RMT SETS OUT OPPOSITION TO LINE CLOSURES

RMTnews :: may 2006 :: www.rmt.org.uk 24 During the passage of the 2005 Act, at a time when the railways were carrying more passengers than at any time since the late 1950s, RMT questioned why so much of the Act addressed the issue of line, service and station cuts and closures as well as raising the spectre of ‘bustitution’. Since the Act was passed there have been disturbing reports that significant cuts in the rail budget and rail network will be a feature of the High Level Output Specification when it is published in 2007. However, in March, secretary of state for transport Alistair Darling repeated his warning that the rail industry should not be in “the business of carting fresh air around the country”. This clearly raised fears over the future of branch and rural lines. Indeed, in Cornwall, following the creation of the new Greater Western franchise in April, branch lines and services are under threat (see right) in order to save the franchise holder money. RMT has a number of specific points to make in response to the current consultation. QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS RMT welcomes that the following list of assessments, which any closure proposal must be considered, are laid out in the draft guidance. • Environmental impact • Safety • Economy • Accessibility • Integration However, the union is concerned that the overall thrust of the consultation document appears to be designed to create an ‘objective test’, based largely on quantifiable monetary values, which will support closures once they are brought forward by an operator or relevant funding authority. The fact remains that many of the social benefits associated with rail are extremely difficult to quantify in purely monetary terms. These would include the largely unquantifiable benefits that local rail services provide to the community in relation to accessing other parts of the rail network and/or regions of the country for employment or leisure purposes. The consultation document explains that authorities and operators will want to consider how an existing rail service can contribute to the future economic regeneration of the area which it serves. The final guidance should place much greater emphasis on such benefits being considered before closure proposals are agreed. Moreover, once a referral is made to the Office of Rail Regulation, the ORR should be able to consider non-monetary benefits rather than simply ensuring that the guidance has been followed. CONSULTATION RMT was extremely disappointed that trade unions are not on the list of organisations or bodies that must be sent a copy of the notice detailing the proposed closures. Unfortunately, this remains the case and the union would like to see a legislative amendment to the 2005 Act brought forward to ensure that this is the case. RMT is also extremely concerned that public hearings are not a statutory requirement of the closure consultation process. Such public forums provide an important democratic arena in which communities affected can put their views and concerns to the relevant authority. Despite the welcome decision not to proceed with Northern Rail service cuts, the future of branch and rural lines remains in doubt and the union is demanding: • Parliamentary time set aside to discuss the closures guidance • The early publication of the ORR procedures for dealing with closure references • A much clearer explanation of the BCR test which is described in the consultation document in a somewhat confusing way • Trade unions to be added to the list of statutory consultees • The holding of public hearings to be a statutory obligation • ORR be given the power to consider social benefits once proposals have been referred to them. RMT SETS OUT OPPOSITION TO LINE CLOSURES RMT responds to the government’s consultation document on railway line closures and line modifications