Labour’s direction of travel represents the biggest shake up in the railways since privatisation

Rail services in London – both overground and underground – are an important part of the responsibility of the Mayor of London. The lesson I learned in London was we need the right answers not just the status quo or solutions that simply replicate earlier models. We vigorously fought PPP for the Underground, agreed a massively upgraded East London Line, and brought in international-calibre management with both private and public sector experience. All of these was in one way or another unexpected, and all were the right thing to do.

There is now a lively debate about what Labour’s policy for the railways should be. Much of that liveliness flows from an impression that a public sector provider might bid for the inter-city routes as a ‘comparator’ based on the existing franchising system. That would, indeed, fall short of what is required. It would also miss the bigger picture of the package we need to overhaul our railways. But if we read the statements of the front bench closely, there are the clearest signs that that is not where Labour’s front bench intends to be.

It is worth noting that even the impression of Labour permitting a public sector bidder into the existing system has caused consternation amongst the rail privateers. Already we are seeing the usual threats and warnings from the fat cats who have done very well at our expense. It shows the depth of the vested interests Labour is taking on when it debates the railways. Standing up to the railway privateers as Ed Miliband has done to the energy companies is both right and necessary.

Jon Cruddas’s article for Labourlist on Wednesday points to a very different outcome to the privateers’ heaven that is the status quo. Nor does it go back to British Rail. If I read Jon’s article correctly, Labour’s direction of travel represents the biggest shake up in the railways since privatisation.

Very strikingly, Labour’s policy co-ordinator argues the present government has “has presided over a franchising fiasco” and that we therefore “need a better system – one that starts from the public interest.” That would fit with that interesting phrase – the need for a “level playing field”. The present franchising system can offer no such level playing field for the public sector: by definition it does not start from the public interest. It is a disgraceful rip-off.

I do not believe a single private operator would retain its route if the system started from a genuine public interest basis.

Secondly, reading Jon’s article carefully, he says that Labour’s 2010 manifesto commitment on rail “didn’t contain a commitment to legislate for the public sector to be able to run routes. Nor did it deal with the wider reforms that are needed for our railways to succeed.” Without that commitment to legislate for the public sector to run routes then everything else is warm words. All of the noises from Labour’s policy review is that legislation, combined with a massive system overhaul, is on the cards.

The need for legislation for directly operated rail is the big test. The clear implication of this is that Labour is moving beyond its unclear 2010 position, as indeed it must.

If we take the wider reforms the railways need to see to include those areas discussed in Jon Cruddas’s article then the outcome would be a very substantial proposition:

• Legislating for the public sector to take on lines;
• Addressing the minefield of rip-off ticketing with a better deal for fare payers;
• Resolving the complex divide between the different elements of the network – including rolling stock, operation of services, and track
• The need for a ‘guiding mind’ for the railways to plan investment.
• Making sure we give local areas more power to shape their rail services.

On those terms Jon has set out the right direction of travel.

The end of that journey requires learning the lessons of East Coast Mainline, halting the current rip-off franchising system, further devolution, putting an end to the disgraceful private sector monopoly arrangements for rolling stock that have served us so poorly, genuine co-ordination of services, stations, and routes, and a radical plan for simplified and fairer fares.