Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
My Lords, in the unlikely event that there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Pensions Regulator Defined Benefit Funding Code of Practice 2024
(1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
That the Grand Committee takes note of the draft Pensions Regulator’s Defined Benefit Funding Code of Practice 2024, laid before the House on 29 July.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I always appreciate a challenge, and I was quite interested to note that our Whips have got the idea that this debate will last half an hour, but I will not take up the whole 30 minutes.
First, I have to declare an interest: I am a fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, or IFoA as it is now. Many members of the institute provide advice on funding of defined benefit or DB schemes, and they will be significantly affected by the code that is before us. However, I add with some emphasis that I no longer practise as an actuary, hence nothing of what I say must be regarded as constituting actuarial advice. It might sound like actuarial advice, but I assure those here that it is not; noble Lords have to get their own advice rather than take it from me. Nevertheless, I speak from experience as a scheme actuary who has undertaken scheme valuations including, in the past, under the Pensions Regulator or previous iterations.
We are talking about the regulator’s defined benefit code of practice—the code—issued under Part 3 of the Pensions Act 2004. I very much welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks about the code and to ask my noble friend the Minister some questions.
TPR has been producing codes of practice on funding going back to 2006, but it is worth pointing out that it first consulted on this iteration of the funding code more than four years ago, in March 2020, with a second attempt in December 2022. This version was published for consultation in March this year, so its final form comes after years of waiting and four Prime Ministers; the whole Covid epidemic; a significant shift in the financial position of many defined benefit schemes, with increased investment returns in particular; considerable discussion about how these funds should be invested in the light of the Mansion House reforms under the last Government; the pension review under this Government; and, not least, an increased appreciation of the risks to defined benefit schemes from climate change. So much has happened and the code has, in effect, had to hit a moving target. Unfortunately, I would argue that even this version has not really caught up with developments and events.
The new code, together with the Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024, which we discussed in this Room last March and which came into force in April, gives trustees and advisers most of the tools and processes to follow for DB funding valuations with a valuation date on or after 22 September 2024. There has been a bit of time-shifting going on here, but it is not a concern. It is clear that there will be specific areas of the code where further clarification is required, which will be found out only in practice.
I will not repeat everything I said in March, but I want to emphasise my main point. I was talking about the regulations, but it applies to the code as well:
“The regulations are patently too prescriptive. The details that they require are not directed at the objective of protecting members’ benefits but are about establishing a system where box-ticking will take priority over the longer term and broader interests of scheme members”.—[Official Report, 26/3/24; col. GC 165.]
This version may well be better than earlier drafts but, given that the code is already in effect in practice, it should be understood that it is only one stage of the longer-term reassessment that is required, given the continued pace of developments in this sphere. We should not be under the delusion that this constitutes a job done.
There are positives that I want to recognise. The DWP tells us that the draft code has been revised to strike a balance between setting clear funding standards and maintaining flexibility for scheme-specific approaches. The move to a more principle-based rather than prescriptive approach to areas such as the low dependency investment allocation and assessment of the covenant is helpful and gives the trustees some flexibility. Other commentators have welcomed the redefinition of what constitutes significant maturity; clarification of what happens when the valuation is based on notional investment rather than actual investment; greater clarity on how to assess the employer covenant; and—this is particularly important—what applies when there are surplus assets. It is to be welcomed that the final version includes a section for open schemes, collating the guidance that is relevant to them across the code.
Nevertheless, the code remains a work in progress. The IFoA has said:
“The totality of the changes being introduced by the new code remain complex”,
and that there are still a few more steps on the journey to take. It says that it hopes
“the regulator will adopt a pragmatic approach when considering the first valuations under the new regime, due to the short implementation period for the final rules”,
emphasising the point that this is a work in progress.
My major concern remains that here we have 100 pages of detailed instructions and rules, albeit with quite a lot of repetition, not just on how to undertake a valuation under the terms of the legislation for a defined benefit scheme but about how such a fund should operate, particularly in the field of investment. It passed through my mind to go through the document quoting the minutiae that is dealt with—for example, telling us that we have to use a Macaulay duration calculation. I have resisted that temptation—I do not wish to delay people too much—but I have no doubt that the requirements, while well intentioned, are excessive. Although there are references to proportionality, what will happen in practice is that the code will suffer from what is described as procedural drift, where individuals become overreliant on routine processes, potentially leading to reduced understanding of the overall decision: failure to see the wood for the trees.
The underlying belief, as far as I can tell, is that detailed prescriptions and requirements are better than general principles. I do not know what evidence there is for such a belief. Is it true that detailed prescriptions and reporting requirements along the lines set out in the code make it any more likely that members will receive their benefits? I doubt it. As an overriding principle, given the inherent uncertainty about any attempt to forecast the future, there is no reason to believe that making an algorithm more complex improves the outcome.
One problem that concerns me, which I raised in the debate in March, is how the code reacts with Technical Actuarial Standard 300: Pensions. TAS is set by the Financial Reporting Council and lays down how any actuary in the UK should undertake technical actuarial work required by legislation to support decisions on funding, contribution requirements and benefit levels. I have the latest version here; it came into effect in April. The point is that the actuary who undertakes the valuation at the request of the trustees must comply with the professional standard. However, we are in the peculiar position where the code makes no reference to TAS, and TAS refers only by implication to the requirements of the code in an appendix.
It is a matter of concern that the 18 pages of TAS, only four of which refer to scheme funding, make more sense than the 100 pages in the code. What exactly in the code achieves anything that is not already achieved by those four pages in TAS 300? We are told that in its review of TAS 300, the Financial Reporting Council has deferred consideration of the provisions on funding and financing until the new legislation on funding and TPR’s revised code of practice are in place. I am not convinced that this will work. There must be a real question about who is responsible for setting technical standards on funding DB schemes—the Financial Reporting Council or the Pensions Regulator. Judging by the record, my vote goes to the Financial Reporting Council.
Having made that general point, to which I will no doubt return in future, I have three specific questions about how the code will deal with continuing developments in DB pensions. First, there must be a question of whether the code deals with whatever comes out of the first stage of the pensions review. We have been told that the first stage is due to report in the next few months and will consider further measures to support the pensions Bill. It will take account of the need to prioritise gilt market stability, liquidity and diversity. The objective, we are told, is to boost investment, increase saver returns and tackle waste in the pensions system. The problem is that this objective is not reflected adequately in the code. How and when will these issues be reconciled? How will what comes out of the pensions review be reconciled with what has been established in the code?
The second question arises from the improved state of DB funding, which has led to more schemes being run on—continuing rather than moving quickly to buyout. Because schemes will be running on and must, under the code, have the objective of being fully funded, this raises a question: when schemes move into surplus, what rules apply to that surplus? In discussions that people have initiated since we have seen the improvement in scheme funding, it has been suggested that schemes with a material surplus may invest in a greater allocation to growth assets. This aligns with the policies I have just referred to—of both the previous and the new Governments—which emphasise investing for UK growth. That objective is not adequately reflected in the code. In addition to the issue of investing surplus, there are other possible results of improved financial conditions for DB schemes. Not least of them is the possibility of improvements in members’ benefits, either through trustees exercising the discretionary powers that many of them have or through rule changes.
In the same way, some people are talking about the possibility of powers being used to refund sponsoring employers or to use the surplus in the scheme to cover the cost of accruing benefits. Unfortunately, the Pensions Regulator appears to have given insufficient thinking to such developments and to how its powers will be exercised when confronted with such issues. The code does touch on the issue, talking about covenant leakage but in a way that is clearly inadequate when faced with the challenges that will arise from these moves. Will the Government press the Pensions Regulator to give the issues that arise from the potential existence of scheme surplus further thought and more adequate thinking? I have already complained that the code is too complex. I am not suggesting that this should be in the code, which is complex enough, but it is an area to which the Pensions Regulator has to give considerably more thought, so that we know where it is coming from when confronted with these issues.
The third issue, which I will cover swiftly as we will debate it again on Thursday, is the impact of climate change. The code touches briefly on the issue, in paragraph 23 of the application module, but it is an issue on which the Pensions Regulator has to take much more of a lead. Will the Government encourage the regulator to pursue what needs to be done to enable schemes to confront the challenge of the greater risks that face the financial system, including defined benefits schemes, as a result of global warming?
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a DB pension scheme trustee as recorded in the register. I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for securing this debate. This is an important code, and it should not pass without comment.
As the Explanatory Memorandum and my noble friend observe, while aggregate DB funding levels have improved in recent years, financial markets and economic conditions are changeable and funding positions can quickly deteriorate. There is a dynamic in the pensions world related to economic circumstances, whether fiscal policies, investment returns, gilt yields or the impact of technologies on markets, to name but a few.
An intended purpose of the code is to allow TPR to be more proactive in identifying and mitigating emerging risks in a targeted way. There have been significant instances over the past 30 years of regulatory failure to identify or respond quickly to emerging risks in DB pension provision, some with dreadful consequences. What do the Government believe are the most compelling levers in this code that will materially improve mitigating such emerging risks?
The new code sets two key requirements: planning for the length of the scheme’s journey plan to get to full funding at an appropriate pace of de-risking and assessing current funding positions when carrying out valuations. As part of that planning, the code trustees must set a funding and investment strategy—that is, the journey to getting to the planned endgame for the scheme. The strategy must set out how the trustees will transition from the scheme’s current funding position to low employer dependency funding when the scheme is mature. In making that transition, how risk can be supported by the employer and the strength of the scheme has to be made clear.
During the consultation a lot of concern was expressed that the new code could weaken an important fiduciary power of trustees to make the investment allocation decisions by requiring trustees to invest in line with the investments set out in the funding and investment strategy that must be agreed with the sponsoring employers. In response to those concerns, although changes have been made to the code to clarify that decisions in relation to the scheme’s investment allocation are not constrained by the notional investment allocations in the funding and investment strategy, an inference remains that, in most instances, TPR expects trustees to align their investment strategy with the funding and investment strategy. Will the Minister confirm unequivocally that the code will not remove the power of existing trustees to decide on the scheme’s investment allocation? It is an important power in addressing moral hazard.
The code places a welcome greater emphasis on the strength of the sponsoring employer covenant, which is of fundamental importance but is often lost in debate, when considering funding and investment risk. The level of cash generated by a sponsoring employer and its future prospects will be key determinants of how much investment risk a scheme should take. The strength of an employer covenant can change very quickly following mergers, acquisitions, restructurings et cetera. Such changes may result in changes to the level of debt in a company, dividend policy, free cash flow, covenant and longevity. The code requires any funding deficits to be repaid as quickly as the sponsor can reasonably afford, but trustees will have to consider the impact on the employer’s sustainable growth. Trustees will need to assess such affordability annually; they will also have to provide evidence for their view of what is reasonably affordable and their opinion on the maximum supportable risk that a sponsor employer can bear.
These are potentially significant areas for disagreement between sponsoring employers and trustees, with one seeking to discharge a fiduciary duty to protect its members and another wanting maximum freedom from the liability of funding a pension scheme, but TPR has still to provide its covenant guidance on the main areas that trustees must consider when assessing the employer covenant. In that sense, there is a significant area of this code where an important point of detail is missing. Can the Minister advise when such covenant guidance will be issued?
The code emphasises a flexible and scheme-specific approach to regulation, taking into account the variety of DB schemes. It contains provisions for schemes that remain open to new members and may not be maturing, such as schemes that are now closed. Again, that is quite a controversial issue in the initial iteration and consultation on the development of this code. The considerations around investment strategy and the ability of trustees to choose how to invest now recognise the different characteristics of open schemes compared to closed schemes; the importance to open schemes of long-term planning; and a more flexible approach to assessing investment risk, which is supportable by the covenant and the scheme.
Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum—I shall pick up with brevity a point that my noble friend elaborated on in more detail—states:
“The approach to monitoring this legislation is that there is no requirement to carry out a statutory review of the draft Code”.
However, as we all know, the previous Government were—and, more so, the current Government are—focused on the issue of wider funded pension scheme consolidation and scheme investment strategies. Although I recognise that the Minister cannot comment on the outcome of such considerations or what may flow from the first pension review, if those outcomes had an impact on the provisions of the DB code, what would be the mechanism and consultation for revising the code as a consequence?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on securing this important debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Drake: the code is an important document that certainly deserves the attention of this Committee. I apologise to the Minister because this debate may well end up lasting more than the half an hour that was apparently expected; I will try to be as succinct as I can.
The overall aim of the defined benefit code is to protect member benefits. The whole point of the code was that, in the past, there had been a kind of free-for-all where employers and trustees could invest and take as much investment risk as they wished. Given other circumstances in the market, hundreds of thousands of members either lost their benefits or were at significant risk of doing so. I welcome the fact that there is now a stronger regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and this kind of code, which is constantly being revised and updated.
However, I stress that I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that this particular document, like previous documents, is rather too prescriptive, with excessive requirements placed on trustees, who may or may not need them. It seems to attribute spurious accuracy to an inherently uncertain outcome of events. The kind of box-ticking and groupthink approach that needs to be revised within 15 months of each new valuation will be costly to the schemes, and it is not clear what value will be added if the long-term strategy is unchanged or not likely to change.
Some of the issues we are grappling with, in this code and in the defined benefit universe as a whole, are dependent on and the result of the exceptional period of quantitative easing introduced in 2009. It was deliberately designed to drive down government bond yields and, concomitantly, to clearly put a much greater inflation risk on liabilities. That is indeed what happened. Initially, assets did not keep up with liabilities, but the fears of ongoing falls in gilt yields over that subsequent period, as quantitative easing, gilt printing and the driving down of long-term bond yields continued, have made anyone involved in the defined benefit space rather nervous of what are called “non-matching assets”.
We had a reversal of conventional thinking about defined benefit pension schemes. They were supposed to invest to take risk and welcome risk placed judiciously. This thinking became: do not take risk or try to beat the gilt market, because the gilt market may beat you and increase your deficit. So a whole groupthink built up around the idea that defined benefit pension schemes should have as much as possible in so-called matching assets, because you want to match your liabilities. The fact is that, if you want good funding, you need to outperform your liabilities—just matching them is not sufficient—but I am not sure that that is reflected very much in the code for schemes that are not in healthy surplus.
I welcome the Minister’s comments on the fact that we are talking about estimated liabilities based on expected future values, relative to current mark-to-market actual values for the assets, and on whether the risks of attributing that spurious accuracy to the long-term liabilities have been sufficiently considered. In this regard I declare my interests: I work with some defined benefit pension schemes, and have done so in the past, to advise on investment strategy.
It seems to me that part of the thinking going through this defined benefit code is that it is better for all schemes to fail conventionally than for too many schemes to try to do unconventional things that might succeed but incur greater risk. I feel we need more scheme-specific flexibility there, and we need to consider the impact of quantitative tightening and how that will be different for the pension liabilities associated with these schemes.
I welcome the differentiation mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, between open and closed schemes. I urge the Government to consider going further in allowing and enabling open schemes to take advantage of investment opportunities from a diversified array of risk assets, even in circumstances where there is, perhaps, some nervousness about the sustainability of the employer.
There is concern about the stability of the gilt market, but there is also an inherent conflict between that desire for stability and the need for outperformance of liabilities that these schemes could be delivering. If capitalism is not at an end—one might argue that it is—then investing in assets of higher risk than government bonds or the supposedly safer assets should, on aggregate and in the long run, deliver better returns. On top of that, we have a Government who rightly want to use more pension assets to boost the economy. There are assets such as infrastructure, small growth companies and equities as a whole, both domestically and internationally, that could deliver that objective, but they entail risk. That is where I hope the funding code may be further refined.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak because this is way out of my comfort zone, but I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, on securing this debate. I spent a year in opposition as a shadow Minister trying to encourage women in particular to enter into a pension scheme. This is a classic example of how fiendishly complicated UK pensions are.
I have a number of questions for the Minister, who is quite an expert in this field having shadowed it for a number of years. I welcome her to her place in this Administration. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says in its second report that it remains concerned about the cumulative burden of so much regulation on the schemes. While the Explanatory Memorandum states that there were two waves of consultation, it is still not entirely clear how much support for and understanding of the scheme there is.
However, my main concerns relate to paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which cover the impact assessment and the schemes’ mind-boggling costs. Paragraph 9.3 states:
“Initial implementation costs, including familiarisation, could total around £36.8 million in the first year”
alone; I am not surprised, given how complicated it is. It goes on to say:
“Schemes may then face ongoing administration costs of £5.4 million per annum”.
However, paragraph 9.4 states that there will be
“an estimated increase of around £7.1 billion to around 1200 schemes over the 10-year period”.
Will there be any sort of watch to see whether those figures are final—or, indeed, whether there may be some liquidity in them? They might not represent the final cost going forward but they are eye-watering. It is right to update the code but, in view of the figures, have the Government reached a verdict on what the cumulative burden on the schemes will actually be?
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Indeed, I thank all the speakers for the expertise gathered in this Room on what is an unlikely subject for many people.
On the DB funding code, first, with all the expertise that has been expressed—and for those reading Hansard who have no expertise—perhaps I ought to say something basic. For the record, what is a defined benefit pension? It is a type of workplace pension that guarantees you a specific income for life throughout retirement. The amount that it pays out depends on things such as your final salary, your average salary and how long you have been a member of your employer’s scheme. I know that everyone in the Room knows that, but people outside it may not.
The DB code has been many years in the making, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said. It sets out in detail how defined benefit pension schemes will have to approach funding in future, including things such as how quickly they must deal with any deficit that may arise. The code was arguably written in an era of deficits, whereas the majority of DB schemes are now in surplus, but I agree that you still need a set of rules for those schemes that are short of funds.
Despite all the worthy speeches, most of the code is uncontroversial, in my view, and has my general support. The response from the industry has been broadly positive; it appears to give trustees and scheme sponsors flexibility while ensuring that they carry out proper risk management as it relates to their pension products. Numerous articles have been written on it; given the length of this debate, I will not go into them in any great detail, but I highlight an article entitled “PwC Comments on The Pensions Regulator’s New Defined Benefit Funding Code of Practice” and an article in Pensions Age Magazine headed “Industry expresses ‘relief’ as TPR confirms final DB Funding Code”. So the industry and commentators have been complimentary in general terms.
However, I wish to raise some issues on which I would appreciate the Minister’s views. First, how far does the code truly accommodate the needs of remaining open DB schemes? This was a big topic of debate in the Lords during the passage of the Pension Schemes Act 2021. Does it allow them to take an appropriate level of investment risk for the long term, rather than having to go for lower-risk assets prematurely? This simply means that they cost more to run, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said in another way.
Secondly, how far does the code recognise the particular position of charities and other not-for-profit sponsors of pension schemes? Is there a risk of charities being forced to close deficits too quickly and, therefore, having to divert a loss of revenue income into the pension scheme? There would then be a risk of it appearing to donors to those charities that their money is not being used for front-line charitable purposes, thereby weakening the charities’ futures. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that.
Finally, I am sure the Minister has read the blog by David Fairs, who worked at the Pensions Regulator. It was headed: “At long last, new regulations fire the starting gun for the new funding regime”. He stresses the challenges and opportunities missed. He queries—and he is an expert—whether the new funding code will make a significant difference. I ask the Minister the same question.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving us the opportunity to have the first pensions debate in this House since the general election. This Committee is my first experience of swapping sides with the Minister, and it gives me the opportunity to wish her well in her role with all its responsibilities, with which I am all too familiar.
This debate on the defined benefit code of practice is interesting in that, as has been said, it is not an SI but arises out of one in the form of delegated powers from the Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024. It seems that every decade or so there is a requirement for a code update: there was one in 2006, leading to the current version in 2014, and now in 2024 we are debating another code of practice—number four, I believe. Updates are based on the premise that the pensions landscape changes, and of course it does, as now with the need for scrutiny of liabilities in DB schemes, the plethora of closed and maturing schemes and the need to ensure risk management, greater robustness over the longer term and optimum management of open schemes, which have been alluded to in this debate.
Ensuring that pension schemes are well managed is essential in safeguarding the incomes and welfare of pensioners. This is especially important at a time when the cost of living is high and the Government are restricting the financial support available to pensioners—more of which later. I welcome the publication of this code and its stated aim of helping trustees comply with their responsibilities under the defined benefit pension funding requirements. The focus is necessarily on supportable risk and ensuring that trustees and sponsoring employers are not caught unawares and plan well ahead, in particular where schemes are nearing maturity.
The work on the code was undertaken by the regulator under the previous Government, and I am pleased that the consultation on the code—there have actually been several, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and others alluded to—has been widely accepted by a broad range of stakeholders. I note that where there were concerns, such as on the need for flexible risk-taking at low dependency and not a one-size-catch-all approach, they were largely addressed and accepted in discussions with the industry.
I have listened with interest to the technical points raised by a number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I know that these points will be addressed—I say this with some relief—by the Minister. By his own admission, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, repeated some of the points made in the debate in March, such as about so-called box-ticking and the code being too prescriptive. In March he also mentioned his concern about the regulator misunderstanding its role, although I am not sure he alluded to that today.
My first question to the Minister leads on from this. It is simply: is the job done? Is the code an iterative process because we do not want another 10-year wait, or do we just accept that this is bringing it up to date and that, in effect, we wait for eight or 10 years? It does not particularly matter, I suppose.
I have some questions of my own on the code. The best-practice management of pension schemes is dependent on the effectiveness of trustees. How does the Minister regard the current landscape for recruiting trustees? There is a danger that too much guidance and steer towards adherence to codes, with the greater responsibilities attached, could act as a chilling factor.
What is her assessment about the training of trustees? This question plays into other questions, not least those of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who quite rightly alluded to the important relationship between employers and their covenants, as well as the trustees. Who undertakes this training? This is important in assisting the chairs of trustees and, of course, the supporting employers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for securing and opening this debate and all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive contributions. I say to my opposite number, the noble Viscount, that it is easier asking questions than answering them in this space, so I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. More questions were asked today than I can conceivably answer in the time I have, but I will do my best to get through them. I assure noble Lords that we will carefully scrutinise Hansard and write to them with the answers to any questions that I cannot pick up.
First, by way of background, as my noble friend noted, earlier this year the House approved the Occupational Pension Schemes (Funding and Investment Strategy and Amendment) Regulations 2024. It is worth remembering that, alongside those regulations, the code of practice we are discussing is a key component of the new arrangements for the funding of DB occupational pension schemes. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for explaining what a DB scheme is to those watching at home. I hope that those watching at home who have never heard of a DB pension scheme are enjoying themselves, and I encourage them to read Hansard afterwards.
The code is designed to provide practical guidance for trustees and employers to meet their legal obligations, and it includes key metrics needed to implement the requirements. We moved very quickly to lay the code in the new Parliament to give schemes and industry the certainty they have been calling for. It may not be noticed from reading the debate that in fact the code has been well received. A lot of consultation has gone on.
The new scheme is designed to ensure the security and sustainability of DB pensions. Let us not forget the reason we needed to act at all: the damage done by schemes that were not appropriately run and the ensuing loss of benefits to members. Not taking action was not an option. These reforms strengthen the funding regime by providing clearer, more enforceable funding standards with a greater focus on long-term planning.
My noble friend Lord Davies noted that we have published two consultations on the code. The first, in 2020, considered the key principles to underpin the new regime and the proposed regulatory approach. The second was a consultation on the first draft of the code that we are debating today. DWP and the regulator worked collaboratively with and listened to a wide range of stakeholders. As a result, changes have been made to the code to provide more flexibility. For example, the regulator developed a chapter specifically for open schemes. When the code was published in July, it was welcomed for providing clarity and achieving a flexible approach. There is broad consensus that the code strikes the right balance between member security and employer affordability. Crucially, it provides sufficient scheme-specific flexibility to take account of the very wide range of scheme circumstances. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his support and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for the acknowledgment. Broadly speaking, we are looking at detail, but we think we are doing the right thing in the right way.
The new framework, including the code, has been revised following extensive engagement with industry to ensure that it provides flexibility for schemes to invest in a wide range of asset classes, including growth assets, both before and after significant maturity. Open schemes, like others, will have significant flexibility to invest in riskier investments with potentially higher returns, if the risk can be supported, so member benefits are protected. It also makes clear that the open schemes will not be made to derisk as long as they remain open to new members, are not maturing and the risk they are taking is supported by the employer covenant.
I will try to go through as many of noble Lords’ questions as I can. First, the phrase box-ticking has been used once or twice. I reassure noble Lords that this regime is absolutely not a box-ticking exercise. The regulator is taking the opportunity provided by the introduction of the new regime to evolve the way it regulates DB funding. This includes proportionate measures with flexibility for different schemes. The regime will be based on clear metrics designed to protect members’ benefits as well as to take account of employer affordability.
The Pensions Regulator operates on a risk-based and outcome-focused approach. We think that that proportionality is in the right space. The regulator is introducing a twin-track approach: fast-track and bespoke. This aims to help target its engagements with the sector effectively. Where a scheme meets a series of fast-track parameters, the regulator will ask for less information and is less likely to engage with trustees. On the other hand, the bespoke route allows schemes to take a different approach and to provide evidence of why this is appropriate. Many of them are unlikely to require further engagement between the regulator and trustees.
My noble friend Lord Davies asked about the use of scheme surplus. I remind the Committee that, in February, the options for defined benefit schemes consultation sought views on the potential benefits of introducing additional flexibilities for the use of surplus funding on DB pensions schemes. The Government will continue to consider the potential of such flexibilities to benefit scheme members and sponsoring employers while supporting economic growth.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked about low dependency investment allocation. The flexibility of the UK’s funding regime is one of its greatest assets and one that we have been careful not to undermine in the new arrangements. Pension schemes are many and varied and each has its own circumstances, so they are best managed through scheme-specific arrangements. That is why we try to balance clear metrics on how liabilities have to be calculated with scheme-specific flexibilities that allow trustees the discretion to react to changing circumstances and act in the best interests of their members while strengthening the ability of the regulator to intervene and act if things go wrong. Noble Lords may have other views. We believe that this balance is right and in the interests of members of schemes.
There was a question about whether trustees have the flexibility to take decisions in the light of the circumstances of their individual schemes. Flexibility is a key strength of the regime, but it is balanced with those funding standards and the key metrics of the new arrangements. The bottom line is that it is fine to take supportable risk. Taking investment risk to benefit from potentially higher returns is fine if there is enough time for asset values to recover or a sponsor with enough resources to pay more in the future. That is why the new regime focuses on the key metrics of maturity and covenant strength.
The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Altmann, raised costs to scheme members. It is worth putting those absolute costs in the context of the scale of our pensions world. The impact assessment for the code indicates that costs will amount to around £7,000 per scheme on average, with ongoing administrative costs of approximately £1,100 on average per scheme. That excludes costs associated with changes in deficit repair contribution payments, of course. Those are small costs compared to the overall liabilities of a scheme. They are unlikely to have a significant impact, and certainly not on members. Most schemes are closed, and members of those schemes will not be paying contributions. Modestly increased costs are unlikely to have any impact on the probability of members’ benefits being paid in full. There are some members in schemes which share costs and are still open for accrual, but they are the minority. Only 4% of schemes are fully open; 20% are closed to new members. As the costs per scheme are estimated to be low, we do not anticipate any significant material impact on members overall. This must be seen in the context of the impact of clearer funding arrangements with more emphasis on long-term planning, which should make members more confident that their benefits will be paid in full.
We were asked what will be done to monitor the costs. We will continue to monitor the costs. Although there is some uncertainty about trustee behaviour and response, as we cannot know that, the impact assessment used data from March 2022 and modelled, on average, an overall net saving of around £20 million per year. I can write with more detail if Members would like that.
It is worth understanding that the regulations and code are principle-based. The code is practical guidance for implementing the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about different valuation methods. I will not get into TAS but will write to him on how TAS interacts. However, I have a word for the broader audience watching from home about the different valuation methods. There are two main ones. The technical provisions are, rightly, used to assess contributions and deficit recovery contributions because they are calibrated to balance member security with employer affordability. On the other hand, the solvency measure is much more generic and less scheme-specific. It is used to assess funding against the cost of insurance buyout. That is a much stronger measure. Schemes are not required to be funded to that level because that would make DB much more expensive, if not unsustainable. The use of these technical measures does not push schemes into inappropriate de-risking or into a risk-adverse approach. Schemes can choose a variety of approaches to setting their liabilities, including by reference to the investments that they intend to hold. They will be affected by a whole range of considerations, not least the route to compliance with TPR that they choose to use.
The new regime is extremely scheme-specific and flexible. Even at significant maturity, schemes can invest in a proportion of return-seeking assets provided that the risk can be supported. Most schemes are currently investing more prudently than the new regime requires. Indeed, the regime suggests that there is headroom for some schemes to take more investment risk than they are taking currently, of which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, will be very conscious. The requirement in this to derisk will, as intended, mostly impact outliers which have been pushing the scheme-specific flexibilities further than they were ever expected to stretch and, in doing so, putting members’ benefits at risk. It is right that those outliers should be required to derisk to protect members’ benefits through the clearer and more enforceable metrics of the revised regime.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her long and detailed response. I think I need to use the formula used by Ministers: “I will read the entry in Hansard”. There was so much information in it, for which I thank her. I also thank noble Lords who came for the debate on Russian sanctions; I hope they found it informative to hear about pensions.
The phrase that had particular resonance with me was that used by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann: “spurious accuracy”. When I was a trainee actuary, we were told specifically that making calculations more complex and difficult did not make them any better. Trying to forecast the future is difficult enough. Making complex calculations does not improve the outcome for members.
My major point is that current developments in pensions will require the code to be kept under review in any event, whether they are an increasing appreciation of the risks of climate change or the development of pension scheme surpluses. I welcome the remark about that. These changes accumulate and I hope that the Minister will enjoy further debates and discussions. I look forward, in particular, to the pensions Bill. Not many people say that, but I think we will have some interesting debates.
Motion agreed.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2024
(1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Grand Committee do consider the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This instrument was laid on 5 September under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and the measures in it entered into force on 6 September as “made affirmative” measures.
In recent years, the UK has transformed its use of sanctions. We have deployed them in innovative and impactful ways, including in our response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This includes our prohibitions on the legal sector. We take a rigorous approach that is carefully targeted to deter and disrupt malign behaviour, as well as to demonstrate our defence of international norms.
In June 2023, a prohibition on legal advisory services, Regulation 54D, was introduced to prevent UK lawyers providing their services to those seeking to continue trading with Russia in goods or services that the UK had sanctioned. This was a unique prohibition that sought to prevent access to our world-renowned legal services market while retaining and upholding the UK values of access to justice and representational advice. Once introduced, it became clear that the sanction had the unintended effect of preventing the legitimate provision of advice on non-UK sanctions compliance, for instance in advising companies on compliance with US or EU sanctions on Russia. A general licence was therefore rapidly implemented in August 2023 as a temporary fix to enable UK lawyers to continue to provide this advice.
This instrument provides the permanent solution and clarifies in legislation the kinds of legal advice that the Government intend UK lawyers to be able to continue to provide. For example, it ensures that advice can be given on compliance with non-UK sanctions, on Russian counter-sanctions and on global criminal law. Receiving this advice is paramount to the functioning of an effective international sanctions response to Russia.
In amending this legislation, a full and thorough review was undertaken, including engaging with esteemed stakeholders in the legal and financial sectors. This engagement has assured us that this amendment will ensure greater clarity for the sector and continue to support our robust and unwavering commitment to cutting off access to our world-leading legal sector from those wishing to advance the interests of Russia.
The review also highlighted a number of other areas for improvement, which have been reflected in this instrument. They include amending Regulation 54D to align more closely with the way the existing circumvention regulations work, creating greater parity between legal advisory services that can be provided to a UK person and a non-UK person. The amendment clarifies expressly that Regulation 54D covers activity outside the UK, meaning that it more clearly operates alongside the existing circumvention regulations and avoids overlapping offences.
We have worked with the sector to ensure that the language in the instrument is as clear as possible regarding the provision of its services. By ensuring that legal advice can continue to be provided for the purposes of non-UK sanctions compliance, we enhance the effectiveness of the sanctions that the UK and our allies have placed on Russia and intensify the pressure on Putin. As well as ensuring that advice can be given on compliance with non-UK sanctions and on Russian countersanctions, we have ensured that advice can continue to be provided on compliance with global criminal law. By protecting the fundamental right to legal representation, we continue to distinguish ourselves from Putin’s oppressive regime.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister outlining in clear terms the Government’s position on the wider aspects of the sanctions enforcements. I support this measure. I spoke on the previous regulations on 19 July 2023, when I raised the issue that the Law Society had brought to our attention. It has subsequently had follow-up communications saying that this permanent solution is preferable, and I therefore support it.
I will raise a separate issue that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke to me about—I think he spoke to the Minister prior to the Committee—concerning shipping insurance. I checked Hansard and, on 1 February 2022, I raised a question about this in a debate on one of our early Russia sanctions. The Minister’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, heard us raise the continuing concerns in Grand Committee last week. I understand that this has also been raised in a letter today from the right honourable Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the chair of the all-party group on Magnitsky sanctions and reparation, regarding the concerns of 12 vessels that it alleges are continuing to receive insurance via the UK. I hope the Minister might reply on this, although I do not necessarily expect her to give the Government’s response to a letter that was sent to the Foreign Secretary today. But we have an important debate in the Chamber on Friday, so an update from the Government, if possible—written to Members of the Committee and also placed in the Library—would be of assistance to us in our debate on Friday. With that, I support the Government’s moves on these sanctions.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I too can be brief. These are of course updates and clarifications of sanctions introduced by the previous Government. We were grateful for the support of the Opposition then and, on behalf of the Opposition now, I offer my full support for the changes that the Minister announced. It is important that we maintain the principle of unity across the parties in support of these sanctions and of Ukraine, taking action wherever possible to restrict Russia and its activities across the world. We need to be mindful of the big role that the City of London plays across the world in legal, financial and professional services. Some UK companies are undoubtedly involved in helping the Russians to circumvent these sanctions. We fully support the strictest clampdown on these activities. We should be very proud of these industries, but they should be used for right, not for helping Russia in this regard.
Following the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I offer my support for the letter from Sir Iain Duncan Smith to the Foreign Secretary. We support these sanctions but ask the Government to look again at what more can be done to clamp down on the shadow fleet of tankers that Russia is using to spread its oil and gas around the world. As the noble Lord said, I do not expect the Minister to reply now to a letter that was sent only today and probably has not been received yet, but I hope that the Government can bear this in mind and can possibly give us an answer on Friday. We fully support these sanctions.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Callanan. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in particular, for his ongoing—I will put it that way—interest in this issue. I very much welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on how vital it is that we keep our unity on these issues intact as we move forward. I am grateful and pleased that this is what we have seen today.
On the specific issue about the natural gas tankers, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their forbearance, as I do not have a full response on this today. The insurance is a complex issue. I will endeavour to get a fuller response by Friday. That is not a guarantee but, if I cannot get it by Friday, we will make sure that there is a response to the letter from Mr Duncan Smith.
I will do what I believe is called a pivot, to liquified natural gas more generally. I point out—because it is quite interesting and helpful, although it does not address the issue of insurance head-on—that Novatek, Russia’s largest producer of LNG, suspended production at its flagship Arctic project in April 2024 because of sanctions and a shortage of specialist tankers. This project is critical to Russia’s ambition to triple LNG production by the end of the decade, so we are taking measures that are having some effect on LNG. However, I will come back to noble Lords on the wider issue of insurance.
Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington
That the Grand Committee do consider the Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations amend the Iran (Sanctions) Regulations 2023. The instrument was laid before Parliament on 12 September under powers contained in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures entered into force the following day.
The UK has transformed its use of sanctions. We have deployed sanctions in innovative and impactful ways, including in our response to the threat from the Iranian regime. This instrument contains measures to deter the Government of Iran from causing regional and international instability by disrupting their unmanned aerial vehicles—UAVs—and missile industries, and their access to items critical to military development.
The Iranian regime’s development and proliferation of large volumes of advanced conventional weapons, including UAVs and missiles, continues to destabilise the Middle East and prolong Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine. Iran’s use of an unprecedented number of UAVs and missiles during its attack on Israel on 13 April 2024 demonstrated how Iranian weapons development and proliferation is fuelling conflict in the Middle East. The Iranian regime also used hundreds of these arms in its attack on Israel on 1 October, which we condemn in the strongest terms. This attack once more endangered the lives of innocent civilians and escalated an already incredibly dangerous situation. It cannot be tolerated.
In response to Iran’s attack on Israel on 1 October, the UK has designated nine individuals and entities involved in facilitating Iran’s destabilising activity. These include senior military figures and the Iranian Space Agency, which develops technologies that have applications in ballistic missile development. We are deeply concerned about the prospect of further escalation. All efforts must now be on breaking the cycle of violence. At this moment, when tensions are at a peak, calmer heads must prevail. All sides must take immediate steps to de-escalate. A regional war is in no one’s interest.
This is the latest in a long history of Iran destabilising the region, including through its political, financial and military support for its proxies and partners, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and aligned militia groups in Iraq and Syria. We have been clear that Iran must cease this support.
Iran is now one of Russia’s top military backers; it has supplied Russia with hundreds of UAVs since 2022. Russia has used these to target Ukraine’s critical infrastructure and kill innocent civilians, prolonging the suffering of the Ukrainian people. In September, Iran also supplied Russia with hundreds of close-range ballistic missiles. This is a further escalation of Iran’s military support to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and will further enable Russia’s invasion. In return, Iran is receiving Russian military and technological support, enabling it to further develop its military capabilities and enhancing the risk that it poses to the region and beyond.
This legislation expands the UK’s trade sanctions against Iran with the aim of disrupting its UAV and missile industry, as well as its access to items critical to military development. It includes sanctions in relation to items on the Russia common high-priority list. This list was jointly agreed by the UK, the EU, the US and Japan in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine. It identifies items that Russia is using in its weapons systems, ranging from semiconductors to machine tools.
These items are also significant in Iran’s production of advanced conventional weapons. As the Committee will know, there have been many public reports about Iran’s supply of weapons to Russia. We are therefore prohibiting the export, supply, delivery and making available of these items to Iran through the measures in this instrument. We are also prohibiting the provision of ancillary services associated with the goods, such as brokering services, technical assistance, financial services and funds.
All of the items prohibited by the EU in May have been prohibited by this instrument. In addition, prohibitions will also be applied to some items identified by the Ministry of Defence as significant to Iran’s UAV and missile industries. These trade restrictions complement our existing export controls and sanctions, ensuring that no UK business or person, wherever they are in the world, can facilitate the export, transfer, supply, delivery or making available of these items to Iran without the appropriate licence.
Finally, this Government are committed to enforcement. It is right that we ensure that we have the necessary powers, tools and capacity to implement and enforce our sanctions regimes effectively. That is why, on 10 October, we launched the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, with enhanced civil enforcement powers, in order to maximise the impact of the UK’s trade sanctions against Russia. These powers include the abilities to issue civil monetary penalties for breaches and to make details of breaches public. There are also new reporting requirements on sectors well positioned to find evidence of trade sanctions breaches.
To conclude, these new regulations will increase the pressure on Iran’s defence industry. They will disrupt Iran’s production of UAVs and missiles that could be supplied to its proxies in the Middle East or to Russia. We will continue to work with like-minded partners to disrupt, deter and respond to threats from the Iranian regime and to co-ordinate sanctions action. These regulations send a clear message to the Government of Iran and those seeking to harm the UK’s security, as well as that of our partners: we will not stand idle in the face of this aggression. I beg to move.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I totally support these regulations and agree with every word that the Minister has just spoken. The Iran regime is the problem, not the Iranian people. I remind the Committee that two Members of your Lordships’ House are proscribed by the Iranians: me and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to whom the Minister referred.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining these measures, which I support. I will make an appeal and ask two specific questions, on which I would be very happy if she writes to me rather than responding today.
I agree with everything the Minister said about the role of Iran in the Middle East and its relationship with Russia. My appeal is that we broaden our interests to include Sudan. We know that many of the drones in Sudan have been sourced from Iran. It is the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis at the moment. External actors are providing munitions despite there being no justification at all for any external munitions to be used on civilians in Sudan. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me with the Government’s assessment of what is currently being used in the conflict in Sudan from external sources, specifically with regard to Iran.
I turn to my questions. First, I absolutely support the prohibition on equipment, but I noticed—if I read the measures correctly—an exemption for the personal property of someone travelling. Does that include designs? Do His Majesty’s Government have any concerns about UK interest in the design of these munitions, not just the provision of equipment to manufacture them? Again, I do not necessarily expect the Minister to outline that today.
Secondly, on the provision or export of goods to third countries that relay trade to Iran, I hope the Government have a response to what could be a particularly easy circumvention of these measures if our trade is with a broker country. We know that much of the equipment being used has multiple components from many sources; I would be grateful if the Government have a response on that. Notwithstanding those questions, I support these measures.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the Minister for her kind introduction to this subject. We also fully support these regulations on drones, broader drone technology, financial services, funds and brokering services related to other items of strategic concern; of course, they are one piece of a much larger jigsaw. The Minister commented on the impact of Iran in our previous debate on Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Both the other noble Lords who have spoken outlined graphically how actively and malevolently Iran is undermining the international order through its support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. While it is tempting to think that these are faraway conflicts, any action by the Houthis in the Gulf has the potential to undermine international shipments of oil, gas and other important commodities, which can affect the economy and well-being of this country. Therefore, it is right that we are targeting further the Iranian regime. We fully support these sanctions.
I lend my support to the point made by my noble friend on the proscription of the IRGC. It is strange that so many Conservative Ministers and MPs were in favour of proscription but never managed to get it through the Foreign Office bureaucracy and now so many Labour Ministers and MP who were previously in favour of proscriptions also do not manage to get it through the FCDO bureaucracy. It makes you wonder whether “Yes Minister” was a commentary or a documentary indicating the true state of affairs with the standing bureaucracy in this country. I know that this is difficult, but political will must win over bureaucratic will. I hope that the Minister can influence the Foreign Secretary to return to his previous views and hers and those of her ministerial colleagues and finally proscribe the IRGC. That would meet with widespread support across both Houses of Parliament and from me and many of my noble friends.
We support the sanctions and hope that the Government have success in implementing them.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for their contributions and support for these measures.
On the IRGC, I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, about the frustrations of political life and government. That is all I will say on that line of inquiry. We have already sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety. The separate list of terrorist organisation proscriptions is, as noble Lords know, kept actively under review. We do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. I will leave that there for today.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, makes an important point on Sudan. I will write to him about Sudan, but I point out that when sanctions are applied to Iran, they will affect Iran’s ability to supply Sudan as much as it would Russia. That will be the intention. On the issue of personal property, we have in minds such things as laptops, phones and other personal items. It would be restricted to that. It is right to flag this issue, and we are aware of it, but we felt it was important to include it.
This will apply to UK entities and individuals overseas and anyone who is in the UK. It will not apply any more widely than that. This is how the UK organises its sanctions, as the noble Lord knows. I know that he has long had a very keen interest in the issue of secondary sanctions and how we might engage with them. That is the situation as embodied in these regulations and with regard to the UK’s policy towards sanctions more generally. If I have missed a point there, which I think I may have done, the noble Lord must feel free to come back and help me out.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
It might be my ignorance about how this operates, as it may well be covered elsewhere. I understand that there will be a prohibition on exporting this equipment, but I am not sure that any of it has end-use certificate requirements. Therefore, how will we know if we are sending it to another country which then immediately ships it to Iran? How is that covered?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I will hopefully improve my note-taking as we go on with this. Brokers would be specifically in breach of sanctions were they to facilitate or knowingly support in any way something ending up with Iran. I hope that helps the noble Lord. If he needs any further information, I would be happy to speak to him about it.
These measures represent a step forward in our capability to restrict Iran’s proliferation of advanced conventional weapons, which continue to fuel conflict in the Middle East and support Russia in its illegal war in Ukraine. The UK Government are firmly committed to using sanctions to hold the Iranian regime to account for its malign activities in the UK and elsewhere. I beg to move.
Prisoners: Early Release Scheme
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sandhurst
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent criminals who have been released under the prisoner early release scheme from reoffending.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
After inheriting a prison system on the brink of collapse, we had no choice but to introduce emergency measures, releasing some prisoners a few weeks or months early. Unlike the end of custody supervised licence scheme, or ECSL, introduced by the last Government, SDS40 had an implementation period that allowed prison and probation staff properly to prepare for release, helping us to reduce the risk of reoffending. Planning for release includes having temporary accommodation for those at risk of homelessness; access to employment; and continuity of mental health and substance misuse provision. Those released under SDS40 will also be subject to strict licence conditions. If offenders break those conditions or commit further crimes, they will be punished and could be immediately recalled to prison.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome him to Question Time. More than 3,000 prisoners serving terms of more than four years for serious offences are due to be released this week, starting from tomorrow. Martin Jones, the Chief Inspector of Probation, told the BBC that it was a certainty that around one-third would reoffend. Of those released in the first batch in September, how many have been recalled to date in connection with a subsequent suspected offence of violence?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
We do not yet have all the exact figures but, when they are verified, we will publish them in the normal way. However, the noble Lord is correct that we have inherited a system that is very difficult, in which far too many people are recalled. For the second SDS40 stage, we are as ready as we can be. Victim contact data is very reassuring but, as in a lot of areas that we are dealing with in respect of full prisons, it is not as straightforward as I would like.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, given the number of prisoners who become dependent on drugs before, during or after leaving prison, what steps will the Government take to ensure that better treatment, and psychological treatment in particular, is available to them, whether they are released early or at the normal time?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the question. Some 49% of prisoners have drug misuse problems. It is clear that those who go into prison drug free sometimes come out addicted to drugs. Drug-free wings and other NHS and support services are vital; they work—but they also need to work when people leave prison too. With the SDS40, we have had more time to plan these releases. While eight weeks is not perfect, it is far better than the previous early release scheme—so we are confident that these links are there and are working. One thing that I am confident of, having been around prisons for so long, is that, when you have prisons that are so full, it is difficult to make everything work as well as it should do.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that under the last Government, we saw the decimation of the Probation Service, putting the public at risk? How long does he think it will take to repair the damage done by the last Government?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct that probation is under a lot of pressure and our probation colleagues do an amazing job in these difficult situations. I have been fortunate to spend a lot of time since I have taken on this role visiting probation staff around the country, and although we are recruiting an extra 1,000 probation staff by March next year—that is on track and going well—it takes time to train people and for them to gain experience, because much of their role is about relationship building and understanding the challenges that offenders face.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, one way in which the prison population could be reduced would be to deal with prisoners on remand, who are one in five of all prisoners at the moment. They do not have any access to meaningful activity, and we need to move the process along by which they have their cases heard. Can the Minister tell the House what steps have been taken to reduce the remand population and when we are likely to see that reduction taking effect?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am afraid I would not want to put a date on when things are going to change, but I assure the noble Lord that the remand population of 17,000 is far too high. He is right that a number of prisoners who are on remand do not engage as well as they should in all the opportunities they have to turn their lives around—for example, education and purposeful activity. Changing magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months will free up Crown Court time to reduce the backlog, and this will reduce time spent on remand.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, what help is being offered to families who experience difficulties when a prisoner returns home earlier than expected? Is the Minister familiar with the prison-based family hub that Spurgeons is running in HMP Winchester? This connects families with a full range of support local to their homes and works with them in full respect and recognition that they are often the most effective front-line rehabilitation asset in released and serving prisoners’ lives.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his question and for the incredible work he has done over many years in this area. One of the benefits of SDS40 is that it provides an opportunity to plan for release, compared to the previous ECSL scheme. Strengthening family ties remains a focus of the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS, and we are working with our partners to deliver a service that helps families and loved ones build and maintain positive relationships, including those released earlier than they would previously have been. For example, our family support workers help to re-establish family ties where appropriate and, critically, help to facilitate visits from prisoners’ children. I am hugely grateful for the work of Spurgeons and of the many charities and volunteers whose dedication helps prison leavers resettle into society, supporting them and their families at such critical times. The hub it runs at HMP Winchester is an excellent example of this.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Does the Minister agree that to help address reoffending, wherever possible prisoners should have access to the excellent NHS Reconnect service in advance of release? This tries to address continuity of care for people with mental health and related conditions as they return from prison into the community.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. He is completely right that continuation of care through NHS Reconnect is so important. In my office about two hours ago, we were having a meeting on this exact subject. I was fortunate to spend two days working in HMP Preston, following the officers around, and it was very clear to me that there were a lot of men in that prison who were very ill and that what they needed was the care of our fantastic NHS colleagues.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Probation Service needs all the help it can get to focus entirely on preventing further criminal acts by people who have been discharged from prison? Somehow the Probation Service seems to have lost some of its sharp focus on that, and preventing recidivism should be its key task.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
When 80% of offending is reoffending, something is clearly not working. I will give the noble Lord an example. When I was opening a probation delivery unit in Preston, there was a man standing outside with a sleeping bag around his neck. It was very clear that if he was to spend the night on a park bench, he was probably going to reoffend straightaway. There is an awful lot of work to do, but the focus needs to be on addressing people’s mental health, their addiction, accommodation and employment needs.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
The highest cohort of reoffenders is 15 to 17 year-olds, with temporary accommodation the main barrier to supporting them. What targeted interventions will the Government consider to alleviate this barrier for that group of very young people?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Accommodation is a big driver in cutting reoffending. Having been brought up in a home full of foster children, I am well aware of the problems of accommodation. It needs not just to be decent accommodation; it needs to be accommodation where their needs are understood, and they have the opportunity to receive care and kindness from experts who understand the challenging difficulties these young people have—especially around issues of attachment and mental health.
Early Years Provision: Bell Review
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to publish the main findings of Sir David Bell’s review of early years provision, commissioned by the Labour Party in October 2023.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
The early years sector is facing shortages of places and workers, and it will be challenging to deliver the entitlements promised by the previous Government. Sir David Bell’s review, undertaken for the Labour Party prior to the election, considered how to ensure all children have access to high-quality early years education. The Government are considering how to reform the sector and will set out further information next year. Sir David’s findings will inform that work.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, when in opposition, the Secretary of State for Education repeatedly said that childcare was her No. 1 priority, but she also said that she was unable to set out her plan until Sir David Bell had completed his review. Given that the Government have now committed to roll out the previous Government’s childcare plan to increase entitlements, can the Minister confirm whether or not Sir David recommended continuing with the Conservative Government’s plan, and did he agree to the levels of fees we had published? If so, it is really puzzling that the Government will not publish his recommendations; if not, I think there is a greater reason to know what they are.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Importantly, having made it clear that we want to deliver the entitlements set out by the previous Government, this Government have started the hard work to put in place the action necessary to do that. It will not be easy; I am afraid that we inherited a pledge without a plan to deliver it. Having ensured that 320,000 children have been able to take up this year’s additional entitlement, the Government’s focus is to make sure we have the places and workforce to enable the growth of that entitlement, which we will try to deliver in September 2025. However, it will be a difficult task, made more difficult by the planning failure of the previous Government.
Lord Storey (LD)
Sir David is clearly a man of integrity, great educational experience and knowledge. We understand that because the report was leaked, he decided that he was not going to continue and publish it. However, I hope that some of the key elements of that report—not least introducing a new qualified teacher route—will be included in legislation that comes before us. In fact, after Questions, we will be considering the Minister’s Statement on early years. Can the Minister confirm that the proposal to increase the early years pupil premium, whether it came from Sir David or not —it has not yet been published—will be considered at some point?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
While we are ambitious for early years and childcare, we will need to consider the outcome of the spending review in thinking about where we can focus our resources. We intend to produce an early years strategy early next year, which will certainly build not only on what we have learnt in government and our work engaging with stakeholders and the dedicated staff in early years and childcare, but on Sir David’s recommendations.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Does the Minister agree that to deliver the programme, we will need another 35,000 people working in childcare by this time next year and 6,000 by the end of this year? How confident is she that she will find the necessary people?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right about the challenge for the workforce. That is why, last week, as he says, we published further information about the 75,000 additional staff that will be necessary. It will be a challenge, but we have already begun work, focusing on the Government’s childcare recruitment campaign, “Do Something Big”. We have also introduced a T-level in early years and childcare, and through Skills England we will be identifying the gaps and ensuring that the support is there for employers to develop staff in this area. But it will be a very big challenge to make sure that the places and people are there to deliver the entitlement by next September.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, many young mothers are not very good at looking after their very young children. What are the Government doing to help mothers and children bond and learn to look after each other?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In my case, I could say that slightly older mothers were probably not particularly good at looking after their young children either.
The noble and learned Baroness makes a very important point about the support we provide for mothers, obviously through midwives and antenatal care, which I know my colleague in the Department of Health and Social Care will be very concerned about, and we will hear her views. In ensuring we have early family support, particularly for the most vulnerable families, we will also help to overcome that problem.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, in his review, Sir David Bell looked at the attainment gap between children from less privileged and more privileged backgrounds. Can the Government commit to ensuring that the ministerial taskforce on child poverty will look at the impact of the current benefits system on children from lower-income families?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right to identify that disadvantage —in fact, special educational needs impact on children at a very early stage in their development. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, alongside the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is absolutely committed, through the work of the child poverty taskforce, to looking at precisely how we break that link between poverty in childhood and the ability to make the most of your life later on. That will include elements of the benefits system as well.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
Taking my noble friend back to the question on recruitment, will she consider that a number of the people who will be needed in the workforce are currently in full-time education? Quite a lot are at school, and many are studying BTECs—for example, in health and social care—which can then lead them into careers in childcare. Can she say whether the Government intend to go on supporting the BTECs that will take these young people towards the childcare sector? What else are the Government doing to encourage young people currently in education to see it as a good career path for them?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We are carrying out a short qualifications reform review precisely to identify the qualifications where there are particular needs for learners or for the economy—in this case, childcare. Unlike the previous Government, we are saying that where we can see for both those reasons that there is a particular need for qualifications, we will continue to fund them in the system. As I identified earlier, we are also supporting the development of a T-level, which will provide a very good and rigorous route for young people into the childcare sector. Also, through the “Do Something Big” campaign we are encouraging more people to consider a career in early years and childcare, which can have such an enormous impact on children’s lives.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, what is so encouraging is the way fathers are now involved in looking after children, and it is very important—
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will turn to the Cross Benches next, and then we will hear from the noble Lord.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, we have just come to the end of a report on ultra-processed and HFSS foods. When it comes to early years nutrition, it is quite a Wild West out there. For a start, we have the lowest rate of breastfeeding in Europe and the OECD, because there is very little support. When you get on to infant feeding formula, a lot is marketed at babies who are younger than six months and there is extreme confusion about the way that milks can be advertised.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My question is: will the Government take heed of our report and look at the way products are marketed to mothers when they are young, vulnerable and not very well off?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure that my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care will look closely at that, given their concern to ensure that babies and children have the healthiest start in life.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I was saying that it is quite inspirational how fathers, particularly young fathers, are now much more involved in bringing up young children. We should recognise that sharing of responsibilities in many families. What do the Government say about that? What more can be done to encourage fathers to get more involved in bringing up their young children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. I know from personal experience that, where fathers can give that care, it has an enormously important impact on children and their development. Obviously, over recent years we are more able, through parental leave provisions, to share that leave at the early stages of children’s lives. I assure the noble Lord that, across government, we will continue to think about ways we can support parents, including fathers, in doing that very important role.
Social Housebuilding
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to build capacity in councils and housing associations within the next three months to increase the building of new social homes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Question and for all the work she has done to support the social housing sector. The Government are committed to the biggest growth in social and affordable housing for a generation, but we recognise that councils and housing associations need support to build their capacity. In July, we announced steps to help with delivery, including flexibilities in the current affordable homes programme and for councils to use right-to-buy receipts. We will set out plans in the Budget at the end of this month to give councils and housing associations the rent stability they need to borrow and invest in both new and existing homes.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her very helpful and hopeful reply. Recent statistics from the ministry show that, in the year 2023-24, 320,000 households faced or experienced homelessness—an 8% rise on the previous year and the highest on record. Recent research by the NHF, Savills and the HBF warned that, without much more social housing, the Government are set to miss their target of 1.5 million homes. A significant uptick in social housing is vital to plug that gap. Will my noble friend explore the options of a one-year extension to the affordable housing programme in the upcoming October Budget? Extension of the current AHP by one year would be an important first step to increase delivery and capacity in the social housing sector.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
At the risk of repeating my noble friend Lord Livermore, the content of the Budget is of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, the package we announced in July included flexibility in the current affordable homes programme to help with delivery and extended the 2021-26 affordable homes programme. We have been clear that we will bring forward details of future government investment in social and affordable housing at the spending review. We know how important it is to enable providers to plan for the future as they help to deliver the biggest increase in affordable housing in a generation.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the priority it is giving to new housebuilding for social rent, but we are still losing more homes each year than we are building, mostly because of right to buy. Some 2 million homes have been sold so far and 40% are now in the hands of private landlords, who are letting homes at rents two or three times higher than at which they would have been let as council properties. Would the Minister accept either or both recommendations from the Devon Housing Commission, which I have been chairing? The first is that the level of discount should be set by the local authority and not at the national level, where 70% discounts are available, which is not good value for the taxpayer. The second is around whether 100% of the proceeds from sales of right to buy should be allocated to new housing that replaces that which has been lost.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his work with the Devon Housing Commission; I have been very interested to read about its work. The Government believe it is right that long-standing social tenants should retain the right to purchase their property at reasonable discounts, and so we will not be ending the right-to-buy scheme. However, many of the homes sold since 2012 have not been replaced and, as our manifesto said, the Government are reviewing the increased right-to-buy discounts, introduced in 2012. We will bring forward more details and secondary legislation to implement changes later this year. We will also review right to buy more widely, including looking at eligibility criteria and, in particular, protections for newly built social housing. We will bring forward a consultation on that shortly.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that affordable housing and housing for social rent are quite distinct offers? Frequently, the Government, previous and current, seem to fall into the pattern of using the word “affordable” for housing that is seriously not affordable and not distinguishing social housing for rent. Will the Minister be very clear that, when we talk about the need for social housing, we talk about social housing and not affordable housing?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have made my views on that subject very clear in this Chamber many times before. We intend to support the delivery of the right kind of affordable homes to meet local needs. Our proposed changes to national planning policy will set out clear expectations that housing needs assessments must consider the needs of those requiring social rent homes. Local authorities should specify their expectations for social rent as part of a broader affordable housing policy. We are also removing the prescriptive requirements that currently tie local authorities’ hands, with respect to particular types of home ownership products. This will allow them to judge, as they are best placed to do, which type of housing is best for their local area.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, London has some of the highest housing pressures in the country, including for new social housing, and yet the mayor consistently fails to deliver on his own targets. Could the Minister explain why the Government are withdrawing from an intervention in London designed to reverse that record?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I welcome the noble Baroness back to her place. I have set out our views about delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing. We have asked Homes England and the Greater London Authority to maximise the number of social rent homes when allocating the remaining affordable homes programme funding. Significant sums of that funding have indeed been dedicated to London. We are extending the programme’s completion deadline for all schemes in London from March 2029 to March 2030, and we are enabling the Greater London Authority to fund intermediate rent homes, within the 2021-26 programme, at a maximum of 80% of market rents. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness that we take the issue of housing in London seriously.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the consequences of a lack of social and council housing has been the growth of houses in multiple occupation? Can she assure me that she will look at giving councils adequate powers to deal with houses in multiple occupation, which can cause problems not only for those living in them but for local communities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree that some houses in multiple occupation cause problems, but they can also provide a low-cost housing solution at certain times. However, it is important that local authorities have the powers to deal with this in their own areas. Following the recent consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework, we will look carefully at councils’ responses to see whether they have requested further powers to deal with HMOs.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Question relates primarily to new social homes, but it was reported at the end of September that around 70,000 council and housing association homes are now lying empty. Can the Government say something about what is planned for those 70,000 dwellings?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, there are multiple reasons why properties may be empty, but it is important that we bring as many homes as possible into use. Councils are being given greater powers to charge additional council tax for empty properties, and I know that they will be looking very carefully at the stock of housing to make sure that it is brought into use as quickly as possible. We are also looking at things such as compulsory purchase order powers and so on. Councils already have those but it is very important that we give councils as many tools in their armoury as possible to prevent houses falling into dereliction or simply being left empty because they have been bought as investments and are not let out or used.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said a few moments ago that she could not anticipate the Budget Statement, but did not the Sunday Times do that yesterday, with an authoritative leak that local authorities are to spend £1 billion more on council houses? I welcome that, but how confident is she that there is enough capacity in the construction workforce to respond to that demand?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. I will not comment on leaks, to the Sunday Times or anywhere else, but I have been talking extensively with the development industry about skills in that area, not just for traditional methods of construction but to deal with modern methods of construction and the whole range of new skills that we will need to fit properties to make sure that they are net zero. We are looking right across the board at that and working with the construction industry to see what needs to be done to help it develop the level of skills that we know we are going to need.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, last week, the Government allocated £68 million for 54 councils to build social housing on brownfield sites. Will there be further funding for other councils for similar projects to build houses on brownfield sites?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for drawing attention to the brownfield land release fund. The Government’s preference is to use brownfield first; we want to turn neglected sites into new homes. This funding will help clear empty buildings, former car parks and industrial land to make way for homes. We think that the first tranche of funding will enable around 5,200 homes. Further announcements on this will be made at the time of the spending review.
Independent School Fees: VAT
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hacking
To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimates they have made of the pupil migration arising out of the proposed VAT on independent school fees, and what is the exact basis of such estimates.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, in July, the Government set out their view that the number of pupils who may switch schools as a result of these changes represents a very small proportion of overall pupils in the state sector. Projections from the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggest that this is likely to represent less than 0.5% of total UK state school pupils, with any movement expected to take place over several years. At the Budget, the Government will set out our assessment of the expected impacts and a tax information and impact note. This assessment will be consistent with the costings of this policy by the Office for Budget Responsibility. In making this assessment, the Government will consider pass-through of VAT to school fees as well as the likely elasticity of demand.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for answering my Question. He cites the IFS report that advised that there would be a very small pupil migration of between 3% and 7%. The question is whether that is correct. Do the findings of the IFS provide any clear indication of parents’ ability to pay a 20% increase in the cost of school fees? Also, should not the Government listen to the parents of pupils in independent schools in the various parent surveys? In recent surveys, between 18% and 26% have said that they will not be able to pay this increase and will have to take their child or children out of independent schools.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
At the Budget, we will set out an assessment of the expected impacts of this policy in the normal way by publishing a tax information and impact note. In this assessment, we will consider, first, the likely pass-through of VAT to school fees. Here, after a cover of VAT on input costs, we expect schools to be liable for VAT of an average of around 15% of their fee income. The Government expect that private schools will take steps to absorb a significant proportion of this VAT liability. Secondly, we will consider the likely elasticity of demand, which will be consistent with the elasticity used by the OBR in the costing of this policy. It is worth noting that, despite a 75% real-terms increase in fees since 2000, the number of children in independent schools has remained steady, which suggests an inelastic demand for private school places.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Should we not all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, who has sent a very thorough report to the Prime Minister, showing the dire consequences that the Government’s education tax will have? Is it not time that the Government realised that their education tax—the first in our history—is likely to force a large number of parents, particularly those using small special needs schools in the independent sector, to move their children next term to state schools which are wholly unprepared for them?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The answer to the noble Lord’s question is no, because the assumptions underlying that report are incorrect. We expect that a large number of private schools will take steps to absorb a significant proportion of this VAT liability, so the majority of that fee will not be passed through.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, 3,000 military families take advantage of the continuing education allowance and send their children to private school. In previous answers, the Minister has said that no decision will be taken on how the impact of the VAT rise will be dealt with for those families until the spending review. The Armed Forces are facing a retention crisis, as is well known. Why does the Minister think that leaving those families with this level of uncertainty is going to help with that retention?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The core answer to the noble Lord’s question is that very many private schools will take steps to absorb a proportion, if not all, of the new VAT liability, so there may actually be no increase in fees in such circumstances, which is why it is right that we leave it until the spending review. It is worth pointing out that very many military personnel send their children to state schools and want them to benefit from the improvements that will happen in those schools.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
Why not positively foster pupil migration from the public schools into the state boarding school sector, such as Keswick School, a comprehensive in the Lake District? They offer a far wider social mix, often higher standards of education, help to foster far more balanced social interaction among the young, and all at a fraction—often one-third —of the cost. Is this discussion about not just tax receipts but breaking down social division that can begin in childhood and later divide society?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful for my noble friend’s insights. I will take those on board.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister keeps saying, “Our modelling, our predictions” et cetera. What happens if they have got it wrong? If, for example, 10%, 20% or 30% of pupils leave the private sector, have the Government made contingency plans to ensure a sufficient number of teachers and sufficient provision? A point was made about special needs schools. Many children in the private sector are in special schools providing a particular type of provision. Will that be available in the state system?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord asks about the assumptions we are making. As I said, we will set out our assessment of the expected impacts of this policy in the normal way by publishing a tax information impact note at the time of the Budget. At that point he can judge those assumptions for himself.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
According to the Government, VAT is a tax on consumption and therefore falls on the parents. Yet the Minister keeps saying that this consumption tax will be absorbed by the producer—the schools. Many noble Lords have pointed out today that schools cannot simply magic up lots of cash to mitigate against this consumption tax on the parents. Has he considered that he is undermining what a tax on the consumer actually is?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness will know that how schools will fund this additional cost is a commercial decision for each school. Some schools have already announced a very wide range of fee increases, from zero to 5%, to 10%, up to, for example, Eton at 20% above the average expected VAT liability. This reflects the Government’s expectation that private schools will take steps to absorb a significant proportion of the new VAT liability.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Can we hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Foster?
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Is the Minister aware of the disproportionate impact that this tax will have on Christian schools in Northern Ireland given the structure of the education system there? Given that, will a specific impact assessment be carried out?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The impact assessment will cover the full range of expected impacts.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us think that taxing the schools like other private enterprises is long overdue? Will he confirm that, in the case of the sons and daughters of MoD and FCDO personnel, it is in fact just a transfer from one government department to the other and has no net impact?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I absolutely agree with the spirit of my noble friend’s point. This is a necessary decision that will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people. The Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and determined to drive up standards in those schools serving the overwhelming majority of children in this country.
Lord Markham (Con)
What is clear from the comments is that this is all built on a number of assumptions that clearly could be incorrect. Given that the whole objective of this is to raise money, will the Minister undertake a review a year from now when this has been in place to see whether those assumptions were borne out, or, as we suspect, it has ended up losing money and will be repealed?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Government are extremely confident in our costings. We expect this policy to raise significant amounts of revenue. The Office for Budget Responsibility will certify the Government’s costings at the Budget. Of course, one keeps all tax policy under review.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Do the Minister and the Government realise that we are talking about not only Eton, Winchester and Westminster? There are a large number of small independent schools serving local people on relatively low fees. They are the ones that will fail, in Northern Ireland and other places. There is no point reviewing it in a year’s time—they will be closed and those children may or may not find sufficient places in the local state schools.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I disagree with the assumptions that underlie the noble and learned Baroness’s assumptions. As I said, some schools have already announced a very wide range of fee increases, from zero to 5% and up to 10%.
Government’s Childcare Expansion
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
I welcome the Statement made in the other place last week on the Government’s childcare expansion, although I note that it might have been more constructive had the Minister acknowledged the transformation in childcare provision implemented by the previous Government and I hope the Minister can acknowledge that for the House today. I remind your Lordships that there were five major stages of that expansion. In 2010, we extended the entitlement for three and four year-olds, commonly taken as 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year. In 2013, we introduced 15 hours a week of free early education for disadvantaged two year-olds. In 2017, we built on that by doubling the entitlement for three and four year-olds to 30 hours a week and then in 2023 we announced measures to give working parents 30 hours a week of free childcare from nine months until the child starts school, building up over two years. This constituted the biggest expansion of childcare by any UK Government in history.
I would like to ask the Minister a few questions. First, the previous Government, now on this side of the House, are delighted that the Government have committed to continuing our expansion of childcare, but I was concerned that the tone of the noble Baroness’s comments when answering an earlier Question on this subject sounded like a pitch-rolling to cut the offer and I wonder whether she could just reassure the House that that is not in the Government’s plans and set out the Government’s commitment. Certainly, there was a sense that the communications around this September’s rollout were perhaps more muted than we had expected. It is obviously critical that parents are aware of their future entitlements.
If I may, I will try to ask the Minister again whether Sir David Bell did recommend in his review of early years to continue with the previous Government’s approach to childcare and whether she could confirm when the Government will publish the early years workforce strategy. Also covered in the Statement were the Government’s plans for implementing breakfast clubs and that the Government were taking a test-and-learn approach. I was puzzled by that, given that the previous Government already had a national school breakfast programme that was active in almost 2,700 schools and, as the Minister knows, many primary schools offer breakfast clubs already, I wonder what particular aspects the Government feel they need to test and learn from.
Finally, in relation to school-based nurseries, can the Minister give the House a sense of how confident she feels about the Government’s target of opening the first school-based nurseries by September 2025, with the new funding? It looks like quite a short period to turn that around. Also, what assessment has been made of the impact of the imposition of VAT on the nursery provision of independent schools that have that provision?
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the proposals; they are very much in line with our manifesto at the last election. I believe that all three parties, in perhaps slightly different ways, have a real desire to develop childcare provision. I want to tease out from the Minister the most important thing for early years childcare provision: the quality of the staff and the staff feeling valued. That means not just the salary but the training opportunities they get.
Over the last decade or more, we have seen staff in nursery and early years settings feeling that they are there just as glorified helpers. One nursery nurse said to me, “I could get more stacking the shelves at Lidl than I get in my job in a nursery”. If we want brilliant early years education, we need staff who feel motivated and want a career in that line of work. I had a 100-place nursery in a primary school and I remember how the staff were absolutely devastated when their names were changed from “nursery nurse” to “NVQ level 4”. They hated that. There had been no consultation with them at all; it just happened as part of the skills agenda. That is my first point.
My second point is that, while we welcome the commitment on top-up charges, we have also to recognise that the income generated in private nurseries sometimes caused real problems for them; but doing away with top-up charges is absolutely correct.
I like the notion that we increasingly put nurseries in primary schools, where there is capacity. Why? Because the primary school can provide all the other things that are available there: advice on special educational needs, and a whole host of other opportunities.
I am pleased about childminders—although I do not actually like the title “childminder”. They do not just mind children; they develop children. They get them to play, to interact, to talk, to learn and to discover. They do more than just minding—but I suppose we are stuck with that title. Childminders were very concerned several years ago when there was a movement towards doing away with single childminders; they had to be part of a company or a group. I thought that was wrong. So I recognise and welcome the proposals on childminding. It should not be a sort of privatised provision. Anybody who has the qualifications and experience should be allowed to do it.
I want to make a final point. There is an aspiration to go to 30 weeks’ provision, but that provision does not cover a full calendar year. Nurseries—particularly private nurseries—find it very difficult because, at the end of the 30 weeks of provision, some parents, especially those from deprived communities, cannot pay the additional money, so they withdraw their children for that period. The nursery or early years setting then finds it difficult to financially survive. So, we need to look at how we ensure that there is equity for the provider as well.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I am very happy to accept that there has been an enormous transformation in the country’s attitude to childcare and in the extent of childcare available. When I entered the other House in 1997, following a considerable period of Conservative rule, we in Worcestershire were infamous for having the worst childcare provision across the whole of Europe. I am glad that people have seen that childcare and early years provision is important for people’s ability to go to work and, at this moment in time, to support people with the cost of living, but I think that the additional area where we need to focus more attention is that good early years provision is absolutely fundamental for children’s development and giving them the very best possible start in life.
The noble Baroness suggested that the Government are pitch-rolling away from the pledge to entitle working parents to 30 hours of childcare a week from 2025; that is absolutely not the case. The Government are committed to providing that, but we are being transparent and honest about the challenge it will bring. As we said last week, it will mean another 75,000 childcare places and over 30,000 more staff will be necessary; that is a big challenge that needs a plan, not just an aspiration.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness thought that the comms at the beginning of the school year were a little on the quiet side; I did a whole morning media round on this and shouted it from the rooftops. I am pleased that we were able to celebrate 320,000 more parents getting their childcare entitlement this year, but there is certainly more that we need to do. That is why we will work to look more strategically at what we need to do to develop the early years sector and have undertaken to develop a strategy, which I expect us to publish and bring to this House next year.
The noble Baroness asked about breakfast clubs. A few weeks ago, we were able to announce the 750 trailblazing breakfast clubs that will be open by next year, which will build on previous work to get breakfast clubs into schools. However, we are also making a stronger commitment both to providing these free for all primary school pupils and to ensuring that the childcare element of the breakfast club is also in place—that is a very important way that we get children to school early and ready to learn, which does not necessarily happen just if you have a breakfast club, despite the excellent work those breakfast clubs are doing.
On school-based nurseries, the noble Baroness is right that we announced last week £150 million of funding which schools can bid into, so that we can develop up to 300 school-based nurseries as part of our objective to have 3,000 of those over the course of this Parliament.
The noble Lord is absolutely right that, if we are to achieve quality early years provision, we need to develop even further the brilliant staff who are working in early years and childcare. That means we need to reset our relationship with the childcare workforce, ensure that there is appropriate status for that role and think about training. We have already begun to provide, for example, more guidance around how to identify special educational needs, and we will want to continue that work.
We are taking action on ensuring that mandatory extra top-up charges are not levied on parents who take up government-funded childcare places, and we will be working with the sector and with parents in order to make sure that we strengthen that guidance.
Childminders do excellent work, but we have seen a halving of the numbers of childminders over recent years. The flexibilities, including the additional flexibilities announced last week, will help to ensure that childminding remains an important element of the childcare environment.
The noble Lord raised a point about flexibility for school holidays. It is already the case that quite a lot of childcare provision, including that provided around schools, continues into the school holidays. However, in thinking about our overall development of provision and our strategy, we will certainly want to think about how we can ensure that that is as flexible and well supported as possible for parents to be able to use all year round because of the enormously important impact that it has on those parents and, more importantly, on children’s best start in life.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I wonder if she could clarify something. I heard her say that there was a £150 million capital pot for nurseries, but I think I read in the Statement that it was £15 million. If she cannot confirm that now, maybe she could write to us.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I apologise. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I have been overambitious on the Government’s spending plans and I will be in big trouble for that. The figure is £15 million for up to 300 new or expanded nurseries. I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to correct that.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the decision by the Government to expand early-years provision, both education and childcare, but the Statement does not perhaps go far enough in clarifying some of the issues that are likely to emerge from that policy decision. The first, as the Statement makes clear, is that we do not have enough staff to carry out this expansion, certainly not in the timescale that the Government are hoping to achieve. What discussions are taking place with the providers of teacher education and training to try to increase the numbers of young people deciding to become teachers and who take on specialisation in the early years, particularly for three to seven year-olds?
Secondly, what will the role of head teachers be in this slightly complex set-up where, on school premises, there will be not just an expansion of nursery classes but also the provision of childcare for younger children? What responsibility will head teachers have to take for what is going on on their premises in relation to childminders, private providers of one kind or another or voluntary organisations? Certainly, parents will imagine that head teachers have some responsibility for what is happening on their premises.
Lastly, what work is being done to integrate the educational aspect of provision with the childcare aspects of provision? The Minister has rightly said that it is important for the development of children that this expansion takes place, but that expansion must bring with it high standards of provision. Indeed, the Statement says it is the Government’s priority to provide such high standards. Could the Minister respond to those questions?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that having sufficient well-qualified staff is one of the biggest challenges for developing the entitlement in early years. That is why, as I outlined earlier, we have a national recruitment campaign, we are piloting whether financial incentives will boost recruitment in early years, we have skills boot camps for early years that lead to an accelerated apprenticeship, we have the new T-level, and Skills England will look at the sector to see what more qualifications we need to have in place. We are providing additional flexibility for childminders to help to care for children and to come into childminding through the childminder start-up scheme.
The DfE currently supports a pipeline of early years teachers into the sector by funding early years initial teacher training and developing an undergraduate early years teacher degree apprenticeship to support early years leaders and teachers to earn while they learn. My noble friend is right that the range of provision within a primary school is a challenge for a head teacher, but we also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, some of the benefits that head teachers will find from having that early start for children, with all that it brings to their development.
On the quality and scope of early years, we made some announcements last week about ensuring that, as we develop the scale of the provision, we do not lose quality through new provisions around the early years foundation stage. We will also want to continue thinking about how we can ensure that the highest quality of learning happens during that stage. We will undoubtedly have more to say about that as we develop the quality and extent of early years care.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome this Statement, especially the section that reads:
“The Government believe that all children deserve access to a brilliant early education, regardless of who they are, where they come from or their parents’ income”.
The Minister will share my concern about young children who either are not registered at nursery school or are registered but rarely attend. What steps might be taken to monitor what happens to those children, who should be in school but are not?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. We have already said, more broadly, that we intend to bring forward provisions in the children and well-being bill for a children’s register for those outside schools. However, in the changes that we announced last week to the safeguarding provisions in the early years foundation scheme, we are also intending, after consultation, to introduce a new provision that will ensure better follow-up of children who have been registered with nurseries and who then do not attend, in the way in which the noble Lord suggests.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interest as a non-executive board member at Ofsted. The Minister will be aware that this landscape can be complex for parents to navigate. She talked about communications, but can she say a bit more about what the Government will do to ensure that all parents who have entitlement for their youngest children get the provision to which they are entitled? Might they be working with the family hubs and health visiting teams to have a strategic approach to communications on this?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point: that when there is a new entitlement, parents should understand what they are entitled to and be supported to find the places that support their children, which is why we will continue to publicise this. We will also, as she rightly says, find the other routes to ensuring that parents understand what their entitlements are. The next time that I am doing a media round on this, I will redouble my efforts so that I do not disappoint the noble Baronesses opposite.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, the most formative childcare for most children is of course provided by parents and families themselves. What plans do the Government have to make it easier for grandparents to care for their children and what plans they have, if any, to build on the transferable allowances introduced by the coalition Government?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that grandparents quite often play a very important role in supporting their children and grandchildren. I will take away his exhortations about support for grandparents and perhaps return to that matter directly with him when I have found out more about it.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the questions about the workforce, the point has been made that it is about more than just giving an adequate salary for those in childcare; it is about recognition. The Minister referred in her reply to status and staff development. What steps are being taken to develop a proper career structure so that this field of education can compete with the rest of the education field in having a well-defined career structure for people to aim at?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right; it is of course about reward, but it is also about progression and recognition. We have worked hard already to try to reset our relationship with staff across the education system. Over the coming weeks and months, the Government will set out further plans for reform to ensure that the workforce feels supported and valued. We want a system that celebrates and supports early years carers and embeds it into our wider education system. Alongside the work I have already outlined on recruitment, recognition and status is something that we will want to return to in the early years strategy as we develop it.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, to what extent does my noble friend the Minister consider that this welcome expansion will further the Government’s mission to break down the barriers to opportunity?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. As I suggested earlier, childcare provision is good for parents because it provides them with opportunities to work and supports them with the cost of living. Most importantly—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is adamant about this—high-quality early years education provision ensures that children get the very best possible start. It helps to overcome disadvantage in their home lives; it helps to identify special educational needs earlier, and it sets children up to learn. That is why it will be an absolute commitment of this Government. We were pleased to be able to outline last week the next stage of our development in this area.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, could the Minister of State say something about the importance of the status of people who work in early years?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Absolutely. The name of our recruitment campaign to encourage more people to come and work in this area is “Do Something Big”. Our argument is that there is little that you can do that is more important for changing somebody’s life than working with them in their very earliest years, whether through caring or through early years education and development. That is why the investment that this Government are putting in is so important and why we will celebrate the people who carry out that really important role.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, is it not also the case with the staffing of early years that there may be a staff surplus in some parts of the country? One has seen the statistical collapse in the number of young children in the inner London area, yet places such as Oxfordshire have apparently double the number of children than childcare places. Is part of the strategy to enable people already in this sector to relocate?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I am not sure that it is for the Government forcibly to relocate staff in this area, but let me take that back to those working on the childcare strategy as we think about how to reform this as a place to work and ensure that it is a positive place to work. We seek to meet demand where it is needed, because not only are there shortages of staff in some areas but there are shortages of provision. We will certainly make sure that we are focusing support on those areas that most need both the staff and the provision.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to hear the Minister speak about the importance of the workforce. Will the Government bear in mind that it is important to include the employment of young men as nursery nurses as well as young women? Many years ago, my son was one of a very small handful of men who qualified under the old NNEB rules. Lots of the children in nursery at that time had very disjointed families and did not have a good male figure within their household. Sometimes the male nursery nurse was the only stable male person they came across. That may not be so much the case now, in terms of the sorts of children who will find their way into good nursery care, but it is important to bear in mind that men as well as women can be very good at this job.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend eloquently outlines the enormous difference that can be made to a child’s start in life by the security and development that they can get from any early years worker. She is absolutely right that this is a job that men do extremely well and should be encouraged into doing. For some children who have not had the benefit of having those sorts of role models in their family lives, they will probably be fundamentally important for their success later on in life.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, one of the last Labour Government’s great achievements was the introduction of the Sure Start scheme, but, as my noble friend will know, many Sure Start centres have been closed. I am often asked what our Government’s position is on Sure Start. Could my noble friend perhaps say something about it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
One of the very last contributions that I made in the House of Commons before I came face to face with the electorate in Redditch was to suggest that I feared that a future Conservative Government might dismantle our Sure Start programme. I was jeered at the time, yet sadly I was right. In recent years we have seen, through some of the longitudinal analysis that was done on Sure Start, the impact that it had on children’s lives. I am afraid I cannot at this time undertake to reinstate the scale and significance of the last Labour Government’s Sure Start scheme, but I can say that recognising the way in which all those elements work in a child’s life—childcare, early years, health and family support—will be a very important way that, across this Government, we think about our future plans to support children to have the very best start in life.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the creation of a children’s register —yet another register that we are creating when we have already set up so many over the years. If she casts her mind back to the previous Labour Government, one of the major initiatives we had was to create an identity system for each person and child in the country. We increasingly see that that need still has to be addressed, particularly for problems with immigration, yet we now have a different approach by the new Labour Government. Although I recognise that this is rather wide of her brief, I wonder whether she would care to bear in mind that there is a case to be made for a simple approach to this. We ought to be trying to create coalitions where we work together to create a system that will give us greater data about everyone, including children, and which would be far more efficient than the present system, where we create separate systems all the time.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend tempts me to relive my days developing the national identity scheme and, in fact, having one of the very first identity cards issued by the last Labour Government. However, I will not go down that route. I have some sympathy with his point about around the range of different ways in which we now ask people to prove their identity. The intention behind the register for those children who are out of school is very much about safeguarding and ensuring that children do not get lost to our system, as has sadly become increasingly the case over recent years and which was exacerbated by Covid. This has a very special and important child safeguarding intention, which is why it is a legitimate scheme in its own right.
Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill
Monday 21st October 2024
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill 2024-26 View all Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 21-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (18 Oct 2024)
Lord Gascoigne
“Purpose: improvement of passenger railway services(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance of passenger railway services in the United Kingdom.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of improving passenger railway services when taking any actions under the terms of this Act.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment A1 I will speak also to Amendment 48A in this group. First, with permission, as it is the first time that I have addressed the new Minister in the House, I congratulate him on his promotion—I think it is a promotion—in joining the Government. I have had the absolute pleasure of working closely with him and knowing him personally since 2008. I saw at first hand his sterling work when he ran Transport for London, alongside the equally impressive Mayor of London, Boris Johnson—something on which I know the whole Committee will agree with me. There are few people in the land more knowledgeable, so it is the country’s gain in having the Minister help tackle our many transport issues.
I declare that I am a regular commuter, and have been for years, travelling in and out of London from home almost daily—not least today, when I had a 15-minute delay to a 25-minute journey. It is because of my time as a commuter, as well as my time in London City Hall, working alongside TfL and many others, and my time in Downing Street looking at rail reform, that I am speaking today.
I turn first to Amendment A1. I do not intend to rehash the universal view that something has to change when it comes to our rail services, and I shall park temporarily whether I believe that the Government’s plan in this Bill is the right one. For now, I will take them at their word and do them a favour by setting out at the outset what this Government believe that the Bill will achieve. It is worth reminding ourselves that the Labour manifesto said that the Government will
“put passengers at the heart of the service”.
In April, the then shadow Secretary of State, who is the current Secretary of State, said in Labour’s Plan to Fix Britain’s Railways that:
“Public ownership for our railways is about the practical need to deliver better services where they have failed”.
My amendment tries to encapsulate that in something concise, setting out that the overall aim of these reforms is improving service. It does not set out every promise that the Government have made in trying to deliver these reforms, such as saving tens of millions of pounds and having more affordable tickets and even better mobile connectivity—more power to your elbow on that one. Amendment A1 is simple, short and streamlined. The Bill would open with what its purpose is and what the goal is, so that, in effect, like Ronseal, the Bill does what it says on the tin.
Some have already quizzed me on whether this purpose clause is necessary in the light of the Bill’s tight scope and focus solely on the effect of nationalisation of passenger rail services. In answer to that, I draw the attention of the Committee to those clauses relating to the temporary extension of privately run franchises. In that part of the Bill, it is clear that the Secretary of State will have to make a judgment on whether it is practical for a service to be provided by a public sector operator. With the addition of the purpose clause and the connected duty, the Secretary of State will have to have due regard to the improvement of passenger services under the Bill when making these decisions.
Turning to my second amendment in this group, Amendment 48A, as I have already said, and as was well covered at Second Reading, no one can deny that the current system is not working. It is fraught with endless delays and cancellations, yet year on year we have fare increases, so my amendments today are not done to halt reform of the railways and certainly not done from an ideological position, even if it has been said that the Government are driving this policy for ideological reasons. For me, it is quite the contrary.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. As the focus of this is on passenger travel and the noble Lord’s desire to put that at the centre of the objective of the Bill—which is a laudable objective shared, I am sure, by the Government—I cannot help pointing out that one of the major decisions by the last Government, which will of course affect the capacity of the railway network to deliver first-class passenger transport, was their in my view crazy decision to truncate the HS2 programme.
That programme was introduced by a Labour Government, supported by the coalition Government and by Conservative Governments over a period of about 15 years in total and at two strokes—first, getting rid of the Leeds link and, secondly, getting rid of the Manchester link—so much planning, expenditure and work was wasted. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will agree with a lot of this. It means that, among other things, the service to passengers, which is at the heart of the noble Lord’s amendment, is bound to be diminished from what it could have been. The network was there to provide passenger transport, freeing up space on the west coast mainline, which is close to, if not beyond, capacity, and helping freight as well, of course, which is a very important part of what the rail network delivers. It would have enabled that by freeing up the west coast mainline, the old mainline, if you like, built by the Victorians and still doing remarkable work, and improving the network overall.
So, when he winds up, I really would like the noble Lord to take the opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Government he served for making those nihilistic decisions to scrap that section of the railway. Ironically, in an attempt to justify the action they took, they claimed that somehow several billion pounds would be saved and one of the ways the “saved” money would be spent—I think the figure was £9 billion—would be on filling potholes. Now I am strongly in favour of filling potholes, but it will not help passenger services on the railway—which the building of the two northern legs of HS2 would have done. So, as welcome, in many ways, as his emphasis is—I do not know whether it is on behalf of the Opposition or not—on supporting and improving passenger services, that has a long way to go to make up for the damage it did by the cancellation of HS2 north.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I rise along with the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, as someone who has worked closely with the new Minister. I congratulate him on his appointment. He knows more than almost anyone about our railway network—the problems, issues and challenges—and, while he may find himself on the other side of the political fence to me, he will be a great asset in trying to sort the challenges of our rail network.
He will know, very much more than anybody else, what the challenges are. He will also know, therefore, that sorting out our railways is not simply about changing the ownership structure. He knows full well, for example, that many of the issues that passengers have experienced in recent years have been laid at the foot of Network Rail—the company he chaired, although it was not his fault, of course—and rightly so. However, all of us involved bear the scars from the difficult times in 2018 with the timetable change. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, knew well the challenges then, particularly in her role in the north. In the north, they were caused most immediately by Network Rail’s failure to deliver an electrification programme in the timetable that had been committed to, which had a dramatic knock-on effect on the rest of the railway.
Therefore, I am not clear, and it is why I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, why a move of ownership is going to deliver a transformation for the passenger. I hope that the Minister, with his experience, will be able to talk a bit about that as he responds to the debate. Fundamentally, on both sides of the House, we are all about improvement for the passenger, and simply transferring ownership from public to private and private to public does not solve the challenges. Ironically, I was reading at the weekend—and I am sure it is true—that the Government are looking at bringing the private sector in to run Euston station, at the same time it is planning to take the private sector out of the railway to run the trains that go into it.
So I would be grateful if the Minister could set out why he thinks this change will deliver improvement for passengers and why, therefore, the amendment being proposed by my noble friend is wrong.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am in the slightly unusual position of speaking to Conservative amendments that have not been spoken to already. However, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will correct me if I interpret them wrongly.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, set out the failures of the current system. Prior to the laying of the noble Lord’s amendment, I had taken the theme of this group of Conservative amendments as displaying a welcome, if overdue, conversion on the road to Damascus. After more than a decade of increasing confusion on railway services, declining levels of passenger satisfaction and rocketing fare prices, the Conservatives are actually looking at improving public train services.
Amendment 2 touches upon something with which I definitely agree: the inevitable winding-down effect of a four to five-year transition period. As I said at Second Reading, there is bound to be an impact on staff morale and the inevitable likelihood is that the best staff will move to other industries when faced with an uncertain future. There will also, of course, be cost pressures. For example, there is bound to be a tendency to level up across very different terms and conditions from one employer to another within the train operating companies. Last week, I was speaking to some train operating companies, all of which recognised the problems that will be faced as the Government try to bring together and harmonise terms and conditions without exposing the taxpayer and the passenger to higher costs. Of course, the most obvious problem is how to deal with rest day working. I know the Minister is fully aware of the problems to which I am referring, so I will be interested in his response.
Amendment 26 refers to costs. At Second Reading, I asked questions about several issues, such as station ownership and operation, which were not really answered. I also asked about British Transport Police, which is encompassed in Amendment 40, put down by the Liberal Democrats. The Labour manifesto contained a supposedly cunning plan for low-cost nationalisation, but there are still bound to be significant costs for such obvious things as new livery and uniforms. We all look forward to an integrated fare structure; that, of course, will come with upfront costs.
Amendment 22 refers to the establishment of an independent public body to assess performance, while Amendment 21 refers to an annual report from the Secretary of State. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will explain exactly what he is aiming at in these amendments. One of them asks for the sort of close supervision by the Department for Transport that we have had since Covid, which clearly has not worked terribly well; the other refers to a more arms-length approach. Which of those approaches does the Conservative Party in this House believe will be better?
Liberal Democrats would establish a railway agency —a nationwide public body to act as a guiding mind for the railways, putting commuters first, implementing wholesale reform of the fares system and holding train companies to account. We do not believe that the renationalisation of passenger rail will automatically deliver cheaper fares or better services. From speaking to members of the public, we have concluded that they really do not care who runs the railways; they just want cheap, efficient and reliable services.
I do not doubt the Government’s good will or their wish to make this huge change, which we all want to happen. However, as a signal of their intent and an upfront signal to the public, I hope the Minister will speak with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that in next week’s Budget, we have a fare freeze and the public see from the start that there will be a difference under this Government.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are all designed to try to get some information from the Government about the effect of the changes in this Bill. Will it help the passenger—as well as, I hope, the rail freight customer—and will it help with the costs? Several noble Lords have referred to the issue of costs on the railway, which is very serious; I shall probably come back to that later.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly ask the Minister a question for when he comes to respond.
I am very supportive of what my noble friend says in his Amendment A1—that we be clear about the purpose of this legislation—but the Minister will be aware that the Bill will substantially achieve that by amending the Railways Act 1993. Section 4 of that Act, as amended, sets out the general duties of the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road. While they are listed in relation to the Office of Rail and Road, they are added as duties of the Secretary of State under Section 4(3)(a).
Section 4(1)(zb) says that it shall be the duty of the Office of Rail and Road—and, by extension, the Secretary of State—
“to promote improvements in railway service performance”.
Will the Minister confirm that nothing in this Bill would change the continuing duty of the Secretary of State to promote improvements in railway service performance?
Can the Minister also say that it will not change the duties of the Secretary of State and the Office of Rail and Road otherwise listed in that subsection, including
“to promote competition in the provision of railway services for the benefit of users of railway services”.
I am interested know precisely how the Minister and the Government propose to meet that general duty, which is not changed by this Bill.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I am always fascinated when Members of the party opposite attack proposals from this side of the House on the grounds that they are ideological. What could be more ideological than the privatisation of the railway system back in 1994? In my view, Amendment A1, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, spoke earlier, would create another bureaucracy—something the Conservative Party are normally against. No one would say, and I certainly would not, that a nationalised railway will be the answer to all our problems. Having worked in it, I know only too well it will not be. On the other hand, I think if you asked the average rail passenger for his or her view of the current system, they would say that anything would be better than what we have at the present time.
When it comes to ideology, I followed with interest the words of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, who talked about failings in the increased cost of electrification leading to the delay, and in some cases the cancellation, of various electrification projects. My noble friend the Minister, who will respond, has great experience of Network Rail, and he might comment on some of the costings—many of us would take an interest in those matters. I was surprised, to say the least, at some of the expensive projects that Network Rail has embarked upon and the failure of that organisation to work within the original estimates, as far as costs are concerned. I hope it will not upset the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, too much, but his sojourn as Secretary of State for Transport is not looked upon by the railway community with any great favour. His view that in some cases electrification was unnecessary and that what was needed was bi-mode trains did not particularly please passengers. I recently moved home, from the Birmingham area to Gloucestershire, where I now have the pleasure—doubtful pleasure that it is—of travelling on Great Western’s bi-mode trains. They are often subject to cancellation and, again, the usual view from my fellow passengers is that the sooner the railway is renationalised, the better.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley is regarded as an expert on railway costings—he shakes his head, but he should not be so modest; he certainly played a major role with his views on HS2 and its finances. He mentioned the Office of Rail and Road. In the context of this amendment, can my noble friend the Minister tell me what role is envisaged for the ORR in future? I hope he will not be too offended if I say it is a misnomer: it is certainly an office for railways, given that it intervenes on various grounds—in my view, improperly, because there are proper roles for those responsible for railway safety in the industry—but appears to play no role at all as far as the road network is concerned. The fact that something approaching 2,000 people are killed on our roads on an annual basis is not something that detains the ORR. I hope my noble friend can tell me what role he envisages for the ORR in the newly nationalised railway system.
Finally, just to hark back to 1994 and the privatisation Act, fundamentally it adversely affected the railway industry. In 1994—again, I apologise for the history lesson—the railway system in Britain was regarded as the most efficient and effective in western Europe; certainly the subsidies paid to the rail industry in those days were less than those paid in countries such as France and Germany. The sectionalisation of the railway industry in the 1990s, largely at the behest of a Conservative Government—I do not make any complaints about that, as Governments have opinions—led to a much more readily identifiable system of costings for the industry overall. For the first time, we saw exactly which parts of the railway were profitable, which were not and which needed perhaps more money spent on them in the future than had previously been envisaged.
The relationship between Sir Bob Reid mark 1, the then chairman of the railways board, and Mr Nicholas Ridely, the Secretary of State at the time, was an extremely fruitful one. I am not here to announce any great fondness for Lord Ridley but I think that he appreciated what the railway industry was doing, largely at his behest at that time. I understand—although I do not wish to attribute words to him long after his death—that he was more than a little concerned about the mode of privatisation envisaged by the Government at the time, largely because of the success that he felt he had had in improving and defining the railway industry’s relationship with the Government of the day.
I hope that, when my noble friend the Minister responds to this amendment, he will appreciate at least that, whether the railways are privatised or public, all too often railway passengers—or customers, as they are somewhat laughably known these days—do not feel that their views on the provision of the service are listened to or that there is a proper voice for them. It is some years since the transport users’ consultative committees were abolished. Can my noble friend say what plans he has for better passenger consultation in the future?
In conclusion, I hope that my noble friend will not get too bogged down in the bureaucratic desires of the party opposite. Future amendments that we will come to, from the Conservative Party or its Front Bench, appear to believe that railway management has nothing better to do than put together various plans, which no doubt will be torn apart by those who feel that the railways are not delivering the service that they should. I await with interest my noble friend’s response to the amendment. I know that he will bear in mind that we ought to be concerned about the passengers of the future—the passengers of the past having been sadly neglected.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, trade moves by trains. Why do I bring that up? Some of your Lordships may remember that when Freightliner was put up for sale, P&O—the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, to give its full name—bid for it, and we were told by the competition authorities that, at that time, we already controlled 25% of transport movements for the whole of the UK and therefore we could not take it over.
I went to see the Secretary of State for Transport and everybody involved with this—our own people—to say that it was ridiculous. In practice, what we really wanted was to have a fast line for container trains, at night as well as in the day, from Glasgow right the way through to Istanbul, non-stop, for 2,500 miles, moving trade backwards and forwards in a major way. We had only about 3% of the trade in Europe, and I thought that, at that stage, it would have made a huge amount of sense. With those double trains going right the way through and the movement of trade, we would now be in a much finer position for doing trade in a much more major way, 2,500 miles away and further. I thank your Lordships for listening to me.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to intervene because I frequently travel on the railways of France; my wife is French. The contrast between the railways in France—and, for that matter, in Italy—and those of this country is quite extraordinary. The railways were aptly referred to by my colleague on the Back Benches as a shambles and so they have been. It is therefore highly important that we have a properly integrated and effective service, which has been part of the tradition of infrastructure of this country for a very long time. I cite someone whose name will register on the other side of the House: Winston Churchill. He was, in his time, a strong supporter of the nationalisation of the railways, partly on efficiency and technical grounds, based on his experience in Lloyd George’s coalition Government of the First World War, and partly on grounds that, fortunately, we hear less about now—questions of labour and industrial relations; I think the railways were almost next to the miners in industrial conflict in that period. We suffer by comparison with our neighbouring country colleagues—and, I hope, shortly, allies—and therefore the social and economic rationale of this Bill is profoundly important.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I start by apologising to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, if I caused any confusion; I will try to do better. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, back to his place from his excursion, no doubt by rail, in foreign parts. We missed him at Second Reading, but we had an excellent substitute in the shape of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds.
I will make a preliminary remark at this stage, which I intend to save me making it on future groups of amendments. It is that we are, essentially, at least as far as the amendments tabled by Members from the Conservative Party are concerned, seeking information from the Government in relation to this Bill. If the Government are candid with us and give us the information that we are looking for, we will have achieved our objective on behalf of the public, and that will be the end of the matter.
I turn to the debate that has taken place so far. The part that has sparked me most, which I felt I had to answer, were the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Snape. First, I agree with him about what a degradation it is that passengers have become customers when, of course, they really ought to be passengers. But there is also the question of ideology, which I hope to take out of the debate that we will have in Committee today and on Wednesday.
Of course there is always an element of ideology when one talks about privatisation and nationalisation. The railways, which, I think, are 200 years old next year, have been nationalised for only about a quarter of their entire existence. We must not think that nationalisation is the natural condition of railways in this country. They flourished and grew and were developed in private hands; we should always remember that. The truth is that in 1945-46, the railways were nationalised largely because, after six years of war, they were bankrupt. There had been no investment in them during the whole of that period, and they had deteriorated. Nor was there any prospect of their making sufficient profit that private capital could have been recruited to make up that deficiency.
Whether the then Government believed in nationalisation as an ideological matter or not, if the railways were to continue running at all it was going to have to be in government hands. Parts of the system were privatised in the mid-1990s for equally practical reasons—we discussed some of them at Second Reading. One reason was to attempt to improve customer service through competition; one was to recruit private capital into the railways on a consistent basis, which the Government had never been able to provide during the whole of the time they owned the railways—not enough capital and never enough consistency because no budget went beyond 12 months—and another was to try, frankly, to break the grip of the rail unions on pay, so that the astonishing disparities that exist between, let us say, a train driver and bus driver, which are entirely due to the monopoly supply of labour by ASLEF, might be evened out.
What we discussed at Second Reading, I am perfectly happy to admit, is that on some of these fronts privatisation has been successful, and on others less so. If the Government, who have won a majority on the basis of promising to nationalise the train operating companies, wish to give the other side of it a kick and see if they can make it work on that basis, I do not personally object—at least not on ideological grounds. But the House is perfectly entitled to have its practical questions about how this will work addressed. That is what the amendments in this group and many that will come before the Committee later intend to address.
The Government claim that this is a very small Bill. On the other hand, when they talk to the public it is a huge Bill, “because we are nationalising the railways”. They are not really nationalising the railways, because to nationalise something you normally have to pay for it and this Bill is not something where they are paying out to shareholders. All they are doing is letting the franchises that exist expire and then tying their hands and preventing themselves from renewing them except in emergency circumstances. It is, as I would have said at Second Reading if I had had more time, less nationalisation and more like dismissing your chauffeur at the end of his contract and deciding to drive the car yourself. At least you knew the chauffeur had a driving licence and some experience and qualification in driving the car, but now we will have the Secretary of State—we were told at Second Reading that she prefers to be known as the passenger-in-chief—as, in effect, driver-in-chief as well. We will see how that works out.
It is a big thing when the Government talk to the public—it is nationalisation of the railways—but when they talk to noble Lords it is a very little thing. All the big things, we are told, will happen in the next Bill— the train further down the line, expected in roughly a year or 18 months. That is the Bill in which many of our questions should be addressed, we are told—we should not ask those questions now. I think we should ask many of those questions now, for two very good reasons. The first is that the Bill presents us with a measure regarded by the Government as preliminary to that very large Bill, so it has long-term consequences. The second—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—is that the Bill sets up a shadow structure that could persist in operation for four or five years or even longer because, first, it will take us a year or 18 months before we see the Bill that will make these great reforms; and, secondly, as anyone who has been involved in the railways or any other large organisation will know, implementing significant change as a result of that legislation is likely to take several further years. We will have to live with the shadow structures set up as a result of the Bill for many years, and their practical consequences deserve the most careful scrutiny.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am not quite yet the Minister, but the way the Labour Party is going, who knows?
Lord Snape (Lab)
I asked for that one, I have to say. It is mistakes being made at both ends of the Corridor recently.
Arising from what the noble Lord has just said, can I ask him to clarify two points? First, on the delay in moving on to the more detailed Bill, bearing in mind that it was 2016 when the Government he favours brought forward the proposals for Great British Railways, what were the Government doing in the eight years since then? Secondly, I have a simple question about the ideology of privatisation: if nationalisation is so bad, why was almost the first act of Governments in two world wars to nationalise the railway industry? What makes it so essential in wartime and yet it can be handed out piecemeal in peacetime?
Lord Moylan (Con)
If the noble Lord will forgive me, I am asking the questions in this scenario, and I do not feel I necessarily have an answer to his question about wartime. I might pass it on to the Minister, who once arranged for me to go and see deep in the bowels of Mayfair, under the former Down Street Underground station—I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Snape, has not been, it can be arranged for him to see it too—the wartime headquarters of the railway operations executive, including what is claimed to be, although I think with no historical foundation, a tin bath in which Churchill once took a bath. I will say no more about the war than that.
On the former question, I do not know the answer, but I would like to know. Why was it that the then Government, having published what they called the Williams-Shapps review written by Keith Williams—I think he is correct in saying that it was in 2016—and having promised a transport Bill in the King’s Speech one but last, did not come forward with the measures they thought they could offer in that regard? I do not know the answer to that, but I am willing to have a guess and it is relevant to what the Government are embarking on now and to whether they are going to meet their 12 to 18-month deadline of delivering us with this massive Bill that is going to transform the railways. My guess is that the then Government found that grappling with the intense difficulties of reforming the railway on such a large scale meant that, try as they might, they found considerable difficulty in putting together that Bill. It may be that is exactly what the Minister finds as he comes to address these difficulties. This only adds further to my point that the shadow arrangements we are setting up today could be with us for a very long time.
I come to the first amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. The Government say they have a purpose—they are not doing this for ideological reasons or at the behest of the trade unions—which is to improve passenger services. At Second Reading, I pointed out that in the final stage impact assessment produced by the Department for Transport, given the opportunity it had to say exactly that, it said something completely different. It said that the Bill had been
“prepared to enable swift delivery of a Government manifesto commitment”—
not to improve matters for passengers—and that was why it had not looked, as it normally would, at the alternative options that might be put forward to achieve a similar purpose. That is another reason why it is incumbent on us in this House to look in great detail at what the Government are putting before us. They are in effect asking us to buy into an article of faith. They are simply saying, “Well, it couldn’t be worse than it is at the moment”—that is simply untrue; there are problems with the railways, but they could be a great deal worse than they are at the moment—“so it is bound to be better if we take it over and run it ourselves as part of a national enterprise”. But they have not provided any evidence for that; they have simply stated, “This must be the case and you’ve got to believe us”. As I say, that is one of the reasons why our job is not to do so.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Can I try to help the noble Lord? My understanding is that the Government are committed to a comprehensive package of rail reform, and that the Bill for the comprehensive package will be introduced next spring. The purpose of this Bill is a relatively minor reform, in my view, in the context of the much bigger reform, which is to make sure that the franchises can transition to public ownership at minimum cost to the Exchequer. If we are going to do it at minimum cost to the Exchequer, we have to do it quickly; that is why this is one of the earliest Bills that the Government have put forward.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The noble Lord puts the Government’s case very well. How much the House has lost in not seeing him on the Front Bench as the Minister, given that he was the shadow Minister up until the general election.
We are told by the noble Lord that the Government have a package of reforms. We all have a package of reforms. We know what the package of reforms looks like; it is in the Shapps-Williams review. Yet what we are seeing from the Government is a package of reforms that differs significantly from the Williams review; that is why it needs such careful scrutiny.
Given the passage of time, I will be brief on the remaining amendments. All the amendments in my name seek to test the effects of this measure on the performance of the industry in the light of the nationalisation that the Government are proposing.
Taken separately, the amendments deal with different types of performance. Some deal with the performance of the railways in so far as they engage with passengers; that is, on timeliness, efficiency, service quality and so forth. Some relate to the performance of the railways in relation to finances; we will come to finances in more detail later. The Government claim that this Bill has no financial consequences—there are those of us on this side of the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who treat that approach with great scepticism. Other amendments seek to examine the measure’s effect in relation to the performance of the network as a whole.
I hope that all these amendments will be accepted by the Government. If they are to make these changes, there needs to be transparency and the public need to be able to see metrics published, possibly by an independent body or possibly by the Department for Transport—we are open to persuasion on that—which show how the railway is performing.
Having come to power committed to transparency, I know the Government would not want to resile from that. So, if they are not able to support the detailed amendments as tabled, I expect that the Minister will have no difficulty in saying that the Government will put forward amendments on Report showing how this Bill will be monitored in its implementation.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for his welcome; it is nice to see him again in different and more august circumstances—different, at least, from those that applied in the old City Hall. I thank him, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their explanations of this group of amendments, most of which require some form of reporting or assessment of the impacts of public ownership or the performance of publicly owned operators.
Like my noble friend Lord Snape, I am fascinated by the plethora of reports proposed at this stage of railway reform. Given that LNER has been in the public sector for six years, and Northern for four, it is strange that the measures now proposed for public sector train operators were never contemplated or enacted by the previous Government, who clearly never thought that they needed them. In simple terms, this Government do not either.
I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for railway reform. His Amendment A1 does not call for any reports but requires the Secretary of State to have regard to a specific purpose —to improve the performance of passenger services—when exercising functions under the Bill. I entirely support that purpose, and it is at the heart of what we are doing, but there are also many other purposes: stripping out inefficiency and waste on behalf of the taxpayers who fund the railway, simplifying fares and increasing patronage, connecting communities, driving economic growth and promoting opportunity for all. It is not right that the Bill should suggest that it has only that one purpose, important though it is.
Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the publication of two reports: the first outlining the anticipated impact of public ownership, and the second assessing its actual impact some years after the event. Regarding the first of these reports, the Government have already fulfilled the proposed obligation through the impact assessment published earlier in the year. Among other expected impacts, the taxpayer will no longer have to fund many tens of millions of pounds in fees currently payable to private sector operators each year, even when their performance is sub-standard. Furthermore, public sector operators will prioritise the interests of passengers and taxpayers, not the demands of their shareholders.
A similar report is envisaged in Amendment 48A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, but focused specifically on the impact on performance. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government certainly expect public ownership, and our broader reform proposals, to unlock the significant improvement in the performance and efficiency of the railway which he is looking for; we do not need to publish a report to say that.
Turning to the second proposed report envisaged in Amendment 2, there is no need to wait for three years before we start to consider whether train operators’ performance is improving. A wide variety of data is already routinely published about the performance of both public and private sector train operators. This includes reliability and punctuality, service quality, customer complaints, financial performance and efficiency, among other measures. This Bill does not change any of that, but as part of our wider reform plans, we will further improve access to data. This will be specific to individual routes and/or service groups, not just aggregated at the level of whole franchises, so that passengers can see at each station how services are performing on their local routes and, importantly, what is going to be done to improve them.
The Government can and will monitor performance closely on a continuing basis. We will hold operators’ feet to the fire when their performance is inadequate, irrespective of whether they are privately or publicly owned. The Secretary of State and I have already demonstrated that we will not accept the poor standards that have been tolerated in the past. We have demonstrated that from our first days in office by holding meetings with the managing directors of several train operators alongside their Network Rail counterparts to address poor performance and demand immediate action to raise standards.
In that respect, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, we are not discriminating between the public and private sectors and will not do so, as indeed he did not in his time. He rightly gave me a hard time in 2018 in respect of electrification in the north-west of England; even if it was not Network Rail’s responsibility, it related to the failings of GTR as an operator.
Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the publication of a further report—or perhaps 10 reports, one after each transfer—setting out the expected impact of the transfers on various aspects of train operators’ performance. Again, once transfers have taken place, it would be more instructive to consider the actual performance of train operators.
Amendments 21 and 22, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, would require the reporting and independent assessment of the performance of publicly owned train operators. That is unnecessary because, as I have set out, the Government will themselves be monitoring their performance closely and will work to ensure that as much performance data as possible is published for the benefit of the travelling public, in a form that is useful to them and that allows for effective scrutiny.
My department is currently reviewing the standard terms of the service agreements that are entered into between the Secretary of State and public sector operators, in readiness for future transitions to public ownership. Public operators will be set targets in key areas such as punctuality and reliability and other aspects of the service. Work is under way to identify the right targets and measures for the period ahead in order to focus operators on delivering the best possible outcomes for passengers and taxpayers. As part of the service agreement review, we will consider the arrangements for publishing those targets and operators’ actual performance in comparison to them.
Amendment 22 refers to performance improvement plans. I reassure the noble Lord that improvement plans are already a feature of the Government’s service agreements with each public sector operator. I confirm for noble Lords that similar mechanisms will continue to exist in future, both through contractual terms and through the controls that DOHL exerts over its operators on behalf of the Secretary of State. As I have said, where performance is falling short, we will not hesitate to demand that things are put right, regardless of whether the operator is privately or publicly owned.
Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, requires the publication of an independent assessment of the performance and efficiency of the rail network five years after the enactment of this Bill. By that time, the Government will have established Great British Railways, which will have taken over responsibility for both track and train. New arrangements will need to be put in place to oversee and scrutinise the effectiveness and efficiency of GBR, so in due course we will set out our plans for holding it to account as part of our plans for the wider railways Bill. We should not pre-empt those future arrangements by seeking to legislate for them now.
I hope we will deal with all the noble Lord’s other points during the rest of Committee, as we shall with the detailed comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on staff morale and the British Transport Police. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I confirm that there are no changes to Section 4 of the 1993 Act.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Snape, in the present Bill there will be no change to the role of Office of Rail and Road; he needs to await the substantive railway Bill for that, at least with regard to the railway element of the ORR. There will be public consultation on the wider Bill before it comes, so there is no need to wait until the publication of the Bill itself.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that there is currently no meaningful private investment by train operating companies, so we are not losing anything in the Bill that is on the table today. Contrary to his assertion about the Williams report, its author, Keith Williams, envisaged public ownership as a necessary condition to rationalise a number of things on the railways, in particular fares, ticketing and information.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am clutching my copy of the Williams rail review in my hands. I think I am going to refer to page 55 at another stage—my eyesight is not good enough to give the quote straightaway —when I will have the opportunity to point out that Williams’s approach to nationalising the train operating companies was somewhat more subtle and differentiated than the Minister has just claimed. But I want to ask him about a different point. It is a genuine curiosity I have about what might be described as the theology of Great British Railways and the new system that the Government are putting in place.
My understanding was that Great British Railways would be the single controlling brain operating the system and using a concession system to do that—let us say it is doing that itself now in the new system. It would be setting the goals of the railways through routes, service frequencies and so forth, and indeed running the fares and ticketing system. It would then be monitoring how these shadow or publicly owned companies were doing. We are now told by the Minister that all the monitoring functions he has referred to, which I would like to see set out transparently in advance through the Bill as being by independent bodies which we can trust, will be done by the Department for Transport. I ask him to be clear with us: in this system, who is responsible for monitoring and to whom is the system accountable? Is it to Great British Railways in its shadow form—now that it has been established and has a chairman, staff, a transition team and so forth—or is it the Department for Transport? The answer to that question has very significant consequences and it appears to be a moving target.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I should respond to the noble Lord on three or four points. First, whatever the Williams report said—and it was adequate in what it said at the time—I took the trouble, only a few days ago, to confirm with its author that he acknowledged we could not change the fares, ticketing and information systems without taking the train operating companies or their activities into public ownership.
Secondly, the noble Lord knows perfectly well how a large public body can behave in monitoring activities, whether it carries them out itself or has contractors or concessionaires to do it, because he will be as familiar as I am with the experience of Transport for London. It monitored its own activities, published them and allowed others to scrutinise them. That principle is the one which should be adopted by Great British Railways.
Lord Moylan (Con)
So is it Great British Railways that will be doing it, like TfL, and not the Department for Transport? I am very confused.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Well, the noble Lord should not be, because it is quite clear to me that the Government intend to take a large amount of activity out of the Department for Transport and put it in a body that is responsible for the performance of the railways. That being the case, it would be extremely logical that monitoring performance is done by GBR but properly scrutinised by others.
Lastly, I simply say to the noble Lord opposite that there has been a change of government. The policies that this Bill and the railways Bill will seek to enact are the policies that the Government were elected to carry out.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke in what I thought was going to be a relatively brief debate, but I think we have clocked up over an hour and it has become far-reaching, showing the wealth of knowledge in your Lordships’ Committee.
I will cover some of the points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, raised HS2 and my own position. As a northerner, I have my own personal views, but I have to say that I was merely a Whip on the Government Front Bench and, as powerful as I may have been in controlling speaking times from the Dispatch Box, I did not have the power to control spending. It is something I will raise with the Opposition Chief Whip, my former boss, later. With respect, perhaps the noble Lord may want to speak to his own Front Bench about future spending plans. If I may say so, I think the Prime Minister’s own position on HS2 has been perhaps confused over the years.
Turning back to the debate, I think this group was about the future plans covered by this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, suggested that my Amendment A1 would create bureaucracy, and I think the Minister said that it would not; it is merely a purpose clause. I repeat what I said earlier: my only wish is to make it clear that services will improve.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response, but I would have thought that the Government could have at least supported Amendment A1 as it is a purpose clause. It could demonstrate that the Government do not believe that the Bill will improve services. Although the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that it would improve services, he then listed a number of other things it would do. I do not know if I should take that as meaning that the Government will accept my amendment but also list all the other points they believe it will do as a purpose clause. That said, obviously this will be an ongoing conversation and for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“25B Termination of existing franchise agreements(1) The Secretary of State must terminate franchise agreements for default in accordance with the terms of the agreement as soon as it is possible to do so.(2) Subject to subsection (1), the Secretary of State must not terminate a franchise agreement pursuant to a break clause unless—(a) there are no other franchise agreements which are—(i) terminable for default or may be terminable in the next three months for default, or(ii) will come to the end of their term within the next three months, and(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that provision of the services by a public sector company will improve existing service provision.(3) In this section, “break clause” means a contractual provision in a franchise agreement which entitles the Secretary of State to terminate the franchise agreement before the end of the franchise term by notice without reason.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to nationalise the worst performing operators first while enabling services that are currently working well to continue.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that all of us want the same thing that the passengers want: a railway which is reliable, punctual and affordable. In too many parts of the country, they have been let down and this has not been delivered. Personally, I can understand why the Government have chosen this way of doing things and improving matters. But I do also think it is beholden on this House, particularly as we are now in Committee, to really focus on the way in which the Government intend to do this. It is in that spirit I move Amendment 1.
I am arguing what I argued in my Second Reading speech—that, in order to make the transition to public ownership a success, the Government should first take on those operators which are demonstrably failing passengers. They should turn those services around to deliver tangible improvements for the travelling public. It follows that the management of currently high-performing operators—as I shall show noble Lords, they do exist—should be retained for as long as possible to ensure that passengers continue to receive good service while minimising costs to taxpayers.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to first nationalise the worst-performing operators to deliver immediate benefits to passengers and taxpayers, while enabling services that are currently working well to continue for the time being. Specifically, it places the Secretary of State under a duty to prioritise the termination of franchise agreements where the incumbent operator is in default of their agreements and gives them a duty not to terminate non-defaulting franchise agreements early unless there are no franchise agreements to be terminated due to default or because of their expiry. It would also require that terminating such an operator early would improve existing service provision.
I will say a word or two about the railway I use. I have travelled between Suffolk and London several times a week for more than 25 years now, and I can tell noble Lords that my service has never been better. Greater Anglia has spent £1.4 billion upgrading its rolling stock. It returned £65 million to the Treasury in the year ending in March and is predicted to return £100 million next year. It has a 94.8% public performance measure; I think Avanti is currently at 62.2%. Greater Anglia’s cancellations are at 1.4% and Avanti’s at 10.2%, but Greater Anglia’s full term expires in September 2026 and will therefore be one of the first to go.
It is genuinely difficult to see how that performance could be bettered. Indeed, with new management operating and a whole new set of structures it could conceivably get worse, initially at least. On the other hand, the poorly performing franchises have the potential for significant improvement—indeed, that is why the Government are doing this—so by using a strictly chronological approach they risk losing the confidence of the public right at the start of this process.
Current national rail contracts give the Secretary of State powers to act against failing train operators, both in general and where remedial measures are in place, and she has broad rights to information provision about possible contraventions, so could the Minister outline how the Secretary of State has used these rights in relation to CrossCountry and Avanti contracts? The grounds for default under the national rail conditions are passenger service performance, non-compliance with remedial agreements and contravention of other obligations, so has the Minister sought advice on CrossCountry’s and Avanti’s performance in relation to those provisions? Is either TOC in breach of any other provision? With Greater Anglia, West Midlands Trains and East Midlands Railway all performing well, can the Minister say whether they will be allowed to run their full course?
Regardless of where your Lordships stand on the question of renationalisation, in the end, as members of the travelling public, we all want it to work. By taking a strictly chronological approach, which leaves poor performers in place, the Government risk seriously undermining their own flagship policy. I beg to move.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group that is closely aligned with the noble Baroness’s, on which she has spoken very eloquently. It would reaffirm the Secretary of State’s powers to, if necessary, withdraw franchises from operators.
I tabled my amendment because I am a strong supporter of the Government’s policies and it would be tragic if we could not complete the transfer of companies to public ownership with remarkably quick speed. Yet, when we had the Second Reading debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, pointed out to us that, unless there was a basis for withdrawing the Avanti franchise, it would run for another couple of years. It would be tragic if the worst-performing franchise, along with CrossCountry, was allowed to continue for this extended period and thereby to delay the Government’s ability to introduce the kind of rail reform that a unified railway under a guiding mind would make possible. To tell you the truth, on the basis of what I have heard, I think our Ministers are being a bit feeble. They could stand up to Avanti with much greater determination than they have.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I shall raise a question with the Minister, as we are on the subject of the termination of franchises. I should say to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that I have been there and wanted to terminate franchises. I have never had a problem with a mixed economy, but I have an issue with a uniform economy, because I cannot understand the logic of terminating a very good private sector provider, any more than the Mayor of London believes in terminating his private provider of the London overground—and I suspect, if we see more devolution in future, other parts of the country may want to see a mixed economy as well. Clearly, the Government are very happy to see that in stations, as we learned at the weekend.
However, it is more difficult than one might wish, and as a Minister you have to take a judgment about how much legal and therefore financial risk you are willing to take, and also about the disruption that the termination brings. Nobody should be under any illusion that making a transition between two operators has to be managed extremely carefully and, done at gunpoint, can actually lead to a deterioration of services.
I come to my question to the Minister. This set of amendments discusses the process of termination of franchises and when and how they happen—the order in which they happen. My memory is that, in a private system, at the end of a franchise, there is a payment to be made by the successor franchise operator to the franchise operator handing over control of that franchise. There are various capital costs and other costs incurred. If the public sector is coming in and saying, “Right, we’re taking over the franchise”, what can the Minister tell us about that equivalent process? Will payments be made to the companies that are being phased out, as there were between private operators? What will those payments be and what will be the total cost incurred by the Government in making those payments? After all, the private operators will have invested in capital aspects, on the stations or elsewhere. Therefore, logically, the Government will also have a legal obligation to go through the kind of process that happened in the past when a franchise simply moved between two private operators. Can the Minister address that specific point in his closing remarks?
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I honestly believe that the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness opposite is extremely sensible. Like her, I can see no reason why we have a chronological system for dispatching the current franchisees based on the run-out date of their particular franchise.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, I am in favour of a mixed economy. There are certain aspects of privatisation, heresy though it might sound to some of my colleagues, that were successful. The fact that some of the railway system—rail freight, for example, which rarely gets a mention in these debates—remains in the private sector is indicative of the success of those who took what was, under British Rail, a very much declining sector of the railway industry. I do not wish to do an “all our yesterdays” speech, but my recollection of the freight sector in those days is ancient wagons clanking around the system, being shunted from one marshalling yard to the next, and with an average journey speed between loading and destination of around 12 miles an hour. Since privatisation, the rail freight side has improved greatly.
To return to the very valid point made by the noble Baroness, Greater Anglia is not just a success so far as its operations are concerned; it is a financial success as well. Because of this unfortunate coincidence of the run-out date of franchises, Greater Anglia is forecast to repay to His Majesty’s Treasury around £100 million in the current financial year. As my noble friend Lord Liddle said, presumably—unless my noble friend the Minister can reassure us otherwise— we are going to dispatch Greater Anglia to the railway knacker’s yard while pursuing with Avanti Trains, as he and the noble Baroness said, a franchise operator that, quite frankly, should not be there.
The previous Government, in the run-up to the election, were stupid enough—or ideological enough, perhaps—to give Avanti an extra nine-year franchise, on the grounds that it was showing some improvement. Those of us who travelled on Avanti regularly—thankfully, it is an experience that is now behind me since I moved home—could not find any improvement whatever. Indeed, it seemed to me that the service was deteriorating on an annual basis.
Again, it might be heretical for some of my colleagues to hear this, but aspects of the passenger railway that were privatised were successful. At Second Reading, I mentioned Chiltern Railways. Thanks to the financial constraints that British Rail had to operate under as a nationalised industry, Marylebone station was proposed to be a coach station by Sir Alfred Sherman, if I remember rightly, Mrs Thatcher’s transport guru at the time. The existing railway management, again through no fault of their own but because of financial constraints, had to run the service from Marylebone down, single much of the line and reduce the overall train service. Under the able leadership of the late Adrian Shooter, and with a long-term franchise of 20 years, with various break-off points, my noble friend Lord Prescott and the then chief executive of the Strategic Rail Authority came up with this 20-year franchise, but insisted that not only had the service to be improved but some of the infrastructure had to be restored. Under Chiltern Railways, lines that had become single were redoubled, and a pretty poor commuter rail service now has two trains an hour as far as Birmingham—with a price, incidentally, as my noble friend Lord Liddle might be interested to know, which considerably undercuts the fare of Avanti trains.
There are aspects of the future of the railway industry where a mixed economy would make some sense. I hope that, in those circumstances, my noble friend the Minister will look with some degree of favour on the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes some very good points. The Greater Anglia service is awfully good: my two noble friends who have spoken about it have confirmed that, and I have been on it recently myself. However, following the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, could somebody from the Conservative Party—maybe the noble Lord, or one of his predecessors or successors—explain the basis on which it chose Avanti and CrossCountry, which are two of the worst performing operators, to be given such very long contracts? I remember at the time there was a big debate between Virgin and Avanti as to which should get the contract. Whatever one thinks about Virgin, it has had some good services in the past, but Avanti is absolutely awful—as is CrossCountry, though for different reasons. Why did the then Government do it?
It is fine to say that we have given it to a private sector operator, but if we end up in a situation where the Government are effectively going to make similar awards to people—not companies, but people—we should know on what basis it is done. I hope my noble friend the Minister can explain what the criteria will be to make sure that we get some decent new franchises and how he is going to get rid of the two existing pretty bad ones as soon as possible.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, as a Great Western passenger, I wish I could speak as glowingly as my noble friend Lady Scott has done about Greater Anglia. GWR is known fondly to its passengers as “Great Western Roulette”. Will it or will it not turn up? How late will it be? Will it have five, eight, nine or 10 carriages? I can see people for whom that rings a bell.
The Liberal Democrat Amendment 1 turns on its head the Government’s proposed time-served system, which noble Lords have been discussing. In some ways, Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, addresses the same issues. This is really about natural justice. Why should a poorly performing franchise be allowed to continue while an excellent one is terminated? Bear in mind that we are not bothered about the franchise owners; we are bothered about the passengers who have to suffer the service it provides. Why should passengers be denied reliable services?
There are two serious problems with the Government’s scheme. By chance, as has been said by several noble Lords, Greater Anglia, a profitable and very good operator, will have its contract terminated at the start of the process, while Avanti, whose performance is poor, will outlast almost all other train operators. That is topsy-turvy logic. The rail industry will lose the example set by Greater Anglia at a time when it, as a company, could be setting the new standards we all hope will be achieved by the new integrated public sector railway.
By imposing this rigorous approach to nationalisation at all costs, and nationalising even those train operators that are performing very well, the Government’s attitude is really inconsistent. They are not applying the same logic to roscos or freight services, or even to open-access operators. It is simply illogical to insist on the upheaval and dismantling of Greater Anglia, for instance, while regarding an open-access operator such as Grand Central as quite acceptable.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I begin by speaking briefly to Amendment 30, standing in my name, which proposes the deletion of the word “reasonably” from Clause 2, line 29. At this point in the Bill, the prohibition on the Secretary of State from renewing franchises is alleviated by this clause in certain circumstances. One of them is where the Secretary of State is satisfied that it will not be reasonably practicable to provide or secure the provision of the franchise service, et cetera.
This is a simple probing amendment, on which I do not want to spend a great deal of time, other than to simply ask what the Government mean by the word “reasonably” here. What is “reasonably” adding to “practicable”? It seems that it is creating potential difficulties for the Government. On one hand, if they were challenged in court about this—I hasten to add that I am not a lawyer—I think they would find that one of the tests they would be put to is whether they had acted reasonably, and that would be true whether the word was in the statute or not. Here, it seems to me that there is a double standard of “reasonably” being applied to them. What do they mean by “reasonably”? In what circumstances do they envisage having recourse to it, and would the Bill not actually be better without it? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on those points.
On the substance of the debate, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, on having secured universal approbation for her proposal from all speakers who have spoken today. She wants something that appears to be very common-sensical: that the poor franchises should be terminated and cleared out as soon as possible and before the well-operating franchises are cleared out, so that we do not have a situation where good operators are removed from service while poor operators are left in place.
Yet, because of the rush with which the Government have come at the Bill, and because of their determination to be able to say, “We’ve achieved something in the manifesto as fast as we possibly can”, that is exactly the effect of the Bill as it is constructed. Operators that we know to be poor will continue for considerably longer than those that are in fact performing very satisfactorily. I suspect that the Government will say that this is because they have to terminate franchises at the time they fall due, because to terminate them any earlier would cost public money and they would need to pay compensation. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, that is of course the legal advice they would receive, though what exactly some of these poor performers would expect by way of compensation is a political question and one that could easily be put to the test, as the noble Lord said.
The other matter here is that the Government already envisage that some franchise contracts, despite the prohibition in the Bill, may be renewed for practical reasons, reasonably or otherwise. It is possible to renew a franchise on a short-term basis. In fact, nearly all the franchises currently operating are operating on very short-term contracts. The financial liability carried with those short-term contracts is very small. So, even if a good performer were to have their franchise fall in very soon, if an appropriate exemption to the prohibition were inserted in the Bill, they could still be kept going on a short-term contract without creating a significant new liability to the Government, while the poor contracts fell in and were terminated without any risk to the Government. If the Government were not in such a terrible rush, all of this would create a logical structure for the termination of contracts which passengers would understand and which would not run the risks that were stated so clearly by the noble Baroness who moved the amendment.
There is a great deal to be said for this. I hope the Minister, when he replies, will not take refuge in simply saying, “Oh, we’ve got no choice because this is what the public finances dictate and it is all driven by finances and contracts”. The management of these contracts—by a confident Government who know what they are doing and a Secretary of State who wants to achieve something and knows the direction in which she is heading—is essentially a political matter. It can be done and the Government should step up to the plate and do this for their own sake if they wish their reforms to get off to a good start.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for explaining their amendments in this group, which consider some of the practical aspects of the Government’s plans to transfer services to public ownership. Amendments 1 and 48 focus on the contractual arrangements that allow the Secretary of State to terminate a franchise early, following a breach of contract or other sustained poor performance. I make it absolutely clear that this Government will not hesitate to act decisively where an operator’s unacceptable performance means that the contractual conditions for early termination are met. The Secretary of State has made this plain on a number of occasions and I am happy to reiterate it to your Lordships today.
However, I am very much afraid that the terms of the contracts we have inherited from the previous Government do not make this easy. It is far easier for an operator to return the contract to the Government than it is for the Government to take back a contract for poor performance. It is deeply regrettable that in the past couple of years, some of the poorest performing operators have been awarded the longest contracts.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that we have looked very hard at the form of the contract. We are closely monitoring train operators’ compliance with their contract, but at present we are not in a position—with any operator—where the Secretary of State has a contractual right to terminate for poor performance. Noble Lords might be amazed to know that Avanti has not yet triggered the need for a remedial plan, although it may well do so. While CrossCountry has triggered the need for a remedial plan, we need to let that work through, together with the timetable reduction that the Secretary of State was deeply reluctant to agree to, before we discover whether its performance then merits some further contractual remedy.
Unless and until that contractual right arises, the only sensible approach is to transfer services to public ownership when the existing contracts expire. Any other approach would require taxpayers to foot the bill for compensation to operators in return for ending their contracts early, which the Government made clear in our manifesto that we would avoid, if only because of the state of the public finances we inherited.
I have also heard representations on behalf of operators—or, rather, their owners—that, rather than transferring services as contracts expire, we should leave their services in private hands for as long as possible. All the owning groups knew of these dates and would have planned financially for them in any event. The concern seems to be that service quality will suddenly collapse, or that current plans for service improvements, or for the rollout of new train fleets, will suddenly grind to a halt.
There is no basis for these claims. DOHL is experienced in transferring services into the public sector smoothly and without disruption, as it has proved in the difficult aftermath of past franchise failures. As services transfer, the same trains will be operated by the same staff as before, and no doubt often by the same management, as happened with LNER six years ago. The improvements that are already in train will continue. I have no reason to think that performance will deteriorate. Extending specific operators’ tenure will simply delay the process of bringing services back to public ownership, where they belong, and the financial savings that will result.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, while there have been transfer costs from franchise to franchise, he will of course recognise that the incoming franchisee would not pay that cost gratuitously; they would simply add it to the subsidy bill for the franchise they were inheriting. In the end, the public sector pays, as it has always done. In fact, since Covid, the operators have not funded anything at all, so the quantum in the future is likely to be extremely limited.
Lord Grayling (Con)
I would like some clarification from the Minister on that point. Has the department added up that liability? Does he have a total number for the transfer into the public sector of all the franchises?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer to the noble Lord is: not yet. He will recognise that those costs materialise only when the franchise transfers, so the department will never have had that total number in the past, and I do not expect it to have it now. As the franchises transfer, the number will become obvious.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Before my noble friend leaves that point, I will ask him about the question of performance that has been raised on both sides of the House. The public performance measure national average is 88.7%, but the Avanti West Coast performance measure is only 62.2%—some 25% less. What has to be done to remove a franchisee which has performed so badly, as in the case of Avanti, other than knocking down the buffers at Euston and heading a Pendolino down Eversholt Street?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
In answer to my noble friend, and in recognition of some of what I have done in the past, it is sometimes a surprise when you read the performance requirements for contracts that you inherit. This is clearly one of those cases. I cannot defend the statistics that my noble friend cited, and I cannot defend a contract that allows that to happen without remedy.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, we will come to devolution later in Committee.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I will not pursue the question of “reasonably” at this stage, but I was struck by the Minister saying that the Bill should not trammel the Secretary of State’s power in relation to how she manages contracts and franchises. However, that is exactly what the Bill does in Clause 2. What he wants is the liberty, within reason, of the Secretary of State to terminate franchises. But Clause 2 specifically sets out, in very clear language, a prohibition on the Secretary of State to award a contract to anything that is not a public sector company. It says that she may do so only
“by making a direct award of a public service contract to a public sector company”.
Admittedly, further down the page, there are, as we have discussed and as the Minister said, one or two very narrow exceptions for practicality, or reasonable practicality. But why do the Government feel that the Secretary of State should have complete liberty when it comes to terminating franchises, but is so untrustworthy and unreliable, so enamoured of the private sector and so easily seduced into re-awarding them the contract that there has to be a legal prohibition on her doing it here? All Members of the Committee are asking for is some flexibility in Clause 2 about what the Secretary of State is allowed to do—why not? Can she not be trusted?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer is that it is the Government’s policy to take train operations into public ownership. The words the noble Lord mentions in Clause 2 just emphasise that intention.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I would like to raise another point about Avanti. As I understand the law, the Secretary of State has a clear right to withdraw contracts on the basis of passenger service performance. Is it the case that the present Secretary of State cannot make her own judgment of that and is bound by whatever was decided before the last election? Would a court really not accept that the present Secretary of State has the right to make that judgment and act on it?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Before the Minister responds, perhaps I could add something to my noble friend’s comments on Avanti and performance. My noble friend Lord Snape mentioned, I think, a 60-something per cent public performance measure. What we do not know is the difference between delays caused by Avanti itself and Network Rail, the infrastructure manager. GBR will be in charge of the infrastructure as well as the trains, and it is pretty important that we know the balance between the causes of the delay, and how this will improve. Maybe my noble friend the Minister could write to us and give us a breakdown of the performances of the existing services and Network Rail. I believe, at the moment, that Network Rail is responsible for something like 70% of the delays, but maybe I am wrong. I look forward to his comments.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
On my noble friend Lord Liddle’s comment, I am sure the Secretary of State would like to make her own decision, but I am pretty confident that the work done in the department to assess whether Avanti is meeting its performance standards has taken into account what latitude there is. I suspect there is very little because of the contract terms.
I will write to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and make the letter available, about the causes of delay on the west coast main line and to Avanti’s services. It is, of course, as he knows, undoubtedly true that every set of delays on the railway is due to a combination of the train operator and the infrastructure, and the way in which those parties manage their interaction with each other. When the Secretary of State and I have seen train companies about their performance, we have insisted that they are always accompanied by the relevant route directors of Network Rail. One of the issues is the root cause of the delays; another is how well those parties interact to resolve them. One of the issues on the west coast main line is that Network Rail’s control point, not unreasonably, is at Rugby where the signalling system is, Avanti’s control is in Birmingham and its train crews are managed from Preston. I would not run a railway like that myself.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Going back to the contracts that are performing well, what is the Minister’s view on emergency situations, such as the recurrence of Covid and lockdowns? Would an existing contract, as currently written, enable an extension if the Government felt they needed it, or would they have to come to an end, so that we have to go through a fresh bidding process, come what may?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
It varies in accordance with the particular train company. Some of them are coming to a natural conclusion, others have break clauses that enable termination and, in a limited number of cases, there are some choices that could be made. To that extent, we will have to make them.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the support I have received from across the Committee for my amendment. I am not sure I can remember it happening to me before, and I was basking in the warm glow until the Minister stood up to reply. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will be disappointed because, at the bottom of this, we will be renationalising the Greater Anglia franchise with a performance rating in the 90 per cents, and leaving Avanti in place with its performance in the 60 per cents. Whatever the policy or legal niceties, people will be bewildered by that. I have every sympathy with the Minister; the Government inherited a contract that seems to have allowed extraordinary latitude to Avanti for poor performance. I also recognise the twin problem that it has an extraordinarily long franchise, but I am sure that he has heard very clearly what everyone is saying here. The message to him is: please be absolutely sure that there is not some extent to which political will can find a way through this. A failure to deal with this will leave the travelling public absolutely bewildered. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 3 and speak to Amendment 5 and a number of others in the group. We may find this naturally flows from the discussion we listened carefully to on the previous group. Some of the themes might well re-emerge, not least the question of the desirability or otherwise of a mixed economy in the provision of rail services.
We have just approved, for these purposes, Clause 1. Under Clause 1, we have agreed that
“section 23 (passenger services to be subject to franchise agreements)”
is to cease and that, in future, securing the provision of services will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the new Section 30. Clause 2 revises Section 30 for these purposes. At the moment, it is a section about the duty and the absence of franchise agreements, but it would become, under Clause 2, the public sector provision of services.
The other thing that is probably important to note is that under Clause 1 we have deleted the existing Section 25, so that there is now no longer a prohibition on public sector operators—all of which is naturally part of the process of implementing a policy, which, as the Minister has told us, is the narrow objective of the legislation.
Why have I thought it appropriate to bring forward these amendments? They are probing amendments to try to examine whether the Bill, even from the Government’s own point of view, is future-proofed against the circumstances that may arise and the objectives that they may seek to achieve.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will add a footnote to the excellent speech from my noble friend Lord Lansley and note in passing that the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill is running late, with the likelihood of hitting the target of getting to Amendment 11 at a reasonable hour becoming vanishingly small.
This group of amendments is to some extent the obverse of the group that we have just had. The focus of the previous group was on ending prematurely, before the Government would wish, services that were not running satisfactorily, whereas the thrust of this group is to enable the Government to extend beyond the date that they prefer a contract that is running satisfactorily.
In a sense, this is all about ideology. There are two potential views. One was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who on Second Reading said:
“I have an ideological commitment to a nationalised railway system”.—[Official Report, 7/10/24; col. 1883.]
By contrast, in that same debate, his noble friend Lord Liddle—who, as we have heard, was formerly the opposition transport spokesman in your Lordships’ House, said:
“I do not see any ideological objection to public/private partnerships in running the railway”.
He then gave an example:
“You might have a situation where a private company was prepared to commit to electrification plans for a particular line that would not be in the public sector investment plan. My view is that we should allow public/private partnerships on a net additionality rule. If they are going to bring more investment into the rail system, what on earth is the case for not allowing them to do so?”. —[Official Report, 7/10/24; col. 1840.]
Again, in the debate today, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, said he was in favour of a mixed economy. I agree with that approach. If this amendment is opposed, it is because the Government have taken Lord Whitty’s view and they have an ideological commitment to nationalisation—which I thought had been abandoned some 30 years ago under Tony Blair’s leadership.
There has been an argument for flexibility. I want to develop the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, developed about Chiltern Railways and Marylebone station. In the 1980s, Marylebone station was almost moribund. There were a few services to the commuter villages of Aylesbury, Amersham and Chesham, but, in the decade before privatisation, there were proposals from British Rail to close Marylebone. There were also alternative plans to turn the railway into a road. That was before privatisation. Three years after privatisation, 18 miles of single track between Princes Risborough and Bicester North had been doubled. In 2000, the brand new £4.2 million Warwick Parkway station was opened, and, by the end of the first franchise, advance plans were made to double the single-track section between Bicester North and Aynho, at a cost of £53 million. Marylebone station was then extended by adding a further two platforms, and there was an increase in line speed to Beaconsfield. In 2011, Chiltern took over the operating services on the Oxford-Bicester line from First Great Western and opened two new stations, Oxford Parkway and Bicester Village, providing services between north Oxford and Marylebone.
How confident is the Minister that all that would have happened if the line had remained with British Rail, which, 20 years earlier, was planning to close the station? Chiltern could do this because it had a 20-year franchise, which created the incentives for significant investment in rolling stock, major infrastructure and, as a result, timetable enhancements. It delivered its project on time and on budget, and self-financed nearly all the projects that I have just mentioned.
When pressed on why they were doing this, the Minister relied on, “It is in the manifesto”. Well, I hope they can provide a better argument than simply saying that. To use the expression used by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, Chiltern is to be sent prematurely to the “knacker’s yard”. Our debate takes place against a background of a Budget in a few days’ time, with enormous pressure on public expenditure. What the Government are planning to do—we will reach this in a later group of amendments—is bring on to their balance sheet all the private sector investment that has previously been borne by the private sector. Freight was mentioned, and the fact that they want to leave freight and open access operations in private hands perhaps indicates some inconsistency in their view that the private sector cannot deliver good services.
I will briefly mention two other reasons for these amendments. There is a question of the capacity of members of the Minister’s own department to manage all the new franchises that are going to come in. At the moment, they run four rail franchises; they have just two full-time staff and they rely on private consultants to manage these four franchises on a day-to-day basis. They are planning to absorb the remaining 10 franchises, which are now in private hands. They will have to grow significantly their own capacity to manage those departments and, as I understand it, they are in the process of growing their headcount from 21 to 90 by the end of the calendar year; all this at a time when there is pressure on departments to reduce their headcount. All these new people, all the external consultants, will need time to get up to speed with their new roles and build the necessary relationships to be effective, and I think that is a major constraint on their plans.
There is one other reason, which may be a simply technical one. It is possible that the Government may wish to extend an incumbent operator’s franchise, for example due to the lack of internal capacity that I have just referred to; but it may also be that the operator may not be willing to agree to a contract extension. As I understand it, with the Bill as currently written, the Government would not be allowed to appoint an alternative operator on a temporary basis—again representing a significant risk.
So these amendments indicate the need for flexibility, to allow the Government to retain high-performing private sector operators and to continue to give passengers an excellent service while minimising costs for taxpayers. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will not say, “This is in the manifesto”, but will give some cogent reasons for ending the arrangement that provides, in the cases of Chiltern and Greater Anglia, the two lines that we have heard about, a high-quality service, possibly higher than the public sector would be able to provide.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will follow on from the interesting contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Young. I understood that Ministers had accepted that open access operators will be able to continue, or new ones may be able to come. So I have two questions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in her introduction to her amendment, Greater Anglia is contributing quite a lot of money each year to the Treasury. Presumably it could ask to convert that service into an open access service and keep the money, and that would presumably be all right and the Treasury would lose out. I would be interested to hear my noble friend’s view on that.
If there is a new service, as one of the noble Lords said, that an operator of some description thought would be a useful one to introduce but which the new GBR thought was not appropriate, presumably there would be no reason why the new operator could not submit an application for open access, as happens at the moment. It does not have to be a long distance one from London to Blackpool; it could be a short distance one. How would that be seen by the Government. Would they welcome it?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting group of amendments to debate so far, and I am very taken by the latest thoughts from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on playing around with the definition of open access operators and what will be accepted. I was interested, too, in Amendments 28 and 29 and the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Young, who is always very thought-provoking. His amendment, as he said, is very much the obverse of the ones put down from these Benches. I urge the Government to look at this and allow themselves the flexibility to change the order of nationalisation in order to allow good franchises to flourish and to give themselves time to unravel privatisation more slowly and more logically. It has to be more than just, “This was in the manifesto and therefore it will happen whether or not it is logical”.
I am really sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is not in his place, because Amendment 35 is fascinating. It refers to a broader definition of what a public sector company should be, so that it includes public/private partnerships and co-operative ventures. I do not need to remind noble Lords opposite that some of them have been, or may still be, members of the Co-operative Party. As Liberal Democrats, we share an enthusiasm for co-operatives as a form of company and operation. I can envisage that a smaller rail line, perhaps in a rural area, would work very well on a co-operative or a public/private partnership basis. After all, it would bring in fresh investment without, in any way, undermining the Government’s commitment to a nationalised structure overall for the railways.
Finally, I urge the Government to look again at their plans and the precise terms of the Bill through a post-Covid lens. Covid caused the collapse of the railway system, necessitating a whole new approach to franchising for the train operators. It could happen again, either for similar reasons or as a result of a financial crisis, and I urge the Government to look again at the terms of the Bill. Have they allowed themselves sufficient flexibility to cope with the unexpected, to allow rail services to continue to operate even if there is a series of unlikely events that have upset the market for those services?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said that he thought that the Government’s determination to trammel itself in the way that Clause 2 does was ideologically driven—a commitment to a certain vision of the railways based essentially on a political ideology. I would not be so bold as to disagree—he may well be right—but there is another way of looking at this, which I referred to at Second Reading. What is really driving the Government’s approach to this is that they have absolutely convinced themselves that the only way in which the railways can operate is if there is a single controlling brain, so that every train run in this country for passenger service purposes is run by Great British Railways, and that this body will be the sole provider of railway services.
This is a truly ideological obsession. It is almost a psychological fixation that appears to have gripped the Government, and it needs to be tested. Questions are being asked from every side of the House about its practical effects, and we are getting no answer except, “It’s in the manifesto”, which really is no answer to a passenger standing on a platform waiting for a train that was operating perfectly satisfactorily under private ownership and is now simply not arriving.
I turn first to Amendments 4, 10, 14 and 15 in this group standing in my name. If I had written the explanatory statements rather better, Members would understand—perhaps they do—that these four operate as one. They are consequential on each other and have a single effect, which is to say that the Secretary of State in awarding new services must put them out to tender but on a “concession” basis. Amendment 14 defines a “concession” as
“a contract under which the franchising authority specifies rail services to be provided by a private sector entity and retains the risk of fluctuations in the receipt of fares”.
In other words, this amendment does something that Transport for London has done with great success in relation to buses, London Overground rail services, the Wimbledon tram and the Docklands Light Railway. They are all operated on this basis and although there might be complaints from customers about this, that or the other, there are no complaints about the basis on which the services are operated contractually. Of course, TfL has chosen to brand them all under its own branding, so members of the public and passengers are often not even aware that they are operated on this basis. We have a system that works and that we should consider very seriously by contrast to the determination of the Government that all these services are to be taken in-house and run by a single employer with a great, single, controlling brain.
Amendment 14 does something else: it is in conformity with the Williams review, which I thought was the plan that there was, generally speaking, consensus that we should operate to. There is no other plan or document of any weight or substance that has been produced as a result of an independent review for the future of the railways. When I drew attention in our last debate to what is said on page 55 of the Williams review about the concession model being the pattern taken from TfL that should be used nationally, there was a slightly astonishing intervention from the Minister in which he said that Mr Williams no longer thought that, because he had rung him up and said that we need to have it nationalised. How much else in the Williams review has been vitiated by random phone calls made by the Minister to its author? How much is left of the Williams review, if it is capable of being rewritten by the Minister on the basis of claimed phone calls with Mr Williams?
It happens that Mr Williams and I served together on the board of Transport for London when the Minister was its commissioner. I have to tell him that if I were to look into the contacts in my telephone I think I would find that Mr Williams’s telephone number was in my telephone as well. It is perfectly possible that we could pursue this debate on the basis of various individual and private phone calls that we had had with Mr Williams about what he actually meant, what he thinks now, and whether his view has changed —and then what will be left of this report? Without this report, there is no plan. The Government are, it turns out, now inviting us to take a step completely into the dark. It is not just an act of faith, as I said on an earlier group, that they can run the trains better. It is a belief that they are going to give us a better plan for the future, but that they cannot tell us what the plan is, whereas at least previously they had some basis for saying what it would be. The whole thing really is turning into the most dreadful shambles.
I would like to know why concessions do not work, why something so successful in London will not be allowed, and why what was recommended by Williams is not allowed. I do not, I am sad to say, expect to hear the detailed explanation from the Minister that those questions deserve. The other amendments in this group have similar effect.
My noble friend Lord Lansley would like the Government to have the power, where they choose to, to go out to tender and allow some of these wicked private entities to submit tenders. I may myself be wicked when I say that many of these private entities are not very private—some are the subsidiaries of our great European railway friends. They are state-owned bodies from Europe. Who knows whether the Prime Minister, as he creeps towards a great reset and love-in with the European Union, would not find it quite useful to be able to say that the Italian railways, Deutsche Bahn and Renfe could bid for services running on our railways—just as they can at the moment—and that they are not going to be kicked out of Britain? “Mrs von der Leyen, we are going to let them back in.” Would not that little bit of flexibility that my noble friend Lord Lansley would like to be able to give to the Government possibly be rather welcome in the future?
My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made a good case for his amendments. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who said that it is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is not here to speak to his very intriguing amendment. To a large extent, the argument for it was made very well by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham.
The possibilities of collaboration with the private sector—indeed, with community groups and, when we come to later amendments relating to devolution, local authorities and local government—are all worth exploring if we are going to reform our railway. All of these are being shut off and closed down now by the word “only”, which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and others are effectively suggesting be deleted.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The next time I see our mutual friend Keith Williams I shall tell him that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said he was ghostly.
I thank noble Lords for explaining their amendments in this group, which consider, as we have heard, various alternatives to public ownership. Amendments 3 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would allow contracts to be awarded to private operators following a competitive process. Amendments 28 and 29, from the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Moylan, would allow franchises to be continued where the current operator is providing a satisfactory service. I do not support these amendments.
The Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to return passenger services into public ownership—having published, for the avoidance of doubt, the detailed plan entitled Getting Britain Moving—and we have a clear democratic mandate to do so. Despite what has been heard this afternoon, public ownership is a change with clear public support. Last month, YouGov published a survey showing that 66% of people nationally agree that railway companies should be run in the public sector; only 12% favoured private operation.
We are determined to return to a passenger railway which is run for the public, by the public, with passengers, not private shareholders, at the heart of the system. We will not leave the back door open to franchising, a model which has failed passengers and taxpayers. We are committed to public ownership because continuing with franchising would mean continuing to pay fees to private operators, ultimately for the benefit of their shareholders, when that money could be retained for the public good. Franchising would not allow us to integrate track and train in the way we propose to do under Great British Railways, which is the only way to put a stop to the fragmentation and waste of the franchising system, otherwise we will not be able to sweep away the outdated, complex and costly mechanisms that make the fares system impossible to understand for passengers, and even now prevent rational change because of “commercial confidentiality”, even though all the revenue risk is now taken by government. There is no benefit to continuing franchised operations on our railways.
Contrary to views expressed by noble Lords previously, there is no meaningful private sector investment being funded by franchised operators at present, so we are losing nothing by moving to a public ownership model. The Government are already reimbursing the legitimate operating costs of private sector operators and receiving all their revenue. Even before Covid, the main private investment in our railways was in rolling stock, which was generally funded by the rolling stock market and not by train operators or their owning groups.
I turn to Amendments 4, 14 and 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. These amendments require competitive awards to be made to private sector companies on the basis of a concession model, along the lines of Transport for London’s approach, rather than bringing them into public ownership. These amendments would remove the opportunity to deliver the benefits of public ownership, which, as I have said, a clear majority of the public support and which was a specific commitment in the manifesto on which this Government were elected.
The Government’s first objection is that a concession model would mean the private sector continuing to earn substantial profits. Public ownership will put a stop to the flow of money that already sees in excess of £100 million paid out in fees to the private sector each year, even when operators are bearing no significant financial risk.
A TfL-style concession model would expose operators to more financial risk than the current national rail contracts, which means that operators would want to earn significantly more in profits at the taxpayers’ expense and would price their bids accordingly. Not only would concessions be more expensive than this Government’s plans for public ownership but they would be even more costly to taxpayers than the current contracts.
In addition, the TfL concession model involves a very closely defined and largely unchangeable service specification developed in detail by the public authority, with therefore little room for the operator to negotiate changes post tender award in circumstances where they would always have the upper hand on pricing. Our national railway system is much larger, flows alter over time, and one of the great benefits of GBR is that it will be able far more easily to adapt to changing and growing markets and to save costs without endless contract renegotiation with contractors which, except at the point of contract award, always have the upper hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the TfL experience of contracting the London bus market. In two previous jobs I was responsible for that market for virtually 15 years. It is a different market because there are a large number of small contracts changing hands, so if a contractor is sufficiently unwise to suggest expensive changes when contracts need to be altered then there is the opportunity to at least counter that by the next award of contracts for other bus routes. That has not been the case in the railway market. It is never likely to be the case. It is a different circumstance.
As a practical point, this amendment would abolish the option for the Secretary of State to appoint a public sector company to run services once a franchise agreement comes to an end. What does the noble Lord envisage would happen under this amendment if an operator went bust at short notice, or lost its licence to operate or its safety certificate? What if a competition failed to deliver a satisfactory outcome? Passengers could not wait a couple of years while the Government run a competition for a new concession. I would also ask whether it is the noble Lord’s intention to tie the hands of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, as this amendment would do, and whether they support these amendments. I think he knows that they certainly would not.
Amendment 10, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, was to facilitate Amendments 4, 14 and 15, so I will pass over it.
Amendment 35, tabled by my noble friend Lord Liddle, would allow the Secretary of State, and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to award contracts to either a public/private partnership or a co-operative venture involving staff and passengers. The Government’s approach to this is driven by pragmatism, not ideology, and we are certainly not seeking to close the door on private investment, as I will explain later in Committee when we come to discuss rolling stock.
However, I point out that examples of private investment in our railway infrastructure have been fairly thin on the ground in the privatisation era. Nearly all the enhancements to the network have been publicly funded. The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to electrification, but, as far as I can tell, there has been no electrification ever funded by any party except the Government.
The Government are certainly open to hearing proposals for how private investment might be brought to bear to improve the railway in the future. If noble Lords and others have good ideas, I encourage them to bring them forward as we develop and engage on our plans and consult in due course for Great British Railways and the wider railway reforms.
However, I do not think that involving private finance means that our plans for public ownership of train operations should change. It is fundamental to the Government’s plans for the railway that services should be run by the public, for the public. There are other ways of engaging private capital, short of ownership, and for the most part, even 100% private sector ownership of train operating companies under franchising has not resulted in large investments being funded by those companies.
As for co-operative ventures, I am all in favour of giving passengers and communities a stronger say in the decisions that affect them, but the likelihood of any co-operative venture raising any significant amount of capital—let alone the current circumstances of the owning groups of the present train operators—is, frankly, very small. Our plans are designed to give passengers and communities a stronger say in the decisions that affect them, not least by establishing a new passenger standards authority and by providing a new statutory role for devolved and mayoral combined authorities. We will get to the question of devolution in due course. The Government have shown, through our approach to resolving long-running disputes left to us to resolve by the previous Government, that we are committed to working with the workforce to address the challenges facing our railways.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised a question about future flexibility. The last legislation for the railways has lasted 31 years, and I note that it had a specific prohibition of public operation of the railways system. That might have been reasonable then but it is certainly reasonable now in the present circumstances, given our policies and manifesto commitment, to replicate our belief that public ownership is the right way of going forward with passenger railway operation.
In conclusion, the Government’s plans for the railways are founded on consolidating responsibility for track and train operations within a single entity, Great British Railways, particularly at a route and operating company level. Already, in my short period in this post, as I have said previously, we have had performance meetings with an operator and a Network Rail route. In one meeting, I enjoyed considerably one manager telling me how great collaboration was between the two parties, which were not owned by the same organisation, while the other simultaneously sat there shaking her head vigorously, demonstrating an absence of the very co-operation that I was being told would happen.
My whole professional history tells me that the railway will run better with somebody in charge of both track and train together at a route and operating company level. That is the way that we will deliver better revenue, decreased costs and, particularly, better reliability. This is not consistent with seeking to preserve private sector operation, whether through franchises or concessions, or with awarding contracts to public/private partnerships or arm’s-length co-operative ventures. I am amused to see that Rail Partners has reversed its previous opposition to the concession model post the election, having spent several years previously explaining why it would not work on the national railway network. I rather agree with its previous analysis. I therefore urge noble Lords to withdraw and not press their amendments.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this not terrifically long but interesting debate—not least my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who admirably demonstrated the potential benefits of a mixed economy in the provision of rail services and referred to reasons why the Government might in the future need the flexibility that these amendments would offer.
I go back as far as the mid-1980s, when I was a civil servant participating in a spending round not dissimilar to the present one in a Star Chamber, where different nationalised industries had their capital programmes traded off against each other. I have to say that cost-benefit analysis was not a significant part of that discussion; it was mostly a discussion of the political benefits or otherwise. I fear the same will be true in the future and that some investment projects that should be funded will not be. It will be a great pity if that turns out to be the case for rail services in future.
I do not have the benefit of knowing Mr Keith Williams personally. I am tempted, as a former Leader of the House of Commons, to say that we instituted evidence sessions in committee. I wonder whether we could take an evidence session before a committee in this House as well; perhaps we will think about that for the future.
I thank the Minister for at least laying it all out pretty straightforwardly. He may come to regret saying that, essentially, as the 1993 Act was an ideological determination that there should not be public sector operators on the railways, we must now have legislation that says there must be only public sector operators on the railways. I am with the many of those who take another view—not least the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose point on open access was about giving the private sector the opportunity under limited circumstances.
Lord Berkeley
“(1AA) Before making a direct award of a public service contract to a public sector company under subsection (1A), the relevant franchising authority must publish a report on—(a) the possible impact on rail network capacity used by rail freight services,(b) the possible impact on the meeting of the rail freight growth target for at least 75% growth in freight carried by rail by 2050 on 2019 levels.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 6 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I will speak to two other amendments in this group, including Amendment 41, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has added his name. It is so good to see him in his place again as one of our real rail experts in this House, and I look forward to his remarks.
This amendment is about rail freight, largely. As noble Lords may know, I was chairman of the Rail Freight Group for some years. It is designed to put a requirement on the Government to report on the rail network capacity used by rail freight and to confirm a target of at least 75% growth in freight carried by rail by 2050 compared with 2019.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his quite long letter, which we received over the weekend, explaining different parts of this Bill. I welcome the letter; there are some good points in it and he answered my question, as he has not done so far today, about open access passenger services. The letter is there, so I do not need his answer again, and I am grateful to him.
However, what we have here is a Government who, as the Minister states in his letter, are clear on open access passenger services and want to encourage rail freight. The letter says that
“to enable the growth of rail freight … the Secretary of State will set an overall freight growth target to ensure that it remains a key priority”.
That is good. My question is how this will be achieved. Within the Great British Railways envelope, we have GBR itself, freight operators and the freight sectors. We also have the Office of Rail and Road, with “rail” apparently to be defined in the next Bill, and we have open access operators. All these groups will be vying to get capacity on lines or tracks that, as many noble Lords have said, are congested at the moment.
It is not just a question of how we get capacity on the track. I am told that, on the east coast main line, the current LNER service apparently wants to have five trains an hour running more-or-less non-stop from Edinburgh to London—I hope they find the passengers from somewhere. That is going to cause serious problems to the regional services which might want to cross that line at York or Doncaster or somewhere else. It puts into question the Government’s priorities: getting to Edinburgh every 10 minutes, or so, or getting across the main line from the Humber to Leeds, or similar places, on a service which may only run once an hour because there is no capacity.
The capacity divide between the long-distance passenger services and local services is something that we will need to explore in the future, but capacity also affects freight. One of the issues with freight which we have heard for many months, if not years, is that it needs a different speed of train because it cannot accelerate that quickly, and therefore needs electrification—which I am not going to go into. Something that has come up in your Lordships’ House so often is the improvement of the railway at Ely on the route between Felixstowe and Nuneaton or the north. Improvements there would enable many more freight trains to use that route, saving them from trundling along the North London line and places like that. Such improvements would also enable the capacity for freight; it just needs electrification.
Great British Railways will be in charge of the budget for railway investment and infrastructure, as well as the budget for keeping the passenger trains going. It will therefore effectively be in competition with the private sector operators and freight companies, and very careful work will be needed to ensure the allocation of capacity is fair and transparent. In my book, it is pretty unfair if one of the major operators, which will be GBR, in line with the infrastructure manager, which it will also own, will have control over how much capacity is available for freight—which is in the private sector—or open-access operators.
I am making this point because, while I think that producing a report after the first year—which my amendment would mandate—and looking for targets is a good start, we will need from the Minister, now or in the future, much firmer commitments on how much capacity will be needed on the main intercity or congested routes, and how the Government will allocate it. I look forward to further discussions with the Minister on this at some stage, but for the moment I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 40, which is focused on the issue of policing and safety on the railways. I welcome the Minister to his new role; I look forward to working with him, asking him many questions and debating the issues, as we have done elsewhere over the last 16 years.
As noble Lords have interrogated this legislation, safety has been a feature of our deliberations. However, safety is not just about the infrastructure and rolling stock; it is about the safety of passengers and staff on our railways. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of this Act on the British Transport Police. The British Transport Police provides a policing service to Network Rail, rail and freight operators and their passengers and staff throughout England, Wales and Scotland. It is also responsible for policing other parts of our transport network including the London Underground, the Glasgow Subway, the Tyne and Wear Metro, the West Midlands Metro, the Docklands Light Railway, London trams and even the cable car in London.
What is different about the British Transport Police is that it is primarily funded by the railway industry, not the public purse, and it sits within the Department for Transport, not the Home Office. The train operating companies, Network Rail, other operators and Transport for London, through either police service agreements or different funding agreements, pay for the British Transport Police—its latest budget shows annual funding of around £416 million.
On these Benches, we are concerned about two specific areas. First, we are worried about the impact on policing the network, and the safety of staff and passengers as they use and work on our railways, as these changes to franchising take place. Secondly, we are deeply concerned about the potential significant funding gap, which had not previously been identified, as a result of taking public ownership of the railways. I hope the Minister will be able to provide assurance in this area and explain the Government’s thinking about the future funding of the British Transport Police.
Furthermore, there is the issue of the British Transport Police Authority itself and how it is structured. It consists of 15 members, often with railway expertise from the train operating companies, who ensure value for money for the policing service they provide across the network. It is not clear how this will be structured going forward to ensure the right level of challenge and independence from the Department for Transport, given the department will now be effectively running the railway in public ownership. I hope the Minister can reassure noble Lords that the funding and oversight of the British Transport Police has been considered as part of this legislation, and that he will respond to our specific points.
My noble friends will speak to our Amendments 41 and 6 regarding freight operators and the impact of this legislation on their operation.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, on the issue of freight, the intention should be that the freight service is given dedicated paths in the timetable. The timetable is the key to the whole issue. For freight to have a dedicated path, we need to use the paths that are available, or potentially available, to the best advantage.
To take the east coast main line as an example, it is possible to run quite a lot more trains along that line if the open-access operations are run by 10-coach trains which are divided en route. If the investment in the east coast main line is carried through, and if, for example, the Newark flat crossing is removed, I am sure we can get at least three, possibly four, more paths in every hour. The removal of the Newark flat crossing would greatly enhance the ability of freight to run inland from Immingham.
The Government have proposals before them to undertake very small pieces of electrification which would better connect freight services to the electrified network. They also have proposals, which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has mentioned, to get the route between Felixstowe and Nuneaton working properly. That is an appalling railway—I have ridden across it on a locomotive—and it inflicts enormous delays on freight trains. If there is any money to spend, a good deal of virtue would come from spending on enhancing the freight network and creating more paths on the east coast main line, because they are scarce and very valuable.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the potential conflict of interest under the new scenario: we will have Great British Railways, with a single operating mind, carrying all the revenue risk for passenger train operations, while at the same time there will be open-access operators and freight operators bidding for a limited path on the railways.
The former Secretary of State said:
“I shouldn’t need to approve whether a passenger train ought to be removed from the timetable to allow a freight train to run instead, as I was doing earlier today”.
The question is: who is going to make that decision in the future? If it is going to be GBR, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, there is a clear conflict of interest; the company would have an interest in the passenger train operator having precedence in order to secure the revenue. That may be in conflict with government policy, which is to promote the transfer of freight from road to rail. Surely it is important that at the moment, the train operator cannot insist that he has a particular path for his train: he has to bid either to Network Rail or to the ORR. Who is going to make that decision in the future? Will it be a domestic one within GBR? In which case, how will the conflict of interest raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, be resolved in a way that is satisfactory for both the open-access operator and the freight train operator, which may find that they do not have the paths they wanted?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this small group of amendments addresses a number of issues that inevitably raise questions, because this very tightly drawn Bill provides no hint of how they are to be dealt with. I participate in this debate with some temerity following contributions by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who know so much detail about the freight industry.
Liberal Democrat Amendments 40 and 41, to which I have added my name, are therefore probing amendments looking for details of government plans, which I hope the Minister can supply today. There are thousands of jobs and potentially billions of pounds of investment riding on the Government’s answers to these questions.
Amendment 40 is about a very specific issue but, as my noble friend Lady Pidgeon has emphasised, the role of the British Transport Police is vital, providing the rule of law on our trains. It is important to remember that the rule of law provides consumer and passenger confidence. Those of us who are older, younger or weaker are particularly dependent on the good offices of the BTP because they provide the assurance that people need before they are prepared to travel on our trains.
I emphasise that, as my noble friend said, British Transport Police funding has been provided virtually unseen from within the industry for a very long time. The total amount of money, at nearly £500 million a year, is not inconsiderable. It is therefore important that we have a clear answer now from the Government about they intend to deal with BTP in the future. In particular, how will it be overseen? Will that be with independence and at arm’s length from the Government? Which body will do that supervision?
Amendment 41, on freight, deals with a much more substantial and complex issue, because the freight industry is so complex. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, it is essential that the new system be set up to encourage rail freight to improve its efficiency. That will be difficult, as he emphasised, because a centralised, nationalised Great British Railways will be bound to feel pressure to prioritise passenger services. We have crowded tracks running at capacity. We have vocal passengers who want trains at a time and a frequency convenient to them. We have a Government who have sponsored a nationalisation project, and their reputation will be damaged if passengers’ interests suffer. We also have a Government who emphasise that they are facing a financial black hole. Will they be willing to invest in track and signal modernisation of the sort outlined by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, to benefit freight rather than passengers?
I fear that freight could rapidly become a poor relation, so I am keen to hear details and reassurance from the Minister. I thank him for his letter, but I point out that it says that next year’s railways Bill will “enable” the growth of freight. I emphasise that I would much prefer a duty to promote the growth of freight, rather than simply enabling it.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak first to Amendment 40, concerning the British Transport Police, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I associate myself with everything she has said about the importance of the British Transport Police in maintaining safety and law on the railway network and indeed in promoting a sense of safety, which is almost as important. That is particularly true, if I may say this, for women travelling on the railways, perhaps on their own. If they do not feel safe, they will not travel on the railways, it is as simple as that, and the British Transport Police have an important role to play in that regard. Fortunately, there is generally a good record of personal safety on the railways, but we want to see how the Bill will enhance that.
My figures may be terribly out of date, but when I was last involved, half the funding that the British Transport Police received came from Transport for London for services in London, and the rest was spread throughout the rest of the country. I will not say that the railway companies were not procuring enough British Transport Police to do the job—the test of that, of course, is whether there is criminality on the system—but they were not procuring at the same rate of coverage that Transport for London was procuring at. This is an opportunity for the Government to say, as they take control of the companies, how they are going to ramp that up and what investment they are going to make in it. I hope to hear from the Minister on that point.
A very interesting constitutional point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, which I had not heard expressed in any way before: how is the British Transport Police Authority to be constituted? At the moment it is constituted in large measure through representatives of the train operating companies. If there is effectively only one train operating company, which is the Government, how is it going to be constituted? As the noble Baroness says, it operates out of the Department for Transport. Is it going to become the first government department in this country—I think this is correct—to have its own police force? Even the Home Office, out of which ordinary policing operates, does not have its own police force; they are all accountable to police authorities or, now, to elected police and crime commissioners in appropriate areas, or to the Mayor of London in his capacity in London, and so forth. Could we end up in a constitutional nightmare here, a car crash that the Government have not properly thought through, as a result of this proposal to nationalise all these railways? Again, I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Turning to freight, I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about expressing too definite opinions on this topic, especially in the presence of the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bradshaw, who have such considerable and long-term prior knowledge of it. I have some slight sympathy with the Government on the point because, while I may be wrong about this, I understand that there are freight companies that have rights to paths which they do not use but will not relinquish because they may be useful in the future—and why should they relinquish them?—while, at the same time, they might want to have access to other paths which they cannot get hold of. This is slightly a mess, so perhaps there is some work for the Government to do here to sort it out.
The previous Government also had, as I understand it, a rail freight growth target: to increase rail freight by 75% by 2050. So far, that has not been mentioned and we have not heard yet whether the new Government wish to commit themselves to that target. Again, there is an opportunity for the Minister to say that that is his target when he gets to his feet. We would like to hear more about that.
The Minister may want to say that some of those points can be addressed in the future Bill—the Bill we are promised that is further down the road—but he cannot say that of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, both of whom made the point that the way in which this is now proceeding, by contrast with the Williams report, creates a fundamental and ineradicable conflict of interest in the role of Great British Railways. When it was the body—the great controlling brain, as I referred to it—that was going to establish who could run what railway services where and, where appropriate, award franchises or concessions for passenger railway services, while also allowing open access and allowing freight services to take place, it could do that from a disinterested position. It would be allocating resource presumably according to some sort of rational principle that could be explained and interrogated by interested members of the public and other parties with a stake in the matter.
Now, of course, it is always going to be the case that Great British Railways will also be the operator of the passenger services—so what about the other services? What about open access and, most particularly as far as this group of amendments is concerned, where does freight get a look in? How does it make its case and to whom does it appeal if it feels it is unjustly done by? Is it to be allowed to appeal only to the courts or could there be a truly independent body outside Great British Railways—perhaps the Office of Rail and Road; I do not know—to which appeals could be made and which would decide and allocate these paths, where they are constrained, on a rational basis?
We have no idea about this because the Bill, as I said earlier, is being rushed through for manifesto and publicity reasons—for headline reasons, fundamentally—without these crucial questions that it throws up being answered. They are not my questions; I did not table these amendments. They come from Benches on all sides of the House. These questions are being thrown up and the Government have no answer, except the tune we are getting accustomed to, which has as its first verse, “It’s in the manifesto” and as its second verse, “We’ll tell you when we get to it some time next year”. I hope we can do better than that when the Minister gets to his feet.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will first say that I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in her place. I hope that her questions will be easier than the ones she has asked me for the last 16 years.
I thank noble Lords for explaining their amendments in this group, which consider the impacts of public ownership on the freight sector and the British Transport Police. I shall speak first to Amendment 6, in the names of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and Amendment 41 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Moylan.
These amendments highlight the importance of the rail freight sector, which has a crucial role to play in supporting a productive economy and in helping to decarbonise transport on the way to net zero. The Bill in front of the House sets out with two very specific purposes: to enable franchised passenger services to be brought into public ownership as existing contracts expire, and then to enable the Government to keep them there in accordance with their manifesto commitment. As such, the Bill has no direct impact on freight operators or on the availability of network capacity to accommodate freight services. Indirectly, though, freight operators should benefit from public ownership of passenger services, for reasons I am happy to explain.
In the old franchising model before the pandemic, a franchise operator’s commercial motivation was to maximise its own profit—evidently, the difference between its revenues and its costs. If that meant running additional services, it would seek to do so through the usual industry processes of bidding for access rights and then for a timetable that included the extra services. It would not matter, and has not mattered, to the franchise operators that this might deprive freight operators of the opportunity to serve new markets in the future. There are various examples of franchise bidders seeking to win contracts on the back of proposed service enhancements that risked crowding out, or actually have crowded out, potential future freight growth.
Under public ownership, that unfortunate incentive will no longer exist. Publicly owned operators will instead be remitted to act in the interests of all users of the railway, including freight customers. We have made it clear that the forthcoming railways Bill will require Great British Railways to enable the growth of rail freight and that the Secretary of State will set an overall freight growth target to ensure that it remains a key priority. I am sure that we will debate these points further once the railways Bill is before your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Young, my noble friend Lord Berkeley and others asked how capacity will be allocated. I can certainly tell them how it is done now, because we have had an immense struggle to obtain a timetable on the east coast main line which seeks to justify the £4 billion-worth of public investment to speed up services and provide more passenger capacity. One reason we have had that struggle is that, although there is an appeal mechanism to the Office of Rail and Road, there is in fact no current decision-making process to allow a timetable to be completed, except by agreement. I believe and hope that it is currently in its last stages, but I am not certain.
One of the things that the Government have in mind is that Great British Railways ought to be the body that decides. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will recall what was the case on the old railway: somebody had to decide which services were of greatest priority and which ones had to be fitted round them. Under the current Bill, however, there is no change to the existing role of the ORR in access decisions for passenger and freight services. Under the future railways Bill—and we will consult on this—there will be appropriate safeguards for both freight and open access operators. We will set out details on that in due course, before any changes to the current approach are made. There is no need to require the publication of a report on this matter. Commissioning a report after this Bill, when in fact there will be no change at this point, will not add benefit to the debate.
I turn next to Amendment 40, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Before we move on to the British Transport Police and while we are still considering freight paths, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for whom I have enormous respect because of his experience on the railway, made the point that investment decisions are very important to getting more freight on to the railway. Is not the real question about freight the priority it is given in the investment decision-making process? I know the Bill is not about that, but, since there is concern about this in the Committee, can the Minister give us any guidance as to how investment will be prioritised?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Liddle for that intervention. All I can say at this point is that I would hope the rail network enhancement programme is published more frequently, and with more success in what it contains, than it has been for some years. We will have to wait and see what the fiscal situation allows.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Would that be a decision for the Secretary of State or for Great British Railways?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I think in due course we will have to come back in the substantive Bill with a proposition on how those decisions are made, who makes them, and for what period of time the plan is valid.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his response to my amendment and other people’s. I have one or two questions that I hope will help the extended debate, because I do not believe we can leave the most important question of competition, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned.
Lord Teverson (LD)
Before the noble Lord sums up on his amendment, I think the Minister has yet to reply on the issue of the police.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee; it is my novice inexperience. I thank the noble Lord for that intervention.
I turn to Amendment 40 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Amendment 40 would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of the Bill on the British Transport Police 12 months after its enactment. The BTP is governed by the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, which is not affected by this Bill. Under the 2003 Act, the British Transport Police Authority is responsible for the efficient and effective policing of the railways and for maintaining the British Transport Police force. The authority sets annual budgets for the BTP and recovers the costs of the BTP from the rail industry—of course, now, notably, this is all paid for by government—by entering into police service agreements. The authority sets the funding contributions for each railway service provider via a cost allocation model to ensure that contributions reflect the services provided by BTP and cover its costs.
Under the 2003 Act, the Secretary of State has made an order which requires railway service operators, as well as Network Rail, to enter into police services agreements. This obligation applies equally to public sector operators and private sector franchisees, and I can confirm that all four existing operators under DOHL have a police services agreement in place.
In conclusion, there is no reason to believe that public ownership under this Bill would have any adverse impacts on the freight industry or the BTP, so I hope my noble friend will be persuaded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for intervening earlier and preventing my noble friend responding on the British Transport Police issue, which is most important. I would like to ask him whether it applies to Scotland.
About 10 years ago we had a debate here when the Scottish Government wished the Scottish police to take over British Transport Police activities in Scotland. My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and I tried to argue—I think the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was there too—that this was a bad idea because policing the railways is fairly specialist work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has told us. We ended up trying to divide the House at about midnight, which my Chief Whip at that time did not think was a particularly good idea because I had not told him about it. I pointed out that he was probably in bed asleep by then. Anyway, we did not win that time, but we did manage to achieve BTP having responsibility for railways in Scotland. It would be nice if my noble friend the Minister could explain how that will work under the new GBR system.
I will respond to my noble friend’s comments on the other issue, which is mainly about capacity and competition—whether it is freight, open-access operators or whatever. It was interesting that he said that the Government invested £4 billion in the east coast main line. That must have been in order to get an extra train per hour and a few other trains between Edinburgh and London. I am wondering who decided that it was a good thing to invest in the east coast main line to get more intercity services, rather than more freight or cross-country services. That it has not been delivered yet indicates that something else needs resolving, and we will have to see what that is.
The other issue is straight competition. I was not working on the railways before privatisation. I am assuming that Great British Railways in its 1990s shape had a number of divisions, as a noble Lord told us, including a freight division. That obviously worked very well at that stage, but when those in the freight division wanted another pass or two on a main line, I would hazard a guess that they had quite a job persuading the passenger people to move over a bit and give them space.
Great British Railways will be a monolith organisation. I am sure that underneath, it will have lots of subdivisions, which we will debate at some point. This will probably include the intercity services and regional services, and it will have to take into account open-access passenger and freight services. I cannot see how it will be able to demonstrate a fair allocation of paths when, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned, it will get all the extra revenue from an extra train if it is a GBR train, but no revenue apart from track access charges if it is an open-access train or a freight train.
This is a really serious and financially challenging discussion that we will need to have. I hope my noble friend will be able to respond in part to what I have said. I hope he will be prepared to meet me and anybody else who is interested in this competition issue before Report. I would like to see some wording in the Bill that would give open access passenger and freight some comfort that what goes in the next Bill will not send them over the edge. Could my noble friend respond to those points? I do not know whether he is prepared to.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will respond to my noble friend by either talking to him outside or writing to him.
Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That the Regulations laid before the House on 23 August be approved.
Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by reminding the House why we are here. The infected blood scandal is a mark of shame on the British state. The infected blood inquiry’s final report, published on 20 May, shed light on the trauma inflicted on thousands of people across the country, through no fault of their own. People were given contaminated blood or blood products, contracted HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B, and then for years had their voices ignored. People who loved, knew and cared for someone who was infected—those who were affected—similarly had their voices ignored. This did nothing but compound the trauma of all involved.
The infected blood inquiry’s second interim report set out 18 recommendations on compensation, informed by Sir Robert Francis’s 2022 compensation scheme study. The inquiry was unequivocal that a compensation scheme must be set up immediately. The regulations we are debating are essential for delivering that compensation scheme and getting money to people as quickly as we can.
The scheme is based on the recommendations and principles put forward by the inquiry. In line with these, and supported by the advice from the inquiry response expert group and the engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis undertook in June, the Government have sought to design a fair and comprehensive compensation scheme that will be quick and simple for eligible applicants to access. We support the shared determination across the House to deliver compensation as swiftly as possible and with the minimum possible delay. These regulations are a significant step towards that.
I turn first to eligibility. The scheme and the regulations define people who are eligible as infected people, in line with recommendation 2 of the inquiry’s second interim report. This covers people infected with HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B, including people directly infected by treatment with blood, as well as people indirectly infected via transmission from a directly infected person.
Secondly, the regulations establish a core route for claiming compensation as an infected person. The core route provides compensation under five awards, or categories of loss, as set out in recommendation 6 of the inquiry’s report. These awards include an injury impact award, a social impact award, a care award, a financial loss award and an autonomy award, which together will comprise the total compensation award to be given to infected individuals, or to the estates of any deceased individuals, to recognise the wide-ranging harm resulting from their infection.
Earlier this year, the Victims and Prisoners Act established the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in law to deliver the scheme, and with these regulations we are providing the authority with the legal powers needed to begin making payments. The regulations also provide further detail on how the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will accept applications and pay awards.
Since the authority was established in law, it has been working hard to design and implement effective, simple and secure processes for members of the community, with their input, to claim the compensation that they so clearly deserve. Last week, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority reached out to the very first claimants under the infected blood compensation scheme. The authority is taking a “test and learn” approach, which will ensure it can take on board feedback and improve the service before it opens its full compensation service. This is a significant step towards our shared intention to begin payments by the end of this year and ultimately will ensure that the service is as fast and as simple as possible when it opens for everyone. I hope this step provides confidence that we, and the authority, are absolutely committed to driving forward progress with the scheme in a way that puts the infected blood community at the heart of our work. The Government expect the authority to begin making payments by the end of this year.
I will speak now to the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I believe noble Lords may wish to raise in today’s debate. As the committee noted, the infected blood scandal stretches back over many decades and access to records, such as medical records, may not be possible or may be very challenging. Where this is the case, the authority will need to make objective decisions relying on the evidence that is available to determine, on the balance of probabilities, that treatment with infected blood occurred. The authority will provide assistance to those who believe their medical records have been lost or destroyed, and evidencing eligibility will be easier, faster and more compassionate than, for example, through any court proceedings.
The committee also raised concerns around the complexity of the regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum not being clear enough to explain the practical operation of the scheme. Given the complexity of the regulations, we were aware that they would not enable individuals to understand the scheme. That is why, alongside the publication of the regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government published a detailed policy paper in August on how the compensation scheme will operate, setting out what individuals can expect to receive, including case study examples. Additionally, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will aim to ensure that appropriate advice and support are available to assist people with managing their compensation awards, accessing financial services and accessing benefits advice where relevant.
Thirdly, the committee raised a concern regarding how claimants will receive payments. As set out in recommendation 10 of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report, the regulations include an option for members of the community to choose between receiving payments as periodic compensation or as a lump sum. Providing people who are due compensation with a choice in how they receive their money is something the infected blood community has highlighted as important to claimants. The regulations include a mechanism for electing for periodic compensation payments or a lump sum, responding to the wishes of those who have told us they want this option.
We have also provided an alternative for those currently receiving support scheme payments through the infected blood support schemes. The IBSS route was developed following the recommendations of Sir Robert Francis, who undertook engagement with representatives of the infected blood community in June.
The biggest concern raised in this engagement was around the continuation of the existing support scheme payments. Following Sir Robert’s recommendations, the Government have agreed that support scheme payments will continue for life for those who elect the IBSS route. This route will be available for those who applied to be registered on a support scheme on or before 31 March 2025 and delivered as part of the compensation package.
In a tariff-based scheme designed to be fast, fair, consistent and secure, we hope that people will be satisfied that they have been provided with full and fair compensation, as the scheme sets out. However, should this not be the case, the regulations make provision concerning review of decisions made by the authority and for appeals to the First-tier Tribunal.
I know that this House is in complete agreement when it comes to paying long-overdue compensation to those impacted by this harrowing scandal. Following the passing of the Victims and Prisoners Act, these regulations are the next substantial step towards getting money into the hands of those who deserve it. However, the work is far from finished and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for providing the opportunity for the House, through the regret amendment that she has laid, to recognise that there is more work to be done to establish the scheme for parents, children, siblings and carers. I reassure the House that a second set of regulations will provide for other elements of the compensation scheme, including compensation payments to people who are affected and for claims outside the core route. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Government are aiming for the second set of regulations to be in place by 31 March 2025 to support our intention that people who are affected can start receiving payments in 2025.
I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting these regulations and I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Brinton
At end insert “but that this House, while welcoming the progress made to compensate eligible infected persons, regrets that close family members and carers affected by the infected blood scandal are not included in the Regulations, as recommended by the Inquiry”.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I start by saying that I shall not call a vote on my regret amendment. It is important to avoid any delay to the infected blood victims receiving either interims or full compensation settlements—it would be wrong. However, I have a number of questions relating to this instrument and to the one that the Government say that they will lay next year. It is good to see the Minister in his place, as well as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the other Benches, because it was we three who debated this in detail during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
I understand that these are complex matters, but at the root of them is the vital and delicate issue of trust with the victims of this scandal. Would the Minister meet me, as well as writing to me with some of the detailed answers to my questions that I have today, which I appreciate that I have not been able to give him advance sight of? I also thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and the Minister for responding to its concerns. In its second report of this Session, it points out that the Explanatory Memorandum is
“overly complex and technical, while lacking basic information”.
At paragraph 44, it points out that there is “no clarity” about how many infected persons will have been paid by the end of this year.
The September Statement from the Paymaster-General talked about a “user group” testing out the new scheme. Can the Minister confirm that this user group, or the group that he described a couple of minutes ago—the “test and learn” group—comprises only 20 people? Will those 20 people be paid by the end of this year and how many others of the eligible infected persons will receive their settlements by the end of this year? Is there now a likely time when those infected persons already in the system will have received payment?
The main reason I move this regret amendment is that the regulation in front of us today does not deal with the group of victims called the “affected”. As the Minister said, these are the wives, partners, parents, children and siblings of infected victims. The Victims and Prisoners Act, passed on the last day of Parliament before the general election, sets out in Section 49 the definition of the two groups of people entitled to compensation under the scheme. The outgoing Government were absolutely clear that they wanted the regulations for the compensation scheme within three months of passing the Bill, which is why this regulation, 872, was laid on 24 August, in the depths of recess, and brought into effect immediately under the emergency processes. I am very grateful to the Paymaster-General for telephoning me on 22 August to explain that the Government were keeping to the arrangements made by the previous Government.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations, which, as he has explained, fulfil one element of Sir Brian Langstaff’s carefully calibrated recommendations for establishing an infected blood compensation scheme, both as set out in his inquiry report and as amended in the light of the engagement exercise carried out by Sir Robert Francis in June. The regulations we are considering relate specifically to those individuals directly or indirectly infected by contaminated blood, blood products or tissue. Still to come at a future date, as we have heard, are regulations to extend the scheme to those who, in various ways, have been affected by the infected blood disaster; and I shall come back to that issue in a second.
Knowing, as I do, how the detailed architecture of the compensation scheme has been devised, based as it is on Sir Brian’s recommendations, and on the careful and considered advice to Ministers given by Sir Jonathan Montgomery’s expert group, I do not argue for a second with either the appropriateness of the eligibility criteria or the proposed category headings under which compensation is to be awarded. I have some questions, however.
The product of Sir Robert Francis’s engagement exercise was a total of 74 recommendations for modifying the detail of the compensation scheme, as previously announced. Of those 74 recommendations, the Government accepted 69. I have to be candid and say that I was very surprised by how high that number was, since I did not think it likely that either Sir Jonathan Montgomery or my right honourable friend the former Minister for the Cabinet Office would have neglected to take account of any aspect of harm caused by infected blood, or misjudged the appropriateness of the levels of compensation under each category of harm. However, my being surprised is not the same thing as saying that I have any issue with the Government’s decisions on this score: I am quite sure that they will have done the fair and decent thing. In an important sense, the fact that there were so many recommendations for modifying the scheme goes to demonstrate only how worthwhile the engagement exercise was. We can be glad of that.
What nags at me, though, is a worry about complexity. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted this complexity and criticised the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations for what the Committee saw as a failure to explain clearly either the basis of the compensation scheme or the practical aspects of the compensation arrangements. Those criticisms are regrettable, but to my mind they highlight what I feared might be a consequence of accepting 69 modifications to the scheme, which was that these would serve only to accentuate the complexity already built into the scheme architecture. It is surely axiomatic that the more complex the arrangements, the more likely it is that accurate and timely payment of compensation will be put in jeopardy.
There is one obvious example where this might be the case. The Government have agreed that those people registered with the infected blood support scheme will continue to receive regular support scheme payments for life, running in parallel with compensation payments from the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. On the face of it, having two channels of funding as opposed to a single channel runs the risk of both error and delay in delivering to people the money due to them. What reassurance can the Minister give me on this?
There is another, quite different, example of where delay could occur. Sir Robert Francis’s recommendation 18, which the Government appear to have accepted, was that, under the injury impact award heading, not enough attention had been paid to psychological illness as opposed to emotional distress and anxiety.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank both the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their very thoughtful discussion of the regulations. I recognise they have both had long experience of these issues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, the three of us were involved in the passing of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which was a precursor to these regulations.
In response to the very last question of the noble Earl, the Government are aiming for a second set of regulations to be in place—regarding affected people—by 31 March 2025. It is our intention that people who are affected can start receiving payments in 2025. That was in my original speech and that is the Government’s commitment.
I will make a general point before I start trying to answer some of the individual questions. It is in the best interests of everybody that the House continues to work collaboratively on this issue—both for infected and affected people. All sides of the House acknowledge the British state has failed the victims, and these regulations are a step on the road to addressing the infected victims.
Of course I will agree to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, if he so wishes. I will write with detailed answers if I fail to answer any of the questions—no doubt I will fail to answer some.
As the noble Earl quite rightly said as he introduced his comments, these regulations are fulfilling one element of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. A lot of the questions have been about the second element: the affected people. As he rightly said, 69 of the 74 recommendations were accepted.
On the bulk of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which was about the affected people, the timetable available to develop these regulations was necessarily limited. The regulations prioritise people who are infected as a result of the infected blood scandal. Where people have sadly died, the recommendations make provisions for claims under their estate. This ensures the Infected Blood Compensation Authority can start delivering the compensation scheme for the infected, as per its statutory function.
The Government’s decision to split, and therefore sequence, infected and affected regulations was taken with the reassurance that it would allow orderly implementation of the legal framework without impacting or delaying the delivery timetable for payments to infected and affected victims. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Government are aiming for the second set of regulations to be in place by 31 March next year, as I mentioned, with an expectation of beginning payments by the end of the year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also asked about the eligibility of affected siblings and children. The scheme’s definition of siblings is based on the recommendations made in Sir Robert Francis’s compensation framework study. The definition recognises the likely heightened impacts on a sibling living with an infected person during childhood. This is not to dismiss or deny the suffering of those who were adults when their siblings were infected. Individuals who were adults when their sibling was infected may be eligible for compensation through the scheme as a carer. Siblings will be eligible where under the age of 18 they lived in the same household as an infected person for the period of at least two years after the onset of the infection. Similarly, the scheme’s definition of children of the infected person is based on the recommendations made in Sir Robert Francis’s compensation framework study. The scheme recognises the likely heightened impact on a child who was under 18 while living with a parent who was infected.
I hope that provides some clarity to the noble Baroness. However, I will also acknowledge the examples she gave of the terrible effects on affected people and the terrible experiences, some of which she spoke about. It is absolutely not right to suggest that affected people are somehow second-class citizens. That is not right; it is just a practical decision which the Government have made to try and progress these matters as soon as possible. These regulations are for the infected group, but I have set out as clearly as I can what the Government’s intentions are for the affected group.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about the complexity of regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum. Work is under way on a second set of regulations. We will take on board the committee’s helpful feedback when drafting the Explanatory Memorandum for those regulations. We recognise the point made by the SLSC on the complexity of these regulations, but it is absolutely the Government’s intention to carefully consider the committee’s report and findings.
The noble Earl asked about the two channels of funding: the core route and the IBCS route. This is an additional level of complexity, but it was recommended by Sir Robert Francis because it was the wish of the infected group that the existing method of funding should continue. Because we accepted that recommendation, that inevitably adds to the complexity.
The noble Earl also asked about psychological illness, and in particular whether recommendations were accepted by the report. I am afraid I do not know the answer to that, but I will write to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness about it.
The noble Earl also raised Treloar’s school and unethical experimental research on certain young children. It is absolutely not the intention that this particular scandal should lead to any delay in the rollout of infected or affected compensation, but we recognise the particular, scandalous nature of what happened to those victims.
In conclusion, we regard the timetable as realistic. In opposition, we worked constructively with the then Government, and we have continued working as practically as possible to try to move the timetable forward. All of us across this House must continue to work collaboratively. These regulations ensure that we can finally deliver compensation to those who fought so hard; they deserve nothing less. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Minister for their contributions to this debate. We are all broadly on the same page. I do not think there is a difference on the principles of moving ahead, and certainly absolutely no intention on my part to try to slow down or block the approval of the regulations today.
I will not go through the arguments we have all made, but the key thing the Minister did not cover was the issue of communication, which seems to me to be the most important thing moving forward. If there is confusion and distress on the one hand, and complexity and a large number of recommendations being modified on the other, it is absolutely understandable that the affected and the infected may have concerns about what is going on. I really hope that when we meet, the Minister will talk to us about what he plans to do.
I pay personal tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the way he worked with the communities over the years. That baton has clearly been handed over to the other side of the House. We need to rebuild trust; there are a lot of very distressed people out there at the moment. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill
Monday 21st October 2024
(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill 2024-26 View all Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 21-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (18 Oct 2024)
Lord Moylan
“(1AA) Before making a direct award of a public service contract to a public sector company under subsection (1A), the relevant franchising authority must provide information to the Office of Rail and Road on the public sector company’s ability to become responsible for the provision of the relevant passenger railway services.(1AB) The information provided under subsection (1AA) must include an overview and analysis of the capacity of the public sector company to provide, maintain and improve the existing level of service. (1AC) Following the receipt of the information provided under subsection (1AA), the Office of Rail and Road must publish an opinion on whether it is reasonably practicable for the public sector company to provide, or secure the provision of, the relevant passenger railway services.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires that the relevant franchising authority provides information to the ORR on a public sector company’s capability to provide adequate railway services.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 9, which together constitute this group. Both are concerned with what the Government say they intend to be the effect of the Bill: the improvement of passenger services. Again, they are largely probing amendments, although we would expect the Bill to be amended, if not with a purpose clause, as proposed earlier by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, then at least with measures of the character contained in these two amendments, which seek to set a safety net, in effect, in different ways, for the services being provided.
Amendment 7 would have the effect that the relevant franchising authority must give to the Office of Rail and Road—it could be to some other trustworthy and credible body, such as the Department for Transport, if it is not the franchising authority—an assessment that the company that will take over the franchise is capable of doing so. People might ask: what company? The company that will take over the franchise as proposed by this Bill will be a shell company—an off-the-shelf company purchased by the Department for Transport; a perfectly ordinary company under companies law such as anyone might buy off the shelf. That already starts to raise questions around why we would think that it had any competence to run a railway. People will say, “Don’t be silly, that is just a form”. The form is an empty-shell company constituted under companies law, but the sole shareholder of that company will be the Department for Transport. In effect, the Department for Transport will be running this service through the shell company that it has bought off the shelf in order for it to be the recipient of the public service contract, which is the only type of contract that the Secretary of State will be able to award.
But the Minister said a little earlier in the debate— I cannot pin it down exactly without looking at Hansard, but I do not think that he will deny that he said it—that one of the main purposes of the Bill was to take out of the Department for Transport a whole load of stuff that it was no good at doing and give it to Great British Railways, because it would be better at doing it than the Department for Transport. Here we have a system proposed by the Bill in which the responsibility for operating a service will be taken from a train operating company with decades of experience of providing the service—perhaps, in some cases, hundreds of years of experience if it is a foreign railway company putting its foot into the British market and providing services to us—given to a company bought off the shelf, which is owned and controlled by a department that the Minister himself said should have functions taken away from it and transferred to Great British Railways. What sort of a mess is this?
That is why, very simply, this amendment asks for an assessment in advance as to whether that company —the operator—is fit for purpose. We are looking not simply at the shell company but at its shareholders and controllers—the people making the decisions. Why should not the public have that level of assurance before a franchise is terminated and transferred to such an entity? That is what the amendment is calling for, and there is a very strong case that it should be done.
The second amendment, Amendment 9, is not the same, but it points in a similar direction. Nothing is said in this Bill about what level of service the new operator will offer compared to the old operator. It is presumably for the Department for Transport or shadow Great British Railways—we do not know—to decide the terms and conditions of the public service contract that it will award. If it is the Department for Transport, it will award the contract to itself or to its shell company; if it is shadow Great British Railways, it will award it to the Department for Transport. Somebody will have to sit down and decide what those terms and conditions are. All we are asking in this amendment is that the services offered to the public should not be of a lower standard than they are under the existing franchise.
That is not to say that there is not the possibility of some sort of public consultation. That is what we have inserted. We have said that you can lower the services but that you have to consult publicly in advance. At the moment, that would be true on a transfer of a franchise. We have had no assurance from the Government that there will be a public consultation on the termination of a franchise and the award of a public service contract directly to one of the Department for Transport shell companies.
This is one of those issues about which the Government may want to say, ah ha, this will all be dealt with by the great big Bill coming down the rails towards us. That would be a grave mistake, because these issues relate specifically to this Bill and to what will happen the moment it starts to be implemented. As we discussed earlier, this Bill could be the governing statute of the operation of the railways for as much as four or five years, even if the Government have a good headwind behind their new measures and they come forward in time and are implemented reasonably. The public will want to know that our service levels are protected. Will they be consulted? Will the people who run these trains be fit for it, given that we know from the Minister that he does not think that they are fit for much else on the railways? I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his amendments.
Amendment 7 considers the capability of public sector companies to take over services and operate them to an appropriate standard. It is clearly a key priority for the Government that services should transfer to public ownership smoothly, without detriment to the quality of service during the transition. For this reason, the transfer of services will take place using established arrangements and processes which have previously fulfilled the Secretary of State’s operator of last resort duties. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that this has taken place under the previous Government and their predecessors four times with no obvious risk to the delivery of service.
DOHL is the publicly owned company that already oversees four existing publicly owned operators. It has had significant experience of managing the transition of services from private to public operation in recent years. These transfers have been completed successfully and smoothly despite challenging timescales and circumstances, which have included franchise financial failure and poor operator performance. DOHL is therefore well-placed to manage future transitions and is building its capacity to do so as we speak.
The Government have made it clear that we will transfer services on a phased basis as existing contracts expire. This measured, responsible approach will further de-risk the transfer process. As an additional safety net, the Bill includes provision at Clause 2 to allow for temporary continuation of an existing franchise where the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to complete a transfer in the timescales originally planned. We do not plan to use this power other than in genuinely exceptional circumstances, but it is prudent that it should be available if necessary as a last resort, given that everybody would agree that disruption to passengers should be avoided.
Amendment 7 also seeks to provide a new role for the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road. The ORR is the regulatory authority responsible for granting operator licences and for assessing, approving and issuing operators’ safety certificates. This Bill does not change this. In its existing role, the ORR will assess carefully the suitability and readiness of any operator—public or private, passenger or freight—to take over services and to operate them safely, and is experienced in doing so. Considering DOHL’s previous experience and track record, the further safeguards I have described and the existing regulatory role of the ORR, the Government do not see any need to commission further analysis from the ORR as this amendment proposes.
Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers or Welsh Ministers to undertake a public consultation before specifying or allowing any reduction in service levels at all within a contract with a public sector operator.
I start by saying that the Government want to grow rail passenger demand and revenues; we are not starting out with an objective to cut services. When services transfer to public ownership, as now, we will expect operators to clearly communicate all changes to services. I agree that, if there were to be a plan for material reductions in service levels, this should be the subject of public consultation. However, I cannot support a statutory obligation to hold a public consultation in relation to every change to the timetable or to any other aspect of the service specification that somebody might consider to be to their disadvantage.
If a service is so poorly used that it is clearly unnecessary to carry on running it, and there is an alternative train available at a similar time of day, is it really sensible to expend time and public money on a consultation process? If there is a high-frequency service and a slight reduction at a quieter time of day would enable train and/or infrastructure maintenance to be carried out more efficiently and effectively, does this really merit a public consultation? If, God forbid, there were another global pandemic, or other immediate and extraordinary event that caused a serious reduction in passenger demand, I submit that it would be absurd to suppose that a public consultation would be necessary before reducing service levels.
There should of course be consultation on material reductions in services, but to require it regardless of the scale or impact of a proposed change would impose a disproportionate burden. I therefore urge the noble Lord not to press this amendment and to withdraw the amendment I spoke to first.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister state at the Dispatch Box not that there should be a public consultation in the event of a material reduction of services on transfer of a contract but that there will be? If so, I would be very happy to leave the matter there. I would like to give him the opportunity to say that it is the Government’s policy that there will be a consultation if there is a material reduction in services on transfer.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
In response to the noble Lord, I do not see those circumstances arising. However, I will take the point away and consider it during the progress of the Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I note that the Minister has not been able to give that commitment. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Moylan
“(1AA) Every contract made in accordance with subsection (1A) must place a duty on the public sector company to publish a plan for investment for innovation across all aspects of its operations, including but not limited to—(a) operational efficiency;(b) fares and ticketing;(c) stations and onboard services;(d) passenger information; and(e) digital transformation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires all public sector companies awarded a contract to publish a plan for investment in every operational aspect of the railways.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I think we are getting to the point where every question has the same answer, which is essentially either, “It is in the manifesto”, or “We’re going to tell you about it in the future”, or “How dare you imagine for a moment that anything could go wrong on our watch?” I suspect that this is where I am going to end up with this amendment.
The amendment is very simply stated. It requires that, before there is a transfer to a public sector operator, an investment plan should be published so that we know what will happen on the railway. The proposition is so simple, so self-evident and so straightforward that it hardly requires argument, and it certainly does not require any great explication. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I did not speak at Second Reading, but I often speak on issues around public investment. One of the things that concerns me greatly about this move, although generally I might be in favour of it, is that, internationally, public investment in this country tends to be extremely low. In fact, over the last 25 years, the average public sector investment is 1.8% of GDP, which most of the time is well below our equivalent G7 nations. However, if you look on it year to year, the graph is a rollercoaster that Alton Towers would probably be favourable to, because it goes up and down, up and down.
I was privileged—it was a great company—to work in the public sector for a short period of time in the transport sector, not on the railways but in another area. Certainly, one of the concerns we heard very regularly from organisations equivalent to us within the public sector—I was in the freight sector, which was so small that the Treasury did not worry about it—was that investment in the public sector operating companies tended to vary year by year depending on what the Treasury felt was possible in terms of public investment, which completely disrupted a regular, predictable and sensible investment programme in what were effectively commercial public enterprises. I would like to hear from the Minister how there will be effectively that barrier between what the Treasury wants to do year to year and the genuine needs of public sector railway companies to offer a consistent and improving service to the travelling public.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his Amendment 8, which would require public sector operators to publish plans for investment and innovation. I would dispute the proposition that a move to public ownership will produce a decrease in investment. As I have previously said, currently no meaningful private sector investment is being funded by franchising.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I have not said that a move to public operation would reduce investment, nor have I argued it either here or anywhere else. The question put by the amendment is quite different to that.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I did not say that he had made the assertion; I was disputing the proposition that a move in that way would produce a decrease in investment.
As I said, no meaningful private sector investment is being funded by franchised operators at present, so we are losing nothing by moving to a public ownership model. The Government are already reimbursing the legitimate operating costs of private sector operators and receiving the revenue. Even before the Covid pandemic, the main private investment in our railways was in rolling stock, generally funded by the rolling stock market, not by train operators or their owning groups. Given that the rolling stock market is not impacted by the Bill, there is no reason to see that change.
The Government, of course, wish to see innovation and investment in areas such as those described in the amendment. In fact, the public sector is already demonstrating its commitment to innovation. We have committed to reviewing the overcomplicated fares system, with a view to simplifying it and introducing digital innovations. Change is already being delivered: for example, by the slightly delayed, extended pay-as-you-go in the south-east and fares reform on LNER. Public ownership is essential to progress these fares and ticketing innovations and other reforms. Unlike under franchising, with public ownership we will be able to get these sorts of reforms done without needing a commercial negotiation with up to 14 different operators, each seeking to boost their profit at the taxpayer’s expense in return for agreeing to implement those reforms.
However, the Government do not consider it appropriate to spell out detailed requirements such as these in the legislation. To do so would constrain future flexibility to adapt operators’ obligations to suit changing circumstances. It is not necessarily the case that constant investment and innovation across all these different aspects of the customer offer is the right approach. The focus of innovation should be on those areas where improvement is most needed at any point in time, and not those that are already working well. Moreover, it will not be coherent for passengers, nor efficient for the taxpayer, if up to 14 separate publicly owned operators in England, plus those in Scotland and Wales, are each pursuing their own separate innovation and investment strategies across all these different aspects of the passenger offer.
A key purpose of our wider reforms, starting with the establishment of shadow GBR, will be to drive a much more coherent, cross-industry approach in areas such as those described in the amendment. GBR will be the right body to consider investment across the railways, and I ask noble Lords to wait to consider the Government’s proposals on GBR in the coming months, though I feel very confident that a coherent guiding mind for the railways will produce a longer-term and more consistently argued approach for investment than has been true in the past.
In summary, I support the underlying sentiment that investment and innovation are needed to drive improvements in many aspects of the passenger offer, but the proposed amendment is not the right way to deliver it. I offer my reassurance that investment and innovation are critical to our plans to reform the railways, but I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I asked the Minister to tell me how we can isolate, to some degree, consistent investment decisions in the new railway structure from Treasury decisions that tend to move public investment up and down very regularly—I do not understand how that happens. We are moving from a situation where, if I have got this right, we have, effectively, investment being off-balance sheet through train operating companies and other organisations to on-balance sheet public expenditure. I am still desperate to understand how the new public sector train operating companies can properly rely on consistent investment. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what he expects the average level of investment in railways to be, per annum, over the next five years.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
A coherent guiding mind is far more likely to produce a long-term business plan for the railway that justifies future investment than the previous fragmented system. Very few of the owning groups or train operating companies have ever made any significant investment. The principal investment that has been made in passenger services is with the rolling stock companies, whose position is unaltered in the proposition of this Bill.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I come away from each of the Minister’s responses slightly more baffled and frustrated than I was before. Let us try and get clear what I think he is saying. This in part is my attempt to frame at least a model answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
At the moment, the Minister would say that there are in principle three sources of investment in the railway. There is what is put in by the private sector—that happens to be a nil set, the number is zero, but in principle it is there. There is what is provided by the private sector for the purpose of acquiring trains for the purpose of leasing them out—that is unaffected by the Bill, so that is not going to change, and nor is there any suggestion, incidentally, although I may be wrong about this, of course, we wait to see, that that is going to change as part of the Great British Railways Bill coming down the track. Then there is the part that is put in directly by the Government and that is currently negotiated by Network Rail in a series of five-year control periods. I forget where we are in the current control period, but we are vaguely half way through a five-year control period.
So, in the future, what is the Minister holding out to us that is going to be different? The contribution from the train operating companies will continue to be zero, because they are now going to be simply shell companies or part of that. He is quite clear we are not losing or gaining anything on that particular front. There will be no change to the way in which the roscos are set up for the purpose of leasing trains. So everything is thrown back on the comparison with the Network Rail negotiations in relation to the current control periods. Somehow, because that is Great British Railways, it is going to be transformed.
We have just heard that it will be longer term, so it will not be a five-year control period, it will be a 10-year control period or a 15-year control period. That might be very desirable—but why? Why is the Treasury going to agree to a 10 or 15-year control period or whatever the number is beyond the five years that exist? And if it is not going to be a larger sum—he did not say a larger sum—it will at least be a more efficiently deployed sum, so that every pound will buy a little bit more than it would have bought under the current arrangement? Again, the question is: why?
The sort of answer we get is, “It is all going to be absolutely wonderful. It will be different and it will be wonderful, but it’s going to be the same and I can’t explain why”. That is where we seem to be left the whole time. Anyway, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“(1D) The relevant franchising authority must ensure that any public service contract awarded under subsection (1A) includes provisions to mandate rest day working.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I rise to move Amendment 11 and to speak to the other two amendments in this group. This is very much a probing amendment to explore where the new railway structure is going to improve waste, delays and costs, which many people have attributed to strikes, go-slows and all the other things that they blame the trade unions for.
I have three examples. The first is to do with rest-day working, which I suffered the other weekend—three trains from Cornwall cancelled in a row. Other noble Lords present tonight have mentioned the cancellations due to rest-day working failures. I will quote from an email from First Great Western in reply to my complaint about sitting around for hours. It says:
“As you will be aware, while all new drivers who have joined the business in recent years have a Sunday commitment, the majority of high-speed drivers still do not. Without a change in terms and conditions we will remain reliant on volunteer overtime to cover Sundays”.
So it looks as though, in 20 years’ time, we will still have the same problem. I ask my noble friend the Minister what the Government intend to do to deal with this and to reach agreement with the trade unions. Of course they need time off—on the other hand, the passengers would like to have a train going at the weekend sometimes.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 18 in my name, which proposes the creation of an independent body responsible for pay and terms and conditions of employment for employees of the public companies that are going to be set up under the Bill.
In the long term, I assume that GBR will be responsible for settling these particular issues, but, in the meantime, the question is: who is going to do that? By default, I believe and assume it will be Ministers. That is going to be a real challenge for Ministers, because the department will inherit from the current train operators a whole range of different terms and conditions for their employees, some of them anachronistic. There will then be a difficult process of harmonising all these different terms and conditions into one composite terms and conditions for the new public sector employees that are going to be created. I would have thought that the Government should welcome an independent pay review body to help them through this potential minefield, with the trade unions, understandably, arguing for everybody to be levelled up, with all the implications that will have for current subsidies of the railways.
Also, I think that an independent pay review body which would, of course, receive representations from the Government as to what they thought was affordable, should look at some of the practices that have grown up over the years that might be due for reform: for example, the refusal of trade unions to fit track sensors to trains in order to identify faults in the tracks. That has been held up because there is no agreement.
Likewise, information about changes to speed limits is now put on a board, but it is proposed that it should be put on an iPad; again, there has been resistance to that. Then there is a hangover from the 1980s. As I understand it, an employee who uses a microwave is entitled to paid leave to have a health check.
An independent pay review body could look at some of these practices and see whether they might be modernised. If the alternative is that we should leave all this to Ministers, I am afraid that what happened in the summer does not leave me full of confidence. I am sure that the trade unions, if they had been really pressed, could have set out their new relationship with the new Labour Government by conceding something by way of reform before the near 15% pay settlement. An independent pay review body could look at issues of productivity and management to see if the costs could be managed more effectively.
I turn briefly to Amendment 19, picking up the discussion we had at the end of the last group of amendments about the impact of private investment disappearing, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. As I understand it, the Minister’s reply is basically this: the train operating companies have provided a minimum level of capital investment. I happen to challenge that. The examples I gave—Chiltern opening new railway stations, double-tracking, single-track lines—disprove it; nearly all the investment was self-financed by Chiltern.
Putting that on one side, the Minister’s argument is that the roscos—the rolling stock companies—will continue to buy the rolling stock and, therefore, there is no impact on the public purse. But he has left out a crucial element in the dialogue: the roscos then lease the rolling stock to the train operating companies by way of a franchise. At the moment, the fag end of those franchises, which the department has inherited, score as public expenditure, I believe. That is a liability of a public train operator to discharge the cost of a franchise.
When we move over to the new system, in which all the train operators are run by the Government, surely the franchise costs—the liabilities to pay the rolling stock companies—will score as public expenditure. That was left out of the Minister’s recent exchange. It was also glossed over in the letter that he kindly wrote to us over the weekend. Perhaps he can clarify what the view of the ONS will be on the franchise liabilities of GBR when it takes over the rolling stock from the train operating companies.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I express some degree of surprise that my noble friend Lord Berkeley has tabled this amendment. If you make rest-day working in the railway industry mandatory, it ceases to be rest-day working, does it not? The whole purpose of rest-day working is to see that people take a break from their work. While my noble friend outlined the difficulties that have arisen in various parts of the railway system because people have declined to work their rest days, that is not really the fault of the people themselves or their much-maligned trade unions.
The fact is that, particularly since privatisation—although it happened under British Rail as well—railway staffing has been reduced as much as possible. The first thing that Stagecoach did when it took over South West Trains was to make lots of train drivers redundant. Not surprisingly, the ones who were left declined to work their rest days; they declined to work overtime. The number of cancellations in the first two years of Stagecoach’s operation of South West Trains rose accordingly.
I recommend to my noble friend a book called Red for Danger, written by a man called Tom Rolt—LTC Rolt—who sets out railway accidents since the 19th century, many of which were caused by tiredness because of the number of hours worked by drivers and signalmen. I will give one example. In 1892, the Thirsk accident, which killed some 35 people, was caused by a signalman falling asleep. He fell asleep because his infant daughter had been ill, and he had spent two days trying to find a doctor for her, but she had died. He tried to get time off after her death—he was on nights at the time—but the stationmaster refused permission. He had been awake for 46 hours. Two express trains crashed as a result.
Following that tragic accident, in 1906 the House of Commons at least debated the question of railway hours and the fact that many railway workers worked excessively. Perhaps noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that the debate did not spread to this end of the Corridor—obviously, noble Lords at that time had other things on their minds. Coming reasonably up to date, my noble friend Lord Berkeley will remember the Clapham Junction accident in 1988, where a considerable number of people were killed. That was caused by an error by a signal lineman who had worked every single day for the previous three weeks.
Arising from accidents like those, rest days were introduced by the railway industry around the time of the First World War. If train services cannot be maintained at a particular depot without rest-day working, then that depot is undermanned—it is as simple as that. Whether my noble friend the Minister can promise that such circumstances will not happen under Great British Railways is something I will leave with him.
I hope I have made it quite plain that I am not one of those people who thinks that everything about privatisation was wicked, but one of the downsides of privatisation was at least the tendency to run railway operations with a minimum number of people. I hope my noble friend Lord Berkeley will reflect on, understand and accept the fact that rest days are there for a particular purpose, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as Liberal Democrats, we recognise that ultimately passengers do not really care who runs the railways. What they care about, as we have been discussing today, is that the trains run on time and at a fair price. We believe that the railways can offer that reliable, affordable, convenient and clean form of transport. It is very clear from today’s debate that the trains are not currently working properly. The system is a mess and people out there feel they are paying more and more money for an increasingly poor service.
While we support the Government’s desire to reform and improve passenger rail services, we do not think that renationalising passenger railway services will automatically deliver cheaper fares or a better passenger experience. As we have heard in the discussion on this group of amendments this evening, there is a fear that this reorganisation will create uncertainty for the workforce—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already outlined some serious issues.
We want to ensure that the entirety of the rail industry is focused on improving its performance, bringing down the rates of cancelled trains and improving the experience for the passenger. To achieve this, we need staff who are motivated and feel valued for the role they are playing in people’s lives. It is not clear how staff will feel going through lots of change and TUPE processes, and what this will mean for the services to passengers. I hope the Minister can assure us that there is a workforce plan, and that thought has gone into this important area.
Research by the National Skills Academy for Rail shows that 35% of the UK’s current 17,000 train drivers will leave the sector within the next five years as a result of retirement and the sector’s ageing workforce profile. Given that it takes at least 12 months to train a driver, from recruitment to driving in the roster, how are the Government going to attract new entrants into the railways at a time of change and potentially huge uncertainty? How can we be assured that passengers will not face cancelled trains as a result of fewer drivers in the rail workforce? That was an issue passengers experienced only a few years ago when Govia Thameslink Railway took over the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise and did not have enough drivers who could fulfil the timetable—we need to make sure that passengers are not going to be affected by this.
As mentioned in the earlier discussion by my noble friend Lady Randerson and the noble Lord, Lord Young, terms and conditions differ so significantly that it will take a long time to regularise them, and at huge cost. That will have an impact on not only the workforce but passengers. We do not want good people to leave the industry at all levels—train crews and staff, maintenance and management. On the contrary, we want good people to stay and be proud of the part they are playing in keeping Britain moving and in being a part of our new railway service. I look forward to reassurance from the Minister on these points to ensure that the workforce and passengers are at the heart of these proposals.
Lord Moylan (Con)
In speaking to these amendments, I say first that I thought the speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, was extremely sensible and contained a great deal with which I agree. It asked a series of important questions of the Minister. I have been around just long enough to have realised that getting actual answers to questions in Committee in your Lordships’ House is a pretty remote prospect, but these questions are of such importance that the Minister might make a bit more than the normal effort to address them.
I draw attention to Amendment 49 in my name, which raises the question of minimum service levels, which the last Parliament enacted as means of ensuring continuity of some service on the railways if strike action were to take place. The Government have not said whether they intend to avail themselves of that legislation and in what circumstances, but nor have they said they are going to repeal it. Many passengers in the country at large, looking to this as a means of protecting them from the ravages of what is sometimes thought to be excessive and persistent industrial action, would expect the Government to have a clear view on when they are going to use these measures—or even if the answer to that is “never”. I hope we can get a straight answer from the Minister on that.
I turn to Amendment 18 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, which relates to an independent pay review body. That amendment or something similar was discussed in the other place when the Bill was before that House, and the Minister in fact gave some encouragement, saying that the Government would at least look at it as part of the great reform Bill coming down the tracks towards us. I would like to hear whether government thinking has developed in any way since then and if there is anything the Minister can add to it.
On the face of it, the amendment deals primarily with agreeing and setting, in a semi-binding way, the pay rates and terms and conditions for railway staff analogously to those in other parts of the public sector. After all, it is the Government’s policy that these people should now be public employees. They should come under a single employer, a single brain and a single wallet, so it would be an independent pay review body along those lines. However, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham took the amendment in another direction as well and made an interesting point, one also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon: how are the Government going to amalgamate, smooth out or harmonise the varying terms and conditions and rates of pay that exist among the different train operating companies as currently constituted, as they bring them under this great big umbrella? Is there going to be a levelling up all round?
Will there be a cost to the public purse? The Government have claimed that the Bill involves no cost to the public purse, but it is patent that, if you employ a large number of people and end up adjusting their pay scales on the grounds of equity, and if those pay scales tend on average to be higher than before, a cost has been incurred directly as a result of the Bill and the action being taken under it. How is that cost to be dealt with? Where is it to come from? Why are the Government not being honest about the Bill involving costs of that character? This is a point we will return to, I am sure, when we come to look at other liabilities being transferred to the Government as a result of proposals in the Bill, as we will do later in this Committee. I invite the Government to think about this seriously, because these are important issues and they should be looked carefully.
Finally, and taking account to some extent of the lateness of the hour, when we started debating this group it was my intention to rise to offer some level of support to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, relating to minimum rest days. But the comprehensive and unremitting demolition of his position advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, was so persuasive and irresistible that I have decided to abandon that effort.
Lord Snape (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words. I would just refer him to the proposed new clause to be inserted by the amendment in the name of his noble friend Lord Young, which is headed “Independent body to advise on pay and terms and conditions of employment for employees of public sector companies”. I make it that, during this debate, the party opposite has proposed no fewer than seven different bodies, groups, organisations or committees—call them what you like. As the Opposition rails regularly against too much bureaucracy, I am astonished that they want to create yet another body. In the event of a pay dispute, does the noble Lord not agree that that is why, many years ago, we created the conciliation and arbitration service? Such matters are better referred to it—we are surely running out of lawyers to sit on all these bodies—rather than creating yet another bureaucratic organisation.
Lord Moylan (Con)
In response, I say only that seven would be a fantastically tiny number compared to the number of internal boards, committees, liaison bodies and so forth that Great British Railways is likely to require to explain to itself what it is doing, before it even gets round to explaining to the public what it is up to. I regard seven as a very modest and economical number.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for his Amendment 11, regarding rest-day working. Rest-day working provides resilience in response to spikes in leave, sickness and training, and it rewards the workforce when extra hours and days are worked. It can offer benefits to rail employees, as well as to passengers. It is likely that it will always be necessary, to some extent, to effectively deliver the timetable. However, rest-day working should be used where there is an operational benefit and employees are willing to volunteer, rather than trying to mandate in legislation how and where it is used. Our focus is instead on ensuring, as soon as possible, that the railway industry has enough staff to operate services reliably for the benefit of passengers and employees, without excessive rest-day working.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley referenced the new trains on South Western Railway. I say to him that they are now entering service and, further, that Network Rail in fact substantially changed terms and conditions two years ago for greater flexibility and in agreement with the workforce, and that is now reflected in greater efficiency. That deal demonstrates what can be achieved in the public sector.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to uncertainty. There can be no greater uncertainty than has existed for the last 30 years on the railway, in which anybody of long service has changed their employer at least once, sometimes several times, while doing the same job. The people whom I meet going around the railway talk about it as “the railway”, many of them because their employer has changed so often that they cannot even remember the name of the company that they used to work for. Some stability in respect of the employers of staff on the railway, many of whom are deeply committed and have had long service, is overdue, and this Bill will move towards it.
Will there be a workforce plan? Yes. Is there one at the moment? No. As the train operating companies come into public ownership, they will have to have a workforce plan. Personally, I am absolutely committed to the maximum recruitment of drivers as early as possible, to the benefit of the drivers themselves and the service that the railway operates.
I also very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for Amendment 18, which suggests that an independent body should be established to advise the Government on the pay and terms and conditions for railway staff under public ownership. We are committed to delivering the biggest overhaul of our railways in a generation. It is right that, as part of that process, these matters are considered. Employment conditions are an important issue and one that we are determined to get right.
My officials are at the early stages of exploring a number of options, including a pay review body, so that we can consider the most appropriate approach to meet the needs of a transformed industry. A number of different approaches exist across the public sector, including pay review bodies and wider guidance, and, as my noble friend Lord Snape said, the use of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. We need more time to reach an informed conclusion on the best approach for the rail sector. It would be inappropriate to commit to the introduction of an independent body before that work is completed. In particular, we do not need to do this now in relation to this Bill.
Amendment 49 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It seeks to require the Secretary of State to produce a report on how public ownership will impact the implementation of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. The noble Lord must surely be aware, however, that the Government have already committed to repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. That is because this Government are committed to strengthening the rights of working people by empowering workers to organise collectively through trade unions.
No relevant employer, under the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Passenger Railway Services) Regulations, has chosen to implement minimum service levels under this legislation and, in fact, they will not work. Instead, we will work in partnership with trade unions, as we have done in recent weeks to bring an end to two years of disputes that have meant needless disruption and misery for passengers. So I must say to the noble Lord that the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act will not be implemented for publicly owned services, or indeed at all under this Government—as, in fact, it was not under the last one. The suggested report, therefore, would be redundant.
Finally, I will respond to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, on the classification of the costs of rolling stock for publicly owned train operating companies when I respond to Amendment 19 in group 10 in the resumed Committee stage on Wednesday. I note for now that, whatever the position is, it must already apply to the four publicly owned train companies. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask a question in reference to the fact that the Minister mentioned that there was no need to sort out terms and conditions now? What timeframe do the Government assume that they must follow in order to ensure that the first train operating companies to be taken into public ownership do so in an organised way so that new staff are recruited with modern terms and conditions of employment.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for her intervention. In fact, I did not say that there was no need to sort out the terms and conditions now; I said there was no need to sort out the particular matter of how the overall pay and conditions might be dealt with, including with the pay review body. As a matter of fact, the employees would transfer under the transfer of undertakings regulations. At that stage, no change is possible on the transfer. That will need to be resolved and I am sure that changes are in fact needed, if only because, at least in my view, some of the existing train operating companies have failed to develop the terms and conditions in the way that they should have, both to operate a better service and to reward the staff more effectively.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this short debate. My amendment was a probing one, as I said, and I have no regrets about tabling it because we have learned a great deal this evening. It has been easier to blame what has gone wrong in the railways and the strikes in the last few years on the trade unions or even the present Government, but most of the passenger franchises that have been operated in the last 10 or 20 years have had Department for Transport puppet-string holders behind them, telling them what they can and cannot do, which is not the way to negotiate. Most successful negotiations take place on the background of a client, customer or owner who knows what they are doing and has done it before, and trade unions that also know what they are doing.
I am pleased that my noble friend has given us a progress report on where this is likely to go and I thank him for the information and for updating me on some things, but I hope that it will not be too long before we see an even better arrangement for the workforce, whether it is a workforce plan or whatever, including Network Rail workers. Then everybody could get their heads down and get on with providing a good service to the customers—which is, of course, what everybody wants. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.