The UK Government has rejected the premise of an inquiry put forward by the Transport Committee stating that rail investment has been subject to ‘boom and bust’, other than in respect of rolling stock.
In its response, the Government has acknowledged that whilst the perception of such cycles is ‘clearly felt by parts of the supply chain’, it insists there is ‘no evidence’ of boom and bust in overall rail funding.
The Government has rejected the Transport Committee’s inquiry
© UK Transport Committee
The Government also stated that it ‘shared the Committee’s ambition to reduce unnecessary volatility and strengthen long-term clarity in rail investment’.
However, the Committee has claimed that ‘very few’ of its specific recommendations to solve this have been accepted by the Government. It has stated that despite setting out proposed revamping and the keeping of an updated Rail Enhancements Pipeline (RENP), the Government has instead opted to set out an alternative structure.
This included a ‘potential pipeline’ of schemes capable of being progressed in the event that funding becomes available – but the planned format or timing of this information was, according to the Committee, not divulged.
Transport Committee Chair Ruth Cadbury said:
The rail industry needs certainty in the supply chain but the response to our report does not fill the Committee with confidence that the Government is seized with the necessary urgency to address this.
Firstly, I’m disappointed that Government does not recognise something that we heard throughout our inquiry – namely that investment in the railways has frequently been characterised by boom and bust cycles which create damaging uncertainty for the supply chain.
Secondly, while I’m pleased that Government shares the Committee’s ambition to strengthen long-term clarity in rail investment, it’s clear that more detail is needed about how this will be achieved.
The Government leans very heavily on the integration to be achieved under Great British Railways as a way of addressing these issues, but we can’t rely on a smoother, more efficient investment pipeline arising simply as a by-product of those reforms.
This is not just about the supply chain, but about the delivery of more reliable services at a lower cost: erratic investment in electrification over decades is a stark example of how boom and bust has damaged the railways’ service to passengers.
The Committee will now be looking for further details about exactly what will be done to inject much-needed certainty and steadiness into rail investment. As we do so, I look forward to hearing what the industry makes of the Government’s response to our report.