Last week, the Department for Transport (DfT) launched a consultation on the legislation for Great British Railways (GBR). It has since become clear that the DfT dropped GBR’s headline ‘public interest duties’ from the plan – a major setback for socioeconomic value, accessibility, and environment.
The following explains why the Secretary of State for Transport must take control and immediately restore all public interest duties to the GBR consultation. As the most important rail consultation since privatisation, it must also be extended to at least 12 weeks to give any chance of a meaningful public response.
An ‘overarching’ public interest duty to ‘maximise social and economic value’.
The headline promise of the previous government was that Great British Railways (GBR) would be ‘a guiding mind…responsible for running the railways safely and efficiently to maximise social and economic value.’ This ‘overarching’ ‘public interest duty’ was to be set out in the GBR Licence, alongside other core duties towards accessibility and environment, all monitored and enforced by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR). It was a headline commitment from the 2021 White Paper on GBR until the Feb 2024 Plan for Rail.
Responses to the last GBR consultation showed the public interest duties were ‘widely welcomed’ and ‘the duty for accessibility in particular was strongly welcomed’ by the public. Therefore, in 2024, these commitments were strengthened even further; in recognition of ‘the critical importance of an accessibility duty within the licence’ over and above existing obligations in the Public Sector Equality Duty and Human Rights Act 1998, to ‘ensure that GBR puts accessibility at the core of its strategic decisions.’
Why is the Labour Government going in the opposite direction?
The new GBR consultation picks up where the previous government’s Plan left off – except there is no mention that the headline public interest duties ever existed, let alone that they received such widespread support from the public. The DfT now appears to be going in the opposite direction, with the new consultation stating that “GBR will…be subject to a substantively streamlined and simplified licence” under “a guiding principle…focused on the minimum viable set of conditions that are required for safety, performance (i.e. reliability and cancellations), efficiency, and passenger experience…. substantially reducing the regulatory burden.”
Accessibility is hit the hardest by these new plans, where the government has dropped several other key pledges: for the Disabled Persons Transport Committee (DPTAC) to become a statutory advisor to GBR; as well as “a condition in the…licence to require GBR to consult with disabled passengers…directly and through representative organisations.” Proposals for regulating accessibility are also extremely vague, with no clarity on whether this duty will fall to Office of Rail and Road (rail regulator), or Transport Focus (passenger watchdog).
The new GBR consultation contains no questions whatsoever on passenger experience, nor any of the transport policy issues of most concern to passengers, for example: fare reductions; ticket office closures, or disabled people’s right to ‘Turn Up And Go’. This continues the trend started by the Conservative government, which exempted all passenger issues from consultation, and failed to conduct the urgent consultations that should have come first, such as: fares and ticketing reform; the National Rail Accessibility Strategy; the National Accessible Travel Policy; and the accessibility audit of railway infrastructure. In fact, the only consultation on passenger-facing issues that has occurred in this period was the 2023 attempt to close every ticket office in England – plans that eventually collapsed due to public outrage and breaches of equality law.
In conclusion, the entire consultation document is about the technical aspects of regulation and competition law issues, making the details incomprehensible to all but those already expert in the relevant legislation. It is therefore, a consultation for industry rather than the public, with industrial and private interests sure to be the loudest voice. Most concerning of all, the sudden launch and too-short length of this consultation suggests the DfT is trying to get new primary legislation through as quickly as possible, rather than taking the time to meaningfully consult.
Urgent Demands to the DfT
- Currently the consultation is being held for just 8 weeks, and over the Easter holidays. This must be extended to at least 12 weeks – with significant outreach from the DfT to explain the impact of their proposals on passengers and taxpayers.
- The consultation was published without impact assessments, which should have accompanied the document and spelled out the thought process behind any changes. The DfT must publish these immediately, explaining the cost-benefit risks and impacts, and whether it has considered its Public Sector Equality Duty in the new plan.
- The DfT must restore questions on GBR’s public interest duties to the consultation and reissue the document, subject to an extended 12 week deadline. Its only reported comment on this so far is that ‘the government welcomes views on whether there should be such a duty’ – it is of course impossible for the public to give such input if there is no sign in the document that the duties ever existed.
For more information: contact@abcommuters.com
abcommuters.com 
Excluding the interests of the travelling public is just like a doctor deciding the treatment a patient needs without speaking or examining the patient. If the railway is to meet the needs of the public then the public must be fully involved. This is a case of someone who doesn’t use a service setting the wrong set of rules rather like a car driver deciding what is best for a cyclist and vice versa – it is simply wrong to exclude the person who uses the railway from being involved in the needs of the traveler.
LikeLike