Transport Secretary Chris Grayling was yesterday accused of putting party politics ahead of commuters after a leaked letter revealed he opposed handing over control of suburban rail to keep it “out of the clutches” of Labour.
He formally rejected Sadiq Khan’s bid to take over commuter routes when he dismissed the plan on Tuesday as “deckchair shifting”, with no real improvement for passengers.
But in a letter written before London’s mayor took over, he admitted being against rail devolution in order to keep services away from a future Labour mayor, rather than because of the impact on passengers.
A London Labour MP accused him of “betraying commuters”. And a Tory MP yesterday said the affair had left him with no confidence in Grayling as transport secretary.
In the private note to then mayor Boris Johnson three years ago, Grayling claimed he had “no fears” over the future of services if the Tories were still running City Hall.
He was writing as a South-East MP, though he was justice secretary at the time so had a seat at the Cabinet table where any decision on rail devolution would be approved.
Khan warned that commuters were “far, far more important” than “playing party politics” over the future of suburban rail. His deputy mayor for transport claimed “just one man” now stood in the way of Transport for London taking over the beleaguered commuter routes.
Rail devolution has cross-party support from MPs, councils and the London Assembly, plus Tory councils outside London including Surrey, Grayling’s own local authority.
But in his letter, sent in April 2013, Grayling told Johnson: “While I am generally a great supporter of what you are doing in London, I would not be in favour of changing the current arrangements.
“Not because I have any fears over the immediate future, but because I would like to keep suburban rail services out of the clutches of any future Labour mayor.”
He added that he did not want MPs and local authorities just outside London to lose their remit over train services in their areas if TfL took over.
Writing in yesterday’s Standard about Grayling’s decision, Khan said: “If I’m honest, I simply do not understand why the government is now so vehemently opposed to improving suburban rail services in London.
“I sincerely hope it is not because they are reluctant to give control of these lines to a Labour mayor. Commuters’ lives are far, far more important than party politics.”
Bromley and Chislehurst Tory MP Bob Neill told the Standard: “I don’t have any confidence any more in Grayling as secretary of state. My discussions with him indicate to me he has acted for party reasons and not in the interests of London commuters. It’s pretty clear he has a dogmatic opposition to rail devolution. I don’t think that’s a legitimate basis on which to take a decision. It demonstrates that he has acted extremely badly.”
This year Johnson and Patrick McLoughlin, Grayling’s predecessor as transport secretary, announced TfL would take control of suburban rail as each franchise came up for renewal.
Johnson, who had long campaigned for devolution of services, hailed the deal as a victory.
McLoughlin said the “new partnership” — under which TfL and the department for Transport were expected to set up a joint management team — was a “huge opportunity” to improve the lives of passengers.
Eltham’s Labour MP Clive Efford, a member of the Commons transport committee, told the Standard: “The transport secretary’s mask has slipped and his true motives are now clear. He is clearly putting party politics above the needs of desperate commuters, who suffer an abysmal service.”
Grayling on Tuesday told MPs he had concerns over what impact a major reorganisation of suburban rail would have on commuters. He suggested TfL taking over franchises would not necessarily mean more frequent services — and raised the issue of democratic accountability on routes which went outside London’s boundaries.
A government source said: “The mayor’s business plan promised a big reorganisation but no extra capacity. There are real issues about giving the mayor control over services to places outside London, when those living there can’t vote for him.”


Related Story