I remember how, when we announced the levelling-up fund bid for the connection between Cardiff Central and Cardiff Bay, he welcomed that on behalf of his constituents and the city he represents. Either I or the rail Minister will be pleased to meet him to discuss what more we can do to deliver services. I am keen that we deliver improved rail services across the whole of the United Kingdom, and we will do what we can to help.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision. To have renewed the franchise would have been to reward failure. Over the last 18 months, the TransPennine service between Cleethorpes and Manchester could be said on a good day to be unreliable and, on a bad day, totally appalling. I very much agree with him that now is the time for the unions to step forward. Let us get round the table and reach agreement on rest-day working so that my constituents can have a proper hourly service between Cleethorpes and Manchester, which is what TransPennine should have been providing for the last 18 months.

[Mr Harper]

I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Again, he is a colleague who has been raising these issues on a regular basis. It is important to recognise that this is an opportunity for people to respond accordingly. He referred to the opportunity for the unions to agree a new rest-day working contract. What is disappointing is the cynical way in which they behaved. ASLEF agreed that rest-day working contract and then immediately said it would take action short of a strike and withdrew any co-operation at all. I hope that they will respond to the decision in the right way. It is an opportunity to reset those relationships and do what we are all supposed to do, which is to deliver a better railway for the passengers who use it. I hope that they take that opportunity. If they do, they will find a willing partner in me.

Rail Services

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady is right about TPE; I made it clear in my statement that its current performance is unacceptable. The rail Minister and I met its senior leadership and made it clear that the current performance was unacceptable. As I said at this Dispatch Box, if there is not considerable improvement, all options are on the table.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Staying with TPE, the Secretary of State will know that I have raised this issue on more occasions than I would wish to do so. The service out of Cleethorpes is supposed to be hourly through to Doncaster, Sheffield and Manchester, but today there was a six-hour gap between 8.20 and 14.20, and 10 days ago there was an eight-hour gap between trains. This is having a terrible effect on business and leisure facilities, and tourism to Cleethorpes, and it has been going on for 16 months, so it is not something new. When he comes to make a decision on TPE, will he please take an extremely robust position?

[Mr Harper]

I know that my hon. Friend has had a particularly difficult time on the route that serves his constituents. I was clear at the Dispatch Box that TPE’s service is not acceptable, to put it mildly, and it needs to improve. The one thing I would say is that it is overly dependent on rest-day working. When I met northern Mayors, who made this point to me clearly, I ensured that a refreshed, more generous offer on rest-day working was made to ASLEF, but again, it did not even put it to its members. That offer would have made a significant difference in the performance delivered to his constituents. I ask ASLEF to look again at the offer that has been made on rest-day working and take it up, so that we can do the most important thing: deliver improved services to passengers, rather than continue an unnecessary dispute.

Future of Rail Services

Martin Vickers Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Hammond]

Interestingly enough, in my first life in this place I was the Opposition spokesperson on railways for four years, and for two years I was the Minister for rail, so I know all about Okehampton station and what it might bring forward. That refers back to the point I made a moment ago that, with clear prioritisation of investment and the right incentives to operators, there is absolutely no reason why regional and local investment should not be seen to be just as important as national investment. Indeed, the point I made at the beginning, about rail being the key to regeneration and economic growth in a number of communities, underlines the point that the hon. Gentleman was making

.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I wish to make that very point about economic growth and investment in an area. As the Minister knows, I have been campaigning for the restoration of the three trains between Cleethorpes and King’s Cross for many years and they now appear in the London and North Eastern Railway draft timetable for next May. When the Minister sums up, will he comment on whether those services are likely to happen? As my hon. Friend said, economic growth and investment are crucial to the regeneration and levelling up of many of our more deprived areas.

[Stephen Hammond]

It is 20 December, but already many hon. Members wish my hon. Friend the Minister to become Father Christmas in his summing up. As it is Christmas, and given he is a great friend of mine and an acknowledged expert in this field, may I offer him a few Christmas cracker thoughts about how I would like to see him use this opportune moment by accepting the best from the Williams-Shapps plans but also looking at what could be done to make our rail system even better?

A moment ago I referred to “the staggeringly obese controller”. One of the first things that could happen is that the Fat Controller could go on a new year diet. Everybody agrees that a guiding mind is needed for this industry. It would be right for Great British Railways to be turned into that guiding mind, with the clear objectives of setting timetables in conjunction with the infrastructure provider and operating companies, and being the body to set safety standards, let current contracts, see an evolution of the system and potentially oversee slot auctions.

If that is what Great British Railways is to become, then it is implicit that the infrastructure operator and maintainer should be separate from the guiding mind. If both functions were under that one body, it would make that body partial to the interests of network engineers rather more than to ensuring the satisfaction of passengers, freight operators and ticket operators. It does not matter what that separate entity is called—we could call it national rail, network rail or whatever we like—but I suggest to the Minister that setting Great British Railways up as the guiding mind and distinctly separating the role of infrastructure operator would be an excellent way forward.