Source · Select Committees · Transport Committee
Recommendation 21
21
Accepted in Part
Bill lacks specific requirement for improved rail network accessibility, despite positive duties.
Conclusion
The specific inclusion of disabled passengers in the clause 18 passenger duty, and in the duty on the Passengers’ Council in clause 36, are welcome means for improving the rail network’s focus on accessibility through the Bill. The Bill could further support this aim and give the duties teeth by requiring improvement in accessibility. (Conclusion, Paragraph 60)
Government Response Summary
The Government agrees that GBR will need to have the flexibility to engage multiple MSAs on local services that cross authority boundaries but do not believe an amendment is needed to the Bill to achieve this.
Government Response
Accepted in Part
HM Government
Accepted in Part
The Government partially agrees with this recommendation. The Government agrees that GBR will need to have the flexibility to engage multiple MSAs on local services that cross authority boundaries. This will enable joint working on rail and wider transport priorities, giving Mayors genuine influence over outcomes while maintaining national integration. That is exactly why the detail of each partnership is not included in the Bill. The Bill provides Mayors and GBR with the framework and the principles for how they should work together, but deliberately allows for flexibility as we recognise that every local area is different. The Bill would not prevent GBR from entering into an arrangement with more than one MSA, for example, should it be beneficial for the effective co- operation on local services that cross authority boundaries. Therefore, while the Government agrees with the principle the Committee identifies, we do not believe an amendment is needed to the Bill to achieve this. 23