Source · Select Committees · Transport Committee
Recommendation 12
12
Accepted in Part
Require a high viability bar for RNEP projects and regular review by key bodies.
Recommendation
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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 71)
Government Response Summary
The government agrees any pipeline must clearly distinguish between funded commitments and earlier-stage proposals. They recognize the Committee's interest in greater clarity on the level and source of funding committed to individual schemes and will set out scheme-level funding allocations.
Government Response
Accepted in Part
HM Government
Accepted in Part
Partially agree The Government agrees that any pipeline, particularly if published, must clearly distinguish between funded commitments and earlier-stage or aspirational proposals. The RNEP portfolio includes live schemes that have received funding and are progressing through stage-gated decision points, from pre-business case strategic considerations through to delivery. Funding is normally committed only to the next stage of development, ensuring discipline and avoiding premature commitment. This means that full commitment to the delivery of projects is only provided when full maturity is reached in their development and a Decision to Deliver (also known as the Final Investment Decision) has been taken. The Government recognises the Committee’s interest in greater clarity on the level and source of funding committed to individual schemes, and the milestones to which that funding relates. However, particularly prior to Final Investment Decision, setting out scheme-level funding allocations in detail can present challenges. Cost ranges, scope and delivery profiles often evolve materially as schemes mature, and premature disclosure of indicative funding positions risks conditioning the market, undermining competition and acting against the commercial interests of both the Department and its suppliers. For these reasons, funding needs to be managed and disclosed in a way that balances transparency with the need to protect value for money and effective procurement. We anticipate continuing to work with NISTA and HM Treasury to improve transparency in this area, where possible, in future iterations of the NISTA Infrastructure Pipeline. The Government remains the funder of rail enhancements, with funding provided through Spending Reviews and allocated at portfolio level. Within that framework, Ministers must retain the ability to determine which schemes enter, progress through, or leave the enhancements portfolio, in line with the published RNEP policy, affordability constraints and wider strategic priorities. This flexibility is key to managing risk, responding to emerging delivery challenges and ensuring the public funding is directed to the schemes that are most deliverable and offer the greatest value. The RNEP portfolio is subject to regular review by Ministers, including at defined points within each Funding Period, to ensure that schemes remain affordable, aligned with strategic objectives and capable of being delivered efficiently. While the Office of Rail and Road does not have a direct role in approving or assessing individual enhancement schemes, it is represented within the joint governance arrangements through which the portfolio is reviewed each period, allowing for regulatory insight and challenge alongside the Department and Network Rail and, once established, Great British Railways. The Government [...truncated...]o transparent criteria and will not constitute a funding commitment, but rather a clear indication of strategic intent. This structured distinction between live funded schemes and potential future options is intended to provide visibility and confidence, while avoiding the creation of unfunded “wishlists” or unrealistic expectations. It may support third party investment in progressing such schemes, while allowing the rail supply chain to see the direction of travel and plan and upskill accordingly. This will support transparency for Parliament, industry and the public, while preserving the fiscal discipline and commercial protections necessary to deliver value for money.