Rail campaigners say potential 5.5% fares rise would be ‘ripping off' passengers
The Government has not confirmed how it will determine the cap in regulated fare rises for 2026, but this year's 4.6% hike was one percentage point above RPI in July 2024.
Banking group Investec has forecast this year's July RPI figure will be 4.5%, which means fares could jump by 5.5%.
Bruce Williamson, spokesman for pressure group Railfuture, told the PA news agency 'it would be outrageous' if fares rose by that much.
He said: 'What would be the justification for jacking up fares above inflation? There isn't any.
'It's ripping off the customer, driving people off the trains and onto our congested road network, which is in no-one's interest.'
Mr Williamson said he would support the Government marking its nationalisation of train operators by freezing fares.
He continued: 'One would hope that there would be some efficiency savings and economies of scale that you get from having a more integrated railway.
'But of course, I strongly suspect that if there are any savings to be had, they'd be swallowed up by the Treasury and not passed back to the passengers, which I think is wrong.'
Ben Plowden, chief executive of lobby group Campaign for Better Transport, said: 'Rising fares are not just burdening passengers, they are putting people off rail travel.
'Our survey found that 71% of people would be more likely to take the train if fares were cheaper.
'Public support for nationalisation plummets if fares continue to rise, so as the Government progresses plans for Great British Railways (GBR), it must take the opportunity to reform fares and make rail travel more affordable.'
GBR is an upcoming public sector body that will oversee Britain's rail infrastructure and train operation.
About 45% of fares on Britain's railways are regulated by the Westminster, Scottish and Welsh Governments.
They include season tickets on most commuter journeys, some off-peak return tickets on long-distance routes, and flexible tickets for travel around major cities.
The Department for Transport (DfT) said there will be an update on changes to regulated fares later this year.
Operators set rises in unregulated fares, although these are likely to be very close to regulated ticket increases because their decisions are heavily influenced by governments.
A DfT spokesperson said: 'The Transport Secretary has made clear her number one priority is getting the railways back to a place where people can rely on them.
'The Government is putting passengers at the heart of its plans for public ownership and Great British Railways, delivering the services they deserve and driving growth.
'No decisions have been made on next year's rail fares but our aim is that prices balance affordability for both passengers and taxpayers.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
21 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Racing tax: What is it and why is the sport going on strike
For the first time in the modern history of the sport in Britain, its participants will voluntarily go on strike for a day. A day of protest will be held in Westminster. What does that mean? It means there will be no racing in Britain on September 10. The meetings scheduled for Lingfield, Carlisle, Uttoxeter and Kempton that day will not take place. They have been rescheduled to other dates. And why has all this come about? The strike announcement has come as part of British racing's 'Axe the Racing Tax' campaign, which is urging the Government to axe the Treasury's proposal to bring existing online betting duties into one single rate. Why would tax rises be so bad? Economic analysis commissioned by the British Horseracing Authority has shown that aligning the current tax rate paid by bookmakers on racing with that of online games of chance could see a £330 million revenue hit to the industry in the first five years, putting 2,752 jobs at risk in the first year alone. Strike action will surely cost the sport money? It will, it is estimated it will cost around £200,000 in lost revenue on the day. So does the racing industry support the strike move? In a word, yes. Racecourses, owners and trainers are all in agreement. The National Trainers Federation said cancelling fixtures was 'a huge sacrifice' which 'should serve as a stark reminder to the Government of the impact its tax raid will have on our sport'. Is this is a one-off, or will there be more strikes? No more strikes are planned, as things stand. Can I still have a bet anywhere that day? Yes, there will actually be one meeting in Ireland, at Cork. Irish racing is run completely separately to British racing.
North Wales Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Racing calls one-day strike over proposed betting tax rise
The four scheduled fixtures at Carlisle, Uttoxeter, Lingfield and Kempton will not take place after agreements between the owners of the courses and the British Horseracing Authority, making it the first time the sport has voluntarily refused to race in modern history. The BHA set up the 'Axe the Racing Tax' campaign in response to proposals to replace the existing three-tax structure of online gambling duties with a single tax, with fears the current 15 per cent duty on racing could be increased to the 21 per cent levied on games of chance. Brant Dunshea, chief executive at the British Horseracing Authority, said: 'We have decided to take the unprecedented decision to cancel our planned racing fixtures on September 10 to highlight to Government the serious consequences of the Treasury's tax proposals which threaten the very future of our sport. 'British racing is already in a precarious financial position and research has shown that a tax rise on racing could be catastrophic for the sport and the thousands of jobs that rely on it in towns and communities across the country. 'This is the first time that British racing has chosen not to race due to Government proposals. We haven't taken this decision lightly but in doing so we are urging the Government to rethink this tax proposal to protect the future of our sport which is a cherished part of Britain's heritage and culture. 'Our message to Government is clear: axe the racing tax and back British racing.' The four tracks involved are operated by the Jockey Club and the Arena Racing Company, with both backing the move. Jim Mullen, CEO at the Jockey Club, said: 'We hope this pause for reflection will enable the Government to truly understand the economic impact of horseracing and its cultural significance to communities across the UK, as well as the world-class racing festivals we host. 'After this period of reflection, we hope the full implications will be understood, and we can prevent the irreparable damage that threatens a sport the nation is, and should be, proud of.' Martin Cruddace, CEO at ARC, added: 'We have always been taxed and regulated differently, and it is imperative for our future that we continue to be so. 'If the Government wants Britain to be a world leader in online casino and a world pauper in a sport at the heart of its culture, then tax harmonisation will achieve that aim.' While the four meetings will be rescheduled, Paul Johnson, chief executive of the National Trainers Federation, underlined the 'sacrifice' in calling a halt to the sport for a day. He said: 'Cancelling fixtures is a huge sacrifice by racing and should serve as a stark reminder to the Government of the impact its tax raid will have on our sport. 'Thousands of jobs are at stake alongside the loss of millions of pounds to the British economy.' A Treasury spokesperson said: 'We are consulting on bringing the treatment of online betting in line with other forms of online gambling to cut down bureaucracy – it is not about increasing or decreasing rates, and we welcome views from all stakeholders including businesses, trade bodies, the third sector and individuals.'
North Wales Chronicle
22 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
For Women Scotland launches legal action against Scottish ministers on gender
For Women Scotland's legal battle with Scottish ministers on the definition of a woman ended in the UK Supreme Court, which ruled in April that the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. However, the group said that it now has 'little choice' but to take further legal action as some policies regarding transgender pupils in schools and transgender people in custody remain in place – which the group said is 'in clear breach of the law'. The schools guidance for single-sex toilets says it is important that young people 'where possible, are able to use the facilities they feel most comfortable with'. The prison guidance allows for a transgender woman to be admitted into the women's estate if the person does not meet the violence against women and girls criteria, and there is no other basis to suppose that she poses an unacceptable risk of harm to those housed in the women's estate. For Women Scotland has now applied to the Court of Session seeking to quash the policies, which it says are 'inconsistent with the UK Supreme Court judgment of April 16 2025'. It has raised an ordinary action for reduction (quashing) of the policies relating to schools and prisons, with the news first reported by Sunday Times Scotland. In a statement, the group said: 'Nothing has persuaded the government to take action and both policies remain stubbornly in place, to the detriment of vulnerable women and girls, leaving us little choice but to initiate further legal action. 'The Scottish ministers have 21 days to respond to the summons. If the policies have not been withdrawn by then we will lodge the summons for calling, and the government will have to defend its policies in court. 'We are asking the court to issue a declarator that the school guidance and the prison guidance are unlawful and that they be reduced in whole. 'We are also asking that both policies are suspended in the meantime.' A Scottish Government spokesperson said: 'It would be inappropriate to comment on live court proceedings.' For Women Scotland previously brought a series of challenges over the definition of 'woman' in Scottish legislation mandating 50% female representation on public boards. The last step of these ended in the Supreme Court ruling, which the campaign group's supporters hailed as a 'watershed for women'.
