More leverage at the points

---

Louise Ellman MP is watching the new transport secretary closely to see how the coalition’s professed commitment to rail investment will be implemented – and at what cost to the travelling customer

As shadow chief secretary to the Treasury before the election, Philip Hammond will have planned how to cut spending by the Department for Transport. Now as Secretary of State for Transport, he is hopefully gamekeeper-turned-poacher, ensuring that coherent transport policies and projects survive in this age of austerity.

Rail presents a major challenge. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition agreement contains no fewer than six specific rail commitments. The government is pledged to support the Crossrail project in London, further electrification of the rail network and the phased introduction of a new high-speed rail network. These initiatives require investment and we await further details of how this can be achieved.

There is a commitment to longer rail franchises, to give operators greater incentive to invest in their services. Bidding on two rail franchises – Greater Anglia and Essex Thameside – has been postponed, at some expense, and a consultation paper is now due.

The other commitments are less specific. A reference to ‘fair pricing’ for rail travel could signal higher fares, with the danger of pricing the passenger off the railway. Making Network Rail more accountable to its customers is important, but firm proposals are required. Nor is it clear how the rail regulator can become a ‘powerful passenger champion’ without losing its focus on Network Rail’s economic performance.

More significant perhaps are the issues omitted from the coalition agreement. Network Rail’s high costs, and continuing concerns about rail maintenance and safety, are all important issues. Network Rail’s senior managers have rightly been criticised for the inflated remuneration packages they have awarded themselves; this has drawn attention to the lack of accountability within Network Rail. Chief executive Ian Coucher’s departure provides an opportunity to bring in new leadership and review how the company operates. One of the government’s first major transport announcements – the sale of the High Speed 1 railway from St Pancras to the Channel Tunnel – raises a number of questions about the new government’s attitude to rail.

The secretary of state will continue to own the rail infrastructure and land on which the line is built, but the operating firm, HS1, will be able to sell access to the track and stations on a commercial basis. Is this simply a scheme to raise money for the department, or a precursor of a new phase of rail privatisation?

Will Network Rail be responsible for maintaining the HS1 line, or will new arrangements be made? How will new services using HS1 develop and be regulated? How will access charges be addressed? How will customers benefit and who might lose out?

These are issues which I expect the transport committee to pursue over the coming months. Rail will be central to our new inquiry into the role spending on transport can play in promoting growth in the economy.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has recently commented that the UK may need as much as £40bn to £50bn per annum of investment in key infrastructure, such as better transport links. The transport secretary must ensure that his department has the vision and capability to deliver the necessary investment.