??ࡱ?>?? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????q ??ӡbjbj?? 2??iZj?iZj?W?????????     ????' ' ' ' Ls!?' <@??$??&?&?&?&b'b'b'?>?>?>?>?>?>?>(B??D`?>5 b'b'b'b'b'?>  ?&?&????*?*?*b'^ ?& ?&?>?*b'?>?*?*?}<?Y=?&????P?S???????'~=?> @0<@!=8>E>)?>E(Y=Y=?>E ?>lb'b'?*b'b'b'b'b'?>?>?)?b'b'b'<@b'b'b'b'????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????>Eb'b'b'b'b'b'b'b'b'?Y ?: A railway fit for Britain's futureIntroductionThank you for responding to our consultation on legislation that transforms GB railways. Closing date is 15 April 2025.Accessibility statementRead our HYPERLINK "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dft-accessible-online-form-and-survey-statement/accessibility-statement-smartsurvey-forms" \t "_blank"accessibility statement for SmartSurvey forms [opens in a new window].Confidentiality and data protectionThe Department for Transport (DfT) is carrying out this consultation on legislation that transforms GB railways. View our HYPERLINK "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dft-online-form-and-survey-privacy-notice/dft-online-form-and-survey-privacy-notice" \t "_blank"DfT online form and survey privacy notice [opens in a new window] for more information on how your personal data is processed in relation to this survey. In addition for individuals we are asking your employment status and, if employed, your type of employment in order to ascertain your relationship with the topic. Do not include personal information in your responses unless specifically requested. Personal details1. What is your name?Rebecca Fuller2. What is your email?rebecca.fuller@urbantransportgroup.org3. Are you responding on behalf of an organisation????(?Yes????No (Go to ?Individual details?) Organisation details4. The name of your organisation is?Urban Transport Group5. Your organisation is best described as:????a rail operator????a rail supply chain company such as members of the Rail Industry Association????another private sector rail company such as Rail Freight Group????a public sector body?????a devolved authority????a passenger representative?(???another type of organisation:?Membership organisation for devolved authorities6. The number of employees of your organisation is????(?1 to 50????51 to 100????101 to 500????Above 500:? [Now go to ?Leadership of Britain?s railways?] Individual details7. Are you employed?????Yes????No (Go to ?Leadership of Britain?s railways?)  Individual employment8. You work in:????a rail operator????a rail supply chain company such as members of the Rail Industry Association????another private sector rail company such as Rail Freight Group????a public sector body?????a devolved authority????a passenger representative????another type of organisation:? Leadership of Britain?s railwaysWe are committed to ending years of poor service and fragmentation on the railways, by creating a unified and simplified system with a relentless focus on improving services for passengers and freight customers, as well as delivering better value for money for taxpayers. The HYPERLINK "https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3732" \t "_blank"Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act [opens in a new window] was the first step towards fixing our railways, but now we need further, more fundamental reform to fix the underlying structural problems and put passengers and customers back at the heart of rail services. The Railways Bill will enable the biggest overhaul of the rail sector in a generation. It will bring track and train back together and enable services to be planned on a system-wide basis, to better deliver for passengers and freight customers, and to unlock growth. Before the bill is introduced to Parliament, the next step is to find out what industry stakeholders and the public think of the proposals within it.We have put forward the following headline proposals, which we are seeking your views on:leadership for Britain's railways: Great British Railways (GBR) will be established with clear lines of accountability, and streamlined governance achieved through the simplification of the sector, bringing together the activities of multiple organisations into one organisation. It will be supported by a licence that reflects the new model and intends to ensure GBR can deliver effectively for passengers and other users of the railway with the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) retaining a role in enforcing that licence. The Secretary of State will also produce a long-term strategy which will provide a framework for GBR and the rail industry to operate in and strategic priorities to deliver. Further detail can be found on pages 13 and 14 of the consultation documenta new voice for passengers: a powerful new passenger watchdog will be established to independently monitor standards and champion improvement in service performance against a range of measures. It will also hold GBR to account on implementing measures to improve accessibility for all passengers across the networkmaking best use of the rail network: the existing framework governing train operators' access to the rail network consists of a complex web of legislation, regulatory policies, contracts, and codes designed for a privatised railway, which has fuelled fragmentation and failed to deliver for customers. GBR will be able to make best use of the publicly owned rail network and provide a seamless service for both passengers and freight users. The bill will include safeguards to ensure that non-GBR operators continue to receive fair access to the network, including a statutory duty on GBR to promote the use of rail freight, alongside an overall growth target set by the Secretary of Statemodernising fares, ticketing and retailing: the legislation will enable and empower GBR to deliver industry-wide modernisation and reform of the complex and fragmented fares landscape inherited from privatisation, where even minor changes meant securing agreement across multiple train operators with their own commercial interests. This will enable GBR to simplify the ticketing system and make it easy for passengers to find the right faredevolution: GBR will work closely with devolved governments and mayors from the outset, drawing on their experiences and expertise to manage, plan and develop the network. Furthermore, devolved governments and mayors will be empowered to integrate local railways with other transport modes. HYPERLINK "https://www..gov.uk/government/consultations/legislation-that-transforms-gb-railways"The full set of consultation material is available [opens in a new window].9. Do you agree or disagree that GBR should be empowered to deliver through:AgreeDisagreeDon't knowreformed incentives???(??????????a simplified and streamlined regulatory framework??(??????????Why?We are generally supportive of the creation of GBR as a ?directing mind?, drawing together infrastructure and passenger services through a simplified framework. We see the value in moving quickly towards the establishment of GBR in the interests of simplifying and streamlining ways of working with the railways. In describing the ?directing mind? role for GBR, the paper lists the elements to be included, such as delivering services; planning timetables; operation, maintenance and renewals; setting fares; managing access; providing information and assistance to passengers; and staffing at stations and on trains. It is important to recognise that Mayors and MSAs (or their nominated bodies) will also wish to play a central role in decision making on these areas and through greater devolution, and this will need to be recognised in statute beyond a consultee role. If GBR is to be the directing mind, it must be a mind that is informed and shaped by the priorities of devolved authorities, whether they are nations or MSAs and their Mayors. It is essential that there is a primary statutory role for MSAs in governing, planning and specifying their local rail networks and input into national decision-making more widely. The proposed Mayoral Partnership model should be among the key mechanisms for ensuring this is the case.Genuine partnerships with MSAs will ensure GBR has a direct line to the needs of the passengers and taxpayers it wishes to serve whilst also, crucially, providing democratic accountability. The paper rightly recognises that a new approach to regulation is needed, ?whilst also maintaining confidence that taxpayers? money is being spent responsibly?. Deep working relationships with democratically accountable Mayors and MSAs (or their nominated bodies, recognising that some Mayors and MSAs have other bodies that discharge their rail functions, such as the West Midlands Rail Executive) are the key to securing that confidence.Without a culture of openness, collaboration and transparency (including reciprocal data sharing) with MSAs (or their nominated bodies) and Mayors, GBR risks being perceived as remote and detached from the needs of local people and businesses, as well as lacking democratic legitimacy.Given that the Secretary of State will have less involvement in the day-to-day running of the railways, building those local connections will be vital to maintain democratic accountability and ensure railways meet the needs of the people and places they serve. To achieve this, national oversight must be complemented by strong local accountability mechanisms, including appropriate incentives and levers built into Mayoral Partnerships.As the English Devolution White Paper recognises, Mayors have the profile to stand up for their citizens on the national stage ?able to both partner with and challenge central government where needed.? This should apply to the relationship between Mayors and GBR. Mayors should have the freedom to hold GBR to account for their performance locally, should it fail to meet agreed standards and priorities. A further accountability mechanism could be to hold regular meetings between Mayors and GBR, chaired by the Secretary of State. 10. Do you agree or disagree that the:AgreeDisagreeDon't knowSecretary of State should be responsible for issuing and modifying a simplified GBR licence enforced by the ORR??(??????????ORR?s duties with respect to GBR should be streamlined to reflect the new sector model??(??????????Why?Yes, we agree that the Secretary of State should be responsible for issuing and modifying a GBR licence and that the ORR should enforce it with streamlined duties to reflect the new model. ORR should be equipped with suitable enforcement powers (appropriate to a publicly owned organisation) to ensure GBR?s compliance with its licence conditions. It is right that the licence should be designed to be fully consistent wth the strategic direction set by Government. MSAs, or their nominated bodies, should be statutory consultees to the Licence, ensuring licence conditions align with local and regional priorities. A streamlined role for ORR must go hand in hand with a greater role for MSAs or their nominated bodies to hold GBR to account. National oversight must be complemented by strong local accountability mechanisms, including appropriate incentives and levers built into Mayoral Partnerships. We would welcome further details on how GBR will be held to account should their performance fall below expected standards. To enable monitoring of performance, GBR should be required to provide detailed, frequent and timely data to enable MSAs and other stakeholders to understand and hold GBR to account for performance levels. In the interests of transparency and effective scrutiny, we suggest that performance and management data be placed in the public domain, providing daily, detailed, near real-time data. We believe there is a need to establish a set of long term strategic priorities for the rail industry to work towards. We are therefore proposing that the Secretary of State produces a long term rail strategy and uses this to hold GBR to account for the strategic alignment of the operational decisions it makes.?11. Do you agree or disagree that the Secretary of State should be responsible for setting a long-term strategy for GBR to align with government priorities????(?Agree (Go to a ?A new voice for passengers?)????Disagree?????Don't know (Go to a ?A new voice for passengers?) Disagree with Secretary of State setting GBR?s long-term strategy to align with government priorities12. Why not?  A new voice for passengersWe propose to create a powerful new passenger watchdog to independently champion passenger interests and help ensure GBR and other rail operators deliver for their passengers. The core functions of the new watchdog could include some or all of:/ ensuring operators and GBR meet established passenger-focused standards by independently monitoring and assessing performance fairly and transparently against published dataadvocating better service standards on behalf of passengers by being a statutory consultee on decisions affecting how services are delivered to passengers, such as government and GBR policies, strategies, business and infrastructure planshighlighting consumer issues through the use of its information gathering powers, conducting surveys, research and analysis on passenger experiencesacting as a moderator to deal with unresolved passenger complaintstaking on some consumer functions from the ORR (for example overseeing passenger information and complaints processes and producing guidance on accessible travel policies for rail operators and GBR)having an explicit role on accessibility by monitoring how services are delivered to disabled passengers and advocating improvements where issues ariseThere are 2 approaches that could be taken to establish the passenger watchdog:?statutory advisor which would mean for: the advisory role: the passenger watchdog is established as a statutory advisory body and is consulted on strategies, plans, funding settlements and the setting of standards for the railwaythe regulatory role: the passenger watchdog has no direct role in setting regulatory requirements on rail operators but may advise other bodies when these are setmonitoring of standards: the passenger watchdog has information-gathering powers which it would use to monitor operators' delivery of agreed plans and service standardsmoderation of complaints: the passenger watchdog takes on the role of moderator on unresolved passenger complaintsstatutory advisor with regulation functions which would mean for: the advisory role: the passenger watchdog has the same advisory and moderation of complaints role as described abovethe regulatory role: the passenger watchdog produces guidance on some passenger focused regulatory requirements on rail operators in consultation with the Secretary of State and the ORR (for example accessible travel policies, passenger information, complaints processes) which become the baseline operators should meet, demonstrate equivalence to or take reasonable endeavours to meet. The passenger watchdog has a role in approving operators' plans to meet these requirementsmonitoring of standards: in addition to its information-gathering powers, the passenger watchdog has specific roles in monitoring how operators deliver against requirements set for areas like accessible travel policies, passenger information and complaints processes13. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed functions of the new passenger watchdog????(??Agree (Go to ?A new passenger watchdog?)????Disagree????Don't know (Go to ?A new passenger watchdog?) A new voice for passengers14. You disagree with:????all of the functions proposed (Go to ?Disagree with functions reasoning?) ????some of the functions proposed Disagree with functions15. Your disagreement is with the proposed function of:?????ensuring operators and GBR meet established passenger-focused standards by independently monitoring and assessing performance fairly and transparently against published data????advocating better service standards on behalf of passengers by being a statutory consultee on decisions affecting how services are delivered to passengers, such as government and GBR policies, strategies, business and infrastructure plans????highlighting consumer issues through the use of its information gathering powers, conducting surveys, research and analysis on passenger experiences????acting as a moderator to deal with unresolved passenger complaints????taking on some consumer functions from the ORR (for example overseeing passenger information and complaints processes and producing guidance on accessible travel policies for rail operators and GBR)????having an explicit role on accessibility by monitoring how services are delivered to disabled passengers and advocating improvements where issues arise Disagreement with functions reasoning16. Why?  A new passenger watchdog17. In your view which of the approaches do you think would best enable the establishment of the new passenger watchdog?????Statutory advisor????(?Statutory advisor with regulatory functions????Neither of them (Go to ?Alternative approach?) ????Don't know (Go to ?Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?) Approach reasoning18. Why?We agree that passengers should have a one-stop-shop for advice and support, and that such a body should be multi-modal. The proposed core functions for the new watchdog appear reasonable but we would require further details to make a more informed judgement. MSAs should have significant input into developing the Watchdog?s regulatory requirements and the baseline which operators should meet. This would also help to ensure that MSA defined customer service standards for their local integrated networks are upheld. Alongside engagement with MSAs, new standards set by the Watchdog should also be informed by consultation with users, operators and other bodies to ensure they are fit for purpose and practical.We suggest that the new watchdog?s budget be independent of the Secretary of State and the DfT to avoid potential conflicts of interest.We support the Statutory Advisor with Regulatory Functions option as this would clearly give the watchdog more ?teeth?.It is vital that GBR and its operators are effectively held to account. The proposed Statutory Advisor with Regulatory Functions role will support this. However, again we stress the importance of detailed and timely data sharing to support the effective monitoring of performance.  [Now go to ?Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)?] Alternative approach19. Why not? 20. What alternative approach would you like to see implemented?  Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)/ Under either of the 2 possible new passenger watchdog approaches we expect the new passenger watchdog would have a role in moderating unresolved passenger complaints and resolving disputes. Currently this is a role provided by the HYPERLINK "https://www.railombudsman.org/" \t "_blank"Rail Ombudsman (RO) [opens in a new window].? ? The ADR function can be subsumed into the new passenger watchdog, but this would first require the new passenger watchdog to secure accreditation from the HYPERLINK "https://www.tradingstandards.uk/" \t "_blank"Chartered Trading Standards Institute [opens in a new window], and the HYPERLINK "https://www.ombudsmanassociation.org/" \t "_blank"Ombudsman Association [opens in a new window] in order to achieve ombudsman status. There is no guarantee however that ombudsman status would be achieved given the wide remit and explicit passenger focus of the body./ To ensure no weakening of consumer protection for rail passengers, additional powers and functions equivalent to that of an ombudsman could be provided to the passenger watchdog through legislation.? ? An alternative option could be to transfer the ORR s sponsorship of the RO to the new watchdog, with the RO retaining its current accreditation and functions. This is likely to be the simplest option with the least disruption to the RO or the passenger experience.?21. In your view which of the options to establish the ADR function as part of the passenger watchdog would deliver the best outcome for passengers?????Transfer the powers and functions of the Rail Ombudsman to the new passenger watchdog through legislation????Transfer the ORR?s sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman to the new passenger watchdog????Neither of these (Go to ?Alternative option?)??(??Don't know (Go to ?Making the best use of the rail network?) Option reasoning22. Why?  [Now go to ?Making the best use of the rail network?] Alternative option23. Why not? 24. What alternative option would you like to see implemented?  Making best use of the rail networkTrain paths on the railway are a finite resource. With parts of the network already at full capacity, it is vital that we make the best use of that resource.The existing framework governing train operators? access to the rail network consists of a complex web of legislation, regulatory policies, contracts, and codes. Today?s legal framework, largely set out in the HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/contents"Railways Act 1993 [opens in a new window]?and the HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/645/made" \t "_blank"Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 (AMRs) [opens in a new window], was designed principally to encourage competition between private operators and to separate decision-making.This has created a fragmented and reactive decision-making structure with unclear accountabilities. As the system is unable to cope with major change on complex or congested routes, current processes for allocating rights and producing timetables are strained; and the problems that culminated in the significant timetable failures in 2018 persist. Despite investing billions of pounds annually, and being a major funder of the network, the government lacks a method to ensure benefits from investment are delivered. The creation of Great British Railways (GBR) as a directing mind will enable radical change by bringing together responsibility for managing allocation of capacity and management of infrastructure. This means GBR will be able to make best use of the network and provide a seamless service for passengers and freight users. To deliver this, fundamental changes are required to the complex legal and contractual framework we have today. ?Under a new access framework established in primary legislation, GBR will take access and charging decisions in the public interest. GBR?s access and use functions will be governed by its duties to deliver whole system benefits, government priorities, and the goals of devolved governments and Mayoral Strategic Authorities.The provisions as currently set out in the Access and Management Regulations (AMRs) will no longer apply to GBR and the GBR network, ensuring it is not unduly burdened by requirements designed for a privatised regime. New statutory duties will ensure that GBR?s access decisions are transparent and accountable and will ensure fair treatment for all operators wishing to access the GBR-managed network. GBR will have a clear remit set in statute empowering it to focus on delivering national benefits, including promoting rail freight.GBR will be required to consult on how it fulfils its duties for access to and use of the network. This will include setting out timescales, information requirements, and decision-making criteria, making it clear how other parties are involved and consulted on decisions. This will be done through the development of GBR?s Access and Use Policy.The current charging system is inflexible with too many overly restrictive and often contradictory rules, which if maintained in the new system, would prevent GBR from maximising the benefits of an integrated railway. A new charging framework is therefore fundamental to empowering GBR as a directing mind. The government intends to honour the final determination made by the ORR on access charges for Control Period 7 (between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2029).25. In your view does the proposed new access framework enable GBR to be an effective directing mind that can ensure best use of network capacity?/ ?????Yes (Go to  Proposal ) ?(???No????Don't know (Go to  Proposal ) Against proposed new access framework26. Why not?We welcome the commitment to ensure that GBR s access and use functions will be governed by its duties to deliver whole system benefits, government priorities, and - crucially for local communities - the goals of devolved governments and MSAs. We also welcome the commitment to transparency and accountability in access decision making.That said, the paper also states that ?GBR will have a clear remit set in statute empowering it to focus on delivering national benefits?. Whilst we recognise the need for GBR to take decisions in the interests of the country as a whole, there is a need for national priorities to be balanced against local ambitions. MSAs or their nominated bodies must have a statutory role in governing, managing, planning developing, specifying and delivering GBR?s remit. This must also include a duty to work closely with MSAs and devolved governments to ensure their priorities are given appropriate weight, recognition and respect in decision-making. This should include a meaningful and formal role for MSAs in network capacity allocation and network planning, as well as more widely setting the industry outcomes. Trade-offs are inevitable, and our members are aware of the maturity required to handle these. However, there must be a willingness to give ground to local priorities, especially where these have the potential to make a tangible difference to reducing regional inequalities in economic growth and opportunities.GBR should have a statutory duty to work with MSAs (or their nominated bodies) to ensure plans for rail reflect and enable the delivery of local ambitions as set out, for example, in Local Growth Plans as associated Local Transport Plans and strategies.Where local ambitions for rail cannot be met, GBR should be transparent as to the reasons why and work collaboratively with MSAs or their nominated bodies to identify constructive ways forward.The paper pledges that GBR ?will consider? MSA strategies within its overall policy and decision-making processes. This wording does not offer sufficient assurances that action will be taken to enable the delivery of MSA ambitions and priorities.MSAs, or their nominated bodies, need the ability to develop shared, long-term network development plans ? for passenger and freight services ? with GBR so that all parties are working towards the same goals and avoid conflict with local plans for growth. Specifically on timetabling, GBR should endeavour to deliver the timetables Mayors want to enable them to secure local rail networks that best meet the needs of their people and places. Working collaboratively with GBR, MSAs, or their nominated bodies, should have the opportunity to have significant strategic input ? a formal say beyond that of a statutory consultee - throughout timetable development processes for local services, particularly those where they have taken on revenue risk.MSAs, or their nominated bodies, should also have strategic input into service planning and delivery of rail services from outside of the area, but which provide a core part of services between stations in the region. They should also be statutory consultees for national timetable development in respect of services that serve, or pass through, their areas.  Proposal27. What, if any:access rules for GBR should be updated and included in legislation/ ?There should be a clear hierarchy for capacity allocation set within legislation, with a meaningful and formal say for MSAs or their nominated bodies. This should involve MSAs and their regional partners working collaboratively with GBR to set network capacity allocation but with MSA needs having priority within the relevant city region and travel to work area. These principles and the role of MSAs should be captured in legislation.We would envisage that, where an MSA wishes to proceed towards full devolution of local rail services, those authorities would want to engage in, and comment on, the access framework for non-GBR operators. Legislation would need to provide clarity as to how locally operated rail services (and/or tram-train services) would be categorised to ensure they have fair access to the network. Access charging for fully devolved MSA operators should also align with the likely scale of devolved funding for these services.access requirements for GBR should be updated and included in legislationSee previous answer.The ORR?s role in access decisions (underHYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/part/I/crossheading/access-agreements" \t "_blank" Sections 17-22C of the Railways Act 1993 [opens in a new window]) will be reformed to enable GBR to become the directing mind. The ORR will no longer approve access or direct the sale of access rights for the GBR railway. Instead, under the new model, the ORR will ensure fair access to the GBR network through a robust and independent appeals function, set out in legislation. The ORR would be able to recommend and in certain circumstances direct remedies where it finds that GBR?s decision-making has been discriminatory and has not followed its own processes.The existing ORR role and legal requirements will continue to apply to non-GBR infrastructure and facility managers. This is to ensure that these parties have a stable and predictable framework under which they can operate alongside the GBR-managed network.28. In your view does the proposed role of the ORR acting as an appeals body, to ensure fairness and non-discrimination, provide sufficient reassurances to all operators wishing to access the GBR-managed network?/ ?????Yes (Go to  Making best use of the rail network )???(?No????Don't know (Go to ?Making best use of the rail network?) Disagree role of the ORR role provides sufficient reassurances to all operators wishing to access the GBR-managed network29. Why not?To ensure fairness, MSAs should be able to submit appeals to the ORR if, for example, an MSA felt that GBR?s allocation of capacity was unreasonable and did not align with agreements as part of a Mayoral Partnership. This would help to ensure that local and regional priorities are not overlooked.  Making best use of the rail network30. What, if any, unintended consequences do you think could occur by the ORR retaining its existing powers with regard to other infrastructure managers and which may affect the smooth passage of trains between the GBR and non-GBR network?/ No comments. The existing ORR role and legal requirements will continue to apply to non-GBR infrastructure and facility managers. For example, the privately owned HS1 Ltd which manages the high-speed network between St Pancras and the Channel Tunnel; as well as the Core Valley Lines owned by the Welsh Government. This is to ensure that these parties (some of which are privately owned with commercial interests) have a stable and predictable framework under which they can operate alongside the GBR-managed network. The ORR will recognise GBR as a network-wide organisation with widely drawn duties to support public benefit./ ? However, there may be an opportunity to simplify some of the processes within the AMRs for other infrastructure managers. This could include removing constraints on when the working timetables come into effect, such as midnight on the second Saturday in December./ Given the need to both simplify processes for other infrastructure managers and to maintain consistency between GBR and other infrastructure managers going forward. The government is therefore intending to include a targeted power to make technical amendments to the AMRs in the Railways Bill, to ensure consistency in approach across GBR and non-GBR networks to safeguard the continued smooth passage of services.31. Do you agree or disagree that we should include a power in primary legislation to amend the AMRs to ensure consistency between GBR?s processes and those used by other infrastructure managers????(?Agree (Go to ?Financial framework?)????Disagree????Don't know (Go to ?Financial framework?) Against including a power in primary legislation to amend the AMRs32. Why not?  Financial frameworkWe are proposing a new funding process to be established in legislation. This process will facilitate integrated decisions and enable GBR to deliver its agreed business plan and the strategies of railway funders. The new funding process would replace the HYPERLINK "https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/periodic-review-2023/" \t "_blank"periodic review [opens in a new window] and initially determine funding for the operation, maintenance and renewal of infrastructure. However, we will ensure that legislation retains flexibility to include other areas of funding in this process if desired.? ?The current periodic review and control period system are tried and tested methods for agreeing 5-year payment settlements. As a consequence, our new funding process will take the best of these processes, preserving and building on many of their benefits. This means core settlements will still last 5 years, and the ORR will retain a role in assessing business plans and settlement viability. Finally, as part of its assessment, the ORR will subsequently have a role in assuring any major changes to GBR's business plans 'in-life' or to the grant awarded. The periodic review is currently set out in HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/schedule/4A" \t "_blank"Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993 (Sch 4A) [opens in a new window] and numerous provisions of the HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/645" \t "_blank"Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 (AMRs) [opens in a new window]. Today, the legislation describes a process through which the ORR reviews and decides how much Network Rail can charge for access to the railway network, however the main output of this review is actually a grant from government to upkeep railway infrastructure. Therefore, in creating a new periodic review, we propose to create a new set of provisions in a single place in legislation which sets out a process dedicated to government?s funding of the railway. ? We consider it impractical and illogical to keep this access charge-related mechanism as the legislative basis for railway funding once passenger services have been brought into public ownership, and the changes to the access regime have been made. This is because these actions combined will greatly reduce the amount of income that GBR receives from access payments, making them a smaller proportion of funding overall. The new process would take the intent of the periodic review as a funding process, without the legal connection to access charging ? bringing it into line with a public ownership model. Currently the Secretary of State will be required to issue a High-Level Output Specification (HLOS) and Statement of Funds Available (SoFA). In response to the HLOS, GBR would be required to create a business plan, setting out its proposed activity over the next 5 years. The ORR would continue to maintain a role in assessing the viability of this business plan and checking whether there is a mismatch between the HLOS and SoFA that would make delivery impossible.The Secretary of State would sign off the business plan at the end of the process, approving it for delivery and agreeing to provide the stated funds. The ORR will have a role in monitoring and reporting on major changes made to GBR?s plans ?in-life? as well as monitoring major changes to the grant awarded through this funding process in order to protect the integrity of the 5-year settlement. This role would cover mid-period reductions to funds available or major increases in outputs for example a:major alteration where GBR acts contrary to the outcomes of the settlement without the approval of the Secretary of StateSecretary of State direction to undertake activity which is unfunded and undeliverable in addition to existing commitmentsThis will ensure that GBR delivers the strategic aims set out by the Secretary of State and that agreed outputs remain funded and viable for the full duration of the settlement, maintaining a long-term investment view and supporting stakeholder confidence.The role of Scottish ministers as it stands today would be preserved within the new process. They would be able to issue their own HLOS and SoFA (within the wider process) and sign off delivery of the business plan for the parts of the network they are responsible for funding. The Welsh Government will be represented by a new duty for the Secretary of State to involve them in the creation of the HLOS for England and Wales. ? The proposed legislation will also contain a duty on the Secretary of State to involve Mayoral Strategic Authorities when determining the contents of the HLOS. ? The first new funding process would take place at the end of the current control period, which lasts until March 2029, with preparations beginning around 2 years before. During this transitionary period, the existing determination of operations, maintenance and renewals funding would remain in place and GBR will take on the level of funds made available at the last periodic review.33. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed legislative approach regarding a 5-year funding settlement for GBR?????Agree (Go to ?Fares, ticketing and retailing?)???(?Disagree????Don't know (Go to ?Fares, ticketing and retailing?) Against approach regarding a 5-year funding settlement for GBR34. Why not?We agree that the proposed approach seems appropriate, although, ideally, funding settlements should cover a longer period (at least 10 years) given rail projects can take many years to plan and deliver. We would additionally like to see the funding of operations and enhancements included as part of the package to maximise the financial benefits of re-integrating track and train.We note reference to ORR having a role in monitoring and reporting on ?mid-period reduction to funds available?. We are concerned that the ability of government to reduce funds available between periodic reviews undermines the funding certainty that the process brings to the industry and its partners.We welcome the inclusion of a duty on the Secretary of State to involve MSAs when determining the contents of the HLOS. We would be keen to understand how this will work in practice. There should be a primary role for MSAs in developing the HLOS for their parts of the network.Mayors should have a statutory role, working collaboratively with GBR, in prioritising spend aligned with ambitions set out in Local Growth Plans and Local Transport Plans. This should overall also extend to having a formal role in the setting of industry outcomes. More broadly, MSAs need financial devolution, fiscal freedoms and local investment levers to enable them to raise and allocate funding to invest in their local rail networks and be in a position to locally commission services with commercial exposure.This means working towards long-term, single funding settlements for local transport and unlocking local investment levers which enable MSAs to decide where investment will deliver the best outcomes, including the balance of spend between different modes and the ability to choose alternative delivery partners.It could also involve appropriate devolved funding settlements from within existing local railway budgets to further enable meaningful MCA prioritisation and decision-making.GBR should provide assurance that it will act fairly towards devolved operators regarding funding settlements, ensuring there is a quantifiable, fair system to apportion funding. There should also be a clear and transparent approach to setting out any applicable track access charges to third party/devolved operators. The apportionment of fixed charges requires careful consideration alongside MSA funding settlements to ensure they do not face a significant additional cost to maintain the existing devolved services on the network.Finally, thought should be given to how the rail industry will make itself an investible proposition for third parties, like MSAs or their nominated bodies. There will be little point in an MSA or nominated body reaching the ?Investing? level of the Mayoral Partnerships framework if it is too difficult and expensive to invest in rail.  Fares, ticketing and retailingGBR will take over from train operators as the organisation responsible for setting fares on the services it operates and collecting revenue. Alongside GBR, open access and devolved operators will remain responsible for setting fares for services they operate and we will consult devolved governments on safeguarding their existing legislative powers to determine overall fare levels for their services.?Legislation will enable and empower GBR to deliver industry-wide modernisation and reform of the complex and fragmented fares landscape inherited from privatisation, where even minor changes meant securing agreement across multiple train operators with their own commercial interests. This will enable GBR to simplify the ticketing system and make it easy for passengers to find the right fare. While the intent of this legislation is to enable GBR to deliver these benefits, the Secretary of State will also retain specific oversight over the affordability of the railway - as set out below.HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/section/28" \t "_blank"Section 28 of the Railways Act 1993 [opens in a new window]?currently allows for a franchising authority to set limits on the level of rail fares train operators can set. The legislation also provides for certain concessionary discount fares schemes to be provided ? delivered as the 16-25 Railcard, Disabled Persons Railcard, and Senior Railcard schemes. As there will no longer be a franchising authority or franchise agreements in place, new legislative mechanisms will be introduced to ensure fares are set at an appropriate and reasonable level, and to continue the discount schemes. ??We envisage that the Secretary of State?s role in securing the overall affordability of fares will remain in primary legislation, replicating the effect of Section 28(2) of the Railways Act 1993, but amended for a post-franchising railway. As GBR will be the organisation that sets fares, it cannot referee itself in this activity, which sits most appropriately with the Secretary of State. ? To implement this role, the Secretary of State will set out parameters and guardrails that will govern GBR?s fares setting activity at regular intervals when agreeing its funding settlement, while empowering it to deliver. This will likely include the limits by which fares can change over the course of the settlement period, and the level of discretion GBR has in the overall level of fares. This gives the Secretary of State significant levers to influence and manage the overall level of fares to balance the interests of passengers and taxpayers. GBR?s business plan, agreed with the Secretary of State, will also set out its obligations to continue to offer certain discounts, like railcards. It is our intention that these continue to be offered. Specific discount cards targeted at groups for which cost is more likely to be a barrier to rail travel - young people, older people and disabled people - will be further safeguarded in legislation, as they have been since the Railways Act 1993 Section 28(3).35. Do you agree or disagree with the legislative approach outlined to retain the Secretary of State?s role in relation to fares and continuing to safeguard certain railcard discount schemes???(??Agree (Go to ?Online retail?)????Disagree????Don't know (Go to ?Online retail?) Against retaining Secretary of State role in fares and safeguarding certain rail discount schemes36. Why not?Simplification of rail fares and ticketing is welcome and it is right that the Secretary of State should be tasked with ensuring the overall affordability of fares and continuing to safeguard railcard discount schemes.That said, it is essential that legislation preserves the existing roles of MSAs regarding local rail and multi-modal fares (including concessionary schemes). Fares and ticketing are one of a number of key areas that MSAs will wish to increase their influence in as part of rail reforms. Provided there is a clear business and passenger experience case to do so, MSAs or their nominated bodies should have the power to make and implement decisions on local rail fares and ticketing products that work for their areas, providing appropriate subsidy to support the schemes.  Online retailThis government has set out its ambition to simplify the fares and ticketing system and drive innovation across the network. We understand the concerns surrounding the rail ticketing system, the confusing array of train operator websites and ticket types and the impact that this can have on passengers, as well as adding unnecessary cost from duplication. There is clear value in consolidating current train operator websites and apps into a single GBR retail offer over time. In future, GBR will therefore provide ticketing services directly to customers and this will be enabled through legislation. This will include online and physical retail, such as ticket offices, ticket vending machines, and on trains. ?Once GBR is established, it will deliver a high-quality website and app to customers, gradually replacing the 14 different DfT train operator websites that currently retail tickets. It will retail alongside, and in competition with, third-party retailers (TPRs), so that standards are continually driven up in the interest of consumers. Passengers will benefit from a consistent and reliable customer offer, knowing they can purchase tickets with ease and travel with confidence. ?We will support and promote a thriving third-party retail market. TPRs already add significant value to the retail marketplace and play a fundamental role in driving innovation and attracting more customers to the railway. This will continue. GBR online retail will compete on a fair and open basis with such independent retailers, as well as with open access operators and devolved operators such as TfW Rail and Scotrail, who may also choose to continue to retail online as they do today. ?All retailers will continue to be able to improve the passenger experience, drive innovation, and further encourage competition in future. ?We also anticipate that GBR will assume responsibility for many of the functions the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) performs today on behalf of all retailers, such as managing central retailing systems, standards and access to information. GBR must be transparent and act fairly when carrying out these functions, to ensure the retail market is competitive to boost choice and standards for passengers. ?As part of this, we are considering how the retail market will be licensed in future. RDG currently determines the terms of licences with third parties, taking decisions on matters such as charges and commission rates. We are considering where this role should sit in the future, which could include GBR, the industry regulator ORR, or possibly another body.?Separation of the licensing function would give independent retailers confidence that there are no conflicts of interest, but we will need to explore whether and how relevant functions and expertise could be transferred to deliver this role effectively, and what impact this would have on the other functions each organisation has.?If licensing were to sit in GBR in the future, we would need to be able to reassure other retailers that any conflicts of interest between the licensing and retailing roles GBR could hold have been addressed, and to ensure a competitive and fair market is maintained for third parties and other train operators? retail offers (devolved, open access and so on). This could include keeping any licensing function structurally separate from GBR?s online retailing function, to provide assurance that GBR is not treated favourably over any other retailer. Details of the future role of an industry body or GBR to licence retailers and the relevant checks and balances to ensure a competitive market for all will be informed by this consultation. ?37. What, if any, safeguards are needed to ensure a thriving and competitive rail retail market while also ensuring GBR can deliver a high-quality offer to its customers?Safeguards will be required to enable the continuing role of MSAs in selling local rail and multi-modal ticketing products to support transport integration at local level.Additionally, where this best serves passengers, contributes to reducing complexity and is technically and practically feasible, rail services travelling between stations in the area should be required to accept the relevant local, regional or multi-modal ticketing products for journeys between stations in the area. Specific obligations must be included within the Bill to this effect.  DevolutionDevolution is an important and positive feature of the railway in Great Britain today, with significant responsibilities devolved to the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Mayors of London and the Liverpool City Region./ / ?English devolution is central to the government's mission to boost economic growth and tackle regional inequality. The government has set out its approach in England in the English Devolution White Paper, which will precede the English Devolution Bill./ In its role as the  directing mind , GBR will bring track and train back together and plan services on a whole-system basis, to better deliver for passengers, taxpayers, and freight customers, and to unlock growth. This will include working closely with devolved and local partners, drawing on their experiences and expertise. But it is also vital that devolved governments and mayors can integrate local railways with other transport modes. They need the ability to create unified transport networks that serve their cities and regions much like Transport for London  a model which is now being developed in Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSAs) across England./ / ? Other tiers of local government in England will benefit from empowered local GBR business units that are outward-facing and engage local authorities on their priorities and Local Transport Plans. This will include working with sub-national transport bodies (STBs) on matters of wider regional interest./ / ? We propose to create a statutory role for devolved leaders in governing, managing, planning, and developing the rail network. This will bring decision-making as close as possible to local communities, while recognising that  as a nationally integrated network  the railway s governance must balance local, commuter, regional, national, international and high-speed services, as well as the role of freight./ / / ? The rail devolution landscape is complex, and the statutory duty will reflect the different roles and responsibilities in Scotland, Wales, London, and other MSAs. Legislation will require GBR to collaborate with devolved leaders and ensure that national and local strategies are factored into GBR decision-making. This will enable GBR to have bespoke relationships with devolved leaders based on the needs of the local community to deliver the best results for passengers and freight users./ ? The statutory role will ensure devolved governments and other MSAs will be appropriately consulted on GBR s activity (including the development of railway plans, strategies, and services), are able to scrutinise GBR?s performance, and that GBR has due regard to devolved transport strategies. The information on page 42 of the consultation document (and chapter 6 of the consultation document) outlines the existing legislation where targeted amendments could be made to enable opportunities for devolved leaders to engage meaningfully and work collaboratively with GBR./ / ? In England, the statutory role and engagement with GBR forms part of the government s devolution offer, as set out in the HYPERLINK "https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-devolution-white-paper-power-and-partnership-foundations-for-growth/english-devolution-white-paper" \t "_blank"English Devolution White Paper [opens in a new window]. This categorises devolved institutions in England into three tiers of strategic authority: non-mayoral, mayoral, and established. Subject to Royal Assent of the Railways Bill, the government will publish guidance outlining the core components that each tier of strategic authorities can expect./ ?The government recognises the positives that devolution can bring, particularly on discrete networks, through local knowledge and expertise. Existing devolved accountabilities in Scotland, Wales, London, and the Liverpool City Region will therefore remain in place. GBR will work closely with devolved operators, coordinating on timetabling of services and access to operate on GBR infrastructure and vice versa, to ensure that there is a coherent network across Great Britain. The government will continue to engage with those with devolved responsibilities to further develop the future arrangements they will have with GBR both within and outside legislation.?38. Do you agree or disagree with our approach to GBR?s statutory duty in relation to devolved leaders???(??Agree (Go to ?Devolution?)????Disagree????Don't know (Go to ?Devolution?) Against approach to GBR?s statutory duty in relation to devolved leaders39. Why not?  DevolutionScotlandThe Scottish Government is the commissioning body for ScotRail and Caledonian Sleeper services. It also funds rail infrastructure in Scotland and will continue to do so. Scottish ministers will therefore continue to have a separate High-Level Output Specification (HLOS) and Statement of Funds Available (SoFA), as outlined in Chapter 4. The government will engage the Scottish Government on ensuring the relationship it has with Network Rail is transferred to GBR, once established, and delivering Scottish infrastructure on behalf of Scottish ministers. ?The government will work with the Scottish Government to put in place strong joint working arrangements between GBR and ScotRail, building on the existing alliance between Network Rail and ScotRail that has delivered improved performance and cost savings.?The government intends to legislate in a way that enables the relationship between GBR and ScotRail (and between UK and Scottish ministers) to evolve. We have recently passed the Public Ownership Act, which requires Scottish ministers to secure passenger services from public sector bodies owned by themselves (such as Scottish Rail Holdings), the Secretary of State for Transport (such as GBR) or jointly owned by the 2 governments. Where relevant railways legislation will need to be further amended to establish GBR, we will preserve the effect of these provisions. This would enable a successor to the existing alliance between Network Rail and ScotRail to be established between GBR and ScotRail, while preserving options for UK and Scottish ministers to agree deeper integration of track and train. ?The government will continue to engage with the Scottish Government on future arrangements set out in this consultation to ensure that Scotland benefits from rail sector transformation and the establishment of GBR. ? ?WalesThe Welsh Government is the commissioning body for Transport for Wales rail services. It also owns infrastructure in the Core Valley Lines in South Wales, their investment in which has supported delivery of the expanding South Wales Metro. ??The government will work with the Welsh Government to put in place strong, enduring joint working arrangements between GBR and Transport for Wales. This would be based on the successful Cyfuno workstream and local railway teams on lines of route that collaborate between Network Rail and Transport for Wales. This is realising cost savings and more efficient working by giving power to local teams to make joined-up railway decisions that benefit passengers and users. ?The government intends to legislate in a way that enables the relationship between GBR and Transport for Wales and between UK and Welsh ministers to evolve over time. We have recently passed the Public Ownership Act which requires Welsh ministers to secure passenger services from public sector bodies owned by themselves (such as Transport for Wales Rail Limited), the Secretary of State for Transport (such as GBR) or jointly owned by the 2 governments. Where relevant railways legislation will need to be further amended to establish GBR, we will preserve the effect of these provisions. Should both UK and Welsh ministers want to pursue this, these provisions could secure further benefits of integration between track and train, while respecting the Welsh devolution settlement and ensuring clear lines of accountability.?The government will continue to engage with the Welsh Government on future arrangements set out in this consultation to ensure that Wales benefits from rail sector transformation and to agree how GBR in Wales will be accountable to Welsh ministers. ?40. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach in:AgreeDisagreeDon't knowScotland on enabling further collaboration between track and train while preserving the devolved settlements????????????Wales on enabling further collaboration between track and train while preserving the devolved settlements????????????If disagreeing explain why?  DevolutionMuch of the detail regarding GBR?s relationships with Mayoral Strategic Authorities (MSAs) can and should sit outside legislation through bespoke agreements. Partnerships will mark a change in approach in how the railway engages locally, enabling GBR to better meet the needs of areas and wider communities. The plans also reflect that devolved arrangements vary, so a one-size-fits-all approach would not be appropriate.?In England, there has already been substantial engagement with MSAs on future partnerships with GBR, which will enable opportunities for local influence and control of the local rail offer. For example, governance forums with Transport for Greater Manchester and the West Midlands Rail Executive have been established and are operating on a cross-industry basis, laying the groundwork for the sort of activity that will be embedded in GBR. Partnerships will range across a spectrum, depending on the ambitions and institutional capability of partners, which will include engagement on strategic priorities, close collaboration on the delivery of rail elements of Local Transport Plans and opportunities for partners to invest in the railway. Deeper commercial partnerships, where a MSA could take on service specification responsibilities and revenue risk, could also be agreed where financial devolution is in place. ?Existing legislation, including the HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/14/contents" \t "_blank"Railways Act 2005 [opens in a new window], HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/contents" \t "_blank"Transport Act 2000 [opens in a new window], and HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/contents" \t "_blank"Greater London Authority Act 1999 [opens in a new window]?already include mechanisms through which devolved authorities can engage with the national railway, including funding additional services and infrastructure. To support effective partnerships, the government intends to make targeted amendments. These important changes will require GBR to consult with and enable financial agreements with mayors, providing the legislative basis to agree the commercial partnerships envisaged in paragraph 6.23 of the consultation document. ?This will balance an influential role within railway processes, while not overly restricting GBR?s ability to act as a directing mind and provide capacity for network level services such as rail freight. ?41. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach of making targeted amendments to existing legislation to clarify the role of devolved leaders in relation to GBR?????Agree (Go to ?Train driver licensing and certification regime?)????Disagree??(??Don't know (Go to ?Train driver licensing and certification regime?) Against clarifying the role of devolved leaders in relation to GBR42. Why not?  Train driver licensing and certification regimeIn 2022 and 2023, the department undertook a statutory post-implementation review of train driving regulations. This review focused on the HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/724/contents" \t "_blank"Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 (TDLCR) (S.I. 2010/724) [opens in a new window]. These regulations established the requirements to be a train driver on the mainline railway in Great Britain and implemented Directive 2007/59/EC, which created a mandatory licensing and certification regime for train drivers across the EU. The purpose of the review was to assess whether the TDLCR is working effectively and to produce recommendations on how the regime could be improved. The review, published on 19 May 2023, concluded that while there was broad support for keeping the framework in place, there was an equally broad desire to see reforms in several areas to make the TDLCR function more effectively and reduce costs and burdens on industry.? The government believes there is a positive case for change to address these issues, from modernising the testing, assessment and training requirements for train drivers, to updating outdated criteria to reflect new innovations, technology and scientific developments. We also believe there is scope to improve existing administrative processes, including duties around maintaining registers, information sharing, and the appeals process for train drivers, among other areas. These potential changes could produce efficiencies for the industry, reduce burdens and improve outcomes for train drivers.? However, the government is unable to progress effectively with opportunities to reform the regime as the Secretary of State does not have adequate powers to update, amend or revoke provisions in the TDLCR, or related assimilated law on train driving. This stems from the fact that the powers used to implement the TDLCR ? HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents/enacted" \t "_blank"section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 (?ECA 1972?) [opens in a new window]?? were revoked when the UK left the EU. To make changes using powers under the HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/28" \t "_blank"Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 [opens in a new window]?would be suboptimal, as they are time-limited and expire in June 2026. Moreover, they can only be used once on the same provision, thus precluding the government?s ability to update TDLCR as necessary and on an enduring basis. ? This inability to update, amend or revoke provisions in the TDLCR post-June 2026 is suboptimal in the context of a regime that has shown a need for periodic updates to implement functional improvements and keep pace with technological, technical, scientific and safety developments over time.? The approaching gap in regulatory powers affecting the TDLCR and related assimilated law means the government will be unable to effectively respond to new developments in this area. This includes progressing potential areas for reform recommended by the review of the TDLCR (as well as recommendations in future post-implementation reviews, which statutorily take place every five years). ?The government is keen to maximise the benefits associated with reforms to the train driver licensing regime and to remove unnecessary administrative burdens on operators and train drivers wherever possible. We are therefore consulting on the inclusion of a new delegated power in the Railways Bill that would allow the Secretary of State to update, amend and revoke provisions specifically in the TDLCR and related assimilated law in Great Britain via future secondary legislation. The government is not, at this stage, consulting on any specific amendments, but will consult separately on these potential future reforms in due course.? The powers would only be available to the Secretary of State and, whilst they will fill a ?powers gap? created by the repeal of HYPERLINK "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents/enacted" \t "_blank"section 2(2) of the ECA 1972 [opens in a new window], they will be much narrower in scope as they will be limited to amending the TDLCR and related assimilated law only. Furthermore, the government only intends to use these powers following a formal consultation process to gather information and evidence about the types of changes that would improve the regime. For this reason, the Secretary of State will be required to put any changes to a public consultation as a condition for using these powers.?43. Do you agree or disagree with our intention to create a new delegated power that would enable the Secretary of State to update, amend or revoke provisions in TDLCR and?related assimilated law in Great Britain, subject to public consultation???(??Agree (Go to ?Additional evidence?)????Disagree????Don't know (Go to ?Additional evidence?) Against power to amend TDLCR44. Why not?  Additional evidenceWe are asking you to provide any evidence you may have, resulting from these proposals, on the:anticipated transitional cost or benefitsongoing cost or benefits for youFor example, you may, but are not limited to providing evidence on the scale of transitional costs associated with:familiarising with the new proposals and structurechanges to administrative burden resulting from due to these proposalsany other direct impacts associated with the proposed changes45. Provide evidenceComment:Changes to the railway framework and decision making should incorporate a transition period to allow authorities and other stakeholders to evolve their approaches and build their capacity and capability. Taking on new and enhanced powers around rail will take time, and the time taken will vary according to the organisational maturity of an authority and their starting point in terms of their existing transport offer, powers and economic circumstances. During the transition period, steps must be taken to ensure progress towards the achievement of local ambitions on rail continues and that existing service levels are guaranteed to be maintained as a minimum until new arrangements are in place. Resources should be allocated at national level for capacity building to support and enable the transition to the new framework for railways.  Final comments46. Is there anything else you would like to share with us?There are numerous sections in this paper where we broadly agree with a proposal but would wish to explain our reasoning and nuances surrounding our answer. There are also questions where we cannot answer definitively and again, would like to explain why. I have included these responses below for completeness.11. Do you agree that the Secretary of State should be responsible for setting a long-term strategy for?GBR?to align with government priorities?Yes, we agree that the Secretary of State should be responsible for setting GBR?s long-term strategy, aligned with government priorities. This should include alignment with the government?s wider missions as well as other strategies, including the Integrated National Transport Strategy. The Secretary of State should also have a duty to consult MSAs (or their nominated bodies) on the long-term strategy. This will help the Secretary of State in accounting for how decisions taken at national level will affect delivery and priorities locally.We agree that the strategy should be outcome focused, with freedom for GBR to decide how best to achieve those outcomes. That said, we note that GBR ?will be required to have regard to it when carrying out its functions?. We question what ?have regard to? means in practice as, without some form of accountability for achieving those outcomes, there is a risk that the strategy is not used to meaningfully drive improvement. 21. Which of the options to establish the Alternative Dispute Resolution function as part of the passenger watchdog would deliver the best outcome for passengers in your view?We support the need for an Alternative Dispute Resolution function that is fully independent of GBR and can promptly and fairly address passenger concerns. The function should be designed to ensure a seamless, integrated system for passengers, including integration with local passenger information and complaints systems.31. The government intends to include in primary legislation a power to enable amendments to the Railways (Access, Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016 to ensure consistency between?GBR?s processes and those used by other infrastructure managers. Do you agree with this approach?Yes, provided that any powers do not take away any exemptions which currently exist for light rail networks which may prevent their expansion onto the GBR network using tram-train.35. Do you agree with the legislative approach set out above to retain the Secretary of State?s role in securing the overall affordability of fares and continuing to safeguard certain railcard discount schemes?Simplification of rail fares and ticketing is welcome and it is right that the Secretary of State should be tasked with ensuring the overall affordability of fares and continuing to safeguard railcard discount schemes.That said, it is essential that legislation preserves the existing roles of MSAs regarding local rail and multi-modal fares (including concessionary schemes). Fares and ticketing are one of a number of key areas that MSAs will wish to increase their influence in as part of rail reforms. Provided there is a clear business and passenger experience case to do so, MSAs or their nominated bodies should have the power to make and implement decisions on local rail fares and ticketing products that work for their areas, providing appropriate subsidy to support the schemes.38. The government intends that?GBR?s statutory duty in relation to devolved leaders should strike a balance between enhancing their role whilst also ensuring that?GBR?has the appropriate flexibility to direct the national network. Do you agree with this approach?We welcome a statutory role for devolved governments and MSAs in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network and the duty on GBR to collaborate. The consultation rightly supports the need to bring decision making on rail as close as possible to communities served.We seek further clarity on how this role will be defined and balanced with that of GBR. MSAs are seeking a genuine, clearly defined statutory decision making role that enables them to work as partners with GBR to govern, manage, plan and develop the rail network, extending to full devolution where there is capacity, capability ambition to take on greater powers. This must be clarified in legislation and guidance to go well beyond a statutory consultee role. The statutory role for MSAs must enable rail to become a fully integrated part of local transport networks, encompassing influence over timetabling; fares and ticketing products; passenger experience; the management of stations and land; and overall network development and capacity allocation that supports local integration and wider strategic priorities.MSAs provide a direct line to communities, their needs and priorities as well as the ability to maximise synergies with local plans for economic growth and development.MSAs, who have increasing control over much of the wider mobility offer in their areas (and have demonstrated capability to wield those powers), should have the opportunity to shape and drive how local rail is integrated into that offer, bringing their expertise and local knowledge to decision-making to better serve their people and places. Our recent report ?The pathway to a brighter transport future: Harnessing the opportunity of our local railways? highlights numerous examples of the positive impact greater rail devolution has already achieved, for example, in London and Merseyside.We recognise, however, the need for GBR to balance local priorities with the needs of the national network and that trade-offs will at times be necessary. We ask that Mayors and their MSAs (or nominated bodies) become, as a minimum, central partners (as opposed to stakeholders or consultees) working collaboratively with GBR to identify the best approach to ensure railways deliver locally (as set out in Local Growth Plans and Local Transport Plans) and nationally.Local ambitions and priorities should be respected and valued in GBR?s planning, with MSAs fully embedded in the process and viewed as on the same ?team?. Trade-offs should operate in both directions, with GBR willing to give ground to local stakeholders where the benefits can be clearly demonstrated. Where local ambitions cannot be met, GBR should be transparent as to the reasons why and work collaboratively with local partners to identify constructive ways forward.Often, priorities for joining up journeys and wider strategic plans will cross beyond national and MSA boundaries. Mechanisms for local influence and control over rail should allow for collaboration across these boundaries, enabling neighbours to work collectively with GBR on shared priorities, maximising potential synergies as well as managing any potentially conflicting ambitions. The form of such cross-boundary working should be determined and convened locally, potentially building on existing partnerships and bodies such as the West Midlands Rail Executive, Strategic Transport Bodies, the West Yorkshire Strategic Rail Partnership, the Liverpool-Manchester Rail Board and the North East Rail Management Unit.The existence of these partnerships is testament to the progress that has already been made on greater devolution and partnership on rail locally. The consultation rightly recognises, and pledges to safeguard and build upon rail devolution in Scotland, Wales, Liverpool City Region and London.It is worth noting, however, progress on devolution and partnerships in other areas including: collaboration between DfT and the West Midlands Rail Executive in managing the contract for local rail services in the West Midlands; the management and operation by Nexus of the Tyne and Wear Metro (which runs on both Network Rail and Nexus infrastructure); and the Rail North Partnership that sees collaboration between Transport for the North and DfT to manage the Northern and TransPennine Express rail contracts. We are also aware that in Wales the industry is working together to develop an operating model for the nation that will deliver rail reform benefits.There is clear ambition among areas with existing powers, and without, to go further on rail partnerships and devolution as part of transformative plans for local rail and economic growth. GBR must work collaboratively to enable those ambitions. We therefore welcome the inclusion of a menu of options for Mayoral Partnerships, recognising that one size does not fit all. Such an approach will enable MSAs or their nominated bodies to take on a mix of roles to suit their circumstances, capability and ambitions for different parts of local rail networks, with support to build up to deeper devolution over time. It is encouraging, under the ?collaborating?, to see the starting point as ?a presumption that GBR will deliver Local Transport Plan rail objectives?. However, we would suggest amending this to ?Local Transport Plan, Local Growth Plan and regional strategic objectives? rather than specifically rail objectives. It is important to recognise that a lack of opportunity to influence and shape rail in the past, as well as a lack of guidance in developing LTPs in recent years, may mean that LTPs do not yet consistently feature rail ambitions. It is also important to note that LTPs and LGPs will not necessarily cover cross-boundary strategic rail issues. GBR must respect and facilitate the wider economic, environmental and social goals of MSAs, as set out in their LTPs and LGPs, and the role that rail can play in achieving those, as well as wider strategic plans crossing local boundaries.The proposed ?right to request? further devolution is valuable. We envisage that this should include the right for established MSAs to request service carve out from GBR, taking on revenue risk and locally managing delivery.We recognise that the process for this will sit outside of the Bill and does not form part of the consultation however, we look forward to the creation of a clear pathway for how this would be achieved, including granting access to management accounts and key data such as costs, income, performance and staffing to enable MSAs to take an informed decision.Deeper collaboration should not be dependent on local investment and the taking on of financial risk. It should not be the case that MSAs, or other Strategic Authorities should be expected to pay to have more of a say over their local rail networks. Not all authorities will be in the position to commit resources and take on risk in this way. Collaboration should take place because it is the right thing to do to ensure local transport integration, to deliver a better service for passengers and businesses and to maximise synergies with other plans for economic growth.It is important to recognise, however, that public money is invested in rail in our areas and, currently, MSAs have little say or direct involvement in how and where it is spent. We hope that this will change under the proposed reforms. As such, enhanced local control over local rail must go together with greater financial devolution and unlocking of local investment levers.Devolution of funding and investment levers to the local level brings decision making closer to the communities and businesses served. This means the rail network will be better aligned to their needs, thereby growing patronage and generating greater returns to the public purse. It enables Mayors and MSAs to ensure every penny is targeted and maximised to achieve the biggest impact on local and national policy priorities ? from economic growth to net zero. Financial devolution should involve working towards long-term, single local transport funding settlements with the ability to flex between spending on different modes. This would enable MSAs to decide where investment will deliver the best outcomes based on their local ambitions and to have the financial security to locally commission services and take on the associated risks and rewards. It could also involve appropriate devolved funding settlements from within existing local railway budgets to further enable meaningful MSA prioritisation and decision-making. Where GBR is delivering on behalf of MSAs, using locally managed resources, this adds greater accountability for how that money is spent, given that MSAs could decide it is better used to support other parts of the network in support of their Local Growth Plan ambitions or other strategies. Such an arrangement also offers the incentive for GBR to drive efficiencies as they would need to ensure that rail is a competitive local investment proposition. Greater financial devolution and long-term settlements should be supplemented by access to local investment levers, enabling Mayors and MSAs to raise funding locally to invest in rail and, ultimately, support financial sustainability and independence. Levers could include retention and control of business rates, land value capture and tax revenue devolution.40. Do you agree with the proposed approach in Wales on enabling further collaboration between track and train while preserving the devolved settlements?Given the historic underfunding of Wales? rail network, we would urge government to deliver an annual funding settlement of circa ?200m by 2026 (with suitable ramping up) for a deliverable pipeline of rail enhancements across Wales and the Borders, governed and managed through the Wales & Borders Rail Board. 41. Do you agree with the government?s approach of making targeted amendments to existing legislation to clarify the role of devolved leaders in relation to?GBR?It is difficult to comment without knowing the detail of what amendments are proposed. "#0??????g h i ? ? ? ? P Q ? ? ? * + ~  ??ʹ??????n?_???????F?_????0?jDh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jphh?Mh7S0J.OJQJ^J0?jh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph*jh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^JphhY?B*OJQJ^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???#h7SB*CJ6OJQJ^JaJ6ph???)hp8 hp8 B*CJ6OJQJ^JaJ6ph???#0??? ? ~  ? ? ? ? ? ???????????~v$IfK$ed?v?*edf Dkd?$$Ifed?Ho????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it?Ho$If $Ifed?? ,$Ifed??-D?M? ?BBBedf -D@M? ?p?edf  ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 14567;<@AC`abez|}??????????????????????꾾???????ꮛ??????????????????????h?;?B*OJQJ^JphheD?B*OJQJ^Jph% j??h?L?0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh?L?B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJ2? ? ? ? ? ? ??KF>$IfK$ed?Q?Dkd?$$Ifed?v?*??????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it?v?*$Ifikd?$IfK$L$???w?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a?? ? ? ? 17;??KF??ed^)?uDkd?$$Ifed?Q???????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it?Q?$Ifikd?$IfK$L$???w?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a?;<Aab???+gkd?$$Ifed^)?u????0??=?F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it^)?u$Ifgkd?$$Ifed^)?u????0??=?F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it^)?ubez????????wq$Ifikd$IfK$L$???w?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a?$IfK$ed?cw8-D?M? ?BBBedf edf ???????K????H??gkd#$$Ifed?5B????0??=?"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?5B$Ifed?5BDkd?$$Ifed?cw8??????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it?cw8????KLPQ??????????????????9>?@ABDIOvyz{|????????????????????????????????????????????ڹ??????ڛ???????????????????????hY?B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh?L?B*OJQJ^Jph% j??h?L?0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJ;KLQ?????+gkdG$$Ifed?5B????0??=?"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?5B$Ifgkd?$$Ifed?5B????0??=?"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?5B???????????gkd?$$Ifed?5B????0??=?"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?5B$If????????+gkd?$$Ifed?5B????0??=?"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?5B$Ifgkdk$$Ifed?5B????0??=?"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?5B???@A????gkd?$IfK$L$???T?B t??0???????????????L6????????3?4?B?a?$IfK$ $9DIfed^@$IfABv|??????/gkd? $$IfedZX????0??=?F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?itZX$IfedZX^kd$ $$Ifed?5B????0??=?"F??B t??6????????????2?K3? 4?B?a?it?5B???????????gkd< $$IfedZX????0??=?F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?itZX$If????????$IfK$ $9DIfed'irf$Ifgkd? $$IfedZX????0??=?F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?itZX???????4/edf ^kd? $$IfedZX????0??=?F??B t??6????????????2?K3? 4?B?a?itZX$Ifgkd` $IfK$L$???T?B t??0???????????????L6????????3?4?B?a?????"#%QRSVln|??????????)*./EFJK`aef???????????????????㭵?????????㭵?㭵?㭵?㭵?㭵?㭵??????՜!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h7SB*OJQJ^JphheD?B*OJQJ^Jph6??#R???????gkd{ $$Ifed D?-????0????F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it D?-$Ifed D?--D?M? ?BBBedf RSVl|??????{{$Ifed?/?/-D?M? ?BBBedf edf gkd$$Ifed D?-????0????F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it D?-????????+gkd1$$Ifed?/?/????0???0"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?/?/$Ifgkd?$$Ifed?/?/????0???0"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?/?/??)*/E?????gkd?$$Ifed?/?/????0???0"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?/?/$IfEFK`a???+gkd?$$Ifed?/?/????0???0"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?/?/$IfgkdU$$Ifed?/?/????0???0"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?/?/af??????????$IfK$ $9DIfedp+?&gkdy$$Ifed?/?/????0???0"F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?/?/$If???????4/edf ^kd?$$Ifed?/?/????0???0"F??B t??6????????????2?K3? 4?B?a?it?/?/$Ifgkd $IfK$L$???T?B t??0???????????????L6????????3?4?B?a????????=@{-? ???????ooooo & F?d?d$If[$\$ed?b?O ,$Ifed?b?Ogd?MDkdj$$Ifedb8 j????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itb8 j$If ,$Ifed?# ,??$If\$ed?#-D?M? ?BBBedf ??!"#lm???????=?!"@?{?-???? ?????????٩?ٓ???????????w???a*jh?MheD?B*OJQJU^Jphh??B*OJQJ^Jphh?;?B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh?Mh?M<?h7SCJaJh?Mh7S0J.OJQJ^J0?j&h?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jph*jh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph l m n ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ! !!!%!&!;!=!>!@!A!E!F!J!K!L!~!?տ??????xjjjjj?jZGZjZjZj?j% j??h?L?0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJ!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh?MheD?0J.OJQJ^Jh?Mh7S0J.OJQJ^J*jh?MheD?B*OJQJU^Jph0?j?h?MheD?B*OJQJU^Jph!h?MheD?B*OJQJ^Jph ? ? ? ! !!!%!???????? $$Ifa$ed\M?@Dkd$$Ifedf ????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itf $If ,$Ifed?b?O%!&!;!A!F!K!?zzzz$Ifkds$$Ifed\M?@?4?\??? 8r#?D?E~E~E~ t???6????????????????????3? 4?B?a?it\M?@K!L!~!?!?!?!{uuuu$If?kd?$$Ifed\M?@????\??? 8r#?BF?F?F? t???6????????????????????2?K3? 4?B?a?it\M?@~!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!"4"5"?"?"?"?"?$?$?$?$?$?$?$?$%%%|%?%?%?%?%?%&f&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&?&P'Q'\'h'r'?'?'?'?'?'.(/(P(k(v(w({())????????????????»??????????????????????????????????????????±????????h ?h?L?6?]? h?9?h?L?h?L?h7SCJaJh7SB*OJQJ^Jph% j??h?L?0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^JphF?!?!?!?"?"%%?&?&?'?'H)I){tkkkkkkkkkk $Ifgd?L?9Ded?A+?kd?$$Ifed\M?@????\??? 8r#?BF?F?F? t???6????????????????????2?K3? 4?B?a?it\M?@ )+)G)H)I)b)f)s)u)y)?)?)?)?)?)?)?)?)?) *;*e*f*g*h*m+?+,,,?,?,?,%-&-'-?-?-?-.3.4.7.8.;._.`.f.o.z.{.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.S/U/V/X/Y/]/^/b/??????????????????????????????????????????????????翬?????翬???% j??h?L?0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJh7SB*OJQJ^Jph h?L?6?]?h?L?DI)g*h*,,4.7.8._.`.f.o.z.???????{ulll $$Ifa$$IfedqI'=mkd$$Ifed\M?@???S???~#?D? t??0????????????????6????????3?4?B?a?it\M?@??$If $Ifgd?L? z.{.?.?.?.?.?zzzz$Ifkd?$$IfedqI'=?4?\??? 8r#?D?E~E~E~ t???6????????????????????3? 4?B?a?itqI'=?.?.S/Y/^/c/{uuuu$If?kd=$$IfedqI'=????\??? 8r#?BF?F?F? t???6????????????????????2?K3? 4?B?a?itqI'=b/c/d/i/?/?/%0&0Y0?0?0?0?0?0?1?1?1?1?1?1S2T2?2?2p3q3r3?3?3?34>4?4?4?4?4?4?45:6;6<6?6?6?6?6?6?6?6?????????????????????????????????????̻??񛈛??% j??h?L?0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jph!h?MheD?B*OJQJ^Jphh?Mh?M<?h?L?h7SCJaJh7SB*OJQJ^Jph0c/d/i/?0?0?1?1q3r3?4?4{tkkkkkkkc??$If $Ifgd?L?9Ded?.3]?kd?$$IfedqI'=????\??? 8r#?BF?F?F? t???6????????????????????2?K3? 4?B?a?itqI'= ?4?4?45:6;6<6????}8Dkd?$$Ifedf ????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itf $If ,$Ifed7Fv"gd?MmkdU$$IfedqI'=???S???~#?D? t??0????????????????6????????3?4?B?a?itqI'=<6?6?6 7777??????gkdb$$Ifed62"?????0??=TF?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it62"?$Ifed62"??6 7 777777!7"7,7S7T7U7X7?7?7?7?7?7?7?7?7?7`9?9:?:?:?;<\<?<#=?= >5>?>?>???@?@?@?@ZAiAjAWBXB?BHCSDTDUDXD?D?D?????????????㽭?????㽜?????????????????????????ۭ??h??B*OJQJ^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh?;?B*OJQJ^Jph877"7T7U7???+gkd?$$Ifed62"?????0??=TF?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it62"?$Ifgkd?$$Ifed62"?????0??=TF?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it62"?U7X7?7?7?7?7?7????uo$Ifikd$IfK$L$???S?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a? ??$IfK$edO~?f-D?M? ?BBBedf edf ?7?7?7?7?9?:?;<\<#=?= >5>???????????w & F?d?d$If[$\$ed@gm & F?d?d$If[$\$ed@gm ,$Ifed@gm-D?M? ?BBBedf edf Dkd?$$IfedO~?f??????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itO~?f 5>?>???@?@?@jAHCSDTDUD?D?D?D?????????~yss$Ifed:?_Dkd$$IfedD)h????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itD)h???d?d$If[$\$^??gd?;? & F?d?d$If[$\$ed@gm & F?d?d$If[$\$ed@gm?D?D?D?D?D?D?D?D?D?D?D?D?D?D?DE E!E$E?EBEVEZE[ExE?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E?E F$F%F?F?F?F?F!G?G?G?G?GcHdHhHiH?H?H?H?H!IyIzI~IIJ?????θ??θ????θΪ??????θ??θΪ????θ???θ??θ??θ???θ???h7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h7SCJaJh?;?B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jph% j??h?L?0J1B*OJQJ^Jph????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it?o?>$If ,$IfedL&?bb[l[?[?[?[?[?[?[?[?[?[\\\\\\\'\Y\Z\[\^\o\r\x\y\|\}\~\\?\?\?\?\?\?\?\?\?\?\?\]!]"]#]$]']K]????????????˪?????㜌???????㜌????ی??????h7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???% j??h?8?0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh?;?B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJh7SB*OJQJ^JphhY?B*OJQJ^Jph0?[?[?[?[?[\?????gkd?*$$Ifed?y????0??=r#F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?y$If\\\Z\[\???+gkd,$$Ifed?y????0??=r#F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?y$Ifgkd?+$$Ifed?y????0??=r#F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?y[\^\o\x\|\}\~\????uo$Ifikd?,$IfK$L$???S?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a? ??$IfK$edf"(R-D?M? ?BBBedf edf ~\\?\?\?\?\????? ??$IfK$ed?Wo-D?M? ?BBBedf edf Dkd=-$$Ifedf"(R??????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itf"(R?\?\?\?\]!]??KF< ??$IfK$edi'P7DkdA.$$Ifed?Wo??????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it?Wo$Ifikd?-$IfK$L$???S?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a?!]"]#]$]']K]??KF9-D?M? ?BBBedf edf DkdE/$$Ifedi'P7??????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?iti'P7$Ifikd?.$IfK$L$???S?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a?K]?]y^?^?^?^?^?^(_)_2_3_|_}_~_?_?_a`y`fbybdydaeyfygyh?hj@kBkDkJknlplvlxl~l?????ذ????ذ???????????????qaaqqh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJ0?j?/h?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jphh?Mh7S0J.OJQJ^J0?j?/h?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph*jh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jph%K]?]a`fbdaeyg?h@kBkDknlxl?l?????????????ed$$Ifed?M5+????0??=?F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?M5+$Ifed?M5+Dkd^>$$Ifedf ????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itf ?????????????+gkd??$$Ifed?M5+????0??=?F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?M5+$Ifgkd[?$$Ifed?M5+????0??=?F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?M5+??©??????????ԭ߮?ܯݯ??űƱݳ޳/?3????????????????????? ??$IfK$ $Ifgd?8?ed0*P-D?M? ?BBBedf edf ??????????q???????9?t?ҭӭԭ????ޮ߮?????ۯܯݯ???a?ıűƱ?x??Ƴܳݳ޳?z?{?.?/?3?4?5?6?9?X???/?/?>??????????????????????????????????????????????????????ͼ??????0?j?Ah?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph*jh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h7SCJaJh7SB*OJQJ^Jph h?5bh?8?h?t?h?8?73?4?5?6?9?X???KF9-D?M? ?BBBedf edf DkdA$$Ifed0*P??????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it0*P$Ifikd@$IfK$L$???S?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a?X???>??j?a?b?c?#?)?G???????????edSKDkd?A$$Ifed?/Qs????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it?/Qs$If ,$Ifed~>BT ,??$If\$ed~>BT ????˹̹/??/?j?/?/?a?b?c?f?#?%?&?(?)?.?F?G?H?L?M?V?W?[?\?f?~???????????????????????²??????s?”??”??s?¤e??h7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h?CB*OJQJ^Jph% j??h?t?0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJ!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh?Mh7S0J.OJQJ^J*jh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph$G?H?M?V?W????+gkd?B$$IfedSK????0??= F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?itSK$Ifgkd2B$$IfedSK????0??= F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?itSKW?\??????????????n?o? ???????{rrrrrh ??$IfK$ $Ifgd?t?ed/I?p-D?M? ?BBBedf edf gkdVC$$IfedSK????0??= F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?itSK$If ?????T????????????l?m?n?o????????? ? ??????$? ??? ??? ???L? ??? ?D??? ? ?=?z?{?|??'?c?d?h?s???????????????????????/???G????????????????????????????????????????????߰第????????????????? h?2?h(?h(?h7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h7SCJaJh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh?t? hQ"h?t?A?????$???KF9-D?M? ?BBBedf edf Dkd?D$$Ifed/I?p??????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it/I?p$Ifikd?C$IfK$L$???S?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a?$???????L???D???z?{?|?'?????X?\???????????????? ??$IfK$ $Ifgd(?ed?m?:Dkd?D$$Ifed?FYS????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it?FYS$If ,??$If\$ed?/ ,$Ifed?/G?W?X?\?]?^?_?b?m???????????n???Z?????r??r???W?B?8?:??????????\?^?`?b???I?????????????????????????????????q????i???h?Mh?M<?h?Mh7S0J.OJQJ^J0?j[Fh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph*jh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph!h0?h0?B*OJQJ^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h7SCJaJh7SB*OJQJ^Jph hO uh(?h(?)\?]?^?_?b?m???KF9-D?M? ?BBBedf edf Dkd?E$$Ifed?m?:??????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it?m?:$IfikdWE$IfK$L$???S?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a?m???????Z???r?B?\?^?`?b?I?J?????????????? ,$Ifed&1?Cgd?MDkd?F$$Ifed0&_????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it0&_$If ,$Ifed?e?Y ,??$If\$ed?e?YI?J?K?N?????????????????????????????????? ? ??V?Y?c?d?g?h?i?j?m?x???d?????d?d???????d???d???d?d????????ȸ???ȗ??????ȗ??ȉ???????ȉ?????????????????????h7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h?CB*OJQJ^Jph% j??h(?0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJ!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jph6J?K?????????????????H??gkduG$$Ifedwd?4????0??=vF?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?itwd?4$Ifedwd?4Dkd G$$Ifedf ????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itf ?????? ? ????+gkd?H$$Ifedwd?4????0??=vF?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?itwd?4$IfgkdH$$Ifedwd?4????0??=vF?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?itwd?4 ??V?c?g?h?i?????uo$Ifikd+I$IfK$L$???S?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a? ??$IfK$ed`A?-D?M? ?BBBedf edf i?j?m?x??????????????????????????????????$If ,$Ifed?O?, ,??$If\$ed?O?, $Ifed?O?,-D?M? ?BBBedf edf Dkd?I$$Ifed`A???????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it`A???????????? $$Ifa$$Ifed?z?YDkd/J$$Ifedcgx????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itcgx??????????????  &'*+.9?'' x ? ? ? ? ?     ' f ??????????????????????????˺????????|?????h?Mh7S0J.OJQJ^J0?j?Lh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph*jh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJh7SB*OJQJ^Jph*?????zzzz$Ifkd?J$$Ifed?z?Y?4?\??? 8r#?D?E~E~E~ t???6????????????????????3? 4?B?a?it?z?Y???? {uuuu$If?kd"K$$Ifed?z?Y????\??? 8r#?BF?F?F? t???6????????????????????2?K3? 4?B?a?it?z?Y  &*{tl??$If9DedE?^?kd?K$$Ifed?z?Y????\??? 8r#?BF?F?F? t???6????????????????????2?K3? 4?B?a?it?z?Y*+.9?x ????rrric$If ,$Ifed??p ,??$If\$ed??p-D?M? ?BBBedf edf mkd:L$$Ifed?z?Y???S???~#?D? t??0????????????????6????????3?4?B?a?it?z?Yf g h ? ? ? ? ? ? ? " # '????z~????????????ѱѱ???ѱ??????rbrrTr?brr?bh?MB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SCJaJ0?jdMh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh?Mh7S0J.OJQJ^J*jh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph0?j Mh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph??z????????H??gkdN$$Ifed?B?|????0??=?F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?B?|$Ifed?B?|Dkd?M$$IfedW?????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itW???????+gkd7O$$Ifed?B?|????0??=?F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?B?|$Ifgkd?N$$Ifed?B?|????0??=?F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it?B?|?????adnorstux?34?????uuu"?????θΪ???θθΪ?s?ZsKs????h?Mh7S0J.OJQJ^J0?j?Ph?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph*jh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h7SCJaJh?MB*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jph% j??h?j?0J1B*OJQJ^Jphanrst????uo$Ifikd?O$IfK$L$???S?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a? ??$IfK$ed?U93-D?M? ?BBBedf edf tux?FGHI?"?????TOF ,$Ifed?F agd?MDkd?Q$$Ifed? RQ????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it? RQ$If ,$Ifed?=-D?M? ?BBBedf edf DkdbP$$Ifed?U93??????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it?U93"#uxyz??!"fgh??uuFGHIuH I u ? ? ? ? ? u"?"?"?"?"????????٘?????ِ??????o????ِ_h7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jph0?jRh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jphh?Mh?M<?h7SCJaJ0?jUQh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jphh?Mh7S0J.OJQJ^J0?jQh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jph*jh?Mh7SB*OJQJU^Jph"?"?"?"?#?#?#?#?#?#?????H??gkd?R$$Ifed]?Y2????0??=*F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it]?Y2ed]?Y2DkdHR$$Ifedf ????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itf $If?"?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#?#$$($)$,$-$.$/$2$F$?$?$?$e%?%?%&&&"&)&4&5&6&?&t& ' ''I't'?'???????????????????????????????񅅅????h?j?!h?Mh7SB*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h7SCJaJh?MB*OJQJ^Jph% j??h?j?0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7S0J1B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph4?#?#?#?#?#???+gkd?S$$Ifed]?Y2????0??=*F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it]?Y2$IfgkdES$$Ifed]?Y2????0??=*F?B t??6????????????2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?a?it]?Y2?#?#$($,$-$.$????uo$IfikdiT$IfK$L$???S?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a? ??$IfK$edt_?-D?M? ?BBBedf edf .$/$2$F$?$?$?$e%?%?%&&???????wwwf & F?d?d$If[$\$ & F?d?d$If[$\$edS(ro & F?d?d$If[$\$edS(ro ,$IfedS(ro-D?M? ?BBBedf edf DkdU$$Ifedt_???????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?itt_? &&4&5&6&?& '' ( ()???jcZZZZZ $Ifgd?j?9Ded-(?lDkd?U$$Ifed$vA????6?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it$vA$Ifed$vADkdmU$$Ifed??l????r#?B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it??l ?'?' ( ( ()))?)?)?)?)?)?)?)?) *h*?*?*?*?*?*?*+++++ +?+?+,k,q,?,?,?,?,?,?,?,????????????ʺ௯???????????unjjjjjjjjjjhK? hK?5?\?hB??hK?5?\? h?y5?\?h?yhK?B*ph h?yh?yh?yh?yB*phh?yh?yB*phh?yh?j?B*phh7S0J0B*OJQJ^Jphh7SB*OJQJ^Jph???h7SCJaJh7SB*OJQJ^Jph hoWBh?j? h,a?h?j?h?j?)))?)?)?)?)?)?)+?+?,????{niaXX $IfgdK???$Ifed??*-D?M? ?BBBedf edf mkdCV$$Ifed$vA???S???~#?D? t??0????????????????6????????3?4?B?a?it$vA??$If $Ifgd?j? ?,?,?-?-{/|/,0o1p1?2?2\3]304 5 5?5?5J7K7T8o9p9?;@;?<?<P=??????????????????????????? $Ifgd?? $IfgdK??,?,--)-*-C-?-?-?-.J.g.?.?.?.?.?.?. /'/N/m/x/y/z/{/|/?/+0,0?0?01n1o1p1t1?2?2?2?243[3\3]3a34/404>4[4]4?4 5 5 555]5?5?5?5?5.6?6????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? hQ"h??hB??h??5?\? h??5?\?h?? het?hK? h??hK? hK?5?\?hB??hK?5?\? h?y5?\?ht\7hK?6?]?h /?hK?6?]?hK?A?6?67I7J7K7O7S8T8?8n9o9p9x9?9?9?9?9:v:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:-;7;>;?;@;P;?;?;?;?;?;?;?;< <<<,<M<e<k<?<?<?<?<?<?<?<?<?<?<>=N=O=P=Q=R=S=?>?>?>?>?>?;????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? h<]dh?? h?B|h??hdu?h??6?]?hLJh??5?\?hB??h??5?\? h??5?\? h9Gh?? hQ"h??h??JP=Q=?>?>????yAzARCSC?D?D%F&FLGMG?I?I?J?JMLNL?O?O?P?PRRST???????????????????????????? $Ifgd????????@?@?@$AxAyAzA?A?ABBcBxB?B?B?BQCRCSC?C1D?D?D?D?DE E!EoE?E$F%F&F?F?FGGJGKGLGMG?G?GLIMINIYIZI?I?I?I?J?J?J?J?J?J?J?JKK%K-K[KKLLLMLNLSLfLjLkLlLyLzL?L?L?LM%M&M8M9MDMPM??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? h??6?]?hk*?h??6?]? hdu?h?? howh??h??WPM\M?M?MNNkNlN?N?N?N?O?O?O?O?OP P?P?P?PRRRR*RzR?RSlSmSnS?ST#TRTSTTTgTzT{T?T?T@UyU?U?U?U?U?U?U?V?V?V?W?W?W?W?WYXZX&Y'Y(Y?Y?Y?Y?Y?Y?YZoZpZ?[?[?[*\+\ ] ] ]]?]?]??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????hB??h??5?\? h??5?\? hY*?h??h?? h??6?]?RSTTT?U?U?W?W'Y(Y?Y?Y?[?[ ] ]?]?^?^_????Ӊԉj?k?(?)?|?}?????????????????????????????? $Ifgd???]?]?]?]?]?]^s^?^?^?^?^?^~__?_?5?6?7?m?n?????????????????(???҉ӉԉՉ????i?j?k?'?(?)?{?|?}?.???????L?M?}?????f???????͏??P?l?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????h?n~h??6?]? h?n~h??Uh??hB??h??5?\? h??5?\? h??PJh??OJPJQJ^Jhdu?h??PJhdu?h??OJPJQJ^JDThe statutory role must be meaningful and enforceable, marking a genuine improvement on the current position. Legislation must ensure GBR is accountable to devolved leaders. The Bill should be explicit in recognising MSAs clear and defined statutory decision making role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network, as well as inputting into relevant regional and national aspects of rail decision making, as covered in the previous questions.The role of MSAs (or their nominated bodies) must be protected in statute to provide long-term stability and to prevent any watering down over time. A means to achieve this could be to re-instate (with appropriate re-wording) previous provisions from the Transport Act 1968 (which established the Passenger Transport Executives - PTEs). Section 20 of the original act placed a duty on the PTEs (with the consent of the Minister) to review and keep under review passenger rail services to ensure they met the needs of people travelling between places in that area or outside of it within a permitted distance (which could be a travel to work area for that area, for example). If considered necessary, enabled the PTEs to enter into agreements with the then Railway Board to secure the provision of railway services that the PTE considered necessary to ?ensure that such services make a proper contribution towards the provision for that area? specifically ?a properly integrated and efficient system of public passenger transport to meet the needs of that area?, the creation of which was one of the original drivers for establishing PTEs. Future legislation must not unnecessarily bind MSAs to enter into agreements on services only within a certain permitted distance and should instead retain a degree of flexibility.Indeed, any new legislation must be flexible enough to cover the different roles devolved leaders could perform and accommodate the different types of bodies that exist, or could exist, to support MSAs (or groups of MSAs) in those roles (for example the West Midlands Rail Executive which covers a wider geographical footprint than the MSA it acts on behalf of). Without this, there is a risk of the unintended consequence of an effective reduction in the rail influence of some regions, particularly in those areas already well advanced in their devolved arrangements. As outlined above, the statutory role should include the ability for Mayors, working collaboratively with GBR, to prioritise spend aligned with the ambitions set out in Local Growth Plans, Local Transport Plans as well as wider regional strategies. In addition, there should be a statutory role for Mayors in prioritising rail spend, aligned with Local Growth Plans and Local Transport Plans. Whilst we recognise that detail on the role of MSAs and Mayors will emerge through guidance and bespoke Mayoral Partnerships, we would expect a statutory role to include and safeguard powers in relation to a number of further key areas of influence, for example, timetabling; fares and ticketing; passenger experience, staffing and customer service; stations and land; and network development. TimetablingWorking collaboratively with GBR, MSAs or their nominated bodies should have the opportunity to have significant formal strategic input throughout timetable development processes for local services, particularly for those where they have taken on revenue risk. MCAs should also have strategic input into service planning and delivery of rail services from outside of the area, but which provide a core part of services between stations in the region, as part of setting of wider industry outcomes.They should also be statutory consultees for national timetable development in respect of services that serve or pass through their area. Fares and ticketingProvided there is a clear business and passenger experience case for doing so, MCAs or their nominated bodies should have the power to make and implement decisions on local rail fares as part of integrated ticketing products that work for their areas, providing appropriate subsidy to support the schemes.Passenger experience, staffing and customer serviceGBR and MSAs or their nominated bodies should work together to agree a local passenger experience that maximises integration and consistency across the local transport network. It is important to note that many MSAs already have established rail brands as part of multi-modal transport brand families ? these should be safeguarded and grown.There should be the opportunity for MCAs to deliver those customer services themselves if they wish to do so. Where it is taking a revenue risk on a service, MCAs or their nominated bodies should have the power to specify, or take on themselves, all aspects of the passenger experience and customer service delivery.Stations and landMSAs or their nominated bodies should have a clear role in setting GBR?s approach to stations in their areas. They should have the power to enter into agreements with GBR to take on an active role in the management and control of rail stations and surrounding Network Rail land in their geography. MSAs or their nominated bodies should be given the power to develop and use railway land in their geography to support economic growth and integrated transport networks. This should include the ability to assemble adjacent plots to create development zones and to enter into joint ventures with GBR to deliver regeneration priorities.Network developmentMSAs or their nominated bodies need the ability to develop shared, long-term network development plans ? for passenger and freight services - with GBR so that all parties are working towards the same goals and avoid conflict with local plans for growth. This should specifically include network capacity allocation as part of wider network planning. 43. The government intends to create a new delegated power that would enable the Secretary of State to update, amend or revoke provisions in?TDLCR?and related assimilated law in Great Britain, subject to public consultation. Do you agree with this approach?Any powers should make clear that where changes are proposed by the Secretary of State, MSAs should be statutory consultees as, in future, they may operate train services directly under full devolution. The TDLCR should remain applicable only to mainline railways in Great Britain and there should be a clear restriction on any actions to extend it to light rail systems. ORR as rail safety regulator should have a clear involvement in any decisions to change the TDLCR. ????@?ɒ˒W?c?i?V????(?\???!???-?|??????ɡ???????????????????????? 3$Ifgd?? 3 & F$Ifgd?? $Ifgd??l??=?>???@?Q?m??????????????7?F?U?????Ȓɒʒ˒??I?t?y?????????Ó'?U?V?W?b?c?????Ԕ۔h?i?%?U?V????????????ė'?(?[?\?e?f???????? ?!????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????־??????????ַ hY]?h?? h!?h??h?h??5?\? h{Fqh?? h??5?\? h?8,h??h|D?h??5?\? h9?h?? ho8kh??h??H??|?,?-?.?/?1?K?z?{?|????????????????????????????m???e?ȡɡʡˡ̡ϡСѡҡӡ?????????????????????????????????ƿ?????h7Sh7SCJaJh7SB*OJQJ^Jph h h??hdu?h??PJ h?X?h?? h?2$h??hB??h??5?\? hJ+?h?? h??5?\? hY]?h??h??(ɡʡˡ̡ϡСѡ????vp$Ifikd?V$IfK$L$???S?x?Fp t??0???????????????p6????????3?4?B?a? ??$IfK$ $Ifgd??3?$If^?gd??ѡҡӡ??ed??*Dkd~W$$Ifed??*??????B t??6????????3? 4?B?a?it??*01?h/R ??. ??A!??"??#??$??%????? ??DDDDi$$Ifed?Ho???!vh#v?#:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?it?Ho?$IfK$L$?!vh#vp:V ??w t??0???????????????p6?,?5?p3?4?B?i$$Ifed?v?*???!vh#v?:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?it?v?*?$IfK$L$?!vh#vp:V ??w t??0???????????????p6?,?5?p3?4?B?i$$Ifed?Q????!vh#v?:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?it?Q??$$Ifed^)?u???!vh#v?#vQ :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it^)?u?$$Ifed^)?u???!vh#v?#vQ :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it^)?u?$IfK$L$?!vh#vp:V ??w t??0???????????????p6?,?5?p3?4?B?i$$Ifed?cw8???!vh#v?:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?it?cw8?$$Ifed?5B???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?5B?$$Ifed?5B???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?5B?$$Ifed?5B???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?5B?$$Ifed?5B???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?5B?$$Ifed?5B???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?5B?$$Ifed?5B???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?5B?$IfK$L$?!vh#vL:V ? t??0???????????????L6?,?5?3?4?B??$$Ifed?5B???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?,?5??5?2?K3? 4?B?it?5B?$$IfedZX???!vh#v?#v?:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?itZX?$$IfedZX???!vh#v?#v?:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?itZX?$$IfedZX???!vh#v?#v?:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?itZX?$IfK$L$?!vh#vL:V ? t??0???????????????L6?,?5?3?4?B??$$IfedZX???!vh#v?#v?:V ??? t??6?,?5??5?2?K3? 4?B?itZX?$$Ifed D?-???!vh#v?#vN:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it D?-?$$Ifed D?-???!vh#v?#vN:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it D?-?$$Ifed?/?/???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?/?/?$$Ifed?/?/???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?/?/?$$Ifed?/?/???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?/?/?$$Ifed?/?/???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?/?/?$$Ifed?/?/???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?/?/?$$Ifed?/?/???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?/?/?$IfK$L$?!vh#vL:V ? t??0???????????????L6?,?5?3?4?B??$$Ifed?/?/???!vh#v?#v? :V ??? t??6?,?5??5?2?K3? 4?B?it?/?/DDi$$Ifedb8 j???!vh#v?#:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?itb8 j3D???y??????K? ???y??????K? ?https://www..gov.uk/government/consultations/legislation-that-transforms-gb-railwaysyX??;H?,?]ą'c??i$$Ifedf ???!vh#v?#:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?itf ?$$Ifed\M?@???!vh#v #v. #v: :V ?4 t???6?,?,?5??5?~3? 4?B?it\M?@?$$Ifed\M?@???!vh#v #v. #v: :V ??? t???6?,?5?5??2?K3? 4?B?it\M?@?$$Ifed\M?@???!vh#v #v. #v: :V ??? t???6?,?5?5??2?K3? 4?B?it\M?@?$$Ifed\M?@???!vh#v?#:V ??S t??0????????????????6?,?5??3?4?B?it\M?@?$$IfedqI'=???!vh#v #v. #v: :V ?4 t???6?,?,?5??5?~3? 4?B?itqI'=?$$IfedqI'=???!vh#v #v. #v: :V ??? t???6?,?5?5??2?K3? 4?B?itqI'=?$$IfedqI'=???!vh#v #v. #v: :V ??? t???6?,?5?5??2?K3? 4?B?itqI'=?$$IfedqI'=???!vh#v?#:V ??S t??0????????????????6?,?5??3?4?B?itqI'=i$$Ifedf ???!vh#v?#:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?itf ?$$Ifed62"????!vh#v?#v:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it62"??$$Ifed62"????!vh#v?#v:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it62"??$$Ifed62"????!vh#v?#v:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it62"??$IfK$L$?!vh#vp:V ??S t??0???????????????p6?,?5?p3?4?B?i$$IfedO~?f???!vh#v?:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?itO~?fi$$IfedD)h???!vh#v?#:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?itD)h?$$Ifed:?_???!vh#v?#vP:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it:?_?$$Ifed:?_???!vh#v?#vP:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it:?_?$$Ifed:?_???!vh#v?#vP:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it:?_?$$Ifed?w?}???!vh#v?#v?:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?w?}?$$Ifed?w?}???!vh#v?#v?:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?w?}?$$Ifed?j?Z???!vh#v?#v?!:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?j?Z?$$Ifed?j?Z???!vh#v?#v?!:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?j?Z?$$Ifed?j?Z???!vh#v?#v?!:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?j?Z?$$Ifed?j?Z???!vh#v?#v?!:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?j?Z?$$Ifed?j?Z???!vh#v?#v?!:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?j?Z?$$Ifed?j?Z???!vh#v?#v?!:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?j?Z?$IfK$L$?!vh#vp:V ??S t??0???????????????p6?,?5?p3?4?B?i$$Ifed?*?)???!vh#v?:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?it?*?)?$$Ifed?8T???!vh#v?#v7:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?8T?$$Ifed?8T???!vh#v?#v7:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?8T?$$Ifed?8T???!vh#v?#v7:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?8T?$$Ifed?8T???!vh#v?#v7:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?8T?$IfK$L$?!vh#vp:V ??S t??0???????????????p6?,?5?p3?4?B?i$$IfeddD?5???!vh#v?:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?itdD?5?$IfK$L$?!vh#vp:V ??S t??0???????????????p6?,?5?p3?4?B?i$$Ifed?4Lu???!vh#v?:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?it?4Lu?$IfK$L$?!vh#vp:V ??S t??0???????????????p6?,?5?p3?4?B?i$$IfedzvO???!vh#v?:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?itzvODDDDDDi$$Ifed?o?>???!vh#v?#:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?it?o?>?$$Ifed?y???!vh#v?#v5!:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?y?$$Ifed?y???!vh#v?#v5!:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?y?$$Ifed?y???!vh#v?#v5!:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?y?$$Ifed?y???!vh#v?#v5!:V ??? t??6?5??5?2?K2?i2?3? 4?B?it?y?$IfK$L$?!vh#vp:V ??S t??0???????????????p6?,?5?p3?4?B?i$$Ifedf"(R???!vh#v?:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?itf"(R?$IfK$L$?!vh#vp:V ??S t??0???????????????p6?,?5?p3?4?B?i$$Ifed?Wo???!vh#v?:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?it?Wo?$IfK$L$?!vh#vp:V ??S t??0???????????????p6?,?5?p3?4?B?i$$Ifedi'P7???!vh#v?:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?iti'P7DDDDi$$Ifed:$^V???!vh#v?#:V ? t??6?,?5?3? 4?B?it:$^V?$$Ifed666666666666666666666666666?6666666666?666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666p62????&6FVfv??????2(??&6FVfv??????&6FVfv??????&6FVfv??????&6FVfv??????&6FVfv??????&6FVfv??8X?V~???????? 0@?? 0@?? 0@?? 0@?? 0@?? 0@?? 0@?? 0@?? 0@?? 0@?? 0@?? 0@?? 0@?? 0@66666_HmH nH sH tH @`??@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH R@R *? Heading 1?d?d@&[$\$5?CJ0KH$\?aJ0N@"N +? Heading 2?d?d@&[$\$5?CJ$\?aJ$N@2N -? Heading 3?d?d@&[$\$5?CJ\?aJDA`???D Default Paragraph FontRi@???R 0 Table Normal?4? l4?a? (k ???(0No List <??< msonormal?d?d[$\$4?4 ac$?d?d[$\$a$4?4 ar$?d?d[$\$a$.?". mb5?d?K[$0?20 mt20?,?d\$0?B0 mb20?d?,[$0?R0 mb30?d??[$2?b2 pa25?d?d[$\$8?r8 padding?d?d[$\$B??B margin-bottom?d??[$f??f survey-title!?d?d-D@M? ?p?[$\$B*CJ6aJ6ph???b??b page-title!?d?d-D?M? ?BBB[$\$B*CJ$aJ$ph???R??R survey-logo!?d?d-DM? ????[$\$D??D option-text?d?d9D[$\$L??L option-heading?d?d[$\$5?\?B??B option-other?d?d[$\$F??F option-comments?,?d\$~?~ checkboxT ?d?d$d%d&d'dN????O????P????Q????[$\$t?t boxT!?d?d$d%d&d'dN????O????P????Q????[$\$H?"H input-tickbox"?d?d9D[$\$B?2B matrix-col#?d?d9D[$\$:?B: question$?d?d[$\$N?RN word-input-tickbox%?d?d[$\$D?bD word-checkbox&?d?d[$\$:?r: word-w10'?d?d[$\$@??@ box-wrapper(?d?d[$\$B??B box-wrapper1)?d?d[$\$R?/???R ?Heading 1 CharCJ(OJPJQJ^JaJ(phGaR?/???R ?Heading 2 CharCJ OJPJQJ^JaJ phGaB^@?B 0 Normal (Web),?d?d[$\$R?/???R ?Heading 3 CharCJOJPJQJ^JaJphGa4U`???4 0 Hyperlink >*ph?DV ???D 0FollowedHyperlink >*ph??6?O?6 question-number6?o??6 checkbox1 r????@Rv!??!R eD?0Unresolved MentionB*ph`^\q? ????f?`2f ?j? List Paragraph3??d??^??m$KHOJPJQJ^JtH PK!????[Content_Types].xml???N?0E?H???-J??@%?ǎǢ|?ș$?ز?U??L?TB? l,?3??;?r??Ø??J??B+$?G]??7O٭V?? (??BO?)?M?B?T?.$@?0H!A???>풠?U??c?-????z??D[?&??????!?r???X=?}z??C??0` ި?%?.??]???Ssd-?-?7? ?+fO??Z?եr????ŵV?????œ?\l???ji?2?Z???Gwm????-??3?˵j????7?\?? ??Uk5??????F?Ҩ-:x????Rkc??r?3?Ϣ?+??????9???k?ji?9?OPEt?-??j|???#?p;E=Ɖ??5??Z???2sg?F?????=8??? ???? ?K}*7c??<`?*?HJT???cB $>?H?m?P??d{(?6?%z:"????'?/??f7??w?0q?B?c????F6??f I?öi????1?(\???}B?5?ҹ?~B???c?r6?I??;???}?mY?/?l??I??z??1????!??)? ?a???c? ?1f?m? ??ƪ?N??^I77?yr?J'd?$?s?????????=?= Ƌ?(?uX?=W?A N????C???2?>?G?Kg^*ٞ?n??{?M.z??oi?0HV??|u???v4??????&??ⶏ?Vn????.????B>?1C?d?̧Ok?!#;Ҍ}$????pQ˙y')f?Y??u??\$????/???1d8*?ZI$G?#d\???,{uk<$????:?l??WV j?^ZơS??c*???+?E???S??a?1똀?? k3?Ģ???x?zjv3,j?Z??U3?@j?W?u;???z??? ?\v?5?i??{?8?&==ϘN?X1? ? O?4׹?ӧ?C??vH??a?0?1???%x?z?24????ĥ=m ???????X\??(7?Xjg ???????!Ӆ??qd??? cG?7.`~w?*?????,??? 2?n?N*"F?z??_???&?n? &???\???F??:?????l?[+???%f? ?WA????? ??? ~!)b/?6?DJ?MDTb[K]~lr~|f?6??? ???????G?I??f ?"?"?'?,?6??PM?]l??ӡ?????????????????? "(-035:=>@ACRS? ? ;b?K???A????R??Ea?? %!K!?!I)z.?.c/?4<67U7?75>?D?D?E?E?GdHyIJPJ?J2K?K?O?PQ]QLR?[\[\~\?\!]K]?l?lns{?? ?ԅ??,?6??@?????̨????3?X?G?W??$?\?m?J??? ?i??? *??t?"?#?#.$&)?,P=ST?ɡѡӡ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????    !#$%&')*+,./1246789;<?BQTU?h?P?*? " l m?pI?I?IuJ?J?J?J7KeKRaR?R?R?RTS?pqFq/???ր?`???DŽ??????I?????????.?X?[???????+?e?v???.?e????d???????????WX??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X??X???8?@???????????0?( ? ??B ?S ???? ??:?>?]?a?? ??????????? <<?W??ru7?1-:-?-?-?0?0?2?2[<a<?>?>dAlA?`?`Haaa?w?w0?@?G?Q?ی?? ?Ҡ٠???? ??f???' ^ ??APG$Q$+&+?$??I?I?M?MNSXS?W333333333333333333333333333333kk?' = G _ c ???????@?@@AAA?B?BEEWGXG?H?HU?W?W?Wkk?' = G _ c ???????@?@@AAA?B?BEEWGXG?H?HU?W?W?Wn9?@s????????????|3I0????????????hj-?˪{???????????B?6.?I???????????M>a??????????????c??&???????????,?zNI?%????????????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(o??p????p^?p`???CJOJQJo(????@ ????@ ^?@ `???CJOJQJo(????????^?`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(????P????P^?P`???CJOJQJo(?????????^??`???CJOJQJo(?????????^??`???CJOJQJo(o??p????p^?p`???CJOJQJo(????@ ????@ ^?@ `???CJOJQJo(????????^?`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(????P????P^?P`???CJOJQJo(?????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(o??p????p^?p`???CJOJQJo(????@ ????@ ^?@ `???CJOJQJo(????????^?`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(????P????P^?P`???CJOJQJo(?????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(o??p????p^?p`???CJOJQJo(????@ ????@ ^?@ `???CJOJQJo(????????^?`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(????P????P^?P`???CJOJQJo(?????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(o??p????p^?p`???CJOJQJo(????@ ????@ ^?@ `???CJOJQJo(????????^?`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(????P????P^?P`???CJOJQJo(?????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(o??p????p^?p`???CJOJQJo(????@ ????@ ^?@ `???CJOJQJo(????????^?`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(??????????^??`???CJOJQJo(????P????P^?P`???CJOJQJo(???????^??`???OJPJQJ^Jo(-??????^??`???OJQJ^Jo(o? ?p???^?p`???OJQJo(??? ?@ ???^?@ `???OJQJo(???????^?`???OJQJ^Jo(o? ?????^??`???OJQJo(??? ?????^??`???OJQJo(????????^??`???OJQJ^Jo(o? ?P???^?P`???OJQJo(???hj-??M?|3I??B?6?n9????c??,?z??????????????????????????????????        ?Q?f f ?#b8 j???HoZXf p+?&?/?/?v?*f D?-f ?/?/f ?cw8f ^@?5B?5Bf 'irfZXb8 jf ?Hof ^)?uf ??y?M?Cp8 _ $7S???j??t?Y????C??;?eD?(?0??L??8?K??c??;??W?W?@001cHcIcKcMc]c_ckclctcucwcy~z~|~?~?????C?C?C?>?W@8t@R?@V?@j?@z?@? @?@?$@??@??@???@@??Unknown????????????G??.?[x? ?Times New Roman5??Symbol3.? ?.?[x? ?Arial;??WingdingsC.?? ?Aptos Display3.?? ?Aptos?=? ?.?Cx? ?Courier NewA????$B?Cambria Math"q????h,|?G,|?GT3?$=?pT3?$=?p!???????20=W=WK?Q????@P ?? $P??????????????????????eD?2!xx????h ???Dave StiffellRebecca Fuller(       ?? ?????Oh??+'??0x????????  4 @LX`hp?Dave StiffellNormalRebecca Fuller2Microsoft Office Word@?@`?4??@`?4??=T3?$?? ??՜.??+,??D??՜.??+,??Hpx????? ????? ?? Documentp?=W  Title8????? _PID_HLINKSContentTypeId TaxCatchAll!lcf76f155ced4ddcb4097134ff3c332f?A?R?>https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents/enactedD<-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/28R9>https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents/enactedS66https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/724/contents^Q36https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/contents_Z06https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/contentsXV-6https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/14/contentsT*?https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-devolution-white-paper-power-and-partnership-foundations-for-growth/english-devolution-white-papervb'8https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/section/28$-https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/645!9https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/schedule/4AH fhttps://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/information-for-operators/periodic-review-2023/vmShttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/part/I/crossheading/access-agreementsA2https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/645/madeR[6https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1993/43/contents]&https://www.ombudsmanassociation.org/!https://www.tradingstandards.uk/9< https://www.railombudsman.org/F Uhttps://www..gov.uk/government/consultations/legislation-that-transforms-gb-railwaysm2'https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3732c?https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dft-online-form-and-survey-privacy-notice/dft-online-form-and-survey-privacy-notice?https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dft-accessible-online-form-and-survey-statement/accessibility-statement-smartsurvey-forms,0x0101006DAE3099F66E0649B4608983884A18A6  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????     !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUV????XYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Root Entry???????? ?FP?S????Data ????????????W?W1Table?????????fEWordDocument????2?SummaryInformation(?????????????DocumentSummaryInformation8?????????PMsoDataStore????????P?S??P?S??5CX1?K?5??ONGC???K?2?A==2???? P?S??P?S??Item ???? ??????Properties??????????????ELQ???H??CA0????N????==2???????? P?S??P?S??Item ???? ?????Properties????????????OCompObj????r???????????????????????? This value indicates the number of saves or revisions. The application is responsible for updating this value after each revision.  ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? DocumentLibraryFormDocumentLibraryFormDocumentLibraryForm ?? ???? ?F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8?9?q