Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they next expect to meet
Avanti Trains to discuss payments made to the company under the
service quality regime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Transport () (Con)
My Lords, officials regularly meet Avanti to discuss its
performance against service quality regime targets and how it
will make improvements for passengers and to the customer
experience. To date, no payments have been made to Avanti under
the service quality regime. The evaluation to determine the first
service quality regime performance fee for April to October 2023
is currently under way.
(Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, at a recent internal
meeting at Avanti trains, various slides were produced for its
management? I have some of them with me at the moment and I shall
quote from them. Managers joked about receiving “free money” from
the Government and performance-related payments being
“too good to be true”.
The presentation went on to say that the Department for Transport
supports the firm and added:
“And here’s the fantastic thing!—if we achieve those
figures”—
that is, the Government’s punctuality figures—
“they pay us some more money—which is ours to keep—in the form of
a performance-based fee!!”
Does the Minister accept that this is a situation where the
Treasury takes the revenue, the passengers take the strain and
the directors take a bonus for providing the worst train service
in the UK? This is not a policy; it is lunacy.
(Con)
As I referred to in my opening response, no payments have been
made to Avanti under the service quality regime thus far. The
department considers the comments from the leak to be a very
serious issue, and expects the highest standards of culture and
leadership from Avanti’s operators and senior management. We are
extremely disappointed by the tone expressed in the leaked
presentation. Officials have met their counterparts at First Rail
Holdings, Avanti’s parent company, and spoken to the managing
director to convey the seriousness of this issue. The Rail
Minister has also met the chief executive of FirstGroup
(LD)
My Lords, if the House were sitting for five days next week and
the Minister had Questions every day, and he arrived six minutes
late on Monday, eight on Tuesday, 10 on Wednesday, 12 on Thursday
and 14 on Friday, with the remarkable phrase, “I apologise for my
lateness to arrive at the Dispatch Box and hope it does not
disrupt the House too much,” one of two things would happen. We
would have a whip-round for an alarm clock for him, or the Chief
Whip would be looking for a new Minister, because that is
accountability. Is nobody holding Avanti trains responsible?
Those times I have given to the House are times of trains being
late that do not qualify for any payment whatsoever. The
long-suffering public are putting up with this day in and day
out. Does the Minister think I am overegging it? The 9.35 for
Euston was 21 minutes late in this lunchtime.
(Con)
The decision to award the contract to First Trenitalia was
contingent on the operator continuing to win back the confidence
of passengers, but as with other operators, it is a combination
of things. Its train crew issues are linked to its continued lack
of driver overtime and ongoing industrial action. There are many
issues that contribute to this. It is not always the operators’
fault.
(Lab)
My Lords, last week, the Government launched a draft rail reform
Bill, which they claimed would put one organisation in charge of
all the railways. It is pretty obvious that that organisation
will be the Government. How will that actually improve the
appalling service that Avanti is still giving, in spite of the
Government actually being in charge now?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. We are committed to
reforming the railways, and we are getting on with delivering
improvements for passengers, freight customers and the taxpayer
now. Rail reform remains a priority for government. Our priority
for the next 12 months is delivering the improvements I just
mentioned, and we are focused on collaborating with the sector to
lay the foundations for a reformed industry, taking more of a
whole-system perspective within the current legal framework.
(Con)
My Lords, does the Minister remember that Parliament passed a
minimum-service requirement in the context of strike action? Is
it the case that, if there is bad weather, Avanti or any other
rail company can order a fleet of taxis to ensure that passengers
complete their journey, but if there is a strike, no alternative
transport can be so ordered? Will the Minister look into this to
ensure that the Act that Parliament passed is followed to the
letter?
(Con)
I will certainly have a look at that.
(Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend for his tenacious pursuit of
Avanti’s inferior performance. However, it is not just Avanti;
Govia Thameslink regularly fails two-thirds of its performance
measures. The industry is in a mess. Why do His Majesty’s
Government not initiate legislation, already in draft, to create
Great British Railways; or even better, call a general election
and hand over this mess to a properly mandated Government?
(Con)
The noble Lord asks about the Govia Thameslink Railway service.
The new service quality regime was introduced in 2023, and the
targets set for that period were drawn from the best available
information at that time. We have been able to review and
evaluate the outcomes of a standard set in 2022-23, with new
levels for 2023-24. The department regularly discusses and
reviews performance with Govia Thameslink Railway, and its
service quality regime results have improved year on year. We
will continue to hold it to account to deliver further
improvements for passengers.
The Lord
My Lords, a number of times in this short session, we seem to
have had it suggested that somehow the Avanti staff are to blame.
I suffer along with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, regularly on
that Manchester Piccadilly to Euston route. The staff are
wonderful; it is not the driver’s fault if they are eight minutes
late, or the fault of the person bringing you a cup of tea if
they are 40 minutes late. The problem does not lie with the
Avanti staff, who are working under incredibly difficult
conditions. Can the Minister join me in expressing support for
those staff in the work that they are doing under very trying
circumstances?
(Con)
I absolutely agree with the right reverend Prelate. I travel from
Wales on the GWR system. Yesterday, we were an hour late arriving
at Paddington. The staff are very good, and they keep us informed
as to what the issues are. As I have said previously, the issues
are not always the operators’ fault; they are very often to do
with infrastructure.
(LD)
The Minister referred to improving standards from Govia
Thameslink. However, in the first year of the current contract,
it failed on seven of the nine targets, which were then reduced
and loosened. When the Minister says that it has improved, has it
improved against the new, looser and lower targets, or has it
actually improved its service to customers? Secondly, on reaching
those targets, its leadership is entitled to a massive £23
million bonus. Will it achieve that on the lower targets that the
Government have set?
(Con)
The noble Baroness asks several questions there, and I would
answer by saying that the targets are proportionate to the level
of investment agreed with the business plan for any given
year.
(Lab)
On service levels, do the Government share the concerns of the
RMT union about Avanti’s proposals to withdraw cash payments from
its catering services? This move shows scant regard for those
older and poorer passengers who use only cash. Does the Minister
agree with me that it would be far better for customers to have
the option of cash and card for catering services?
(Con)
That really is a matter for the operator; it is not for
government to decide that particular issue.
(LD)
My Lords, LNER generally performs significantly better than
Avanti, but it is now proposing to reduce the hourly service from
Berwick-upon-Tweed to a two-hourly service and lengthen journey
times. How is that the improvement in passenger experience of
which the Minister spoke?
(Con)
I must confess that I am not aware of that, but it is something
that I shall take back to the department and look into.
(Lab)
My Lords, why will the Government not just publish the contracts
that we have with train operating companies? When I travel on
Avanti back and forward, on every journey there is somebody in
the carriage I am in who knows something about the contract, and
I can tell you that the Government do not come out of any of
those conversations well. Are all these contracts different for
different train operating companies, so that they can compete
with each other—because they do not seem to be? Why do the
Government not just come clean and tell the people who are paying
for all this nonsense what the contracts state that have been
made on their behalf?
(Con)
The Government are very conscious that it is taxpayers’ money;
they keep that in mind. As to publishing contracts, again, that
is something that I would have to take back to the department.
