Exposed AGAIN! Disabled Access cover up at the Department for Transport

It’s been exactly one year since we published documents from the Disabled Person’s Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), revealing years of cover ups inside the Department for Transport concerning driver only operation (DOO). A month ago, we repeated our FOI request and can reveal that the situation around DOO and disabled access is now at breaking point.

The latest documents show that since April this year, DPTAC has been in open rebellion against the DfT due to a ‘wholly inadequate’ piece of research: ‘Effects of modes of train operation on passengers with disabilities’ by the consultants Steer. The very existence of this report has so far been concealed from the Transport Select Committee and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as well as the disability charities involved in the DfT’s ‘Inclusive Transport’ campaign.

The Steer Report – ‘Effects of modes of train operation on passengers with disabilities.’

In an outspoken letter sent to ministers on 2nd May this year, DPTAC states: ‘our headline advice is that the results of this work should be used with extreme caution […] our advice is that the research and Guidance Note fall very considerably short of articulating measures that mitigate the potentially very negative consequences of driver-only operation, when combined with unstaffed stations; a toxic combination for many disabled people that excludes them from using the rail network.’

In the letter, DPTAC challenges the legality of the DfT and train operating companies’ plans for DOO, questioning whether the running of unstaffed trains through unstaffed stations is consistent with the Department’s duties under the Equality Act 2010. The full letter to ministers can be viewed here:

After Andrew Jones’ appearance at the Transport Select Committee on 8th May, DPTAC scheduled an urgent meeting with ministers and sent ahead a list of demanding questions, also concerning the legality of plans for DOO:

The emails show that the meeting took place on 18th June 2019, but we have no further knowledge of DPTAC’s discussion with the rail ministers, and the Steer report itself remains held back under FOI (a decision we intend to challenge).

The DPTAC documents prove us right in our ongoing pursuit of a report by the consultants Steer (formerly Steer Davies Gleave). We had previously understood a 2013 Steer report to be the foundation of the entire DOO project, meaning that this new discovery of a piece of 2018 research is part of a six year history that has so far evaded all Parliamentary scrutiny. The following key documents demonstrate that the 2018 Steer report ‘Effects of modes of train operation on passengers with disabilities’ is yet a further stage in a process of policy development that’s been going on for years within the closed circle of the DfT, Rail Delivery Group and train operating companies.

Key documents: DPTAC’s Letter to Ministers dated 9th April, sent 2nd May  *  June 2019 emails – DPTAC arrange meeting with Transport Ministers and send urgent questions in advance  *  DPTAC’s second submission to the Williams Review – Working towards a fully accessible railway, 8th May  *  DPTAC’s response to the PAYG consultation, submitted 30th April 2019

Key correspondence: Email chain Dec 2018 to May 2019 – covering delays to Steer report, and delays to DPTAC’s letter to ministers  *  May 2019 – DPTAC discusses dispatch of letter to ministers and second submission to Williams review  *  June 2019 emails – DfT and DPTAC discuss confidentiality re the Steer report

The Steer Report on DOO – Timeline of Events

This blog continues with a timeline of the 2018 Steer report and a full download list of the documents in chronological order. We then provide a fuller background of the history of Steer’s research on DOO, and explain our concerns about the influence of train operating companies on the formation of policy. We conclude with an urgent list of requests to the Transport Select Committee.

Steer Timeline JPEG

The Steer Report on DOO – Timeline of Documents:

July – September 2018: The following documents show DPTAC meeting with Steer on 30th July, shortly after our 2018 exposé. In September, they are given the ‘final’ draft of the Steer report and provide their feedback.

July 2018 – DPTAC emails show a meeting took place with Steer on 30th July   *  DPTAC emails August 2018 – reaction to the ABC expose   *  DPTAC Main Meeting minutes – 20th Sep 2018   *  September 2018 – DPTAC receives a copy of the Steer report on DOO and responds to first version  *  DPTAC’s response to version 1 of the Steer report – 24th September 2018  *  Peter Wilkinson’s letter to DPTAC – 5th October 2018

September 2018 – March 2019: From September, DPTAC provides feedback on at least one further ‘iteration’ of the Steer report (called version 2 in the timeline above). There is then a long delay while the next version of the document is prepared by Steer and the Rail Delivery Group, with involvement from train operating companies.

DfT and DPTAC Rail Sub-Group Meeting minutes – 12th Oct 2018  *  DfT and DPTAC Main Meeting minutes – 7th Dec 2018  *  DfT and DPTAC Rail Sub-Group Meeting minutes – 12th Feb 2019  *  DPTAC response to the ORR consultation on Improving Assisted Travel – 18th Jan 2019  *  DPTAC’s initial response to the Williams Rail Review – 18th Jan 2019

March – May 2019: DPTAC receives the ‘final’ copy of the report on 6th March and responds by writing a strongly worded letter to ministers on 9th April. The letter is delayed by civil servants until 2nd May, when the Chair of DPTAC sends it directly to Andrew Jones ahead of his Transport Select Committee appearance. In the meantime, DPTAC responds to the DfT’s PAYG consultation, placing a strong emphasis on the need for an adequate staffing model amid the extension of smartcard technologies.

Email chain Dec 2018 to May 2019 – covering delays to Steer report, and delays to DPTAC’s letter to ministers  *  DPTAC’s Letter to Ministers dated 9th April, sent 2nd May  *  April 2019 emails – DPTAC submit their response to the PAYG consultation  *  DPTAC’s response to the PAYG consultation, submitted 30th April 2019

May – June 2019: On 8th May, the day of Andrew Jones’ Transport Select Committee appearance, DPTAC submits a powerful second submission to the Williams Rail Review. Emails over the following month show DPTAC scheduling a meeting with ministers for 18th June, and sending ahead a list of demanding questions concerning the legality of driver only operation.

May 2019 – DPTAC discusses dispatch of letter to ministers and second submission to Williams review  *  DPTAC’s second submission to the Williams Review – Working towards a fully accessible railway, 8th May  *  June 2019 emails – DPTAC arrange meeting with Transport Ministers and send urgent questions in advance  *  June 2019 emails – DfT and DPTAC discuss confidentiality re the Steer report

Background – the 2013 Steer Report

Since August 2017, we have been pursuing a 2013 Steer report known as “Driver only operation – passenger”, which we believe forms the basis of the entire DOO project. We first drew attention to the existence of this report with our publication of a 2014 email from Michael Woods of the Rail Safey and Standards Board (RSSB). However, the Steer report has been held back by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG), who are not subject to freedom of information legislation. After we broke the story two years ago, the RDG refused to release the report under FOI, giving the following comment to press:

“In 2011, an independent report into making the railway more efficient recommended that driver only operated trains should be the default option across the network. Following this, a more detailed report was commissioned to investigate the financial implications of different ways of enacting this recommendation. As a public service which spends taxpayers’ money to better connect the country, it is only right that we look at ways to make our services more efficient but it is entirely normal that such analysis remains confidential. Where it is being introduced, careful consideration is being given to ensure that a second member of staff, not necessarily a guard, is available wherever appropriate to assist passengers.”

After three years of industrial action and with a looming legal threat against the government from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, there is little need to emphasise the public interest value of the 2013 Steer report. After FOI requests to the DfT, DPTAC, RSSB and the ORR we have discovered that the document is held only by the Rail Delivery Group. This means that the Association of Train Operating Companies has complete control and ownership over a document that we know has been foundational to policy. The fact that this document has been held back by the Rail Delivery Group for six years also provides the rail industry’s most urgent example of the need for FOI legislation to be extended to private contractors.

To date – the 2018 Steer Report

Our FOI request to DPTAC has revealed the existence of a 2018 Steer report on DOO, ‘Effects of modes of operation on passengers with disabilities’. Although we have been able to publish DPTAC’s damning verdict on its contents, the report itself has been withheld under section 22 (1) of the FOI Act – namely that the report is already ‘planned for publication’ by the Department for Transport.

However, it’s clear in the correspondence that ministers are deciding whether to publish, not when. An email from May 30th, where a DFT civil servant chastises a member of DPTAC for referring to the report at an ORR event, states that: ‘Ministers haven’t yet decided whether to share’ and ‘while some of the TOCs at the meeting today might have been aware when you raised it, the disability groups and EHRC definitely wouldn’t be.’

june confidentiality dft.PNGThe DPTAC email correspondence shows the 2018 Steer Report passing through at least three ‘iterations’, a process managed by the Rail Delivery Group in collaboration with consultants Steer – and in which they have sought feedback from train operating companies ‘to ensure recommendations are feasible’. The following excerpts from February 2018 further demonstrate this unhealthy dynamic:

steer report email feb update.PNG

From DPTAC meeting minutes – 12th Feb 2019:

Steer report feb update.PNG

Our requests to the Transport Select Committee:

(1) At his 8th May update to the Transport Select Committee, the Rail Minister Andrew Jones maintained that driver only operation is ‘not policy’. This is no more than an issue of semantics, relating to a behind-the-scenes legal wrangle over who holds the Public Sector Equality Duty in franchise contracts. The documents we’ve published today show that this legal discussion is already going on behind the scenes at the DfT, who are undoubtedly preparing for a legal challenge from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We call on the Transport Select Committee to seek sight of any legal advice provided to the Department, which could potentially influence changes to legislation following the Williams Review and is therefore in urgent need of oversight.

In particular, please note:

Points 2.6 and 2.7 of the DfT and DPTAC Rail Sub-Group Meeting minutes – 12th Oct 2018:

PSED.PNG

The following paragraph from a DfT civil servant sent to a member of DPTAC on 30th December 2018. You can view the full correspondence here: Email chain Dec 2018 to May 2019 – covering delays to Steer report, and delays to DPTAC’s letter to ministers

dft email to dptac 30 dec 2018

(2) We call on the Transport Select Committee to demand all ‘iterations’ of the Steer report(s) on driver only operation since 2013, and to question the Rail Delivery Group thoroughly on the report’s six year history. We will continue to request the 2018 Steer Report under FOI, but our primary concern is that documents are being withheld from the Transport Select Committee, meaning there can be no proper scrutiny of Departmental policy.

(3) We call on the Transport Select Committee to undertake an investigation into transparency and research standards at the DfT. Railway policy has been developed behind closed doors for up to a decade, and it is outrageous that this ‘research’ process appears to have been dominated by the Rail Delivery Group, the majority of whose members are train operating companies. The economic cost of conducting research in this way (without any parliamentary oversight or passenger/staff consultation) has been enormous, and yet the TSC hasn’t even been allowed to view the business case for DOO (which we also believe to be contained within the 2013 Steer report).

If you combine the economic impact of the industrial dispute, potential legal action from the EHRC, and the probable inadequacy and quick obsolescence of DOO technology; it is clear that – far from being an abstract concern – standards of research and transparency are a matter requiring urgent Parliamentary oversight.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for further updates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No justice and no responsibility: exposing the truth about Govia Thameslink Railway

Following our blog post last Thursday, the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has confirmed GTR’s £5 million fine for its breach of licence relating to passenger information during last year’s May timetable crisis. As a result of our intervention, the final decision was announced on the day of the Williams Rail Review deadline (31st May).

It is the first time the ORR has imposed a fine for breach of licence, meaning that an important new precedent has been set for holding train operating companies to account. Their final penalty notice finds that GTR’s conduct around passenger information was “towards the negligent end of the spectrum” and says that the fine will provide a “transparent signal to the industry” about passenger information standards. After a full review of the documents we’ve discovered that the ORR went forward with this penalty despite submissions from GTR, the Department for Transport, and even Transport Focus, to accept a lower figure.

ORR graphics

After reviewing their final penalty notice, we believe that the ORR has not only succeeded in imposing a precedent-setting fine, but has also chosen to “show its teeth” in an extremely difficult context; where the Department for Transport was already complicit in the failure of GTR’s management contract. Could this decision be a sign that the Office of Rail and Road is getting stronger and fighting for passenger rights while every other rail agency and passenger watchdog is still letting us down?

GTR’s £5 million fine: what went on behind the scenes?

The £5 million fine was announced on 14th March, and followed by a 21 day consultation period, during which the ORR had the power to ‘reduce the fine to zero’ or ‘increase it several fold’ (according to paragraph 139 of their penalties policy).

The ORR had categorised the breach of licence in the ‘moderately serious’ category, and their decision to choose a £5 million ‘starting point’ was also moderate in this context (the ‘moderately serious’ category of offence has a starting point of up to £10 million). During the 21 day consultation period that ran until 5th April, submissions could be made to the ORR in to have the amount reduced, or for the train operating company to make an offer of “reparations”.

GTR completely refused responsibility

GTR made no offer of reparations and maintained the position throughout the consultation that the £5 million penalty should not be imposed at all, and that if it were imposed, that it should be a lower amount. The ORR’s final penalty notice makes clear that GTR has not acknowedged reponsibility:

there is a lack of evidence that GTR undertook a significant lessons learnt exercise relating to passenger information and have focused instead on the wider industry failings. GTR have not acknowledged responsibility for its failure to provide adequate information to passengers.” (paragraph 39)

The only other submission within the consultation period was made four days before the consultation deadline by Transport Focus, who encouraged the ORR to consider an offer of reparations, “assuming an offer is put forward”. As GTR had not made any offer of reparations, the ORR judged Transport Focus’ submissions to be ‘inapplicable’.

The Department for Transport supported Govia Thameslink Railway

The ORR’s final penalty notice also shows the Department for Transport advocating on GTR’s behalf. After news broke of GTR’s £15 million “fine” for the 2018 timetable collapse in December, the DfT wrote to the ORR suggesting they show restraint in imposing any penalty. They said in the letter that they had already “entered into an agreement” that GTR would “make an additional £15 million available” to “develop and implement initiatives” that would benefit GTR passengers.

After December’s letter, the ORR asked the DfT to further explain December’s £15 million “fine”. In a further letter on 20th February 2019, the DfT said the following.

“On the level of the fund I suspect all we could say is that we took all the facts and circumstances into account including the level of the previous payment made by GTR in relation to the 2016 problems on Southern, the desire to create a fund which could provide meaningful benefits for passengers and the financial position of the TOC: pointing out that with the fund set at this level GTR will make no profit at all this year in recognition of their role in the disruption.” (paragraph 59)

Considering the full history of the management contract between the DfT and GTR – especially the fact that the Department had already allowed GTR to buy out their liability for the timetable collapse – it is not clear whether this was in fact a “fine” or simply a “fund”, ie. just another “remedial measure” of the kind that the DfT has been making since 2016 to bolster the GTR contract – and with zero scrutiny.

What is the Passenger Benefit Fund?

Here’s the part where it gets interesting in relation to ongoing passenger information issues. Many commuters have expressed outrage about the £15 million ‘Passenger Benefit Fund’ posters that they have started to see all over the GTR network; which state that “GTR is contributing £15 million in tangible passenger benefits” and completely erases the true history of the company’s failure, without even a hint of an apology. It is clear to us that the advertising materials are an attempt to derive PR value and ‘reputational capital’ from what is essentially a false political communication in a public space. Several of us have already reported this issue to the Advertising Standards Authority, and we encourage you to join us by submitting your own complaint.

And after reading the ORR’s final penalty notice last Friday, it seems the situation is even worse than we thought:

  • “As for the Passenger Benefits Fund, ORR notes that it has not been provided with a copy of the agreement between GTR and DfT pursuant to which the fund was set up or any clear explanation of its purpose and scope.” (paragraph 58)
  • “ORR have become aware of a new website that has been set up in recent weeks in relation to the Passenger Benefits Fund which sets out how the funding will be allocated to the stations affected and how passengers can propose local or wider passenger benefit schemes. Under “wider passenger benefit schemes”, the site suggests some examples of possible schemes that would lead to passenger information improvements.” (paragraph 62)
  • “ORR recognises that the operation of the fund could result in some improvement to the provision of passenger information at specific stations (e.g. an additional CIS screen,) but only if a significant proportion of passengers support such an improvement. Further,it is not sufficiently clear whether the fund will go towards making passenger information improvements for it to have any, or any significant, weight in the penalty assessment. Finally, it is in any event highly doubtful whether any such forward-looking information improvements as may be brought about by the fund would constitute “reparations” to those who were affected by the breach [of passenger information rules].” (paragraph 63)

Join us to make an unstoppable passenger watchdog:

Since the start of their disastrous management contract in 2015, no existing watchdog has been good enough to represent passengers’ interests on GTR, or ensure accountability. The ORR’s final penalty notice shows that the Department for Transport is, even now, advocating on GTR’s behalf, and proves that oversight is urgently required on the Passenger Benefit Fund.

As always, we have noone to rely on but ourselves – a grass roots network of passengers. If you’re as shocked as we are about the standards of dishonest communication on our railways, then please make a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority and include a link to this blog post. Please also do all you can to alert press, local councillors and MPs, as very little of this story is reaching the mainstream media.

Our submission to the Williams Rail Review is coming soon! It covers the full GTR story and will explain all the barriers to justice and accountability that we’ve encountered throughout this investigation. If you would like to help us, please donate here.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for further updates.

 

 

Five reasons why justice HAS NOT been done on Govia Thameslink Railway.

Justice has not been done on the disastrous Thameslink, Southern, and Great Northern management contract. This blog explains the problems we’ve encountered with transparency and accountability in the UK rail system and will form part of our submission to the Williams Rail Review.

1. The Office of Rail and Road has not confirmed GTR’s £5 million fine

On 14th March, the ORR announced a £5 million fine of Govia Thameslink Railway for breaking rules on passenger information at the time of the May 2018 timetable collapse. It was the first time the regulator had issued a fine for breach of licence, and GTR had 21 days to respond to the penalty.

It is now two and a half months later and we are still waiting for a final decision from the ORR. As GTR passengers, we are calling on the ORR to act decisively and fine GTR at least the full £5 million, which we understand can be ‘reduced to zero’ or ‘increased several fold’ during the consultation period (according to paragraph 139 of their penalties policy.)

During the May timetable collapse one year ago, we questioned GTR on their lack of route-trained drivers as early as 9th May 2018, and called on the ORR to intervene urgently in GTR on 6th May 2018. We also took the reason for GTR’s failure to the press on 20th May 2018 (the day of the timetable collapse) and continued to advocate for the truth to come out despite GTR’s attempts to suppress vital passenger information in that period.

When GTR’s own passengers can beat the press and even the government rail regulator to the truth – you know you have a problem.

[Update: on 31st May, one day after the publication of this blog and on the day of the Williams Rail Review deadline, the ORR confirmed GTR’s full £5 million fine.]

2. The NAO investigation into Peter Wilkinson is incomplete

Peter Wilkinson is the MD of Passenger Services, making him one of the most powerful civil servants at the Department for Transport. A Guardian expose in January 2017 triggered a National Audit Office investigation into his alleged conflict of interest regarding the award of the Thameslink Southern and Great Northern (TSGN) contract to GTR in 2014. In October of that year, we got hold of a copy of the NAO investigation report and published it on our website, here.

wilko

The NAO admitted finding ‘weaknesses’ in the Department for Transport’s controls for conflicts of interests in the civil service. However, they did not return to the topic, nor report the conclusion of their investigation into Peter Wilkinson’s alleged conflicts of interest in their January 2018 report on the TSGN franchise.

3. Crucial reports remain buried

Appendix Nine of the 2017 Gibb report on Southern Rail remains buried by the government, despite making crucial recommendations about the future of the failed TSGN management contract. Our most recent FOI request for Appendix Nine was declined by the Department for Transport. Without the details of this report being known, it is impossible to know which parts of Chris Gibb’s advice was ignored by the Department or Transport; and therefore impossible to fully explore who bears responsibility for the timetable crisis.

Another crucial buried report is the Steer Davies Gleave report on driver only operation, which we believe to be the basis for the entire ‘DOO’ project – and therefore the three-year industrial dispute. We believe that this report relates to passenger behaviour at the platorm train interface, and that its contents could have a negative impact on disabled access rights. Few documents are so clearly in the public interest, and yet this report is being held back by the Rail Delivery Group, which is not subject to freedom of information legislation.

4. The cause of the 2016 ‘Southern Rail Crisis’ was never identified

The 2016 ‘Southern Rail Crisis’ will be remembered well by GTR commuters, especially those who lost their jobs, or had to relocate – with an average of 160 trains per day being fully or partially cancelled that year. By September 2016, we’d had enough, and 2,000 of us raised £50,000 to take the Department for Transport to the high court. The case for a Judicial Review was heard in June 2017, and the Judge gave the DfT two weeks to decide on the penalty for GTR’s appalling performance.

Court day

The DfT announced a £12.4 million fine of GTR on the day of the two week deadline, and thus satisfied the Judge that a decision had been taken. This meant that they avoided a Judicial Review, which would have allowed the examination of claims such as the ‘sickness strikes’ – a claim widely relied upon by GTR and the DfT to blame the company’s failure on ‘unofficial industrial action’ by trade unions. Six months later, a Channel Four Fact Check found that there were ‘no statistics for Chris Grayling’s claims over rail unions.’

5. Govia Thameslink Railway bought out their liability for performance

In our court case of June 2017, the DfT claimed that their decision on GTR’s performance breaches had been ‘imminent’. But in January 2018’s NAO report we discovered that the £12.4 million fine that enabled the DfT to avoid our Judicial Review had in fact been the result of a ‘fast-moving negotiation and ‘verbal decisions’ made by the acting director general for rail, and the MD of passenger services (Peter Wilkinson).

And there was a worse discovery still – £10 million of the fine was part of a deal done with GTR where they would buy out their liability for performance up until September 2018 – a whole fifteen months into the future. This troubling precedent became a harsh reality after the May 2018 timetable collapse – as this in theory meant that the DfT no longer had any legal basis to strip GTR of the TSGN contract. As a result, all we can say for sure is that any fine imposed on GTR for the May 2018 timetable collapse is the result of a narrow range of ‘performance levers’ left available to the Department for Transport after their unprecedented deal for the buyout of future performance liability.

Our submission to the Williams Rail Review is coming soon! It covers the full GTR story and will explain all the barriers to justice and accountability that we’ve encountered throughout this investigation. If you would like to help us, please donate here.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for further updates.

 

 

 

 

 

International Women’s Day Protest – Keep The Guard On The Train!

This International Women’s Day, it’s time to demand that the Department for Transport finally listens to passenger concerns about safety, security and access. We’ll be meeting at Great Minster House at midday on Friday 8th March to deliver an 85,000-strong petition to “Keep The Guard On The Train” and we hope that you can join us!

All are welcome, and we are particularly keen to celebrate the women who have done so much to defend against the government-driven attempt to remove guards from trains. Special guests will include; Beth Granter, who began the petition for women’s safety on the railways; Ann Bates OBE, who has campaigned alongside ABC for three years on disabled access; and Michelle Rodgers, the recently elected President of the RMT union and the first woman in its history to hold this position.

Sign up to our Facebook event here or RSVP to contact@abcommuters.com

Why International Women’s Day?

Over the past ten years, sexual offenses on the railways have gone up a staggering 167%, and violent crime has risen by 47%, according to recent figures from the British Transport Police (BTP). In the period 2017-2018, these categories of crime are up 16% and 26% respectively. In the case of sexual offenses, the BTP believes that there are many more crimes of this type that go unreported.

All vulnerable passengers deserve the peace of mind of knowing there will be a safety critical, guaranteed guard on every train, not to mention the deterrent factor in an era of rising crime. In rural areas, including Southern Rail, Northern Rail and South Western Railway, there are long gaps between stops and largely unstaffed stations – so the suggestion to destaff these networks should never have even been up for debate.

Despite this context – and a three-year long industrial dispute on the matter – passengers in England have never been consulted on the issue of driver only trains. During our campaign on the matter, we have dug up multiple documents emphasising concerns around safety and disabled access, but our concerns have been ignored. With the Equality and Human Rights Commission recently stating that they are likely to take action over the roll back of disabled access associated with DOO, we’ll be appealing directly to the DfT and the Williams Rail Review to return to the vision of a fully staffed railway, accessible to all.

Join us to demand a guaranteed and safety critical member of staff on every train – no excuses!

Could a new £100 million legal case mean the end for privatised rail?

Today has been another shocking day for rail – a damning report from the Public Accounts Committee about the DfT, Keith William’s statement that franchising has failed and – most significantly of all – a £100 million class action launched this morning against several major train operating companies.

The legal claim has been launched with the Competition Appeal Tribunal against the following rail operators:

South Western Trains (up until Aug 2017):  Stagecoach Group.

South Western Trains (current): FirstGroup plc and MTR Corporation.

South Eastern: Govia – The Go Ahead Group and Keolis.

The “Boundary Fares” Case

The £100 million claim relates to train companies overcharging millions of passengers because of the issue of “boundary fares” where they purchased tickets for travel beyond the zones covered by their Travelcards. The claim argues that they should have been offered the chance to pay “boundary fares” for the “gap” between the outer limit of their zone coverage and their destination. However, passengers have ended up paying twice because these fares were not promoted, made available online, at ticket machines and rarely offered at ticket counters. You can read more in today’s Evening Standard.

We believe this case will send a shock wave throughout the entire rail industry, and may even open the floodgates for more of these claims – after all, it is not just South Western and South Eastern passengers that suffer from the “boundary fare” issue around London.

The rail industry and the government have been aware of this problem for a very long time – but have made no serious attempt to fix it. The exact issues constituting the legal claim today were discussed in the press by our spokesperson Martin Abrams as long ago as September 2015. Click here to read what he had to say at the time.

We must take action: Transparency Now!

Representatives from ABC have a meeting with Keith Williams on Monday 18th March and will report to him all the transparency, justice and consumer rights issues we’ve encountered – especially on Govia Thameslink Railway.

Please write to us at contact@abcommuters with the subject line “Transparency Now” if you would like to submit your opinions, experiences, facts or new evidence to our submission to Keith Williams.

Our crowdfunding page “Exposing the Truth about GTR” is still open – please donate if you can – all funds will go towards helping us make the biggest impact possible on the Williams Review and the cause of passenger justice.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for updates.

 

 

 

 

Confirmed: The Williams Rail Review WILL consider public ownership

We are pleased to report that last Friday’s event at the Department for Transport was a great success. The Williams Review team have now confirmed that they WILL indeed be considering public ownership, and WILL take submissions from the public up until the end of May (not 18th January as previously advertised.) We also had the chance to speak with a representative from the Williams Rail Review team and made the point that we want this review to be transparent and democratic from the start.

We Own It.PNG
We Own It co-organised the event – read more at weownit.org.uk

Comment from the Rail Review team

“The government’s vision is for the UK to have a world-class railway, working as part of the wider transport network and delivering new opportunities across the nation. The Williams Rail Review, led by independent Chair Keith Williams, was established to recommend the most appropriate organisational and commercial frameworks to deliver this. The Review is deliberately comprehensive in scope and Keith Williams has been asked to be bold in his thinking, challenging received wisdom and looking to innovate. The Review is considering all parts of the industry, from the current franchising system and structures, to further devolution, accountability and value for money. Keith is supported by an independent challenge panel, with expertise in business, customer service, and the rail and broader transport sector. The Review will conclude with a Government White Paper at the end of 2019 and we expect reform to begin from 2020 so passengers benefit, as soon as possible.

The Review is exploring the full spectrum of reform options in every case. Keith Williams and the team have been and continue to conduct an extensive listening exercise across the entire rail industry and those that use it. This includes a number of visits across Great Britain to better understand the differing experiences of the current railway and the commissioning of new, objective research into the thoughts and needs of rail passengers.  As part of this listening exercise, Keith Williams is happy to meet ABC and the Review team can arrange this.

The Review’s Call for Evidence is a vital part of Keith William’s information gathering and listening to those with experience of the railway. The Call for Evidence will remain open for much of the Review but may seek different levels of input as its work develops. Currently it has requested a broad input to match its terms and ensure it captures all views from the start. As Keith Williams develops his ideas, further input will be requested against more specific questions.

Keith Williams and the Review team can be sent information through the call for evidence or alternatively their dedicated mailbox: Rail.Review@dft.gov.uk.

Further details on the remit of the Williams Rail Review can be found on our terms of reference (https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/rail-review) and we would very much welcome any evidence you may have, which can be submitted through the call for evidence (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/williams-rail-review), for consideration.”

For the background to our investigation into the Williams Review click here, then here.

Our Next Steps

We have accepted Keith Williams’ offer of a meeting and hope to speak with him in March, at around the time he will be feeding back the first findings of his review. In the meantime, we will be writing up our own submission on the transparency and democracy issues we have encountered through multiple investigations into GTR and one major court case against the DfT. If you would like to contribute your thoughts on these topics, please write to contact@abcommuters.com.

ABC is a campaign for transport justice and democracy and thus will not be discussing renationalisation in our submission. This is important because it allows us to take a razor sharp look at transparency issues that go beyond the economic debate, in relation to 1) unresolved issues with the GTR contract and May timetable collapse 2) disabled access cover ups and driver only operation 3) passenger/consumer rights and 4) freedom of information.

If you are in favour of rail renationalisation or would like to contribute your ideas about a new vision of public ownership, we suggest contributing to We Own It’s campaign on the Williams Rail Review, here.

To respond to the Williams Rail Review, click here.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for updates.

 

 

Does the Williams Rail Review really intend to engage with passengers?

Since December 2018, we have been investigating the remit of the Williams Rail Review and asking that it stays true to the democratic principles Chris Grayling described in Parliament last October.

grayling parliament.PNGThe Secretary of State for Transport has said that he recognises the need for a ‘rail revolution’ and that ‘no stone will be left unturned’ in efforts to find a more ‘joined up system’. However, it has also been widely reported that he will not consider renationalisation. Keith Williams, chair of the review, meanwhile told the BBC that ‘all options are on the table’. For more about the ongoing controversy, click here.

dav
Daily Mirror, 17/01/18: Controversy over the Williams Review continues as campaigners prepare to deliver a 120,000 strong petition to the Department for Transport. We’ll be there tomorrow at 10 am to report back.

Our questions to the Department for Transport

Ten days ago, we asked the DfT to clarify whether the remit of the Williams Review is based on or limited by the government’s pre-existing vision of a franchising strategy. We asked if Keith Williams has complete freedom to evaluate public ownership and other non profit solutions for the railways. We specifically asked whether he is free to allocate resources as he wishes – and if so how much resource he will be allocating to these discussions.

Our questions were declined by the DfT and we were told to expect a response from the Rail Review team. However, this response has now been delayed ten days – which were also the final ten days of public submissions to the consultation as advertised by rail industry and Network Rail body the Rail Delivery Group.

RDG tweet.PNG

The closing date for submissions from the public was updated in mid December on the DfT website to the end of May, clarifying that the deadline of 18th January was in fact just a ‘listening’ phase. So, if the Williams Rail Review is indeed going to consider public ownership then this fact has not been advertised or made open in any way to the public. This is a cause for concern and a question that must be asked in the clear public interest.

The Rail Delivery Group has commented

The Rail Delivery Group responded to our questions about this issue and redirected us to the Williams Review team, from whom we still await comment. In response to our question about whether Keith Williams will consider public ownership in his review the RDG added: “The Williams Review team would be best placed to answer this, as it’s about their plans. Last summer, we said that all options should be considered.”

We will publish in full any response we receive from the Williams Rail Review when we receive it, and hope to also let you know of any opportunities to speak with him directly. Those passengers and commuter groups who have suffered the most through last year’s crisis should have a seat not only ‘at the table’ – but at the head of the table.

Let’s make 2019 the year of #RailRevolution

We will be submitting an ABC report to the Williams Rail Review, and keeping our own consultation open until the beginning of May, in time for the actual consultation closing date of end of May. Our contribution will be limited to issues around transparency, democracy, passenger rights and participation and will not address issues of transport economics directly. If you wish to contribute your insights or experiences please write to us at contact@abcommuters.com with the subject line: Transparency Report.

The ABC Transparency Report will summarise our investigations into Govia Thameslink Railway, the Department for Transport and the issues of driver only operated trains and disability access. Please note, this project will be independently funded through our GTR Crowdjustice page. If you would like to donate much needed funds to this investigation, please contribute here.

Join us tomorrow at the Dept for Transport, 10 a.m.

We Own It, Care 2 and Bring Back British Rail will be delivering a petition to the DfT tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. and members of the ABC team will be there to report back.

We are hoping to get the chance to meet Keith Williams and speak with him directly. And we’ll be sure to let him know that there are many of us who want to get involved with a democratic public dialogue that goes beyond political and partisan concerns. At this time of historic political uncertainty, it does not make sense to waste more taxpayers’ money on a review that is limited to just one party’s vision for public transport. The only democratic way forward is to invite public participation so that the UK can finally have a transparent conversation about rail in a totally independent forum.

The petition for public ownership has 120,000 signatures and is a sure reflection of the fact that over 60% of the British public want to see a form of public ownership for the railways. UK rail franchising is broken and it’s time to talk about what a truly progressive twenty first century transport system should look like.

To respond to the Williams Rail Review, click here.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for updates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Williams Review: Rail Revolution or Government Whitewash?

ABC campaigners joined the Rail Revolution: National Day of Action last week to demand a Fares Freeze for all passengers, as well as a commitment from the Department for Transport (DfT) that the Williams Rail Review will consider public ownership as a solution for our railways. Though the DfT ignored our demands for a fares freeze, there may still be time to achieve the most important goal for all passengers: a #RailRevolution.

Chris Grayling is on the record as being against the public ownership of rail, but Keith Williams, who is chairing the review, has recently told the BBC that “all options are on the table”. With the closing date of the initial ‘listening stage’ of the consultation coming up next Friday, it is vital that we speak out now and insist that this review is not coloured by any particular political approach. For this reason, we will be visiting the Department for Transport on Friday 18th January to ask for clarification of how wide the scope of the Williams review will actually be.

small.jpg
Members of ABC, Bring Back British Rail and We Own It after a surprise visit from Jeremy Corbyn. Photography by Paul Civati.

The Rail Revolution we are calling for is not a radical demand. It is actually no more radical than the phrase Chris Grayling himself has used when describing the Williams Rail Review. Here’s what the Transport Minister said on Radio Four, 2nd Jan:

“You cannot have a railway as fragmented as it is at the moment and that is the most significant underlying problem of the railway. The mistake I’ve made was to say we will change that through a process of evolution, which we had [already] started. We now need revolution and that’s what the Williams Review is going to lead to.”

Our investigation so far: it is still unclear whether the Williams Rail Review will consider renationalisation

It was reported in September that Chris Grayling has “ruled out renationalisation” from the Williams Rail Review, but on 7th December, the BBC reported the following:

BBC.PNG

The stated aim of the review reads as follows: “The Rail Review was established by the Transport Secretary to recommend the most appropriate organisational and commercial frameworks to support the delivery of the government’s vision.”

With this in mind, we asked the DfT the following question:

  • Has the Department for Transport granted Keith Williams full control over allocation of all resources for his rail review, so that he can decide how much time to allocate to the discussion of non profit and public ownership/renationalisation options for the railways?

They responded to this question with the purpose of the review as appears in the terms of reference on their website.

purpose.PNG

The situation is therefore still unclear. We are now awaiting further clarification from the Rail Review team and will publish their comments in full next week.

Let’s turn this review into a public conversation

Five years after the Brown Review on franchising concluded that Britain’s franchising model was “not fundamentally flawed”, the unprecedented chaos of the May timetable collapse has forced the government to admit that only the most radical change will now be acceptable to the public. In order to ensure that no more taxpayers’ money is wasted after this system-wide failure – and with at least 60% of the public in favour of rail renationalisation – we believe that the Williams Review must fully consider public ownership as a solution for the railway, alongside the government’s pre-existing “vision” for franchising.

Upcoming Events – please join us

Care 2, Bring Back British Rail and We Own It will be handing in a petition for public ownership signed by 119,000 passengers to the DfT on Friday 18th Jan at 10 am. Members of ABC will be joining them to make the argument that a real ‘Rail Revolution’ must take account of the overwhelming support in the UK that exists for public ownership and fully examine this option. If you would like to join this event please contact info@weownit.org.uk

On March 12th, Keith Williams will be speaking directly to passengers at the Transport Focus AGM, and this is open to the public. Keep an eye on their blog for registration details and if you have a particular question you would like us to pose to Keith Williams at this event please email us at contact@abcommuters.com

Our contribution to the Williams Review

We will be contributing to the Williams Rail Review with a summary of the transparency issues we have uncovered during two years’ worth of ABC investigations. If you would like to contribute any thoughts or experiences related to transparency in rail, please email us at contact@abcommuters.com and we will consider including these in our submission, which will also be published in full on this website.

From now until the final closing date of the review at the end of May, we will be doing all we can to advocate that democracy and transparency should become central to this review from the very start – as should any new rail policies resulting from it.

To respond to the Williams Rail Review, click here.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for updates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rail Revolution: National Day of Action 02/01/19

Tired of rising rail fares and chaotic commuting?

Sick of endless strikes and government whitewashes?

Join us on Wednesday 2nd January at King’s Cross station (7.30 – 9.00 am) to demand an urgent #FaresFreeze and a #RailRevolution. UK rail is in a time of crisis and commuters will tolerate no more rail chaos – so let’s start the year as we mean to go on, with a bit of direct action!

  • We believe that the 2018 timetable crisis has been an unprecedented failure in the history of UK rail, and that the only proper response from the government is to freeze fares while they urgently undertake radical change to this failed, fragmented system.
  • We suspect that the Williams Rail Review will turn out to be yet another government whitewash; meaning more wasted taxpayers money while #FailingGrayling seeks justification for a new commercial model to save the privatised rail industry. It is vital that the Williams Rail Review considers public ownership and non profit alternatives, so that we can be sure we have a twenty-first century railway run in the public (not corporate) interest.

Help us make 2019 the year of #RailRevolution! Sign up to the National Day of Action here and write to us at contact@abcommuters.com if you would like our assistance in advertising your local protest.

Meeting point:

meeting point.PNG

ABC will be based on the forecourt of King’s Cross station from 7.30 – 9.00 am on Wednesday 2nd January, near the tube exit closest to Euston Road (opposite Doddle). We’ll be passing round the megaphone and making videos for our social media channels – so if you’ve got a message you want the world to hear, please come along and shout it loudly!

Our theme this year will be neon (think New Years disco with a nod to the #giletjaunes!) Please bring placards and most importantly, your stories and opinions – as there are sure to be journalists in attendance. The most important thing about Wednesday is that we get passengers’ voices heard – so please take part on Twitter even if you can’t make it in person!

Important Links:

We hope to see you at King’s Cross station on Wednesday 2nd January from 7.30 to 9.00 am (please arrive in time for a photo call at 8am). You can sign up and share the event on our Facebook event page, where you can also see if there are any protests happening in your area. Feel free to email us at contact@abcommuters if you have any questions.

If you’re a fan of friendly and respectful (but very critical!) debate about rail and commuting issues, please join our Facebook group here.

You can read more about the arguments for public ownership on the Bring Back British Rail and We Own It websites.

Respond to the Williams Rail Review consultation here.

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook and use hashtags #FaresFreeze and #RailRevolution on the day so we can retweet you into our social media stream!

Exposing the truth about GTR’s bailout – the ABC court transcript

The ABC Court Transcript

Thanks to generous donations from our supporters, we are now able to publish the full transcript of our oral hearing, and will be forwarding a copy of the following documents to the Transport Select Committee, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.

Extract from the court transcript: QC Clive Sheldon offers adjournment compromise

Judgement from Mr Justice Ouseley

Full transcript of the oral hearing

This Court hearing and Judgement have been officially transcribed by DTI Global and made available with the permission of Judge Justice Ouseley. The Crown gives blanket permission for copying and distribution of transcripts for any legitimate criminal justice function and/or for access to personal data. We are sharing these documents for transparency of our members who helped crowdfund both the original case and purchase of the transcript. ABC Limited does not own the copyright – copyright of all transcripts remains with the Crown and DTI Global as the official transcribers.

Our Crowdfunder is open for another 9 days! Please donate if you can – all funds raised will go towards our campaign to seek the truth about the GTR contract.

The history of our case

In September 2016, over two thousand of our supporters came together to raise £50,000 for a Judicial Review of the Department for Transport over the Southern Rail Crisis. Our main ground was the unreasonable delay taken by the Secretary of State in enforcing the GTR contract regarding contractual breaches, which had been under consideration for 14 months at the time of our court submission.

A two and a half hour oral hearing took place on June 29th 2017 and the Judge ordered the DfT to produce the force majeure determinations within two weeks or go forward to a Judicial Review. He made this conditional judgement because of assurances from the QC that the force majeure decision was already ‘imminent’ (a discussion detailed in our court documents above).

The DfT announced their decision on the last day of the deadline – a £13.4 million penalty for performance breaches, going back to GTR’s first breach of contract in July 2015. It wasn’t strictly a fine, however – the money would be reinvested into the GTR network as an ‘improvement package’ – including 50 more onboard staff.

It was not until January 2018’s National Audit Office report that we learned that Govia Thameslink Railway had in fact been permitted to buy out two years of their performance liability at £10 million. This period also covered their future liability for performance, up until September 2018 – thus extending through the period of the May timetable collapse.

GTR fine

The NAO report describes ‘fast moving negotiations’, a ‘rapid timescale’ and ‘verbal decisions’ made in the 14 days after our court case, noting that they had not seen evidence of any formal discussions about the amount GTR would be willing to pay to settle its obligatons. It also states:

“At the time of writing, it is unclear how the Department will incentivise Govia Thameslink to deliver good services for passengers in the future, having removed its ability to use financial performance penalties up to September 2018.” (p.38)

Rail Plan 2020 – a new era of smoke and mirrors?

In the aftermath of the May timetable collapse, there is an urgent need to clarify whether the Department for Transport has any legal standing to enact penalties on GTR for the ongoing chaos and poor performance. We fear it does not, based on comments from David Brown, CEO of The Go Ahead Group, reported by The Times on 7th September.

“Mr Brown said that the rail company would make a robust challenge to any attempt by the government to impose a fine or cancel the franchise as punishment for the fiasco. He insisted that it had not breached its contract.”

However, Peter Wilkinson, the senior civil servant involved in agreeing the deal, assured the Public Accounts Committee in February that there were still performance mechanisms in place despite GTR’s buy out of future liability. (For the full discussion, see the Committee transcript, Q182 – Q194.)

At a time when everyone is focused on placing the blame for the May timetable collapse, we fear that the toxic contractual situation and three year history of rail crisis associated with GTR will be forgotten. Has the Department for Transport in fact given away all the power to its subcontractor, on top of a fatally flawed contract?

PQ grantshapps.PNG

We ask how the Department for Transport can hold GTR to account if it has already given away all its power to enact penalties on the company? How can the ORR provide an ‘independent’ review since they were also on the Industry Readiness Board and are appointed by the DfT? And how can we expect the DfT to act in the public interest if it fears legal action from The Go Ahead Group?

After three years of ‘The Southern Rail Crisis’, we have no faith in the DfT’s leadership, and it seems that hundreds of people agree with us…

Grayling inquiry tweet.PNG

Our Crowdfunder is open for another 9 days! Please donate if you can – all funds raised will go towards our campaign to seek the truth about the GTR contract.