Source · Select Committees · Transport Committee
Recommendation 19
19
Rejected
Amend Bill to require ORR to act on Passengers' Council referrals within a timeframe.
Recommendation
The Passengers’ Council will be required by the Bill to protect passengers’ rights through monitoring operators’ compliance with its standards and receiving, considering and investigating complaints. It must be trusted to carry out that role. We consider it unlikely in the extreme that the Council would find a frivolous matter worthy of referral to ORR for enforcement. The Bill should therefore be amended to require ORR to take action from the range of enforcement actions open to them, unless there is a legal impediment to doing so or the issue has been satisfactorily remedied, within a limited timeframe following a referral of an issue by the Passengers’ Council. (Recommendation, Paragraph 55)
Government response summary AI-generated
The government disagrees with amending the Bill to mandate GBR to enter into arrangements with Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSAs), stating that enabling arrangements provides flexibility and that legislation is not needed to ensure engagement with local leaders.
Summary of the government's response below — read the verbatim text to verify.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government · verbatim extract
Rejected
The Government partially agrees with this recommendation. The Government agrees with the Committee regarding the importance of the Passengers’ Council being trusted to carry out its role. As recognised by the Committee, disabled passengers already face an unacceptable number of obstacles when trying to raise complaints. That is why the Government is committed to establishing a strengthened Passengers’ Council that will be able to champion the experience of disabled passengers and address the barriers that have prevented improvements. It is only by sufficiently empowering the Council that it will truly be able to achieve this. The Government also agrees that it would be extremely unlikely that the Council would refer any issues to the ORR that were not serious, important and thoroughly investigated. However, this does not mean that the ORR should be bound to take action, and the Government therefore disagrees with the recommended amendment as a result. The Government is clear that the ORR will not be able to ignore the Council. However, as the Council will champion passengers’ interests, it will not have the neutrality needed to be an enforcement body in the same way that the ORR as the overarching sector regulator will. The Council will have a sole focus on the passenger, so it will not have the wider perspective of other challenges facing the railway that the regulator will. For example, it would always find in favour of passengers compared to freight customers. That is why it is vital that the ORR, as the independent rail regulator, satisfies itself against its own duties and obligations that enforcement action is appropriate and what form this will take. The ORR must then inform the Passengers’ Council of what action it took and the rationale for it. However, the Government acknowledges the Committee’s concerns about the speed of referral and agrees that it is critical that passenger issues are dealt with appropriately, effectively, and swiftly. The provisions outlined in the Bill regarding this will therefore be supported by a Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the Passengers’ Council and the ORR which will set out exactly how the two organisations will work together and the process and timeframes for enforcement referrals. This will ensure a seamless experience for addressing the most important issues affecting the passenger experience on the railway. The Government would be happy to keep the Committee updated on the progress of this.
Read the full response on Parliament ↗