Just a quick reminder that this evening Cllr Kirsten Bayes, myself and other Members of the CCEA Scrutiny Panel will be quizzing representatives from First Great Western Trains and others about service performance over the past 12 months.
The meeting is being held in the Council Chamber at 6.30pm and is open to members of the public and press.
This follows a public meeting which was held last year following a successful Lib Dem motion to Council which called on First Great Western Trains to do more to improve the poor levels of service it was providing commuters and rail users in Reading.
At a meeting to plan the event a few weeks ago a couple of Conservative Members queried the usefulness/relevance of tonight's meeting. As far as I can recall their comments were along the lines of 'what can the Council actually do about the performance of a rail operating company, anyway?'
The clue is in the title of this scrutiny panel: CCEA - Corporate, Community and External Affairs Scrutiny Panel.
While it may be true to say that the Council does not directly manage the local train network and it cannot force FGW to deliver better services, in my view councillors and councils do have a role in terms of bridging the accountability gap that exists in relation to local train services i.e. allowing local people a chance to have their say over local service.
Secondly, there is a clear community leadership role the Council should perform in relation to key local services as the only directly accountable representative body in the local area.
By this I mean the Council needs to be seen to be taking a clear lead in scrutinising and holding to account those bodies and service providers that impact on the quality of life of local residents in Reading.
The local train service definitely falls into this category: it's used by thousands of Reading residents every day to get to and from work, as well as for leisure purposes.
Another example of effective scrutiny of external bodies by the Council in Reading was of Thames Water following the floods last year.
One of the Tories also complained about the tone of some of the comments made by members of the public.
Apart from saying it goes with the territory when you are dealing with customer service what I would say is this:OK, so some of the people who asked questions at the public meeting last year did get a little angry, but understandably so in my view,
Reading's commuters have put up with a lot over the years and fares are not cheap by any means.
Can we really be sure FGW fares constitute value for money when compared to services offered by other train operators and in other EU countries?
As a commuter myself I've experienced delayed and overcrowded trains operated by FGW into London many times over the past few years and you are left wondering as a passenger: what chance of redress is there? who can I complain to?
Tonight's meeting is being held because over a period of time significant concerns were raised both inside the Council by Lib Dem councillors and outside by commuters, about the quality of services provided by FGW.
If service has improved since last year's meeting that is to be welcomed.
This does not mean, however, the need to scrutinise and monitor performance simply goes away. We do need to look as a Council at the best mechanisms for doing this, however, going forward, and doubtless this is something we will discuss following tonight's meeting.
I think if a meeting about this vital local service were not held every now and again to check Reading residents are getting the services they rightly demand then questions might quite rightly be directed at councillors along the lines of well, what's the point of councillors and indeed of scrutiny?
UPDATE
I've just received this email which kind of says it all:
"For me, the bottom line is value for money. The cost of rail travel continues to increase, and I earnestly question what the return is. I would like to know whether any further fare increases are planned. To do so in the midst of a recession would not go down well with commuters.
The following are issues that affect me as a commuter, and I'm very keen to know what measures are in place or planned to address these:
1. Overcrowding (at times severe). It's stressful having to compete for a vacant seat with a host of other commuters, and simply not fair given the cost of the journey (why should I pay to stand?). For me, this is the dominant issue. Yes, journey times are longer, but Network Rail are also at fault for this. To see First Class half-occupied with Standard Class passengers forced to stand in the aisle or pressed against the toilet door is quite frankly disgusting.
2. Talking to customers. FGW must do better to keep passengers informed (they can seem aloof). If the train has stopped, why has it stopped? I accept that infrastructural issues are beyond their control, but FGW drivers should at least keep us posted. The best train staff are those who sympathise and connect with their customers. FGW must also ensure that their public addresses over the tannoy are audible.
3. Mechanical failure. This has impacted my journey more than once (a train in front breaking down, for example). Will FGW be repairing or upgrading rolling stock?
4. Air conditioning. At times like this, their air con is insufficient. Not a major issue, however.
Many thanks, Daisy. This means a lot to me as a disgruntled commuter. It's good to know that you care."
UPDATE 2:
The meeting this evening went very well and was felt to be worthwhile by those councillors, members of the public, and representatives of First Great Western I spoke to afterwards.
My Lib Dem colleagues and I posed a number of questions to the representatives from FGW and Network focussing on a range of issues around current performance and value for money.
There was a smattering of members of the public at the meeting who asked several questions.
I explained the reason why we had tabled the motion to Council in the first place - poor performance- and raised the need to improve dialogue between Reading passengers and FGW in the future.
The Managing Director of FGW outlined what they did currently to get feedback but acknowledged the lack of a rail user group for Reading. This is clearly an issue.
I reflected the criticisms outlined by my email correspondent above where were echoed in conversations I've had recently with fellow commuters.
I also managed to sneak in a question to FGW about what they are doing to promote recycling on their trains and at stations (including the scourge of discarded free papers, cans and bottles).
I am pleased to report FGW's MD told the meeting that FGW are belatedly introducing more recycling facilities at the Reading and Old Oak Common depots (and ideally stations) following a successful pilot project in Plymouth.
Future improvements to Reading Station and Reading train services like all major transport projects are heavily dependent on money being invested in future years at a national level...and the question of who will pay and how rail services will be funded remains uncertain.
I put this point to FGW and as FGW representatives themselves aknowledged, as we head into the pre-election period FGW and other rail operating companies are in the hands of DfT and national politicians when it comes to future funding of rail services and this is an issue in relation to future sustainability of rail travel around Reading.
In terms of the tone of the meeting, the representatives from FGW and Network Rail listened sympathetically to the issues raised and to be fair to them seemed very ready to engage and admit shortcomings of the service.
On a less positive note, the plight of Reading's commuters is clearly not a top priority to Labour politicians: only two of their councillors attended the meeting and between them they managed to think of only one question to ask on Reading-Slough services.
Comments