Recommendation 6

HM Government Acknowledged

The Government is clear that Spending Review settlements do not constitute project-by-project approvals. Enhancements funding is deliberately provided at portfolio level through Spending Reviews, following detailed bids informed by strategic priorities and robust scheme forecasts. While the Spending Review settlement reflects the Government’s priorities for investment and the anticipated funding requirements of specific schemes, it does not remove the need for disciplined investment decisions on enhancement schemes as they mature. Individual schemes continue to progress through RNEP decision gates based on business cases, with demonstrated maturity, value for money, affordability and deliverability. This ensures that commitments are made at the appropriate point in the development lifecycle, rather than solely at fiscal events. In practice, this portfolio-based approach is critical to maximising value for money for the taxpayer. Where individual schemes or programmes encounter challenges, delays or cost pressures, the portfolio framework enables Ministers to manage these collectively; accelerating other schemes where appropriate, adjusting sequencing, or reallocating emerging headroom. This flexibility protects delivery momentum and overall outcomes while maintaining fiscal discipline. This approach does not reduce transparency or Parliamentary accountability. Rather it ensures that commitments are made when schemes are sufficiently mature to provide confidence on scope, cost and delivery. The Spending Review therefore enables and shapes the enhancements pipeline, but it does not replace the governance framework through which individual investment decisions are responsibly taken. This balance preserves both strategic prioritisation and operational discipline within a defined funding envelope. Pipeline Scope, Maturity and the Avoidance of Unfunded Commitments Committee recommendations: The RNEP should set out clearly how much funding has been committed, from what sources, and for the purpose of reaching which milestones. It should provide certainty at least five years into the future on a rolling basis, with an indicative pipeline of up to 15 years beyond that. Government response: Partially agree The RNEP should not become an unfunded wishlist: there must be a high bar of viability for projects to be included, and a commensurately high bar for any subsequent decision to remove them from the pipeline. The inclusion and status of projects should be regularly reviewed by the Secretary of State, the Office of Rail and Road and, when established, Great British Railways and the Passenger Watchdog. Government response: Partially agree Summary position: The Government agrees that the pipeline must clearly distinguish between funded commitments and earlier-stage proposals. The RNEP’s stage-gated governance provides this discipline. While the Government recognises the importance of longer-term visibility, it does not support publishing extended indicative pipelines that imply funding commitment. Instead, a clearly defined potential pipeline will provide directional visibility without undermining fiscal credibility.