Source · Select Committees · Transport Committee
Recommendation 11
11
Acknowledged
Require the RNEP to clearly set out committed funding and provide 5-year rolling certainty.
Recommendation
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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 69)
Government Response Summary
The government recognises the importance of devolved and regional partners in shaping and delivering rail investment and states that the RNEP is designed to allow schemes to progress independently with potential to enter the national portfolio at any stage.
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
The Government recognises that devolved and regional partners play an increasingly important role in shaping and delivering rail investment. Some enhancements are particularly well suited to regional leadership or co-funding, including schemes where the primary benefits are local or regional, where integration with wider transport or regeneration plans is critical, or where delivery can be accelerated through local sponsorship. In such cases, central government’s role is to ensure alignment of these more localised goals with national rail objectives, system integration and supporting value for money, rather than to act as the sole funder or sponsor. The RNEP is designed to allow schemes to progress independently of Government, particularly at early stages of development, with the potential to enter the national portfolio at any stage if appropriate. Structured engagement with Mayoral Strategic Authorities and other promoters and funders could also help strengthen the quality and credibility of the potential pipeline, including where local growth plans or co-funding approaches support earlier development of schemes. Confirmed enhancement schemes being delivered or co-funded by devolved or regional authorities will continue to be reflected in pipeline publications where they affect the national rail network. The proposed potential pipeline will also set out how local and regional authorities can engage and provide clarity on possible future national schemes. This will provide full visibility to industry and the supply chain and help to ensure that regional activity is integrated into overall planning and that delivery capability can be sustained efficiently across the network. As Great British Railways is established, it will provide a clearer framework for aligning national and regional investment priorities, supporting earlier engagement with regional partners and greater clarity on how locally promoted schemes can meet national objectives. This is intended to reduce duplication, improve the quality of proposals and increase confidence for both public and private co-investors. Conclusion The Government shares the Committee’s ambition to reduce unnecessary volatility and strengthen long-term clarity in rail investment. The evidence does not support the characterisation of systemic “boom and bust” in overall rail funding. However, the Government recognises the importance of improving integration, transparency and strategic coherence. Through stable Funding Period settlements, disciplined stage-gated governance, strengthened public visibility, a clear Long-Term Rail Strategy and the establishment of GBR as the guiding mind of the railway, the Government is implementing a durable and integrated approach to rail investment in the interests of passengers, freight users, the supply chain and taxpayers.