Ticket office closures mean Londoners will pay double for day trips outside the TfL boundary

Our new data project, based on 82 of the busiest stations in South East England, finds that if ticket offices are closed, Londoners will have to pay much more to take day trips outside the city – often double or even triple the price to destinations very close to the TfL boundary.

This is because of the expected withdrawal of special ‘boundary fare’ prices, which are only guaranteed to be available at ticket offices – and not on the major online platforms, nor most ticket vending machines. All Freedom Pass and London Travelcard holders are entitled to these lower prices, because their pass already covers their travel within the TfL boundary. So, anyone in this situation who purchases a full-price National Rail return is already paying much more than they have to.

Our findings include price hikes of up to 190% for an off-peak day return to Dartford, and 243% for a peak-time day return to Epsom, Surrey. The effective removal of these fares from purchase has huge equality and consumer rights implications. Once again, the biggest impacts will fall on the Londoners on the lowest incomes, especially older and disabled people holding ‘Freedom Passes.’

Boundary fares are not widely advertised, and neither National Rail Enquiries nor Trainline offers this as a search option, despite providing this for all the other main railcards, including regionally specific ones. (This issue has become so controversial that rail industry is already undergoing a multi-million pound class action for its concealment of boundary fares, in breach of consumer rights and competition law.)

Results of the boundary fares data project

Our survey covers 82 of the busiest stations in the South East selected according to the highest footfall station in each parliamentary constituency. This is the South East region as defined by ORR on their station information page, covering all of Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex, Hampshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, and parts of Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire. The relevant train operators are Govia Thameslink, Southeastern, Chiltern, Great Western and South Western and London North Western. Ticket prices were collected across the two main day return ticket types – Off Peak Day Return (CDR) and Anytime Day Return (SDR). The data compares the National Rail Enquiries price on these tickets with their, much cheaper, boundary fare option, sourced from brfares.com

See the Top Ten worst examples in both off-peak and peak tickets below, and the full data for the 82 stations can be downloaded here.

The impact of fare hikes on all Londoners

The aim of our research is to highlight that the fight against the closure of ticket offices should be a key concern for every region. In London’s case, the stealth removal of boundary fares is the perfect example of how ticket office closures mean equality law and consumer rights breaches affecting every demographic.

In this case, once again, we see the disproportionate impact fall on older and disabled people, who as residents of London boroughs, are entitled to a freedom pass, covering off-peak, and peak travel respectively. The price hike in most of our findings is so severe as to present an insurmountable barrier to travel for some of the lowest income groups, also restricting access to cash purchase.

It will reduce access to leisure travel, and employment (especially self-employment), and the care work and support that so many people on low incomes provide for their families living outside the city (for example, grandchildren and older relatives). In this sense, the removal of boundary fares will affect even non-users of rail – and in all of the most vulnerable and low income demographics.

The price hikes will also affect all London Travelcard holders (whether weekly, monthly or annual), which could include anyone regularly working or travelling in the city, as well as tourists to London. This creates huge cost barriers to travel for everyone, with the heaviest impacts falling on Londoners on the lowest incomes; and discouraging use of the mainline railway for those who want to travel more in future, which may be essential to their employment and wellbeing.

Urgent questions to protect passengers

1) Increased costs and risk of £100 penalty fare

Freedom Pass and London Travelcard holders will also be subject to an increased threat from the new £100 penalty fare, hiked from £20 in January this year. We asked the Rail Delivery Group how passengers can still buy these tickets, how they can get the difference refunded if forced to buy a more expensive ticket, and how they can defend themselves if challenged by a ticket inspector with an unjust penalty fare.

However, the RDG failed to provide a solution to any of these problems. Neither the industry pledge that “customers will never have to travel out of their way to buy tickets”, nor their following claim, have any basis in reality.

“…in rare cases where customers are unable to buy the ticket they need at a station, they would be able to buy on their journey, at a ticket selling facility en-route or at their end destination. Across the network as a whole, many ticket retailing facilities will remain open at busy interchanges, smoothing the transition.”

In fact, the operators around Greater London include the six operators running driver-only trains on many lines, preventing ticket purchase onboard. If the closure plans go forward, it is unlikely there will be a ticket office at the journey’s endpoint either, so the Rail Delivery Group is actively suggesting here that people should break their journey unnecessarily to buy a ticket, or travel out of their way to buy one.

2) Boundary fare prices unavailable online or at most ticket machines

Boundary fares are unavailable online or at most ticket vending machines, so many passengers require assistance, or advice, from ticket office clerks even to access these fares. We asked the Rail Delivery Group to say whether they had any plans to make these tickets available on online retailing platforms, such as their own platform National Rail Enquiries, or Trainline. This could easily be added as a search function, where many regional and disabled people’s railcards are already listed.

The Rail Delivery Group refused to respond to this question but said:

“An estimated 99% of all transactions made at ticket offices last year can be made at Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) or online. Where needed, TVMs across the network will be upgraded to sell a greater range of tickets…Across the network as a whole, there will be more staff available to give face to face help to customers out in stations than there are today.”

This statement is highly misleading. Firstly, the claim of 99%, which we note the Rail Delivery Group is now advertising as 97% as part of their extensive Google ads campaign linking to the consultation. It is currently impossible to trust their figures, but if 97% is accurate, this still leaves 3% of 55 million fare types.

The situation is even worse for ticket vending machines, where 18%, or 1 in 5 tickets purchased by passengers are currently unavailable. The unavailable tickets will of course include many of the cheaper fare options, as these are the ones most dependant on personalized advice from ticket office staff, due to the labyrinthine fares system.

Finally, as we argued in our recent expert letter on ticket office closures, any RDG commitments on staffing, ticket retail upgrades – or indeed any kind of future plans – have no regulatory or contractual basis.

For more information, contact@abcommuters.com

---

This post was updated on 24.08.2023. to add a screenshot of the Rail Delivery Group’s Sponsored Google Ad.

Ministers Exposed: 94 midlands stations to become completely unstaffed

Our emergency research project uncovers the truth behind the government’s claim that “no currently staffed station will become unstaffed”. At two midlands operators, around 94 stations are set to become completely unstaffed once the ticket office consultations are over.

The consultation documents show that at West Midlands Trains (WMT), 78 stations would become unstaffed under the plans. Added to WMT’s current total of 59 unstaffed stations, the number would increase to 137 (94% of its network). Of a total 146 WMT stations, only 9 would retain ticket offices.

At East Midlands Railway (EMR), 16 stations would become unstaffed – increasing from 74 at present to a total of 90 unstaffed stations (87% of its network). Of a total 103 EMR stations, only 7 would keep ticket offices open.

Mass discrimination in the midlands

This means the end of advertised staffing hours at 91% of stations across the two midlands operators – due to the use of the Rail Delivery Group’s “Schedule 17” consultation process, which will remove all regulatory requirements for scheduled staffing.

The only substitute for station staff at the above locations will be unscheduled “mobile staffing”, denying access not only to ticketing services but also station facilities such as toilets and heated waiting rooms. WMT has proposed that staff from “new mobile teams” will be deployed to unstaffed locations “on a flexible basis”, while EMR suggests “we expect [daily or weekly] visits from mobile staff.”

The operators’ plans guarantee mass discrimination across the midlands. Currently, 1 in 5 tickets purchased by customers are unavailable from ticket vending machines; which can also be completely inaccessible to disabled people. The withdrawal of station assistance means that disabled passengers – and all passengers seeking better value tickets, advice and refunds – will have to travel to one of the few remaining ticket offices at bigger stations. This also raises questions about the legitimacy of the new £100 penalty fare, which the DfT increased from £20 in January this year.

What does this say about the national overview?

WMT and EMR were selected as 1) a regional case study on the Midlands and 2) a severe example of station destaffing. Currently, it is impossible to say if the withdrawal of staffing hours in this region is worse than any other, as operators have disguised the scale of stealth destaffing taking place. For example, a recent data project by activist Doug Paulley, shows that the total staffing hours on Northern will decrease from 10,793 to 4,238 hours per week under the proposals – a reduction of 61%.

Based on the consultation documents, our WMT/EMR research project took us three hours. We estimate that to have calculated the total amount of staffing hours withdrawn from these two operators would have taken an additional 20 hours, due to the way the information is concealed on their websites. To have calculated the total amount of toilet and waiting room opening hours withdrawn by these changes would have taken 30+ hours, requiring a station-by-station comparison with the National Rail Enquiries system.

We conclude, therefore, that to put the ticket office closure plans of all 13 operators into a quantified, national overview would take at least 3 weeks, and is impossible for individuals to complete within the consultation period. It is vital to point out that the Rail Delivery Group already has this information, and could provide it in just five minutes.

The Schedule 17 consultations are unlawful and invalid.

Train operator consultations are completely inaccessible to those most affected by the staffing changes; advertised only online, and by posters at stations with a website link. There are no paper copies available at stations (in standard, large-print or easy-read format), and most operators have failed to offer audio, Braille or British Sign Language versions of the consultation. 

Operators have made no attempt to reach out to non-internet users, or current non-users of rail. They have also ignored the need to reach out to rail users outside their local area (for whom stations would be a destination, not a point of origin). The short 21-day time period is a key accessibility issue, while the lack of a quantified national overview implies that any Equality Impact Assessments produced by train operators are likely to breach the public sector equality duty held by the DfT.

The urgent need for EHRC intervention

As explained in our recent expert letter, the consultations betray all the key promises behind Great British Railways (GBR) – especially the need to remove all essential passenger services from the unregulated Rail Delivery Group. The DfT has also failed to launch its promised National Rail Accessibility Strategy consultation, and failed to introduce a new National Accessible Travel Policy (which was supposed to be enforced by the Office of Rail and Road).

On 5th July, the ORR intervened in the consultations, requiring all operators to prove they are in compliance with accessibility regulations by the 21st. However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is still refusing to comment on whether it will intervene. They have now been refusing this demand for almost a year, following an ABC letter sent in August 2022, and a letter from 39 cross-party MPs last November.

Please help us by contacting the EHRC to demand their intervention in the ticket office closure plans. Please also ask your MP for their support on this demand – from Monday there will be just 4 days left until the end of the parliamentary session.

Email EHRC via: correspondence@equalityhumanrights.com

---

DATA SOURCES: Our WMT data is sourced from the consultation pages for each of their sub-brands West Midlands Railway (WMR) and London Northwestern Railway (LNR). The EMR data is sourced from their consultation page.

Experts call for ORR and EHRC to intervene in ticket office closures

With nationwide ticket office closures expected to launch any day, rail access experts and activists have come together to demand an emergency intervention by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) and Equality Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

On Friday evening, the ORR informed us that it “has not seen any plans or given assurances on any matter connected with [the closures].” The EHRC also confirmed that it had been excluded from these discussions despite recently meeting with the Department for Transport (DfT) about railway destaffing. Experts believe that “this alone raises serious questions about whether the DfT has been following due process regarding its public sector equality duty.” They say: “Unless the ORR acts immediately, the process will go forward without adequate equality assurances, and without the necessary retail and accessibility mitigations in place.”

Download the letter to John Larkinson, CEO of Office of Rail and Road here.

Signatories to the open letter (in alphabetical order):

Ann Bates OBE, transport access consultant and former UK government advisor on transport accessibility.

Linda Burnip, disability rights activist.

Carrie Clewes, Head of Equality and Discrimination at Ringrose Law.

Avril Coelho, Disability, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Activist. 

Gareth Dennis, rail engineer, writer and co-founder of the Campaign for Level Boarding.

Matt Edwards, Transport and Healthy Streets Spokesperson for the Green Party.

Caroline Eglinton, UK Government Appointed Disability and Access Ambassador for the Rail Industry.

Bob Ellard, on behalf of the Disabled People Against Cuts Steering Group.

Sarah Gayton, Co-ordinator of the NFBUK Street Access Campaign.

Sue Groves MBE, Disability Access, Inclusion and Awareness Advisor.

Ellie Harrison, Chair of Get Glasgow Moving.

Cat Hobbs, Director of We Own It.

Andrew Hodgson, President of the National Federation of the Blind of the UK (NFBUK).

Anthony Jennings, rail accessibility advisor and co-founder of the Campaign for Level Boarding.

Sam Jennings, disability rights activist #DisabledByTheRailway.

Sarah Leadbetter, disability rights activist and campaigner at NFBUK.

Christiane Link, transport access consultant and director at Ortegalink Ltd.

Caroline Lucas MP, Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion.

Katharine Macy, Acting Chair of the Liberal Democrat Disability Association.

Jamie McCormack, disability rights activist.

Dziaer Neil, disability rights activist.

Doug Paulley, disability rights activist and researcher at kingqueen.org.uk

Paula Peters, disability rights activist.

Fran Postlethwaite, Secretary of Yorkshire and Humber National Pensioners Convention.

Peter Rayner, Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT), Fellow of the Chartered Institution of Railway Operators (CIRO), Honorary Vice President of the National Pensioners Convention (NPC) and Secretary of the NPC Transport Working Party.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, Member of Parliament for Streatham.

Helen Rowlands, on behalf of the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People.

Jan Shortt, General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention.

Matthew Smith, Member of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT), former UK government advisor on transport accessibility and director at Rail Accessibility Ltd.

Chris Todd, Director, Transport Action Network.

Julian Vaughan, Chair of the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network.

Flick Williams, disability rights activist.

Emily Yates, Co-founder and researcher at Association of British Commuters.

Exclusive: Secret bus franchising guidance could cause huge legal risks to local authorities

Documents from a secret consultation last year have revealed that the Department for Transport (DfT) is burying controversial guidance on the National Bus Strategy that, if implemented, would greatly increase costs, delay and legal risk for any local authority seeking to bring its buses into public control.

The statutory guidance on bus franchising was originally due in Spring 2021, a core commitment of the ‘National Bus Strategy’, and the only possible path to a ‘London-style’ bus network. By withholding the guidance, the DfT has caused local and combined authorities to waste over two years on ‘Enhanced Partnerships’; preventing any chance of an integrated transport network, while giving bus companies a free hand to cut vital bus services.

Our freedom of information requests have now revealed that the statutory guidance has been held back because it misrepresents the legislation on which it was based. If implemented, it would create much increased legal risks and lock every authority in England into temporary DfT policy requirements. These arrangements would be almost impossible to undo if there is a change of government – or even just a change of government policy.

Exclusive new documents to download:

• Statutory bus franchising guidance “Version 10”, sent out by the DfT to six Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs) last July, with a request for feedback by the “final deadline” of 31 October 2022.

• The Urban Transport Group (UTG)’s damning response on behalf of the MCAs, showing that the new guidance would make franchising more difficult, costly, and greatly increase legal risks to local authorities. The UTG’s main accusation relates to the ‘Bus Service Improvement Plans’ (BSIPs) and compulsory ‘Enhanced Partnerships’ (EPs) required by the National Bus Strategy. The DfT has written these temporary ‘BSIP’ and ‘EP’ policies extensively into the new guidance, without any backing in the relevant legislation. If authorities were to follow this guidance, they would be under much-increased legal risk, especially “speculative legal challenges [from bus companies] seeking to exploit major loopholes.”

• Extensive 2021 input from the UTG, based on legal advice commissioned by a major law firm: 1) Legal Dimensions of the National Bus Strategy (March 2021) shows that the DfT had a chance to ‘de-risk’ the process after covid by extending direct award powers so that authorities could manage their bus network in the public interest and prevent drastic cuts. This would have been possible under existing legislation, but the DfT passed up the opportunity. 2) Legal Aspects of the National Bus Strategy (July 2021) calls for the release of new statutory franchising guidance and legislative measures to make the process easier, pointing out existing problems with the relevant legislation. The document explains that the requirements imposed by the National Bus Strategy on local authorities has created an even greater asymmetry of power with bus operators, encouraging private companies to manipulate negotiations at the cost of public funds.

Urgent questions for the DfT

Only six MCAs were asked to feedback on the statutory guidance: Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Greater Manchester, Liverpool, South Yorkshire, West Midlands and West Yorkshire. As of October 2022, the DfT had received input from only the Urban Transport Group and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. We asked the DfT which other stakeholders were consulted on the statutory guidance, and at what stage bus companies and transport owning groups were involved, but it refused to respond.

We asked the DfT if they would now take the franchising guidance to “a full and formal consultation” as requested by the UTG. The DfT did not respond and would not comment on its current plans for the franchising guidance, eight months after the secret consultation. It also refused to say when other promised consultations on socially necessary services, municipal ownership and the Bus Services Operators Grant would take place.

On whether franchising has ever been a realistic option for any combined or local authority, and whether the National Bus Strategy guidance on EPs and BSIPs it has already published also lacks a basis in legislation, the DfT refused to respond.

What next for the failed National Bus Strategy?

The Urban Transport Group’s complaints to the DfT prove our 2021 predictions that the National Bus Strategy will fail to deliver – and will actually cause increased economic dangers to local and combined authorities. As Philip Alston, former UN Rapporteur for poverty, warned in 2021, partnerships are a “failed middle ground” that will only worsen the human rights breaches caused by drastic cuts to socially necessary services since 2010.

The DfT has ignored the Urban Transport Group’s warnings for years, passing up many opportunities to save taxpayers’ money, grow the bus market on a non-commercial basis, and fix the inadequate, lengthy process towards bus franchising in the existing legislation. Given the excessive negotiating power granted to bus companies by the National Bus Strategy, we have asked the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee to urgently investigate the DfT’s use of taxpayers’ money.

Grass roots campaigners have predicted this outcome all along, while fighting to bring the failed, deregulated bus system into public control. To get active on bus services and support them in their amazing work, we highly recommend the Yorkshire and Humber Pensioners Convention’s upcoming national bus conference ‘Campaigning for Outstanding Bus Services on 17^th June. Join grassroots campaigners from all over the country in West Yorkshire, or attend online.

---

Exclusive: New evidence suggests Department for Transport ignoring its Public Sector Equality Duty

New evidence suggests that the Department for Transport (DfT) is failing to co-operate with an intervention by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) on railway destaffing; and ignoring its public sector equality duty in the formation of Great British Railways.

The new documents were obtained via freedom of information requests to the EHRC and the DfT’s statutory advisors on accessibility, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC). Both raise serious questions about whether the DfT is performing its duties under the Equality Act 2010, and suggest that it has not conducted any Equality Impact Assessments on staffing cuts in the last 18 months.

1. EHRC Correspondence – Download Here.

On 13^th December 2022, the EHRC began an intervention into railway destaffing, reminding the DfT of their “legal duty to ensure that rail services are accessible to everyone”. The EHRC warned: “The public sector equality duty in the Equality Act requires active consideration of equality across your work, including in the development of your policies and the use of your powers. This means thinking about the equality implications of decisions, monitoring impact, and taking action if necessary.”

Following “widespread reports” of rail inaccessibility from the public, and concerning feedback from DPTAC, the EHRC requested a meeting with the DfT, and publication of “Equality Impact Assessments on all departmental policies to improve compliance and transparency.”

On 11^th January 2023, the DfT responded, claiming “[We pay] due regard to equality issues when forming and delivering new policy, in line with the public sector equality duty.” However, they refused to publish Equality Impact Assessments because “there is no legal requirement” and “discussion on the scope of workforce reforms is ongoing”. Over four months later, the EHRC has informed us that the DfT has still not taken up its request for a meeting. (A day after this blog was posted, the EHRC informed us that the DfT has now agreed to a meeting in the second half of May).

2. DPTAC: Response to Whole Industry Strategic Plan (WISP) Call for Evidence – Download here.

In December 2021, DPTAC submitted a 4,000 word response to the WISP Call for Evidence, strongly criticising the “poverty of ambition” behind Great British Railway’s 30-year strategy. Containing extensive warnings on equality law and the DfT’s public sector equality duty, it appears to be the DPTAC advice referred to in the EHRC letter.

The document sets out in detail what DfT needs to do to fulfil its PSED, in particular to narrow the huge gap in rail usage and satisfaction – for example, disabled adults make 28% fewer trips and travel 40% fewer rail miles than non-disabled adults; and of these two thirds experience a problem on their journey. The “key intervention” would be to set specific targets to eliminate this gap, including the removal of all non-physical barriers to accessibility within 5-10 years, and full physical accessibility within 30 years.

However, the WISP Call for Evidence had already imposed a severe limitation on GBR’s long-term strategy – requiring respondents to suggest cost-cutting “trade-offs” that could be made; and warning them that it would not consider any requests for new investment.[1] In its response, DPTAC strongly objects to this limitation, arguing that they are not aware of “any properly holistic cross-governmental work” on the financial benefits of an accessible railway “despite this being at the core of the economic case for improving accessibility”.[2] GBR’s aim merely to ‘widen accessibility’ means that “even at the end of the 30 year period… the railway would still fall some considerable way short of being fully accessible”, and that “around a fifth of the UK’s population will potentially fail to benefit from the government’s plans to ‘level-up’ and improve connectivity”.

DPTAC warns: “The lack of ambition is particularly disappointing given the legislative background of the Equality Act (and associated Public Sector Equality Duty), the railways’ own regulatory framework, and the promised new ‘Accessibility Duty’ to be placed upon GBR”. It also emphasises that driver-only trains and unstaffed stations represent the main risk for the future, because “successful legal challenge…may hard-wire accessibility requirements into industry operational practices or require a major re-shaping.” In other words, the risk posed by unlawful destaffing policies would also threaten the financial structure behind the railway, requiring significant costs to revise contractual arrangements after a legal precedent is set.

Is the DfT ignoring its Public Sector Equality Duty?

Taken together, the documents strongly suggest that DfT has not conducted Equality Impact Assessments or other relevant studies on the social and economic impact of destaffing plans; nor the long-term accessibility strategy behind Great British Railways. If such studies have been conducted, then the DfT is refusing to share them with their own statutory advisors (DPTAC) and the UK’s regulator of equality law (EHRC).

The DfT is correct that EIAs “are not a legal requirement” in a specific sense; but case law on PSED shows that public bodies must pay “due regard” to equality issues both prior to and during relevant policy decisions. The key question becomes: when was a policy decision made for which the DfT could be held accountable? And has it completed relevant studies on social and economic impact that it took into account when making the decision?

The DfT has resisted transparency about staffing reform throughout last 18 month period of rail reform and the industrial dispute – with evidence that it has concealed its plans from even its own statutory advisors.[3] Yet, it is undisputed that the government is imposing up to £2 billion in cuts on the rail industry, including a mandate on train companies to target staffing. The method taken to impose these cuts will almost certainly consist of a combination of ticket office closures and the migration of a staff to a generic “multi-skilled” role; representing the biggest changes to staffing, accessibility and ticket retail in generations.

In this context, the DfT must immediately release any studies it has conducted showing the effect of budget cuts on equality, to prove that any new policies are consistent with PSED, and will therefore improve accessibility across the network. If this evidence does not exist, then a complete reassessment of the budget and government-given mandate for staffing cuts is urgently required.

The DfT refused to comment on any of these matters, nor say whether it has conducted EIAs on any of the workforce reform plans currently being proposed by the Rail Delivery Group to the RMT. It is now up to MPs, the Transport Select Committee, and the EHRC to demand the urgent release of these studies.

---

References:

[1] The WISP Call for Evidence emphasised that valid responses would suggest “trade-offs” that could be made to cut costs, and that answers should “take into account that in all future scenarios, we expect affordability to be a significant constraint.” It warned respondents in advance that no new investments would be considered, unless evidence was provided of the costs savings they would create.

[2] DPTAC’s economic argument was expanded further in DPTAC’s Rail Workforce Reform report, submitted to the DfT in February 2022.

[3] In October 2022, a key DPTAC member resigned in protest at the DfT’s failure to provide transparency about its rail workforce reform plans. He was the second of three DPTAC members working under non-disclosure agreements with Great British Railways to have resigned over the last year; with its former Chair resigning immediately after his pledge to bring transparency to the committee in May 2022.

Victory for disability rights activists as EHRC intervenes in railway destaffing

After six months examining the evidence, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has begun an intervention into rail staffing discrimination. It is now seeking a meeting with the Department for Transport (DfT) and Office of Rail and Road (ORR), and has assured us that: “we will not hesitate to use our enforcement powers, if necessary, to ensure their compliance with the law.”

The information is included in the EHRC’s response to our letter of mid-August, which was released to us earlier this week. It is a clear victory for all who signed the original demand, including Disabled People Against Cuts, National Federation of the Blind of the UK, National Pensioners Convention, and leading disability rights activists such as Ann Bates OBE and Professor Philip Alston, former UN rapporteur on poverty.

The RMT union has also been lobbying the EHRC throughout, and has now published a response to the 39-cross party MPs who requested intervention last November. The release of both letters follows the launch of a major inquiry by the Transport Select Committee on “accessible transport and legal obligations.”

Finally, we are pleased to report that the EHRC has been closely examining the evidence we have presented on the railway’s systematic discrimination against disabled people. Vital documents include an admission by Govia Thameslink that it has “been in breach of its legal requirements since 2010” and a dataset to prove that the same policies are in use at a total of six franchises: c2c, Chiltern, Greater Anglia, Great Western, Govia Thameslink and Southeastern.

The EHRC must take action now

The Dft and ORR received the EHRC’s request for a meeting over a month ago, but have so far failed to set a date, despite the fact that consultations on ticket office closures are rumoured to be just around the corner. With the new Transport Committee inquiry asking if the EHRC is fit for purpose, the need for a more assertive action is long overdue.

We now need to see an urgent public statement directly from the EHRC, warning operators and the ORR of their duties under equality law; as it previously did in 2019. It should then open a public investigation into the six operators alleged to be in breach.

In addition to policy interventions, the EHRC should reopen its transport discrimination legal fund, which closed in 2020 after just one year and a £48,870 spend. This should be part of a permanent commitment to promoting the right to transport as a fundamental human right for disabled people and all protected groups. Ultimately, their goal must be to support legal actions to establish vital case law on transport accessibility.

---

Download our original letter to the EHRC here.

Download our response from the EHRC here.

Follow us on Twitter for updates.

Six train operators “in breach of legal requirements” due to discriminatory staffing policies

Our new research reveals the six operators discriminating against disabled passengers through their rail staffing policies. Together, c2c, Chiltern, Greater Anglia, Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), Great Western Railway (GWR), and Southeastern are responsible for denying “turn up and go” travel at over 11% of Britain’s stations.[1]

The research forms our latest submission to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), demanding they intervene in all six operators for breaches of equality law. It builds on evidence we shared with the EHRC in September: a leaked GTR document where the operator admits it has been “in breach of its legal requirements since 2010” due to the combination of driver only operation (DOO) and unstaffed stations.[2]

We can now present the first ever overview of this combination across all six franchises, revealing the ‘no go areas’ for disabled people on Britain’s railway. Our data shows that if GTR is breaking equality law, so are the other five operators.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL DATA HERE

Our research – DOO and unstaffed stations

We’ve looked at all 786 stations run by the six operators, classifying each according to its staffing levels, and therefore, its capacity to provide turn up and go travel for disabled people requiring boarding assistance. Our data reveals that DOO has created ‘no go areas’ for accessible rail travel at a total of 292 stations across Greater London and the south-east of England, representing over 11% of Britain’s stations.

The ‘no go areas’ for disabled travellers cover a total of 23 London boroughs, with a particularly high rate in Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Lewisham. They also affect 20 local authority areas surrounding London, with notably bad examples in Buckinghamshire, Essex, Oxfordshire and Surrey. The full data on all locations is available to download here.

All of our information on staffing hours can be substantiated by National Rail Enquiries: the most authoritative source available because train companies have a regulatory requirement to keep it updated. Every train operator was given opportunities to feed back on the data, and – with the exception of GTR – none of them disputed our figures.

Summaries of train operators’ mitigations

We’ve also looked at the policies used by train operators to mitigate the lack of staff at DOO stations. Four alternatives to turn up and go assistance are in use: 1) staff sent from another station; 2) dedicated “mobile staff”; 3) taxi to destination or nearest staffed station; 4) “alternative journey plan” involving changes of arrival/departure/route. The train operators use all of these to varying degrees across their networks (with the exception of Chiltern, which does not have a mobile staffing team).

Apart from a limited mobile staffing trial on GTR, none of the TOCs provide a maximum wait time, or target response time, for these alternative measures. Most of the TOCs openly discourage turn up and go travel in their advice to passengers, and recommend pre-booking to avoid long wait times. 

The following summaries include comments directly from the operators, as well as extracts from their “Accessible Travel Policies” (ATPs).

c2c:

Turn up and go travel is unavailable at 24 out of 25 stations either some or all of the time – a total 96%. c2c has permanent “mobile units” providing assistance at 14 of these stations, but there is no maximum wait time. c2c’s ATP says “we ask that you book assistance two hours prior to travelling to guarantee assistance”; for unbooked passengers, it will “do [its] best to arrange for a member of staff to assist… although this may take some time.”[3]

Chiltern:

Turn up and go travel is unavailable at 25 out of 35 stations either some or all of the time – a total 71%. Chiltern is the only TOC of the six without a mobile staffing scheme, and its ATP often refers to taxis as the first choice of alternative, although staff may be sent from hub stations. On unbooked travel, Chiltern’s ATP warns: “this can take time to arrange because staff will have to travel to you…we do not recommend this system is used if your journey is time sensitive”.[4]

Chiltern said: “Our ATP and approach to DOO and Passenger Assistance have been accepted by the ORR and we are compliant in delivering our obligation.”

Greater Anglia:

Turn up and go travel is unavailable at 43 out of 133 stations some or all of the time – a total 32%. Information on Greater Anglia’s mobile staffing is inconsistent across its ATP and NRE, and the operator told us it has a further mobile staffing trial on its West Anglia route, though this has not been advertised. Many of Greater Anglia’s National Rail Enquiries entries on DOO stations advise passengers to travel from the nearest staffed station instead, suggesting that taxis are used as an alternative to staff at many locations.[5]

Greater Anglia said:  “We will do everything we can to help passengers with their onward journey, but it will take longer for assistance to be organised and arrive at an unstaffed station if this is not pre-booked.”

Great Western Railway (GWR):

Turn up and go travel is unavailable at 32 out of 194 stations some or all of the time – a total 16%. GWR told us that it has a permanent mobile assistance team covering all its DOO: stations; however, this focuses on the more accessible stations and does not operate full time, only 07:00 to 22:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 to 20:00 on Sundays. There is no maximum wait time for this assistance, which GWR says “would vary dependent on the station requiring assistance; location of the mobile assistance staff member/s; and the time of day/demand for other mobile assistance requests.”[6]

Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR):

Turn up and go travel is unavailable at 105 out of 235 stations some or all of the time – a total 45%. GTR currently has mobile staff covering 27 of these stations, with a suggested response time of 20 minutes. At stations without this service, staff would be sent from another station, or a taxi provided – with no maximum wait time. 

GTR disputes our data, claiming that the information on National Rail Enquiries is not up-to-date for some of their stations. However, it has not given us its alternative figures. [7]

Southeastern:

Turn up and go travel is unavailable at 63 out of 164 stations some or all of the time – a total 38%. Southeastern has a permanent mobile assistance team based at key locations and has informed us that these staff can travel to any station on the network. However, there is no maximum wait time for this service and its ATP advises passengers to book in advance: “there will likely be a delay for unbooked assists as we need time to arrange staff to attend.”[8] 

Southeastern said: “We do not have a maximum wait time, but we will take this feedback on board and update our Accessible Travel Policy accordingly.”

Why the EHRC must intervene

Under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, train operators are required to make “reasonable adjustments” for the equal provision of rail travel. This means they would be judged in court by whether a “provision, criterion or practice” puts disabled people at a “substantial disadvantage”. Other parts of the Equality Act relating to disability discrimination would also apply, but the “reasonable adjustments” duty is anticipatory, meaning it is judged on a systematic basis.

For this reason, our evidence provides a systematic approach to assessing these practices, showing exactly where the combination of DOO and unstaffed stations is in place across all six train operators. Our summary of the mitigations used shows that, years after warnings from accessibility experts, train operators and the rail regulator have failed to establish any consistent or lawful mitigations for these discriminatory staffing policies.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission now has no choice but to investigate, and apply its full legal weight to breaches of equality law by train operators.

---

References:

[1] Our data shows that 292 out of Britain’s 2570 stations have the combination of DOO and unstaffed stations some or all of the time – a total 11.4%. The project design is based on 2020 research conducted by DPTAC, the government’s advisors on transport accessibility.

Scotrail is also using this combination in the Greater Glasgow area, where some trains run under an “exceptional circumstances” agreement, meaning that staff are rostered, but not guaranteed, to be on board. Our study is based on rostered staff only, so Scotrail was excluded for reasons of data consistency. Scotrail refused to give us the percentage of their trains running without staff, commenting: “All ScotRail trains are scheduled with a second member of staff on board in order to provide assistance and customer service, though this has been impacted by recent industrial action.” For more information on Scotrail’s DOO routes, click here. *Scotrail is also the only operator in Britain to require advance booking for users of mobility scooters.

[2]  In mid-August, we dispatched a letter to the EHRC demanding “urgent legal and policy interventions” in rail staffing discrimination. It has not yet responded.

• September: we sent further evidence to the EHRC, proving that GTR “has been in breach of its legal requirements since 2010”. An RMT union letter  also demanded EHRC intervention.

• October: a government advisor on transport accessibility resigned in protest at rail staffing discrimination, forwarding his complaint to the Chair of the EHRC.

• November: A group of 39 cross-party MPs signed a letter calling for the EHRC to act.

[3] For c2c’s Accessible Travel Policy, click here. Please note, the information on staffing hours is out of date and inconsistent with National Rail Enquiries.

[4] For Chiltern’s Accessible Travel Policy, click here.

[5] For Greater Anglia’s Accessible Travel Policy, click here. See their DOO station entries on National Rail Enquiries for examples of the advice given to passengers, for example at Hatfield Peverel station: “Assistance at this station is provided by a staff member during ticket office opening hours. Outside of this time customers are advised to use Chelmsford station which is approximately 8 miles away. An appropriate accessible taxi will be supplied for journeys to intermediate unstaffed stations. Booking is recommended.”

[6] For GWR’s Accessible Travel Policy, click here.

[7] For GTR’s Accessible Travel Policy, click here. Other sources used to compile this information include: National Rail Enquiries station pages, ORR’s estimates of station usage, ORR’s ATP Guidance, Real Time Trains, and the operator’s own website and marketing materials. [All sources were accessed on 14^th November, 2022.]

[8] For Southeastern’s Accessible Travel Policy, click here.

For more information: contact@abcommuters.com

EXCLUSIVE: Govia Thameslink Railway admits it is in breach of equality law due to insufficient rail staffing

In a leaked document revealed today by the Association of British Commuters (ABC), Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR) has admitted that it is in breach of equality law due to insufficient staffing levels across its network.[1] GTR’s admission relates to its policy of operating driver-only operated (DOO) trains to unstaffed stations, which discriminates against disabled people by preventing unbooked ‘turn up and go’ travel on an equal basis with others.[2]

The document is an ‘Integrated Communications and Marketing Plan’ for GTR’s Accessible Travel Policy (ATP), discussing how to promote a new set of accessibility obligations required by the rail regulator, Office for Rail and Road (ORR).[3] One of GTR’s main accessibility commitments is to provide ‘mobile staffing’ services to 41 locations on the network that can’t currently offer boarding/alighting assistance at all times.[4] According to the Plan, the requirement for GTR to promote this new service creates a major public relations risk, because it draws attention to the fact it is currently in breach of its legal requirements under the Equality Act 2010.[5]

From GTR’s accessibility marketing plan, Feb 2021 – Dec 2022

The revelation follows an in-depth case study of GTR’s staffing arrangements by the government’s statutory advisors on transport accessibility (DPTAC). Published in July 2022, DPTAC’s Rail Workforce Reform Report found that the “toxic combination of DOO and unstaffed stations” in an area of South London is excluding disabled people from train travel, and therefore from employment, leisure, healthcare, and general economic and social participation.[6] There can be no doubt that this discriminatory rail staffing policy puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantage, and is, by GTR’s own admission, unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.

Disability rights activists and human rights experts believe that the leak will force an intervention from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) into the government’s secret policies of railway destaffing; as urgently requested in an open letter published on 17^th August.[7] The EHRC has previously warned the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) that the denial of spontaneous, unbooked assistance puts the railway in breach of the Equality Act 2010, as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, regarding disabled people’s ‘right to independent living.’[8]

---

Notes to editor

[1] The source of the information is a 20-page communications and marketing plan for GTR’s ‘accessible travel policy’, drafted by its Senior Media Relations Manager, and signed off by its Head of Media in February 2021. The document includes a schedule of media events from the launch of the ATP media strategy on March 30^th 2021, until December 2022. The sign-off process for the marketing plan included the Accessibility Steering Group, and four ‘key delivery directors’. As of February 2021, the team implementing the strategy was being led by GTR’s Senior Media Relations Manager; and supported by at least ten other senior members of staff, including key accessibility team personnel, stakeholder, marketing, and social media leads.

GTR’s marketing plan discusses the ‘risks’ posed by ABC and disability rights activists

According to GTR’s accessibility marketing plan, the biggest public relations risks are presented by the campaigning activity of ABC and other disability rights activists; especially Sam Jennings (@flowergirl_lon), who successfully sued GTR for assistance failures in March 2021 after being left stranded on trains and stations more than 30 times.

GTR’s “Potential risks, key considerations and mitigations”

Risk / consideration	Mitigation / comment
Risk of criticism/ridicule due to publicised failed assists (“How can they claim to be championing disabled people when they’ve let down Flowergirl 30 times?!”)	Tone of voice important. We need to be honest and focus on our desire to improve, not claim to be fabulous already – we’re on a journey. Make use of real people to tell our story (from AAP members to our Accessibility Ambassadors) Soft launch to build on, with key deliverables celebrated along the way
Campaign groups (such as ABC) and social conversations escalating above issue. Also opposition by campaigners to DOO – union and ABC agenda	Be confident in the steps we are taking to deliver a better experience. Remember the large audience who wants info on our progress v the small pool of campaigners
Resource and skills required to deliver some of the specifics of the stakeholder plan	New appointment (but will be a gap)
Promotion of the DCO trial is required for the trial to succeed and is a good thing for customers but highlights that GTR is / has been in breach of legal duties since 2010.	Open and honest promotion of improving support for customers at smaller community stations.
Leaflet/ATP mismatch over wheelchair space Twitter discussion – leaflet (says we will do everything we can to keep wheelchair spaces clear) commits more than the core ATP commitment (will give wheelchairs priority)	Updated customer info to ensure clarity of message
Flowergirl settlement figure news	Reactive statement emphasising the journey we are on and lessons learned as strive to make improvements. Comms input into the legal statement to ensure accuracy of Flowergirl’s announcement.
Negative commentary about vacancy of Head of/new role as ‘Lead’	Low-risk given public interest in specific personnel but line prepared and shared with social should we get specific questions from campaigners. Wider comms including Flowergirl settlement statement puts emphasis on business to deliver, not individuals.

[2] The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s submission to the Office of Rail and Road’s Accessible Travel Policy consultation, March 2019, asserted that the denial of disabled people’s “fundamental right to spontaneous travel” is a breach of the Equality Act 2010, as well as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

[3] Letter from the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) approving GTR’s Accessible Travel Policy, December 2020.

[4] Mobile assistance at 10 of the planned 41 stations is in place so far.

[5] GTR operates 150+ stations where station staff are either not available, or are only available for part of the day. The majority of these stations are served by DOO trains; meaning that where there is no staff, there is no means to provide boarding and alighting assistance. Even if GTR fulfils its plans to provide mobile staffing to the 41 stations, this will still leave a substantial number of stations where the assistance necessary to allow disabled people to travel is not available.

[6] The Rail Workforce Reform report was completed in February 2022, and published by the Association of British Commuters (ABC) on 26^th July 2022. It was covered in Private Eye on 10^th August 2022. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), statutory advisors to the Department for Transport, have been warning against “toxic” and “illegal” rail staffing policies on GTR since 2016. None of the documents have been officially published and are only available on ABC’s website.

[7] On August 17^th, disability rights activists dispatched a letter to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), demanding its intervention into “discriminatory” policies of railway destaffing and the “escalating human rights crisis” around alleged mass ticket office closures. The letter was co-signed by a former UK government advisor on transport accessibility, Ann Bates OBE; and former UN rapporteur on poverty, Prof. Philip Alston.

[8] The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s submission to the Office of Rail and Road’s Accessible Travel Policy consultation, March 2019.

—ENDS—

For further information: contact@abcommuters.com

Disability rights activists demand EHRC intervention into “escalating human rights crisis on Britain’s railways”

In a letter dispatched today to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), disability rights activists and human rights experts have called for its “urgent legal and policy interventions” into the UK government’s secret plans for railway destaffing.[i] Their demand has been co-signed by Prof. Philip Alston, international human rights lawyer and former UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights [ii], and Ann Bates OBE, access expert and former UK government advisor on transport accessibility.

All signatories to the letter are known for their bold opposition to railway destaffing, including: Andrew Hodgson, President of the National Federation of the Blind of the UK; Jan Shortt, General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention; Paula Peters, on behalf of the Disabled People Against Cuts Steering Group; and Emily Yates, researcher and co-founder of the Association of British Commuters. They are joined by high-profile disability rights activists: Alan Benson MBE, Sarah Gayton, Anthony Jennings, Sam Jennings, Sarah Leadbetter and Doug Paulley.

Responding to widespread allegations of mass ticket office closures, and the government’s reported £2 billion yearly cuts to railway spending, the activists say: “this could be our last chance to prevent an escalating human rights crisis on Britain’s railways”. They have demanded “full transparency from the government about any new staffing models under consideration”; a robust staffing model to provide guaranteed ‘turn up and go’ assistance; and a public consultation on staffing and accessibility, insisting that “the upcoming Transport Bill should not go ahead until this consultation has been completed.” The activists want the EHRC to ask for support from the United Nations (UN), and establish a joint approach to protect the “fundamental right to spontaneous travel” of disabled people and other protected groups. [iii]

---

Notes to editor

[i] The letter resumes a campaign pioneered by Ann Bates OBE, access consultant and former Rail Chair of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) ; and Emily Yates, independent researcher and co-founder of the Association of British Commuters; who secured an EHRC intervention into railway destaffing in 2019. The EHRC set up a transport discrimination legal fund in September 2019, but closed it early due to a lack of applications during the lockdown. During its nine months of operation, it assisted with 26 matters at a total spend of £48,870.

[ii] Philip Alston is Professor of Law at NYU Law School and Faculty Director and Co-Chair of NYU Law’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. He was formerly UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights (2014 – 2020). In July 2021, Philip Alston published ‘Public Transport, Private Profit’, concluding that the UK government could be in breach of three international human rights conventions in relation to cuts to bus services. He called for the public control of buses, the implementation of the socioeconomic duty of the Equality Act, and a statutory right to transport.

[iii] The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is running a call for input for his report to the 52^nd session of the Human Rights Council, closing on 14 Oct 2022. The theme is “the design and delivery of services that underpin the right of disabled people to live independently and be included in the community.”  

Download the full press release here.

For more information: contact@abcommuters.com

——–ENDS———

The Great British Rip-Off: Why the Williams-Shapps Plan will fail to deliver

Despite four years work on the Williams-Shapps Plan, the government has failed to come up with any credible answers for the complete market failure of the railway.

Its promise that Great British Railways (GBR) will be an integrated guiding mind “maximising social and economic value in the public interest” is fundamentally unachievable while privatisation remains in place.

Grant Shapps knows this. That’s why he’s deciding the future of essential passenger services such as fares, ticketing, staffing and station management in backroom talks with private train companies; exempting these areas from consultation. Meanwhile, the Williams-Shapps Plan offers a set of incoherent legislative proposals, which fail to clarify which essential services will be run by GBR; and which will remain in the hands of train companies.

The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail consultation is clear about just one thing – the reasons for market failure. In the government’s own terms, this has been caused by: 1. Moral Hazard – where profit motivations conflict with the public interest, also known as “perverse incentives”; and 2. Information Failure – where inferior decisions are made due to fragmentation and lack of accountability.

However, both of these problems are certain to remain. Here’s why the Williams-Shapps Plan will fail to deliver:

1. Competition law prevents integration

While rail privatisation remains, the restrictions of competition law will permanently prevent the integration of cross-industry functions such as timetabling, ticketing and passenger data. Competition law also requires a ‘level playing field’, meaning that decisions must not cause an adverse financial impact to private train companies.

The Williams-Shapps plan has failed to find a solution for ‘track access’, the process by which train companies negotiate their use of the timetable. The government has suggested a slightly heavier weighting on public interest factors when timetabling, but this suggestion is likely to be impossible under competition law. Integration will be impossible, with timetabling dominated by private interests, thus minimising the influence of devolved and regional governments.

As the ORR has emphasised in its new consultation response, the government’s proposals actually unleash even more competition concerns, likely to conflict with multiple existing regulations. It even suggests that GBR might have to be split into two distinct parts – to avoid the possibility of breaching competition law by collaborating across retail and operations within itself.

2. Incoherent legislation will prevent reform

Given the undisputable fact that privatisation leads to market failure, the government wants to amend the Railways Act 1993 to make it easier for ‘direct awards’ to publicly-owned operators when private companies fail. However, it wants publicly-owned operators to remain banned from actually competing for contracts because the better value they provide is seen as an ‘unfair advantage’ over private train companies.

The government also wants to retain EU Regulation 1370/2007; making it easier to navigate issues around state aid. These changes are welcome and could greatly increase the ability of local and national governments to directly award contracts to publicly owned companies. However, this approach is logically in conflict with the Bus Services Act 2017, which bans municipal ownership and severely limits the powers of local authorities to regulate their buses. Unless these changes are taken together holistically, it will be impossible to achieve integrated, multi-modal travel across bus and rail.

Finally, the government wants to sign up to the Luxembourg Rail Protocol; a way of liberalising and globalising the Rolling Stock Companies (ROSCOs), making it easier for the big banks to get involved. However, the leasing of trains under the ROSCO system is already one of the most dysfunctional areas of the railway; as well as the biggest site of profit leakage.

3. Accessibility proposals will fail to deliver

According to the submission made by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), the government’s proposals will be “insufficient to achieve real cultural change.” The government had previously ignored DPTAC’s recommendation for a £6 billion investment for full station accessibility by 2060, offering just a ‘nationwide station audit’ instead.

Last week, we published a confidential DPTAC report that suggests investment in station accessibility is being jeopardised by the “perverse incentives” of train operators. It is important to note that publicly-owned operators such as LNER are directly subject to the public sector equality duty, whereas private operators are not.

One positive suggestion in the Williams-Shapps plan is to expand the role of DPTAC, which has proved itself to be a competent and independent advisor to the government; never failing to oppose “toxic” and “illegal” policies of railway destaffing. However, there is now an urgent need to ensure DPTAC is sufficiently resourced to guarantee its independence, and has clear guidelines around its publishing and transparency policies. This is the only way to avoid the potential for political interference – especially in relation to the controversy around railway destaffing.

4. Passenger representation – a new role for Transport Focus

The Williams-Shapps Plan suggests that all passenger representation should be conducted by Transport Focus, part of a planned expansion of the organisation. Though it is an excellent research organisation, Transport Focus does not have the independence or credibility required to perform the function of a “passenger champion”; especially as relates to its new role representing disabled passengers. The inflation of Transport Focus to perform all of these vital roles appears to be a quick and cheap way to tick the ‘passenger rights’ boxes without any real consideration of what it would take to gain passengers’ trust and actual representation within the railway.

We Own It and Bring Back British Rail have published an excellent guide to the consultation, which calls for a ‘passenger board’ including representatives from every region of the country, as well as rail workers. Such a model is common in Europe and would greatly increase passenger involvement and trust.

How to respond to the consultation

The Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail consultation closes at midnight tonight, and we urgently need your help. The online response form is complicated, but the information in this blog, plus this excellent guide from We Own It, should help you to demand public ownership with just 15 minutes of your time.

Despite four years work on ‘reinventing the wheel’ of railway privatisation, the government has: 1. Failed to consider public ownership and 2. Failed to provide any proper economic analysis or predictions in support of its plans.

It’s vital to demand that legislative changes work holistically, creating the conditions necessary to “maximise social and economic value” – only possible under public ownership. However, legislative changes alone will not be enough. We’re also demanding a new ‘public sector value test’ to enshrine the benefits of: economic and social value, levelling-up, equality, decarbonisation and modal shift as determining factors in all government contracting decisions. These aims should never be compromised by competition law, especially the duty to avoid ‘financial impact’ on operators.

Any private train companies continuing to operate on the British railway must at minimum be treated as public sector bodies, and made subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the public sector equality duty – as the publicly-owned operators are already.

For more information: contact@abcommuters.com