GBR "delayed"

[Dave W]

Not sure if there's an existing open thread - I couldn't see one aside from those in Speculative Discussion - but Anne-Marie Trevelyan has confirmed that due to time pressure in getting the energy crisis-related bills through parliament, there won't be time for the GBR bill.

This was confirmed just now in the House of Commons Transport Select Committee.

Articles slowly popping up, here's one from the Independent, sure others will follow:

Great British Railways plan ‘delayed’ as Liz Truss pulls transport bill

New body was set to run Britain’s railways from early 2024 but no legislation now due this session

www.independent.co.uk

The government's plan to create a new body to run Britain's railways has been delayed, the transport secretary has announced.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan said a planned transport bill that would legislate to set up Great British Railways (GBR) would not go ahead in this parliamentary session.

Asked whether this meant the plan would not be implemented by early 2024 as planned, Ms Trevelyan said this was "a fair call, realistically".


Bernadette Kelly, the top civil servant at the Department for Transport, also told the Committee: "I think in the absence of legislation to the timetable that we have been planning, then it is very difficult for us to implement all of the changes necessary which require legislation to establish GBR."

 

[43066]

Its been filed in the “too difficult” pile. They have bigger fish to fry at the moment…

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Plenty of change can be done without primary legislation, notably in the already publicly-owned rail sector (Network Rail, DfT, ORR etc).
But there's a limit to what you can do to TOC contracts without a new Railways Act.
Until then, the notion still is that the passenger railway is contracted out, and that OLR status is temporary pending competitive re-bidding.

The Crewe-Manchester HS2 Bill is also in need of parliamentary time.

 

[Dave W]

Plenty of change can be done without primary legislation, notably in the already publicly-owned rail sector (Network Rail, DfT, ORR etc).

I agree there's plenty that can go on, but I suspect this is an easy get out to pause most departmental action - for now at least.

 

[swt_passenger]

Here’s the BBC version:

The establishment of a new public body to operate Britain's railways is set to be delayed, after Transport Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan said a draft law was being delayed.
The Transport Bill was to have included the creation of Great British Railways.
Ms Trevelyan said her department had "lost the opportunity" to bring forward the bill in this session of Parliament.
She admitted this meant GBR was unlikely to be fully in place by early 2024, as had been hoped.
But she said she expected "the hiatus will be short", adding that the legislation should follow in the next session of parliament, from next May.
Ms Trevelyan told MPs on the Transport Select Committee the decision was nothing to do with the government U-turning on its mini-budget.

Great British Railways transport bill shelved

The transport secretary admits the full plan for overhauling how the railways are run will be delayed.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Dave W]

Here’s the BBC version:

Great British Railways transport bill shelved

The transport secretary admits the full plan for overhauling how the railways are run will be delayed.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thanks, I was looking for this but suspect the Beeb's notoriously oil tanker-esque lumbering to deal with news hadn't quite caught up.

 

[Boski]

At this point is it even going to go ahead

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

At this point is it even going to go ahead

Legislation delayed 12 months to 2023/24 session.
If it was to be completely canned it would have been announced as such.
We still don't know what "GBR" is, anyway, as so little detail has been released.

 

[Bald Rick]

It will still go ahead. The only alternative is more of the current situation, and no one likes that.

 

[Boski]

Legislation delayed 12 months to 2023/24 session.

If it was to be completely canned it would have been announced as such.
We still don't know what "GBR" is, anyway, as so little detail has been released.

I am correct in saying it will have the operators such as Southern, SWR etc still there but operating underneath GBR? LIke tfl with the overground?

 

[Energy]

I am correct in saying it will have the operators such as Southern, SWR etc still there but operating underneath GBR? LIke tfl with the overground?

Effectively Network Rail runs everything with it handing out concessions to private companies to operate services on behalf of it, like London Overground. Branding, ticketing etc. is handled by GBR, hopefully with less DfT interference.

 

[Boski]

Effectively Network Rail runs everything with it handing out concessions to private companies to operate services on behalf of it, like London Overground. Branding, ticketing etc. is handled by GBR, hopefully with less DfT interference.

So under GBR would staff still be employed under the toc or transfer to gbr

 

[Trainbike46]

So under GBR would staff still be employed under the toc or transfer to gbr

that would probably depend on their role

However it sounds like operational staff (drivers/guards/etc.) would stay with the TOCs

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Its been filed in the “too difficult” pile. They have bigger fish to fry at the moment…

Indeed.

It will still go ahead. The only alternative is more of the current situation, and no one likes that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Effectively Network Rail runs everything with it handing out concessions to private companies to operate services on behalf of it, like London Overground. Branding, ticketing etc. is handled by GBR, hopefully with less DfT interference.

But then we heard early on that GBR would "not be Network Rail Mk2".
Staff (or roles) from DfT and the TOC HQs would also transfer to GBR, which would have a regional structure.

 

[P Binnersley]

The 2023/24 session will be the last session of this parliament. With a general election due January 2025 at the latest, and most likely in May 2024, there is little time to pass a bill and none to implement it.

The next parliament will have to sort out the mess.

 

[Pinus contorta]

So the suspense over the competition winner for the HQ of the new organisation continues in Derby Crewe Doncaster or wherever.

 

[SamYeager]

Branding, ticketing etc. is handled by GBR, hopefully with less DfT interference.

The chances of the DfT interfering less are slim to non-existent. It will just happen at one remove with GBR copping the flak for decisions supposedly made by them but effectively dictated by the DfT.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It will still go ahead. The only alternative is more of the current situation, and no one likes that.

The transition team ought to be scaled back until the DfT are clear on the direction of travel the industry can't afford to haemorrhage more money given pressures on public spending will inevitably find there way into railways given the deficit it is running currently.

 

[lordbusiness]

But then we heard early on that GBR would "not be Network Rail Mk2".
Staff (or roles) from DfT and the TOC HQs would also transfer to GBR, which would have a regional structure.

But that would mean ex-civil servants actually making decisions and taking responsibility for them.

That will be a shock for some of them.

 

[ScottGallagher]

Is there any compelling reason why Network Rail as a body cant absorb the role that GBR is supposed to become, rather than all the faffing about and inevitable upheaval, would that require legislation?

 

[DanNCL]

With today's scenes in government I wouldn't count on anything that's been announced about GBR as happening or not happening actually going as announced. A general election would almost certainly see a Labour government elected who'd tear GBR up and go for BR Mk2.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there any compelling reason why Network Rail as a body cant absorb the role that GBR is supposed to become, rather than all the faffing about and inevitable upheaval, would that require legislation?

Yes, various existing legislation is the compelling reason. Hence the need for new.

 

[Thirteen]

I'm not sure if Labour would want a British Rail Mark 2 and indeed a new organisation like GBR would distance itself from it and be its own thing.

 

[Clarence Yard]

With today's scenes in government I wouldn't count on anything that's been announced about GBR as happening or not happening actually going as announced. A general election would almost certainly see a Labour government elected who'd tear GBR up and go for BR Mk2.

No, they would go for GBR, or a version thereof. The civil servants have been very clever with the proposed GBR legislation and it actually makes Labour’s job easier because the DfT would still hold the policy decision powers over GBR and GBR would, in certain circumstances be able to run the services themselves.

Shapps really didn’t understand what he was approving.

 

[DanNCL]

No, they would go for GBR, or a version thereof. The civil servants have been very clever with the proposed GBR legislation and it actually makes Labour’s job easier because the DfT would still hold the policy decision powers over GBR and GBR would, in certain circumstances be able to run the services themselves.

Shapps really didn’t understand what he was approving.

I'm not sure if Labour would want a British Rail Mark 2 and indeed a new organisation like GBR would distance itself from it and be its own thing.

GBR in its currently proposed form isn’t compatible with Labour’s pledge to fully renationalise the rail network. There’d certainly be no role for any private firms to play in it if Labour did keep the GBR name.

I think more likely Labour would rip up the legislation and start from scratch with their own new legislation.

 

[zwk500]

GBR in its currently proposed form isn’t compatible with Labour’s pledge to fully renationalise the rail network. There’d certainly be no role for any private firms to play in it if Labour did keep the GBR name.

I think more likely Labour would rip up the legislation and start from scratch with their own new legislation.

The Legislation is still to go through parliament, so there's no reason Labour wouldn't keep the bones of the GBR proposals and simply modify the parts they don't like, rather than rip it up and start from scratch

 

[Thirteen]

The Legislation is still to go through parliament, so there's no reason Labour wouldn't keep the bones of the GBR proposals and simply modify the parts they don't like, rather than rip it up and start from scratch

I think GBR can be tweaked to suit Labour's requirements.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

GBR in its currently proposed form isn’t compatible with Labour’s pledge to fully renationalise the rail network. There’d certainly be no role for any private firms to play in it if Labour did keep the GBR name.
I think more likely Labour would rip up the legislation and start from scratch with their own new legislation.

There's a long way between a "pledge" and actually passing legislation to exclude private firms.
Labour never planned to abolish private freight, open access or rolling stock ownership, and would retain the current access regime regulated by ORR.
Their only plan was to return franchises to DfT when they expired - which is roughly where we are post-covid with short-term ERMA contracts.
Devolution has also fragmented the GB railway since 1997, so DfT's writ is largely limited to England.
HS1/HS2 are also not part of the NR empire, even if DfT-owned.

Labour will have a mountain of legislation to enact without the railway, and as in 1997 railways might not be a priority.
The government coffers, as will be obvious from recent events, are empty.

 

[Scanderina]

I think GBR can be tweaked to suit Labour's requirements.

Almost certainly starting with the name.

Legislation delayed 12 months to 2023/24 session.

I am correct in saying it will have the operators such as Southern, SWR etc still there but operating underneath GBR? LIke tfl with the overground?

Yep the SWR-GBR relationship would be similar to the Arriva Rail London-TfL relationship.

There is a difference though in that ARL/London Overground services run largely over Network Rail infrastructure.