Grand Committee
Electricity Capacity (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Capacity (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 May. This instrument seeks to make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market, the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply in Great Britain. Before I turn to the provisions in detail, I will outline some of the background to the capacity market.
Great Britain’s capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to maintain security of electricity supply by ensuring that sufficient electrical capacity is available to meet future demand predictions. Through auctions held annually one year and four years ahead of delivery, the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios is secured based on advice from the National Energy System Operator, NESO. Participants secure agreements through these auctions, requiring them to make capacity available at times of system stress. It is a technology-neutral scheme that pays providers for making capacity available when needed, covering generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection.
Since its introduction, the capacity market has contributed to investment in around 20 gigawatts of new capacity needed to replace older, less efficient plants as we transition to meet our clean power 2030 target. To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly amend the implementing legislation based on what is required to best ensure continued security of electricity supply.
This instrument will amend 11 regulations and introduce one new regulation in the Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014, amend two regulations in the Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014 and revoke one chapter of the Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019. The draft instrument will ensure that assets awarded a contract for difference, or CfD, following a direction from the Secretary of State will be allowed to participate in the capacity market until the start of the asset’s CfD support. This will better align the capacity market with our clean power 2030 ambition and ensure a smooth transition from payments under the capacity market to a CfD.
This draft instrument will strengthen delivery assurance by increasing termination fees and credit cover to restore their value broadly in line with 2016 levels in real terms. It will also make several amendments and a revocation to ensure that the legislation delivers on the policy intent. As a result, the Secretary of State and NESO will have the power to extend the pre-qualification deadline for an auction following a major IT outage. It will align the capacity market timetable with the ongoing market-wide half-hourly settlement reforms. Finally, it will also remove obsolete provisions.
Two public consultations were conducted in relation to the measures in this instrument towards the end of 2025. Respondents were broadly supportive of the measures included in the instrument that clarified regulations or enabled participants awarded a direct award CfD to manage their transition off capacity market payments. Responses to the delivery assurance reforms were more mixed, with some respondents raising concerns about the impact of higher termination fees and credit cover. The Government have proceeded on the basis that these increases are necessary to realign delivery incentives and strengthen delivery assurance. The changes are proportionate, aligning fees with their real-terms equivalent values in 2016, and will apply only to participants entering the scheme after the instrument comes into force.
We have also made several technical amendments to the capacity market rules, which support the changes made by these regulations, in the form of the Capacity Market (Amendment) (No.2) Rules 2026 laid before the House on 14 May. A final set of amendments to the capacity market rules will be laid on 13 July.
To conclude, this instrument will enable the continued efficient operation of the capacity market, so that it can deliver on its objectives, improve delivery assurance and ensure that the legislation is as clear as possible for all participants. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity with which the instrument was introduced. The capacity market has served us well, and we welcome this examination and updating of its functionality so that it can continue to do so long into the future.
From these Benches, the Liberal Democrats have long championed a decentralised, resilient and, above all, clean energy system. We recognise the necessity of the capacity market as a mechanism that keeps the light on during periods of high demand and low generation, and we support the broad thrust of these technical reforms. They should improve confidence that providers can deliver on their obligations, increase value for money and help to further integrate low-carbon technologies into the market. These regulations may be highly technical, but it is important that they are looked at closely, so I hope the Minister will forgive me in advance for asking a couple of technical questions from these Benches.
I welcome the Government’s intent to strengthen the delivery assurance. The 30% increase in termination fees, and in initial credit cover from £10,000 to £13,000 per megawatt, rising to £19,500 for new-build units that miss their 11th-month financial commitment milestone, is a reasonable restoration of real-terms value, given that these figures have not moved since 2016. I find it surprising that these instruments, which govern so finely balanced a market, have not been updated for over a decade. As I understand it, even with these new regulations, there is no standing process to ensure that future regular updates are in place. Were such processes contemplated and examined in the work that was done in preparing this? What guarantees do we have that we will continue to see future upgrades to this important marketplace?
The plan to suspend capacity payments the moment an insolvency termination notice is issued is good stewardship of public money, and we do not oppose it. I am, however, concerned that in seeking real-terms parity, these changes may inadvertently raise the drawbridge behind the incumbents already inside the market. A near doubling of credit cover for those who miss a milestone is a serious sum for smaller storage developers or for demand-side responses, even if it is entirely reasonable for a more established or bigger generator. What assessment has been made of the impact of these credit cover changes on the smaller and newer entrants and on the diversity of technologies bidding in future auctions?
On the new provisions in relation to severe IT issues, which would allow the delivery body to extend the pre-qualification window by up to five working days, we generally welcome this flexibility and understand why this has been updated. But what objective threshold defines “severe”? Bidders deserve certainty that such extensions will be applied consistently and transparently and that they will not be left to the delivery body’s unreviewable discretion. I am not asking the Minister to be too specific, but are these changes partly motivated by any broader concerns about the future functioning of or threats to these systems?
On the treatment of contracts for difference, the instrument will allow a generator that receives a CfD via direct Secretary of State award to pre-qualify for the capacity market, provided that there is no overlap in the delivery period, yet auction-allocated CfD holders are not afforded the same route. I ask the Minister to explain the policy rationale for that distinction and confirm that it will not in any way create a two-tier system for low-carbon generators, depending on how they come by their contracts.
On the shift to accelerated reconciliation, cutting the final settlement from 14 months to four to align with the market-wide half-hourly settlement, we support modernisation, but faster reconciliation means less time to correct errors that might have crept in. What support is being offered, particularly to smaller suppliers, which may lack the systems to absorb the increased administrative velocity?
Finally, the instrument confirms that traditional gas-fired generation continues to sit comfortably within the capacity market alongside wind, solar, storage and demand-side response. Indeed, the market remains technologically neutral. It is worth saying clearly that our systems are among the most resilient in the world and these sensible upgrades will help to keep them that way.
I remind the Minister that this instrument, as sensible as it is, is no substitute for the deeper electricity market reforms that this country still needs. We continue to urge the Government to extend contracts for difference from 15 to 25 years. I have previously talked to the Minister about Greenpeace’s Power Shift proposals and the Minister has spoken about the openness of the Government to perhaps looking at a strategic gas reserve outside of the market. Obviously, those are conversations for another day. We are beginning to see signs of the decoupling of the gas and electricity prices, but more must be done. These changes would unlock future investment in renewables, strengthen our energy security and pass on cheaper home-grown power to consumers. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the Government plan to keep the capacity market under review and reform it further in the future and I look forward to his response.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Amey, an infrastructure and support service company in the UK, Acteon, a global subsea engineering company with interests in offshore wind and oil and gas production facilities, and Buckthorn Partners, which invests in energy transition companies.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations and for broadening our debate to a wider consideration of the capacity market, which allows me to make a few additional comments. As he said, these regulations make technical amendments to the capacity market, so let me address that first. They provide reliable power generators with CMU auctions at either one year, T-1, or four years, T-4, ahead of when they must deliver future electricity capacity. Does he agree that this instrument allows the capacity market delivery body to extend the window for generators to apply to pre-qualify for the capacity market in the event of a severe IT issue? I believe that he does, but I would like him to confirm that.
I ask the Minister to confirm that the changes in these regulations will not be retroactive. Again, I understand that they will not, but it would be good to have that on the record. As I read it, the instrument accelerates the timetable for reconciliation runs in which the CM settlement body must make reconciliation payments to generators, subject to Ofgem approving them to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee when the new timetable is expected to be called into force.
The most recent T-1 auction for 2025-26 secured 7.9 gigawatts of capacity compared with 7.6 gigawatts in 2024. The most recent T-4 auction secured 43.1 gigawatts of capacity compared with 42.8 gigawatts in 2024. Let us be clear and blunt about this: the public are being forced to pay an extra £600 million this year to ensure that there is back-up capacity for the already more expensive renewables that they are subsidising. Conventional forms of power generation from existing generating capacity, including nuclear and gas, were the most common source of capacity in the most recent auction, with 3.6 gigawatts of capacity coming from nuclear and 2.4 gigawatts coming from gas. Electricity supply from gas and overseas interconnectors were the most common source of capacity in the most recent T-4 auction, with 27.3 gigawatts of capacity coming from gas and 6.8 gigawatts coming from interconnectors.
It is self-evident that, despite the Secretary of State’s zealous opposition to gas, this instrument demonstrates that it is still needed and demand for it is actually rising as intermittent renewables increase. It is a function of the need for firm and predictable power when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. When preparing last week for this important debate, I looked at our high level of reliance and dependence on gas. In our generation mix, when I looked at my watch early in the morning, we were just 19% zero carbon as the country woke to turn on the kettles and the lights and to start the day: no solar, 6% wind, 8% biomass, 12% nuclear, 15% imports and 58% gas. That is how dependent we are on gas to provide baseload power, and we will remain dependent on it for many decades to come.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their important contributions to this debate. As I had slightly anticipated, the very specialist nature of elements of these regulations has been somewhat expanded on in the questions that have come forward in this afternoon’s debate. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is used to me saying, there are some areas where these things are really a debate for another day, but I will attempt to answer as well as I can the particular and constructive way in which the noble Lord put his wider points on the table.
To start with the narrower points on the regulations, concentrated on by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—I very much welcome his general support for this SI—he asks the key question, which I have asked officials myself: why have we not done anything about the level of the delivery arrangements, which were there in 2016 and are there today? Why are we therefore now raising those by 30%? On the main issue with the purpose of that raising, I cannot answer for why things were not done between 2016 and 2024, but I agree with the noble Lord that perhaps some consideration of a stepped change upwards, on an index-based arrangement or some such, might have been a good idea during those years. However, that is not the case and we are now faced with the position that we have to get these levels back to those 2016 levels to ensure, among other things, that there is a proper penalty consideration for providers who undertake participation in the capacity market, win a place in an auction and then, importantly, when it is their turn to come on stream, because of a particular issue that needs to be resolved, simply do not do so and cannot do so because the penalties for not doing so are so relatively slight. It is important that we know that there is a properly regulated delivery arrangement so that we can genuinely rely on the capacity market to operate itself properly when those calls are made.
This rise, although perhaps not ideally graduated for the reasons I have mentioned, is nevertheless proportionate. It takes us back to the situation that we were in, in the earlier days of the capacity market. It is a question not of introducing much larger fees but of getting us back to a position where the guarantees are affordable and the delivery mechanisms are not overly punitive, so that we can say that this is a reliable market for the future.
The noble Earl asked about IT issues and what a severe IT outage is. In essence, the SI is drafted to give the Secretary of State some leeway in determining a serious IT outage—and not just that but whether it affects the operation of the capacity markets, bidding and settlement arrangements. In that context, the Secretary of State would have the ability to determine what a severe outage is: obviously, it is not the lights going off for two minutes, when everyone is happy again afterwards. It would be a serious issue within the range that the Secretary of State can consider.
The noble Earl also asked about the provision in these regulations that relates to the holder of a capacity market arrangement being able to transition it to a CfD at a future date. As he rightly points out, that does not apply to those who have allocation via an auction but applies to those who have allocation by specification. Under those arrangements, if a body is seeking an extension to its existing operations, for example, and has negotiated an allocated CfD to allow that to happen, that organisation may be in receipt of capacity market arrangements until that CfD has been allocated. However, once that CfD has been allocated, it would clearly not be eligible for capacity market arrangements, because it has a CfD and the two cannot be run at the same time. The solution under those circumstances is to enable the body that has sought that extension to run its capacity market arrangements until such time as that CfD comes in—it may be a little down the line—and, at that time, to make a smooth transition from one to the other, but not to run both at the same time. That clears up a number of issues about the allocation of CfDs.
The noble Earl asks about half-hour settlements and the arrangements that smaller companies might make around the burdens related to them. We think that they are also fairly proportional, as these are not particularly onerous burdens to place on companies if they have undertaken a capacity market arrangement. The bidding process should properly have taken them into account before the company went into the capacity market in the first place. I believe I have addressed most of the noble Earl’s technical issues but, if there are any still outstanding, I am happy to write to him to clarify those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised a number of very important but rather wider points. His first question was about whether the public are going to pay more and more for capacity market payments over a period. I cannot give him complete comfort on that point because, as he will know, both the T-1 and T-4 auctions will come forward at a settlement level based on what capacity is required—or thought to be required —at that particular time, how many people are competing for that particular capacity market, and how things may then turn out in terms of how the auction works.
REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26 (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 24 March. They will amend UK REACH, which is a central part of the framework governing the safe use of chemicals in Great Britain. EU REACH continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework. UK REACH retains the core approach and key principles of the EU system, including its fundamental aim of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. I want to be clear from the outset that nothing in the instrument changes those aims or reduces those protections.
The instrument will make two key changes. The first change will extend the deadlines in Article 127P by which registrants, namely manufacturers and importers, must submit information on their chemicals to the Health and Safety Executive, the HSE.
At EU exit, transitional measures were introduced to support a smooth and orderly transition to the UK REACH regime, including deadlines to submit complete registration data. Under the current legislation, those deadlines fall on 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030. The most hazardous and highest-tonnage substances must be registered first. This SI will extend the deadlines to 27 October 2029, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2031 respectively. I recognise that these deadlines have been extended previously. Indeed, this is the third extension since UK REACH replaced EU REACH in January 2021. I therefore want to address directly why a further extension is necessary.
In 2023, the previous Government extended the deadlines in response to transitional challenges. Chief among these was the estimated £2 billion cost to industry of acquiring the information required under the existing registration model. That extension allowed exploration of an alternative transitional registration model, known as the ATRm, with the aim of developing a fairer, more proportionate and workable system. Following the general election, this Government reassessed their broader approach to chemicals regulation while completing the exploration of the ATRm. This work reflects our improved relationship with the European Union.
There was a consultation in 2024 and we then published our proposed approach to the ATRm on 30 March 2026, providing long-awaited clarity for industry. The ATRm will reduce the information that businesses must submit for transitional UK REACH registrations. It is expected to reduce the one-off costs to industry of those registrations by around 70%. At the same time, the model will maintain the important protections provided by UK REACH. It recognises that companies placing chemicals on the Great Britain market remain responsible for understanding and managing the risks that those chemicals may present to human health and the environment. Registration will therefore remain central to ensuring that businesses meet that responsibility and properly manage the risks arising from the hazardous properties of chemicals and how they are used in Great Britain.
The Government are acting decisively by bringing forward the legislation on the ATRm so that industry knows what it needs to do in good time for the extended deadlines. However, the ATRm cannot be implemented in time for the first existing deadline of 27 October 2026. It is therefore necessary to extend the deadlines once more to ensure that we put in place a robust and effective policy framework. Extending the deadlines will provide the additional time needed to finalise and implement the ATRm in a proportionate and workable way. It will also provide businesses with the certainty that they need to plan for compliance and help to maintain continuity in important supply chains. Without this extension, businesses would have to meet the existing deadlines and submit the full registration information currently required by UK REACH, despite the Government’s clear intention to replace those requirements and reduce the £2 billion cost to businesses by around 70%.
I turn to the second change introduced by this instrument. The regulations amend the deadlines by which the HSE must complete compliance checks on 20% of registration dossiers. These dates must remain aligned with the revised registration submission deadlines. Otherwise, the HSE could be required to complete compliance checks before the relevant registration information had been submitted. Under these regulations, the compliance check deadlines will move to 27 October 2030, 27 October 2032 and 27 October 2036. The time available between each registration deadline and its corresponding compliance check deadline remains unchanged.
As with the previous amendment to UK REACH made using powers in the Environment Act 2021, we have followed the safeguards set out in Schedule 21 to that Act. We have worked closely with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments, who have both consented to this instrument. We conducted a public consultation to ensure that stakeholders could provide their views and evidence.
We have also published a statement confirming that the amendments are consistent with the overarching aims of UK REACH, including the objective of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. We have published an impact assessment that demonstrates that extending the deadlines will reduce unnecessary costs to businesses while maintaining an effective regulatory framework. The impact assessment builds on the options assessment published in March 2026, which the Regulatory Policy Committee rated fit for purpose.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister for presenting these regulations before the Committee. I probably ought to say that I was a Member of the European Parliament when the original REACH agreement and regulations came forward.
I am also grateful to the Minister for commenting on the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I have just two questions on that. First, the Minister said right at the end that legislation and guidance will be published next year. I do not sit on that committee but, from the way I read that report, the final date of the extended timetable and when it will reach its long-term end remain a concern. The committee asked us to raise—I think it is a very good point—the intended timetable for the full implementation of UK REACH. What is the endgame?
I am grateful to the Chemical Industries Association—CIA—for the briefing that it shared with me in preparation for today. It is fair to place on the record that the chemical sector not only is critical for the functioning of the UK economy but underpins manufacturing, clean technologies and many of the Government’s priority growth sectors.
At the time that Britain left the European Union, I personally was led to believe and we were promised—I realise that there was a different, Conservative Government—that there would be friction-free trade with the European Union. However, we have ended up with duplicate registers, therefore duplicate costs, and a lot of increased costs to the sector in that regard. Obviously, we are all paying that in the way of substances such as paint and other toxic substances that we use. I do not know whether the noble Baroness’s department has made an estimate—it might well be in the papers, but I did not see it—of the current cost of having two registers.
The chemicals industry believes that the regulations before us this afternoon should be approved. For the reasons the Minister set out, it is so important to have the necessary extension to the UK REACH registration and compliance deadlines—again, we are going on to finalise the approach on the ATRm. However, the industry has raised with me—I want to share this with the Minister this afternoon—the fact that the revised timetable remains challenging. Although the regulations extend the first registration deadline by three years, they also compress subsequent deadlines into a much shorter period, which will put enormous pressure on the companies concerned. The industry also says, more importantly, that approval should not be interpreted as meaning that the underlying challenges have been resolved. There remains significant uncertainty regarding access to registration data, the cost of compliance and the risk that businesses could be forced to infringe intellectual property rights in order to meet UK registration requirements.
Therefore, I press the Minister to make sure that the Government provide certainty regarding future registration requirements by three specific asks this afternoon. First, avoid placing businesses in situations where compliance conflicts with intellectual property rights, ensuring lawful and affordable access to the data needed for registration. This is currently not the case. Secondly, and alternatively, look to other economies such as Switzerland, which has successfully implemented a model that supports innovation and competitiveness and strengthens supply chain resilience, all while maintaining the same robust health and environmental protections as the EU. Thirdly, monitor whether the compressed timetable from 2029 to 2031, which the Minister set out, remains realistic for both industry and regulators. The goal here is not less regulation or further delays but a model, like the one that exists in Switzerland, that protects the environment, for the reasons the Minister set out, while allowing businesses to drive growth, which lies at the heart of the Government’s priority in economic policy.
I believe the outline model that the Minister has set out this afternoon still leaves Great British manufacturers and importers facing avoidable cost—which they were specifically told would not be the case at the time that Britain left the European Union—inhibits the introduction of new products to the Great British market and leaves serious questions over proprietary data requirements, despite the goalposts on regulating chemicals via REACH having shifted to EU alignment by default.
I welcome the opportunity to raise these issues today. On 13 May 2026 the ACA, the Alliance of Chemical Associations, wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the honourable Emma Hardy, to raise these points, but they are very pertinent as well to the regulations before us this afternoon. The Government, and particularly the department, owe it to the chemicals industry to make sure that we can reduce this dichotomy of having two registers and the duplication of costs that it currently has to face.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I hope I will not detain the Committee for long, but this is a very important and intricate area. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has great experience of this from her time at the European Parliament. I remember visiting the European Parliament—it must have been almost 20 years ago—when REACH was being debated. It was, and I believe it remains, the largest piece of legislation ever passed by the European Parliament.
I did not have the benefit of the CIA briefing, but I will take the opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the CIA, because it does a great deal in this area and I have placed that on record. I have worked with it in the past, as with other organisations such as the Society of Chemical Industry and scientific bodies such as the Royal Society of Chemistry, which 20 years ago were taking a very close interest in this subject. I am glad that my noble friend the Minister referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, because it has quite rightly raised some concerns.
My points are very brief. First, I understand the case for extending the current deadlines in the way that my noble friend has set out. I also understand the case for aligning the UK REACH submission deadlines with the development and implementation of the alternative transitional registration model. But I hope my noble friend will understand if I say that we hope that we will not be here in a few years with my noble friend making the case for further extensions to the deadlines. If there is any word of reassurance she can give on that, I would be very grateful.
My second point is to ask whether UK businesses still have difficulty accessing the hazard data required to support registrations. As I understand it, the data is still held by EU-based consortia under the provisions of EU REACH.
Thirdly—I apologise to the Minister in advance if I am wrong—am I right that in the last month 15 substances of very high concern were added to the UK list? I am encouraged by nodding elsewhere along the Benches. If this is true, can my noble friend say a little more about what the substances are? I understand that they are the first major additions to that list for some time. It would be interesting for the Committee to know the reasons for it and to be reassured that there are very good reasons for doing so.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we recognise the case for this measure and will support it. We do so because it is a pragmatic step to avoid a cliff edge—not because we believe the current system is in any sense satisfactory.
As described by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the chemicals sector could be described as the invisible backbone of our economy. It underpins everything from advanced manufacturing to pharmaceuticals, construction and consumer goods. It matters that we get the regulatory framework right, not just for the industry but for the people who work in it, the consumers and, importantly, the environment. The alternative transitional registration model, which the Minister described to us, is intended to reduce unnecessary duplication. According to the Government’s assessment, it could cut one-off industry costs by around 70%, or roughly—I think this is the estimate that the noble Baroness is looking for—around £2 billion. To stop that additional payment is extremely welcome, but businesses need certainty, not a rolling series of extensions that leave everyone guessing what comes next.
We very much appreciate that this Government are having to square the circle of a previous negotiation and a Brexit that we view as the gift that keeps on taking from the British people and from every industry in Great Britain. Nevertheless, I have four questions for the Minister.
First, can she set out the milestones that will determine whether the ATRm is delivered on time, given that the design and implementation are not, as she described, expected to be completed until summer 2027? The Committee needs some confidence that we are moving towards some kind of stable system, not simply pushing the problem further down the road. Will the Minister also confirm how progress will be monitored and how often updates will be published? What will trigger, in turn, some kind of remedial action if the timetable slips? There is a danger of the perception that the sector continues to run on a series of sticking plasters; I am sure she appreciates that.
Secondly, what assurance can she give that any future divergence from EU REACH will be strictly evidence led and transparent? I read somewhere that the system is like reading the description on the back of a book without having any of the information inside the book that is necessary to move at pace. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has already raised concerns about the lack of clarity around the circumstances in which the Government would diverge, and the Office for Environmental Protection has highlighted the problem of new EU hazard classes that have not yet been brought into GB law. How will the Government avoid creating an unpredictable system in which decisions appear to be made case by case, without a clear scientific basis? I think this is something that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was reaching towards. If the default position is alignment with EU REACH unless there are compelling reasons to diverge, we need to know what those reasons are, how they will be tested, and how the public and Parliament will be able to scrutinise them.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome this measure to extend the transition period for businesses to submit information to the Health and Safety Executive under the UK REACH regulations. I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee.
The UK’s registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals replicated the EU REACH regime. To manage the transition, requirements to submit further information were phased, and the deadlines were extended twice by our previous Government, in 2020 and in 2023. This statutory instrument extends the deadlines to submit information to the HSE for registrants, downstream users and distributors that continue to import chemicals from the EU. This will allow the compliance costs of registered businesses in the chemicals sector to be spread more evenly. It is worth noting that 98% of registered businesses in the chemicals sector are small, medium or micro businesses.
In addition, the SI will provide more time for the Government to introduce a new transitional registration model to cover registrations of substances that were already on the EU market at the time of Brexit. This is expected to reduce costs for industry significantly, so can the Minister update the Committee on when this new model will be introduced?
The Minister might be pleased to hear that I do not have many additional questions, given that so many have been asked. But I highlight the Government’s response to concerns submitted to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about divergence from the EU in this policy area. The Government stated—the Minister was kind enough to repeat this—that
“divergence only occurs where there are compelling reasons, for example to protect the resilience of essential national infrastructure. In doing so, we will retain full control of our regulatory decisions”.
If that is the case, why will the Government not take the same approach to the SPS regulations soon to be determined by the EU, in particular on the role of precision breeding?
I will take advantage of this opportunity to ask one question on something not directly related to this SI: the chemical Asulox. Emergency authorisations for its use ended a few years ago, and we are already seeing the impact of the withdrawal of Asulox from the market, as bracken moves further and further up the hill, outcompeting grass, outcompeting degraded peat and undermining our habitats. Will the Minister commit to take that away and see whether anything can be done to reintroduce Asulox to the market? I very much look forward to her response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their important contributions and for the careful consideration given to the regulations. I will go through some of the questions and issues raised.
Noble Lords asked about the deadline extension. Clearly, this is now the third time. The deadlines were first altered when we were still preparing for EU exit, to allow businesses enough time to compile and submit the full required information, given the complexity and scale of the task. As I mentioned, there was a further extension in 2023 to address transitional challenges, especially the considerable cost to business of acquiring the additional information. This Government wanted to reassess their broader chemicals policy, and it then became clear that we could not implement the ATRm in time for the original deadline. We want to get a robust and effective policy framework for the future, which is why we have extended the deadlines.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate in particular asked what guarantee we can give that we will not extend it again. Clearly, we really do not want to do that. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that businesses need certainty, and continually moving the goalposts and changing dates does not help, so we have absolutely no intention of extending the deadlines further.
We published our policy conclusions on the ATRm back in March, and that set a firm path forward for government. On the questions around timetables, we are looking to consult very quickly on the legislation in order to bring the model into force next year so that businesses have ample time to prepare for the new deadlines. As I said, we do not plan to bring in any further extensions.
As I said, in March we published the timetable for implementing the alternative transitional registration model. By consulting quickly and then bringing in the new regulations next year, we want to ensure that industry has sufficient time to prepare its registrations so that it is ready to comply with the first revised submission in an orderly way, which is what we want. Now that we have said this is what we will do, we want to consult as quickly as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the Swiss style and why we could not take that approach to chemicals registration rather than developing a separate UK model. One of the core principles of UK REACH is that it is industry’s primary responsibility to understand and manage the risks of its chemicals, and registration is how it demonstrates that it is doing this. That means submitting data on hazard conclusions and classifications and how it is using chemicals in this country. We need to assure the public and consumers that chemicals are managed safely.
This “no data, no market” approach remains a central part of UK REACH, and that is not embedded in Switzerland’s system in the same way. However, we are exploring whether elements of a Swiss-style approach could help improve the speed and efficiency of UK REACH restriction decision-making, particularly where many GB businesses already comply with EU restrictions and there is no compelling reason to diverge. I hope that helps the noble Baroness, as we are still looking at the options around that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am very grateful, but the problem is that the data already exists. The point is that they are having to register the same data twice, so there is obviously a conflict of views here.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That was the problem with leaving EU REACH; that was going to have to take place when we set up our own system in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the gift of Brexit—it just keeps giving. That is unfortunately one of the outcomes of that decision. But, as I say, we need to understand better the use of chemicals. Part of the reason why we want to explore better relationships with the EU is to help with many of these things. We are obviously not in a position to rejoin EU REACH, but better working relationships will help right across the board.
On costs, as I said in opening, they will be reduced by 70% with the ATRm. The estimate for the separate UK registrations is around £2 billion, instead of the previous figure. Intellectual property barriers were also brought up; companies already have legal duties to classify hazards and provide safety information through the supply chain. We assume that they are meeting those duties, so if industry is managing intellectual property issues in those contexts, we would ask why REACH registration would be any different. We also think that registration dossiers should be developed through substance groups, as those groups can draw on different sources of evidence. Clearly we cannot comment on every source, but if industry has legal advice showing that intellectual property is a real barrier to the ATRm then we would absolutely welcome receiving and hearing about that evidence.
SMEs were mentioned. The consultation response showed clear support for extending the deadlines, one reason for which is that it reduces pressure on smaller and micro-businesses. The options assessment recognised that smaller businesses are less able to absorb significant upfront compliance costs and would benefit from greater certainty and more time to prepare. The extension means that firms will not have to incur costs under requirements that we intend to change—that is one key reason—while maintaining the strong protections that we need. It is also important to note that SMEs will mainly be covered by the final deadline, so they will have the longest time to prepare.
On moving the dates for compliance checks, they need to align with the revised registration deadlines. Under UK REACH, the HSE must carry out compliance checks on at least 20% of registration dossiers. That safeguard remains unchanged. The checks can reasonably take place only once the relevant information has been submitted. Again—this is one of the key issues—if we do not bring in these changes without the amendment, the HSE could be required to complete checks before the dossiers have been received.
My noble friend asked how the alternative transition registration model will work in practice. It will provide a more proportionate route for registering substances that were already on the market under EU REACH before EU exit. It will reduce unnecessary duplication by removing the need for businesses to submit full EU hazard data packages up front, while still requiring key information such as hazard conclusions, classification and use and exposure data. This will still provide the means for business and regulators to assess and manage risk. The “no data, no market” principle will remain in place and the HSE will retain powers to request further hazard information where needed. My noble friend asked some very specific questions about a number of chemicals, so I will need to get back to him on that specific point.
Finally, on divergence, we are committed to drawing more from other trusted jurisdictions such as the EU by taking their regulatory decisions as a starting point and aiming to ensure that divergence occurs only where there are compelling reasons—for example, to protect the resilience of essential national infrastructure. In doing so, we retain full control of our regulatory decisions. We are currently defining the specific circumstances under which divergence may be considered for UK REACH and we intend to publicly consult on those proposals as well.
I hope I have addressed the questions raised by noble Lords. If I have not been able to provide a full response—for example, to my noble friend—we will come back in writing. I will check through Hansard, as there were quite a lot of questions flying around and it is quite a complicated area. I recognise the concerns that this is the third time we have had an extension, about the time it is going to take and about certainty. As I say, the important thing is that we have published our intended approach and we expect to legislate for the new model next year, because we absolutely need to give an assurance that we will not be in a situation where businesses do not have the certainty that they need to do this.
One final point I have just realised I did not respond to was from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about Asulox and bracken. I am happy to take that away and discuss that further with the department.
We believe these regulations strike the appropriate balance. They will preserve strong protections while providing industry with the time and certainty needed to prepare for a more proportionate and effective registration model. I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Could the noble Baroness also respond to the point about the possible compromise to intellectual property rights? I will send her the briefing, because it is all there.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
If the noble Baroness sends me the briefing, I would be happy to pick it up. Perhaps we can meet to discuss it further.
Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 3 June. They will give effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that power generation using the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor is justified in the UK under the UK’s regulatory framework for practices involving ionising radiation. This decision has been taken within that regulatory framework. It is a step towards enabling a new form of reliable, low-carbon power generation in the UK, supporting our energy security, reducing carbon emissions and delivering economic opportunities, including for UK jobs and supply chains. It also has the potential to provide dependable baseload power for a more resilient electricity system, while supporting the development of a domestic nuclear supply chain.
The statutory framework, in place since 2004, requires that any new class or type of practice involving ionising radiation is assessed before it can be introduced. The key question is whether the benefits outweigh the potential risks to health from radiation exposure. In this case, the Secretary of State has concluded that they do.
It is important to be clear what this decision does and does not do. This is a generic, non-site-specific decision. It does not authorise the construction or operation of any reactor. Any future project would be subject to the UK’s independent system of scrutiny, including the need to secure environmental permitting, nuclear site licensing and planning consent before it could proceed. These processes involve detailed assessment by independent regulators, including bodies such as the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the relevant environmental regulators, to ensure that safety, security and environmental protection requirements are met.
The decision underpinning the instrument follows a thorough and proportionate evidence-based process. It draws on advice from independent regulators, statutory consultees and a public consultation, which was held in late 2025 and received 50 responses. Most respondents agreed that the Rolls-Royce SMR represents a new class of practice and that sufficient information had been provided to inform a decision. Taken together, the evidence provided a proportionate and transparent basis to support the Secretary of State’s conclusion.
The issues raised, including safety, radioactive waste, environmental impacts, cost and energy security, were considered alongside expert advice before the Secretary of State reached her decision. The assessment found that the Rolls-Royce SMR is expected to result in a low level of potential radiological health detriment, that the design can meet the UK’s requirements on safety, security and safeguards, and that radioactive waste can be managed within existing UK arrangements. Environmental impacts are considered manageable within established regulatory frameworks. Taken together, this provides a clear evidence base for concluding that the benefits, including reliable low-carbon power and support for energy security, outweigh the potential risk to health and radiation exposure.
Finally, I emphasise that this is only one part of a wider regulatory system. Any proposal to construct or operate a reactor would remain subject to detailed scrutiny by independent regulators at every stage. The instrument will give legal effect to a decision required by the statutory framework, while leaving decisions on siting, design and operation to the UK’s regulatory, planning and wider governmental processes. It is a proportionate step within a well-established system of independent regulation. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations. This is the right thing to do, and it is the right time to do it, because our energy security is under real pressure. We need every credible part of the low-carbon mix working as hard as it can.
This order will give legal effect to the decision that the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor is justified under the 2004 regulations. It is a generic and non-site-specific decision. It does not authorise a single spade in the ground, still less the construction or operation of the reactor. All the real-world hurdles remain: environmental permits, a nuclear site licence, planning consent and all the other approvals that any serious project must secure. It was good to hear the reassurances on that front from the Minister.
That matters, because this Committee should be clear about what is being decided and what is not, as the Minister said. We are not approving a reactor to be built tomorrow; we are saying that, in principle, the design has passed the justification test. That is sensible, and we support it. But it is not the same thing as delivery, and we are clear that we do not want it to be confused with a regulatory green light, with progress on the ground.
Our central point is that we believe the best way to cut bills for everyone is to invest in home-grown renewable power, electricity storage and the infrastructure that gets clean electricity to where it is needed. That is where the quickest gains are, where the biggest jobs dividend is and where the strongest long-term energy security will come from. So we support SMRs and we support this justification decision, but we should not let the enthusiasm for emerging nuclear technology become an excuse to drift back into the bad old habits of overpromising on nuclear while underdelivering on renewables. Large-scale, expensive and slow-to-deliver nuclear projects have had years to demonstrate their value. Too often, they have done the opposite; they have tied up time, money and political attention that could have been used more productively and more proactively elsewhere.
That is why the balance matters. SMRs may well have a role to play, and this design may contribute to a more secure decarbonised grid, but the Government must be absolutely clear that the priority is not to deepen our dependence on the old model of nuclear development. The priority is to accelerate renewables generation, storage and the modern grid that can support them.
It will astonish the Minister to hear that I have only one question regarding this SI. How will the Government make sure that support for Rolls-Royce SMR does not slow down the pace of renewables and storage, so that we ensure that this is genuinely complementary rather than competitive with the faster deployment of the clean power that is already available? How will the Government avoid the familiar pattern in which nuclear projects absorb the oxygen while more agile solutions are left waiting in the wings?
We support this instrument but we do so on all those clear understandings—that it is part of a wider energy strategy, not a substitute one. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this statutory instrument following the Government’s consultation on the application for the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor. The decision obviously confirms that the small modular reactor is justified in principle, and we support that. This is an encouraging step in the right direction to enable the UK’s first small modular reactors and ensure that new nuclear reactor technologies form part of our future energy system.
Our domestic nuclear reactor industry needs a supportive Government in order to be globally competitive. There are many rivals around the world that benefit from such a situation, and we must not handicap our own. This is a strategic industry where the research and manufacturing capabilities are critical, not just to our energy security but to our national security. That support is critical also to the export success for Rolls-Royce SMRs in Sweden and the Czech Republic and its current European leadership. Rolls-Royce itself describes the need for volume to drive industrialisation and reduce unit costs.
As the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, have pointed out, this is just a first step. The construction or operation of a reactor still has to go through all the hurdles of environmental permits, a nuclear site licence and planning consent. The Government must be consistent in their backing, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out a timeline for the delivery of the first UK SMRs.
I have a few further questions related to the issues in this SI, which may well be outside the brief that the Minister and I usually inhabit so I will be completely happy with replies in writing. There is considerable evidence of the favourable carbon emissions intensity of SMRs, but what assessment have the Government made in coming to this decision about the cost of this electricity and how that will compare to other electricity generation sources? We appreciate the importance of this project but we would welcome the publication of more information on the impact of future electricity costs in the UK.
When making these calculations, can the Minister confirm whether they rely to a greater or lesser extent on the Government’s internal calculation of current carbon emissions, last published at a central cost of £273 per tonne? By contrast, the UK Woodland Carbon Code units trade at £30 to £40 and our own ETS price is £60 per tonne. I asked the noble Baroness’s colleague in the debate on the carbon orders two weeks ago whether this really was an appropriate cost and whether this leads to faulty decision-making about the appropriate energy investments in this country to create an affordable energy transition; I am yet to receive an answer. I should also, in that context, declare my interest as a developer of Woodland Carbon Code forests.
When we debated the creation of GB Energy in your Lordships’ House, we were assured that it would not crowd out private sector investment. Now, it has been selected as preferred bidder for the Wylfa SMRs. How can we be confident that it has not done that by using the UK’s low sovereign cost of borrowing to out-compete the private sector? How can we be confident that this government body has priced risk effectively when competing with the private sector?
Furthermore, this Government scrapped the previous Government’s plan for two SMR projects and have refused to honour the commitment for 24 gigawatts of electricity to be generated from nuclear by 2050. We are all aware of the need for energy infrastructure, as well as the economic opportunities it brings. Can the Minister give any indication of whether the incoming Prime Minister will be more ambitious and may at least match the ambitions of our previous Conservative Government? I look forward to hearing her response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in the debate. As was said earlier, it is important to point out that the matter before the Committee is this particular instrument, which is narrow in what it does. It gives legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that this class or type of practice—power generation using the Rolls-Royce SMR—meets the statutory test. A few questions were broader than that, particularly the noble Lord’s on woodland carbon capture and so on. I will focus on the questions on the statutory instrument, and we can perhaps pick up some questions more broadly. Quite a lot of work is going on in that area within the department and in other Ministers’ portfolios, and it might be easier for us to pick up some of those particular questions around carbon capture and so forth on another occasion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about the time it takes to bring in a new nuclear build. I understand why there is nervousness about timescales when we talk about building new nuclear energy, in whatever form. I have the scars on my back from working on the Hinkley Point C project—we initially had it coming online in 2019—so it is very problematic sometimes with these really big nuclear power stations.
I will make two comments on that. First, SMRs are a lot smaller and quicker to build. They can be more flexible in what they are, what they look like, how much they supply and so on. So it is an approach that is different from the traditional large power stations that we are used to seeing built. We fairly recently did the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which looks at bringing in nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—of which nuclear is part. So we are doing what we can to speed up the planning process to ensure that we can build these smaller and smarter nuclear power stations more quickly.
I reassure the noble Baroness that renewable energy is an absolute priority. I do not think anyone here would think that the Secretary of State for DESNZ does not have renewable energy as a priority. But we need a proper energy mix in this country, particularly if we are to meet our carbon targets, and nuclear energy plays an important role in that. As the noble Lord said, we want to move as quickly as we can on this, but that is not the purpose of the statutory instrument; it enables Rolls-Royce to take those SMR projects forward. As the noble Lord said, Wylfa is likely to be the first.
On the economy around this, one thing that Rolls-Royce SMRs have the potential to do is provide reliable and always-on low-carbon power, with a view to complementing renewables—you do not have to worry about the wind not blowing and so on. So it supports our energy security and it supports UK jobs, manufacturing and supply chains. We have some really skilled people in the nuclear sector here, and we need to support them as well.
On cost and value for money, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, we assessed the economic aspects of this, and that assessment considered economic and socioeconomic factors and concluded that the benefits outweigh any potential detriments.
On the public funding for Rolls-Royce’s SMR, the assessment also concluded that the socioeconomic benefits would outweigh the public funding associated with the delivery. But further decisions around funding for the Rolls-Royce SMR are taken separately from this justification decision; as I say, this is a very narrow statutory instrument.
Cost effectiveness is not determined through the process we are looking at today; that is considered separately as part of wider government decisions on energy policy and investment and what the priorities are.
On carbon reduction in particular, the assessment found that the Rolls-Royce SMR would provide low-carbon electricity across its lifecycle, and by doing that it would make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thereby supporting the UK’s net-zero targets.
When bringing in this kind of legislation, you have to look at safety, waste, environmental impact and wider policy. Taking all that together, the evidence provided a clear basis for concluding that this class or type of practice meets the statutory test of justification. I therefore very much thank noble Lords for their support in bringing this forward so that we can move forward and build some SMRs, I hope in the very near future, because this has been an awfully long time coming.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this order seeks to amend the definition of “ninja sword” in the list of prohibited offensive weapons contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988.
I will briefly set out the context. Noble Lords will recognise the campaigning by the family of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was fatally stabbed in 2022, following which there was a Labour government manifesto commitment to ban ninja swords. In 2024, we held a public consultation to seek views from the public and a range of interested stakeholders on the draft definition of a ninja sword. Ninja swords are defined as a bladed article with a blade between 14 inches and 24 inches in length, with one straight cutting edge and a tanto-style point. This length was chosen in order to exclude knives and tools designed for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen knives and other types of knives.
In order to be within scope of the ban, the article should also have the features specified in paragraph 1(u) of the Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, namely: a primary cutting edge, a secondary cutting edge and a blunt spine, with either a tanto-style point or a reverse-tanto style point. These terms are further defined in the detail of the legislation.
We analysed the consultation responses and introduced legislation as per the manifesto on ninja swords, which were prohibited from 1 August 2025. The Government recently became aware that the wording of the legislation does not correctly describe the length of the secondary straight cutting edge of a ninja sword as intended. The order before the Committee today seeks to rectify that and align the legislation with the original intention.
To be clear to noble Lords, this amendment is a technical clarification to existing secondary legislation banning ninja swords, and although the amendment to the definition widens the scope of the current wording, it does not introduce new offences, bring any ninja swords out of scope or impose any additional requirements on the public. The detail is as follows: under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose or possess for the purposes of sale or hire a weapon specified in an order made under that section.
The current legislation contains a detailed description of the tanto-style or reverse tanto-style point of the sword. It may be helpful if I just remind noble Lords of that legislation, which states that
“a secondary straight cutting edge is a cutting edge … which forms an angle with the primary straight cutting edge and the spine, and … is no more than 5% longer or shorter than the width of the blade immediately after the handle”.
The reference to “5%” is incorrect and limits the scope of what size of tip falls under the legislation. We are therefore proposing to use this order-making power in Section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to amend the definition of a secondary straight cutting edge to
“a cutting edge … which forms an angle with the primary straight cutting edge and the spine, and … is no more than 105% longer than the width of the blade immediately after the handle”.
That correction will allow the legislation to function as intended and remove any ambiguity about the swords which fall within the scope of the definition. We have also included an additional diagram in the explanatory notes to make the definition easier to understand.
To conclude, we have a mission to halve knife crime in a decade, and it is essential that we stop potentially dangerous weapons such as ninja swords getting into the wrong hands. This is a necessary clarification, and the order will aid both the Government and the police in that vital effort. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the order has been brought before Parliament to correct an error in a previous piece of secondary legislation—the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025—which we debated on 5 June 2025. As the Minister said, the previous order banned so-called ninja swords under the powers in Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I supported that measure at the time, and I still do.
Knife crime remains one of the toughest and most serious challenges in policing, and its effects weigh heavily on communities up and down the country. However, since passing the order, the police have raised issues with the definition of the characteristics of the weapon in question. The order stated that, for an article to be considered a ninja sword, it had to have a primary cutting edge, a secondary cutting edge, a blunt spine and a tanto-style point or a reverse tanto-style point. The original order defined the secondary cutting edge as being a cutting edge which
“is no more than 5% longer or shorter than the width of the blade immediately after the handle”.
As the Minister said, the police have raised an issue with that definition, and it appears that the Home Office was mistaken to use the 5% threshold in the original order. The order before us today amends that definition to 105%.
As I supported the ban on ninja swords and this piece of legislation corrects the error in the definition, I therefore support this order today. It is a welcome move, as the Government have listened to concerns from the police and acted swiftly to rectify the mistake.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I cannot let the moment pass without asking: how did this happen? How did the Home Office not realise when it was drafting the order last year that the definition it had used for the secondary cutting edge was incorrect? Did officials consult the police or did the Home Office engage weapons specialists? If so, how did no one realise the error in the definition? I look forward to the answers from the Minister.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for his broad support for the original and existing orders. I am indebted to him for his contribution to this debate.
In 2024, the Government consulted on new legislative proposals on ninja swords, which were agreed last year, as the noble Lord said. We included the proposed definition that was in the order last year and liaised directly with all stakeholders. At the time, there was no indication from any of them, including the police, that we needed to revisit the definition. They all supported it. The consultation included wide-ranging discussions, and there was no indication that the legal definition would not function as intended.
This happened only after the police began to collect the knives that had been surrendered. There were 3,942 knives surrendered, including 142 weapons where compensation was not claimed. A total of 3,570 knives and weapons were surrendered through an extended surrender scheme. The police became aware of the issues at that time and raised them with the Government. Once the police identified the error, we acted immediately to correct the wording and ensure that the definition functions correctly to outlaw these weapons.
We have passed legislation on ninja swords—a type of sword that we are aware has been used for crimes. We will keep the legislation under review, but if it was an error then it was one made by everyone involved in the consultation. My job is to make sure that we rectify that, which we have done today, by bringing this order before the Committee.
Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations made under Section 38B of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 specify the requirements that a person will need to meet when registering a birth, stillbirth or death. The regulations will replace the requirement for a person to sign the register with a “wet” signature with specified requirements which, when taken together, will be treated as signing the register. This will support the move to an electronic register for the registration of births and deaths.
This instrument represents an important and necessary step in modernising the system of civil registration in England and Wales. The current framework, which requires individuals to attend a register office and physically sign a paper register, has remained unchanged for generations. While it has provided a reliable foundation for recording these vital life events, it no longer reflects the opportunities offered by modern technology nor the expectations of people engaging with public services in the 21st century.
These regulations will support the transition to a fully electronic register by replacing the traditional requirement for a handwritten signature with a new framework based on clearly specified legal requirements. At the heart of this approach is a simple but crucial principle: individuals must formally declare that the information they provide is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. This declaration will ensure that personal accountability is preserved even as the system moves away from a paper-based process.
In addition, the regulations introduce appropriate and proportionate safeguards to verify identity when registering a birth. In cases where identity assurance is required, individuals must either use a recognised digital identity verification service or provide documentary evidence to the registrar. This ensures that the integrity of the registration process is maintained, while allowing for greater flexibility in how people engage with the service.
The regulations, as set out in detail, give the types of documents that may be used to establish identity, which include well-known and trusted documents such as passports, biometric immigration documents, travel documents and photo driving licences. In circumstances where not a single document of this kind is available, individuals may provide two supporting documents, such as utility bills, bank or building society statements or official correspondence issued by government bodies. The approach is deliberately balanced. It recognises that while robust identity assurance is essential to protect the accuracy of vital records, there must also be flexibility to accommodate the diverse circumstances of the population. By offering both digital and documentary routes, the regulations promote inclusion, ensuring that individuals are not disadvantaged by their access to technology or documentation. The regulations provide clarity for both registrars and the public.
Crucially, the legal effect of registration is preserved in full. Where a person complies with the specified requirements, they are to be treated in law as having signed the register and, where relevant, as having done so in the presence of the registrar. This ensures continuity and legal certainty, while enabling the practical benefits of an electronic system to be realised.
The benefits of this reform are clear. Moving to an electronic register will improve efficiency within registration services, reduce reliance on paper processes and better align civil registration with wider government digital strategies. It will also provide greater convenience for the public, giving more flexible ways to provide information in the future to complete registrations.
At the same time, and this is important, these regulations will maintain the high standards of accuracy and trust that are fundamental to the registration system. Birth, stillbirth and death records underpin legal identity, public administration and the collection of vital statistics. It is therefore essential that any change to the system continues to safeguard the reliability of these records. The requirements for declaration and identity verification ensure that these standards are upheld.
I hope it is reassuring, in case there are any questions, if I provide clear assurance that the move to an electronic register is underpinned by robust and comprehensive cyber security arrangements. The systems supporting digital registration are designed and operated in accordance with National Cyber Security Centre guidance and wider Cabinet Office security standards, ensuring that personal data is protected against unauthorised access, loss or misuse. This includes the use of secure authentication, encryption of sensitive information and continuous monitoring to detect and respond to potential threats.
In addition, the identity assurance elements of the system align with the Government Digital Service’s good practice guide 45, ensuring that identity verification processes are both secure and proportionate. Taken together, these measures reflect the Government’s firm commitment to safeguarding the integrity of vital records and maintaining public trust as we modernise civil registration. The instrument will deliver a measured and forward-looking reform. It retains the core principles of accountability and integrity that have long underpinned civil registration, while enabling the system to operate effectively in a modern, digital context.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to the officials who have spent many years in gestation of this modernising approach. I thank them for their efforts and continuing support. I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I do not intend to speak for long at all. Like other Members present here today, I have registered births, deaths and just the one marriage, so far. Of course, it is a very important thing to do. I fully understand my noble friend’s argument that we must move, in the 21st century, to enable these things to be done digitally. A couple of years ago I helped to pilot on to the statute book a Private Member’s Bill to provide a digital version of the lasting power of attorney to avoid the hundreds of pages involved in producing it by a normal, old-fashioned method.
I want to raise two quick points. First, is it in fact being suggested by my noble friend that in the future these things will be done entirely online and that no person will need to go to their local authority to register a birth, marriage or death? Secondly, and he referred to the cyber security aspects of this, it is terribly important. The damage that would be caused were someone to be able to intervene and change the digital record of a birth or a death would have incalculable consequences. I hope that those are two reasonable points to mention to my noble friend.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the questions asked by the noble Viscount. I was not clear from the paperwork as to whether you would still need to take your baby to the town hall to register or not, or whether that would become an online process rather like applying for a TfL permit. I had a lot of difficulty with getting the documents through to TfL in a form it would accept. I am, of course, supportive of modernisation and moving to a more electronic basis for lots of very good reasons. But people need to be clear what will happen in future, what the timeframe for that is and whether we will have another discussion before we move to a completely electronic system.
I came here today because I wanted to explain a problem with the current death figures, which I do not think will be removed by the SI because that is addressing the important issue of digital administration. There is, however, a link, because the digital records will be easier to use and easier to search going forward. The fact is that death figures and birth figures are a very important tool for determining the future of public policy. They are used by doctors, by academics for longitudinal studies and, of course, for planning health and social care many years ahead.
I have a story about why they may be becoming less accurate. My husband’s aunt, for whom he had a power of attorney, had a serious health condition. Tests came back saying that her problems were not incompatible with Alzheimer’s. In the next few years, it became clear that, whatever was wrong with her, it was not Alzheimer’s. Moreover, my husband visited her regularly in her nursing home and she always remembered the previous conversations. He discussed it with a consultant psychiatrist who agreed that it was not Alzheimer’s.
When Iris died—my granddaughter is named after her—her death was certified by a locum doctor, and he put Alzheimer’s down as the cause of death. My husband objected to this. He was told he could appeal to get it changed but—and here is the rub—if he did so, it would take several months, and her body could not be buried until the matter was resolved. So, of course, rather than delay the funeral at an emotional time for us all, he dropped the matter. Her wrong record will not be unique. I am sure a change was made after the awful Shipman murders, but it is having a perverse effect. Can I ask the Minister to look at changing the rules so that, when a next of kin disputes the cause of death, burial can still go ahead while the appeal is heard? There could be a provision preventing burial if the police request it.
I have dealt with data accuracy in many roles: Clubcard at Tesco, the use of data for health management at HDR UK and data protection at DCMS. I am troubled by this example of lack of integrity. I hope the Minister will look at it and make sure that the data does indeed have integrity.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. They are not particularly controversial, so the noble Lord will be delighted to hear that it will be easier to deal with them than with other matters we have before us at times.
These regulations give effect to the provisions in Section 38B of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 as inserted by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. The policy intention is to digitise the process of registering births, stillbirths and deaths and end duplication. This, of course, is all very welcome, but I would like to press the Minister on a few points.
First, on the wider process of digitisation and technology upgrades, the General Register Office has acknowledged that the civil registration service is supported by a mixture of legacy systems, many of which are ageing and increasingly difficult to maintain. There are more than 130 million historic records stored on microfilm, which presents risks to the preservation of historic records. I understand that there is a major programme under way, the civil registration service transformation project, to digitise records and update the service. Can the Minister update us on the progress of this programme?
Secondly, Regulation 2(3)(a) states that a person can fulfil the requirements if they verify their identity by
“using a digital identity verification service”.
However, as far as I can tell, the regulations do not define what is meant by “digital identity verification service”. The Explanatory Memorandum does not provide any more detail either. In fact, digital identity is not mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum at all. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is meant by “digital identity verification service”. What will it look like and how will people be able to access it?
Why do the Government believe this is necessary, given that an incredibly wide array of available documents is already acceptable for the purpose of proving one’s identity? There are 11 documents listed in paragraph 1 of the Schedule and 17 in paragraph 2. That means that a person could use 28 different documents to verify their identity; surely that provides a wide enough array of choice without the need for a digital identity verification service. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I give what I hope is an assurance to my noble friend Lord Stansgate. Provision for online services will be available next year, but we are taking a staged approach: we are undertaking deaths online first, and births and stillbirths will come later. We are also introducing the provision to register deaths by telephone from November this year. However, there will still be an option to attend in person and, as the new system is being developed, that option will always remain. I hope that reassures my noble friend.
I would also reassure my noble friend on cyber security, which we take very seriously. These are important matters that are extremely important for individuals to have confidence. In my introductory remarks, I indicated that cyber security is up to the standards of all our developments in government. There are always challenges and people trying to get information, and there will always be potential attacks, but we are confident that the provisions in place are up to the standard that the Government expect for cyber security, for the reasons I outlined in my opening remarks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about whether a burial can still go ahead while an appeal on the cause of death is being heard, which is an important question. Obviously, it is a very difficult time for anybody when a death occurs, and that is an added complication, so I understand why she has raised this. If a medical examiner discusses the case with the certifying doctor, the cause of death can be amended if evidence is available to support this. Alternatively, the case could be referred to the coroner; once the coroner has released the body, this does not necessarily require the cause of death to be established.
Again, looking at the advice—I was aware that the noble Baroness would raise this—my understanding is that, under the recently introduced medical examiner scheme, a disposal document can be issued only upon receipt of a completed medical certificate of cause of death. The medical examiner has a duty to discuss the cause of death with the next of kin. The medical examiner issued a report yesterday confirming that medical examiner officers in both England and Wales report that an interaction with the next of kin took place in 97% of cases. Feedback received from the medical examiner confirms that the overwhelming number of cases were positive and that, if there are particular difficulties, the medical examiner and others will look at those. If the noble Baroness wants to write privately with the specific details of the case, outside the Committee, I will certainly look into it, because potentially some of the issues she raised may well have been due to misinformation rather than any malpractice. If she writes, I will look at the case as a whole.
With regard to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I think he is referring to the use of One Login, the Government’s approved digital verification service, which will be used for those using an online system. People will be required as of now to use the Government-approved digital verification when registering online. That will be similar to other forms of Government Gateway that are used.
The noble Lord also mentioned cyber security. As I said to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, as a Government we take that issue very seriously. We believe that this meets the standards. As I said to my noble friend, there will be opportunities to use the telephone and do it in person, as well as to do it online. However, the whole purpose of the regulations is to allow that online push for greater efficiency to continue. I hope the noble Lord is content with those comments. If there are further issues, I will look at what he has said and drop him a helpful letter, unless he wishes to raise any further issues now.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I have no further issues to raise, but I will make a comment. I have used the government verification system recently, and it is an absolute nightmare. If nothing else, I wish they could make it a lot easier, because you almost have to have a degree in mathematics to use it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I confess that the education I had in maths did not even really reach O-level standard, but I managed to use it. I can never remember the verification numbers or reference numbers that I have, and that is always difficult, but that is a common problem in every aspect of modern digital life. I cannot remember passwords and other things, so I tend to write them down, which then makes them vulnerable to misuse. It is very difficult—I accept that—but, fortunately, nobody knows where I have written down my verification for the government log in except me, so I think I am safe.
The Government’s intention is to make this type of activity as simple as possible for people. When we had Covid, I used the telephone service when a close relative of mine died and I had to report the death. I found the telephone service 100% efficient and useful. In fact, it saved me a journey from where my mum died into the centre of Liverpool to register the death at a time of great distress. It was much easier to do that on the phone, in the comfort of my own home, rather than having to go along to a city-centre office to do it. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, it is still possible to do that, but I think the movement to online, digital and telephone will help the consumer, which is what we should be about, and improve efficiency. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move this draft order. Wireless connectivity underpins a vast range of everyday services, from mobile phones and wifi to broadcasting and satellite communications. All these rely on access to radio spectrum. Spectrum is a finite and valuable resource, and it must be carefully managed to ensure that different services can operate without interference, that networks function reliably and that consumers and businesses benefit from competition and innovation.
In the UK, Ofcom, the independent communications regulator, manages spectrum by issuing licences, setting conditions and promoting efficient use. Government set the overall policy and strategic priorities for spectrum, including through the statement of strategic priorities that Ofcom must have regard to when discharging its functions. Maintaining a clear and effective framework for managing spectrum is therefore an important part of supporting investment in digital infrastructure and the wider economy. This instrument contributes to that by improving legal clarity without changing existing services, business models or regulatory requirements.
This draft order revokes a direction given to Ofcom in 2010. At the time, the Government used this direction to ensure that a specific set of reforms to support the rollout of mobile broadband was implemented clearly and at pace, alongside Ofcom’s existing statutory framework and in line with wider European measures to harmonise the use of key spectrum bands. These measures included allowing operators greater flexibility in how they could use key spectrum bands, enabling spectrum trading so that licences could be bought and sold, updating licence conditions to support long term investment, setting licence fees to reflect full market value and preparing for major spectrum auctions. Together, these changes helped operators transition from older mobile technologies towards newer ones, enabling the rollout of 3G and 4G services more quickly and efficiently and supporting the widespread availability of modern mobile services across the UK. The reforms also reflected wider European measures to harmonise the use of key mobile spectrum bands and support this transition.
All the obligations set out in the direction have now been fully implemented by Ofcom through a series of regulatory actions over the past decade. As a result, the direction no longer has any practical effect and is now redundant. This instrument therefore revokes that direction. Its removal will improve the clarity of the legal framework and remove the risk of confusion that could arise from retaining obsolete provisions. For example, when Ofcom looks to set annual licence fees for mobile spectrum, we want to minimise the risk of unnecessary legal challenge. The direction requires Ofcom to have particular regard to the outcome of the 800 megahertz and 2.6 gigahertz auction when setting certain licence fees. That auction took place in 2013; retaining the direction could create uncertainty about whether those historic auction outcomes should continue to carry special weight today.
This instrument does not introduce any new policy or change the way that spectrum is managed in the UK. Ofcom will continue to exercise its functions under its existing statutory framework, including duties set out in the Communications Act 2003 and powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. These provide the framework for managing spectrum efficiently, promoting competition and investment and protecting consumers. This step will help ensure that the framework underpinning wireless connectivity remains clear and effective and supports continued investment. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. I am somewhat intrigued as to why we are privileged to have two Ministers for these orders, which are both under the heading of electronic communications. No doubt the mystery will be resolved. Of course we do not oppose this instrument and I do not intend to detain the Committee long on what are, on the face of it, tidying-up measures. However, they raise a question or two worth putting to the Minister.
We have no quarrel with removing a direction that has plainly served its purpose. As the Minister said, Ofcom completed the work that the 2010 direction required years ago. However, can she say a little more about why now? The Explanatory Memorandum notes that retaining the 2010 direction risks creating
“legal challenge against Ofcom if they proceed with changes to licence charging arrangements”.
That is not a housekeeping observation but a forward-looking one; it suggests that Ofcom already has changes to spectrum licence fees in contemplation. Can the Minister tell the Committee what those changes are and on what timetable we might expect to see them?
Looking further ahead, can the Minister say something about how the Government see the framework for spectrum direction-making evolving to meet the demands of 5G and 6G rollout, non-terrestrial and satellite networks, and the rising spectrum needs of AI-related infrastructure? The 2010-era framework, tied as it was to 3G liberalisation, was never designed to anticipate those needs.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her introduction. This is indeed a short and straightforward instrument, but certainly one worth a little bit of careful thought because of its real strategic importance. As we have heard, the Government propose to revoke the 2010 directions to Ofcom. The directions were originally issued to support the release of additional spectrum for next-gen mobile broadband. The directions have now served their purpose, and the Government, completely plausibly, argue that they are redundant.
Certainly, on the face of it, this revocation is sensible. The 2010 framework was designed for a very specific moment in the evolution of mobile networks. The market has moved on, Ofcom’s regulatory toolkit has matured, and spectrum management now operates under a more flexible and market-driven regime. Removing obsolete directions is, in principle, good housekeeping.
However, it is worth briefly pausing to consider and to put a couple of questions. Spectrum is a national strategic asset. The stability and predictability of the regulatory environment underpinned billions of pounds of private investment, and the balance of responsibility between Ministers and Ofcom must, of course, be handled with care.
I will put two questions to the Minister. First, how does this revocation sit within the Government’s wider spectrum strategy? The questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were absolutely right in this respect. The UK faces increasing pressure on spectrum availability, from 5G and 6G deployment, satellite services, defence requirements and emerging industrial uses. Removing a set of directions is tidy, but more broadly, do the Government have a long-term strategic plan for spectrum allocation, resilience and competitiveness? If so, how does the instrument fit into that strategic plan?
Secondly, what assurances can the Minister give that revocation will not inadvertently reduce investment certainty? The 2010 directions were introduced precisely to give operators confidence during a period of rapid technological transition. We must ensure that today’s decision does not create ambiguity at a time when the UK needs sustained private investment in digital infrastructure.
Of course, we do not oppose the instrument, but we ask the Government to demonstrate that revocation is part of a coherent strategy, not simply administrative pruning. Ofcom must have the clarity it needs, operators must have the certainty they expect, and Parliament must have confidence that spectrum policy is being managed with foresight rather than drift. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank noble Lords and the Committee for their support for this housekeeping measure to remove an obsolete direction. The direction was fully implemented and cast for its time. As noble Lords have indicated, technology has moved forward, as indeed has the state of mobile coverage and other investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, specifically asked, “Why now?” We want to ensure that obsolete regulations are not in place. We have heard from the market that there is a possibility that having active obsolete regulations could provide a lack of clarity and could potentially lead to legal challenge. That is why we want to make this move now. Ofcom last revised annual fees last year and new ones are envisaged in the next year, so we are doing it now to provide clarity before then.
On the framework for spectrum, I heartily agree with the points that the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made about the importance of spectrum. We designated an updated statement of strategic priorities in April this year; it set out our priorities across telecoms, the Post Office and, of course, spectrum, including the Government’s policy direction to Ofcom for spectrum. It touched on a number of the important matters that noble Lords have raised, including the importance of growth, innovation and the multiple uses of spectrum. This is very much a housekeeping matter in the context of that wider discussion, and it will have no impact other than that. It supports a clear and coherent framework for spectrum management, and it gives certainty to the regulators and the industry.
On certainty for investment, investment is currently at high levels. For example, the investments being made by mobile phone companies in stand-alone 5G are significant. It is being commercially led and there is committed investment in that area, such that Ofcom reports that, as of January 2026, stand-alone 5G was available outside 93% of premises across the UK—an increase of 10 percentage points since July 2025. The stability and certainty of that regulatory framework is indeed important. With that, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords in the Room have just spotted the mystery mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about why two Ministers are answering on these two SIs. I suspect that those who decided and invited me to lead on this know that it is my first outing on the Front Bench and think—I share that hope—that this will be a slightly gentler environment than my first Oral Question next week.
This statutory instrument is required to amend the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations 2023, by updating the international mobile roaming wholesale rates it sets. Wholesale rates are what mobile operators charge other mobile operators, as opposed to retail rates, which they charge their customers.
The amendments give effect in domestic law to a November 2025 decision of the EEA EFTA-UK free trade agreement Joint Committee. EEA EFTA is Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, and this committee is the governing body of the agreement on which each party has a seat. I note, however, that one member, Liechtenstein, has opted out of these international mobile roaming provisions in the free trade agreement.
The amendments to the international mobile roaming wholesale rates are being made to ensure that they continue to reflect current international benchmarks, which reflect market conditions. This is consistent with and necessary under the terms of the free trade agreement. I hope this summary of the instrument’s purpose was helpful to noble Lords; I will briefly provide some background to support their consideration.
In 2021, the UK and EEA EFTA signed a free trade agreement. Its core terms included provisions on industrial goods, digital trade, services and investment, and fisheries and agriculture. Under digital trade, in a telecoms chapter, it contained provisions on international mobile roaming. These provisions set a wholesale cap. As mentioned, this limits what mobile operators can charge each other.
In 2023, the UK introduced the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations to implement these provisions into UK legislation. This is the instrument being amended by this instrument. As per the free trade agreement, the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations covered wholesale charges only. Wholesale rates can be set in an international treaty, whereas retail rates can be controlled domestically.
The free trade agreement contains a review clause, under which the wholesale rates should be reviewed by all affected parties every two years
“with a view to determining whether those rates are still appropriate”.
The UK, along with Norway and Iceland, are the affected parties.
The rate set under the agreement has now diverged from the “relevant international benchmarks” that the agreement states should be considered. The benchmark relevant to the EEA EFTA-UK agreement is the European Union-set international mobile roaming wholesale rate, called the Eurorate. EEA EFTA adheres to the Eurorate as part of its access to the EU single market. The UK adhered to the Eurorate until 2021, with the end of the Brexit transition period at the end of 2020. The EU benchmark is based on the principle that the wholesale cap must be high enough to allow operators to fully recover reasonably incurred costs involved in building, maintaining and operating their networks. This principle, based on market conditions, is supported by the UK.
In 2025, Norway, supported by Iceland, requested a move to reflect the Eurorate. The reason was that the wholesale cap in the UK-EEA EFTA agreement should reflect international benchmarks and current market conditions. Ministers agreed to proceed with legislation for these new rates to demonstrate the UK’s willingness to align with the free trade agreement’s provisions.
In November 2025, the governing body of the agreement, the EEA EFTA-UK Joint Committee, made decision 1/2025, which agreed that the wholesale rates should be changed. This instrument will amend the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations to give effect in domestic law to the commitments the UK has made at the joint committee.
This instrument is strictly about amending the wholesale rate contained in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations. However, I believe it would be helpful to conclude by setting the context that the wholesale cap in the free trade agreement was intended to facilitate surcharge-free roaming between the UK and Iceland or Norway. I can confirm that this surcharge-free roaming has not been delivered for all UK travellers to Norway and Iceland. Mobile network operators EE and Three continue to surcharge their customers roaming in Norway and Iceland. It is welcome that Vodafone removed the surcharges. VMO2 did not reintroduce roaming surcharges to the EU and EEA EFTA after the Brexit transition period.
The Government are continuing to review options for delivering surcharge-free roaming for UK travellers to Norway and Iceland, in line with the aspirations of the free trade agreement. I stress, however, that this instrument is strictly about amending the wholesale rates contained in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations and fulfilling commitments that the UK has made under international treaty.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to contribute to this, but I hope the Committee will allow me to say that I took great interest in the fact that surcharges for roaming may affect calls between this country and, for example, Norway. We will have to wait and see what happens on Saturday, and whether that encourages or discourages further calls.
As this is my noble friend’s first appearance at the Dispatch Box, I congratulate her for the way that she introduced this statutory instrument. I wish her well, not just for today, but for her first Question, which we understand is next week.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, particularly in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, to the Government Front Bench.
We again raise no particular objection to these regulations. Reducing the wholesale caps for calls, texts and data between the UK, Norway and Iceland, in line with the Joint Committee’s decision, is sensible and follows the agreement’s own review mechanism, exactly as intended. These new caps are, however, explicitly benchmarked against the EU’s own roam-like-at-home rates. If that standard is right for our EEA EFTA neighbours, it prompts an obvious question: why has no equivalent effort been made to secure a reciprocal surcharge-free roaming arrangement with the European Union itself, where far larger numbers of UK travellers go? They may go to Norway in greater numbers after this Saturday—I do not know—but certainly the numbers at the moment point that way. This Government, like their predecessors, seem content to import EU benchmarks piecemeal, while leaving the much bigger prize—a UK-EU roaming deal—untouched.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to the Front Bench. I know that the first OQ is one of the most alarming experiences this House has to offer, but I am sure she will be brilliant and I look forward to hearing it.
On these Benches, we are pleased to support this instrument. As has been outlined, it is a technical measure that updates the wholesale mobile roaming charge caps applying between the United Kingdom, Norway and Iceland, in accordance with the review mechanism established under the UK-EEA EFTA free trade agreement. These arrangements originated in the agreement secured by the previous Government following our departure from the European Union. The agreement provided an important framework to facilitate surcharge-free roaming, while ensuring that wholesale charges between operators remain proportionate and subject to regular review. These regulations do not alter that policy; they simply give effect to revised wholesale caps, following the Joint Committee’s conclusion that the previous figures had diverged from international benchmarks. Indeed, the revised limits represent a reduction in the permitted wholesale charges for voice calls, text messages and, most significantly, mobile data.
It is reassuring that the Government do not anticipate any significant impact on businesses or consumers. As the Explanatory Memorandum notes, wholesale rates are already expected to be below the revised caps in most circumstances, meaning that these regulations are principally about ensuring that domestic legislation remains aligned with our international obligations.
I have one brief question for the Minister. While these regulations concern wholesale rather than retail charges, will the Government continue to monitor whether the benefits of these international agreements are being reflected in the experience of UK consumers travelling abroad? I thank her for her account of these surcharges in some circumstances by some operators, especially as future reviews of the roaming provisions are undertaken. This represents a sensible administrative update and demonstrates the importance of keeping our domestic legislation aligned with agreements negotiated in the national interest. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support across the Committee for the draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I particularly offer my gratitude and thanks to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. I appreciate their comments. I do not think it has made me feel any more secure about next week, but I will hold on to those comments.
I appreciate that this is a somewhat technical amendment, but it is necessary to meet the international obligations we have made with our friends and neighbours —Norway and Iceland—although I take the point from my noble friend about our friendship in Norway following whatever the result is on Saturday. I further appreciate that surcharge-free roaming has not been delivered for all UK travellers to Norway and Iceland. However, keeping the free trade agreement’s wholesale rates up to date with this instrument is a necessary, though insufficient, step for allowing future developments to ensure surcharge-free roaming for UK travellers.
On the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the reduction of wholesale prices is welcome. He asked about benchmarking; why there is no equivalent with the EU; about the practical effect, which may be limited with Norway and Iceland; and whether any change will be felt by customers. I remind the noble Lord that this is entirely about wholesale; it is not about retail prices at all. I stress that the Government are continuing to review options for delivering surcharge-free roaming in line with the aspirations of the free trade agreement.
On the options around benefits for UK travellers, which I think the noble Lord was driving at, the Government are continuing to review options for delivering surcharge-free roaming. I can only repeat that. Also, surcharge-free roaming has not yet been ensured for all UK travellers to Norway and Iceland.
In answer to the question of whether the Government are reviewing the delivery of surcharge-free roaming to consumers travelling to Norway and Iceland, yes, that review is planned. Sorry to hop around, but Regulation 13 has not yet been fully examined but it remains under review.
I remind noble Lords that this is strictly about amending the wholesale rates contained in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations and it has nothing directly to do with consumers, because it does not concern retail prices. It is primarily concerned with fulfilling the commitments that the UK has made under international treaty. I beg to move.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their scrutiny of this instrument. The draft regulations were laid in Parliament on 20 May 2026. As noble Lords will be aware, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 changes the legal framework for opening new state-funded schools. It ends the legal presumption that new schools should be academies and helps to ensure that new schools can be delivered quickly where they are needed by enabling proposals from local authorities and voluntary organisations as additional routes to delivery. This provides greater flexibility in the system, including in circumstances where suitable academy trust capacity is limited.
This instrument makes consequential amendments arising out of these provisions. The amendments to primary and secondary legislation are necessary to ensure that references to the legislative framework for opening new schools are correct and consistent across the statute book and to update provisions to ensure that they are compatible with the new legislative framework. The amendments are minor and technical in nature and do not introduce any significant new policy.
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act repeals Section 6A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, relating to the presumption that new schools should be academies. Arrangements for inviting proposals for new schools are now contained in the amended Section 7. The Act also replaces Sections 10 and 11 of the Education and Inspections Act with an amended Section 10. The draft regulations before us remove references to Sections 6A and 11 in other primary and secondary legislation and replace them with references to Sections 7 and 10 respectively where necessary, providing legal clarity.
The amended provisions relate to: land given to a local authority on trust for educational purposes; transfer of employment where an independent school is replaced by a maintained school; proposals of new schools; the ability of local authorities to put in place governance arrangements for new schools ahead of proposals being approved; and powers enabling a preparing or shadow council to exercise certain functions in relation to establishing, altering or closing schools during the process of local government reorganisation.
The draft regulations also make two small amendments of substance. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 sets out procedures for the establishment of new pupil referral units by local authorities. The regulations extend legislation to apply to newly established pupil referral units in two cases. Currently, where a new maintained school replaces an independent school, a teacher at the independent school transferring, under transfer of undertakings (protection of employment) legislation, to the new school may choose to retain their existing terms and conditions or choose to opt into the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. This instrument extends the provision so that it applies when an independent school is replaced by a pupil referral unit, affording teachers the same choice.
Secondly, this instrument applies and extends Regulation 5 of the School Governance (New Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 to pupil referral units. When only one school proposal has been published under Section 7 or 10 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 as amended, a local authority is able to put in place governance arrangements for a maintained school in anticipation of that proposal being approved. This will now also apply where only one proposal for a pupil referral unit has been published. These amendments will ensure legal clarity and consistency.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, remembering the bit of the Bill we did when we started this, I think this is quite a sensible provision. There is no great disagreement in principle on this, certainly on my part. We have a mixed economy for schools, and indeed the previous Government discovered, when they wanted everything to become academised, that even people who were good long-serving Conservatives were not that keen on getting functional schools converted across. We have a mixed economy, and it seems to be largely accepted that, until we get around to a radical reform or until the wind changes, it will stay as that.
I do not know what councils and local authorities having some capacity to expand or change the school system will mean with falling school rolls, but the emphasis on pupil referral units and special schools is quite sensible, as this will undoubtedly be part of a more coherent picture of dealing with those who will not succeed in mainstream schools. The autism lobby might be interested in the potential here, because the huge costs involved in transporting people to appropriate special schools might be addressed here, at least in the medium term. That is probably more hope than expectation, but it would certainly be something that allows that to happen.
On pupil referral units, whatever is happening at the moment, more people seem to be failing and rejected by mainstream schools, and they need somewhere where they can be addressed. I do manage to make everything about special educational needs, do I not? The high number of needs identified in people on the way to or in pupil referral units is a reality. Those who are not succeeding at school tend to be rejected in the majority of cases. So this is a sensible suggestion, if we accept that we have this mixed relationship in where schools come from. As such, I have no objection to this; indeed, I have a little bit of hope.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing today’s statutory instrument, which makes amendments consequential to the provisions of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act. I record His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s support for one measure within these regulations. These regulations will make it easier for teachers and local authorities to transition into new pupil referral units, making it easier to create those new PRUs.
We support the expansion of alternative education provision, particularly for those who need additional help. Indeed, in government, we supported PRUs and general alternative provision. We oversaw an increase in independent alternative provision pupils of 156% in the seven years leading up to the 2024 election. Alternative provision academies doubled in our final 10 years in office, and these in particular are more likely to be judged outstanding by Ofsted and have better attendance than other state-funded alternative provision, as they can combine academic freedom with tailored pastoral support. We therefore support regulations enabling the expansion of alternative provision.
However, although some of this instrument supports the expansion of alternative provision education, which so benefited from the freedoms the Conservatives gave it, other measures in this SI simultaneously enforce the Government’s crackdown on the freedoms of academies. The Academies Act 2010 ushered in the most substantive education reforms in a generation. It introduced the academy as the presumptive model for any new school, a provision that was introduced into legislation the following year. This SI now repeals that free school presumption, instead allowing an array of new schools to be proposed.
The success of academies was one of the proudest achievements of the last Conservative Government. By the end of our time in office, England’s performance in global PISA rankings had improved from 27th to 11th in mathematics and from 25th to 13th in reading. That improvement lies primarily with academisation. Pupils attending early sponsored academies achieve on average one GCSE grade higher than those in predecessor schools. Seventeen out of the top 20 English secondary schools with the highest Progress 8 scores are academies or free schools, as are 84% of the top 50.
It was, prior to the last election, a cross-party consensus that giving schools the freedom to compete and innovate was the key to improving their standards. Simply comparing England’s results to those of Wales and Scotland proves this hypothesis. We believe that removing the academy as the default is ill advised. It will serve only to slow the improvement of educational standards to the detriment of future generations. With luck, the next Administration will realise that mistakes have been made and change tack to the right course of action but for now, we will have to continue our constructive challenge for what we see as the right decision.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contribution to this discussion today. I know from previous experience that both noble Lords are passionate about education and understand its importance for our young people. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his particular reference to the mixed economy and the ability to respond to particular circumstances as they arise. He quite rightly referenced, for example, falling rolls, which is an issue that is working its way through primary schools at the moment and which will be going into secondary schools for a substantial number of years; of course, that has an effect. I am interested in his comments about the autism lobby. I know he will keep us up to date with his thinking around that, but from my own experience—
Lord Addington (LD)
I will let the noble Baroness know that I do not have to keep noble Lords up to date; it is going to let everybody know.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I have no doubt about that either, and of course we welcome the extraordinary work that it does in such an area of high need going forward. But I think the noble Lord must acknowledge that he has a particular role in terms of promoting, at every possible opportunity, as he quite rightly outlined, his commitment to making sure that Members of this House take account of the challenges, needs and opportunities—and of course the successes—in these areas.
I think it is fair to say that pupil referral units have had a rather mixed experience over the years, and so everything that we can do to make sure that there is proper oversight and connection with other schools in a particular community is to be welcomed.
I do not have much to say to the noble Earl, Lord Effingham; I think he will continue to express his concerns and his views. But I would have thought that the most important thing that we can do is to support local areas to come up with the best provision that they can. It is simply a fact that in some areas the academy chains do not necessarily have the reach or the capacity or the expertise in particular areas to take on the important challenges that are facing our young people today. It is absolutely with that in mind that we want to move forward to make sure that all schools and institutions have the very best opportunity to work with the best providers, making sure that we have proper oversight of the governance going forward.
I am sure that the noble Earl will continue to have a look at progress as we go forward. Despite his acknowledgement of the incredible progress that has been made in some areas, we know that the education system is letting down too many young people, and we have to do everything that we can to make sure that the opportunities are there.
This is not an ideological decision by any means at all; it is simply practical. It responds to need and will make sure that the best possible players are available. Just to recap, the instrument will make the necessary consequential amendments arising out of the provisions in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 relating to the opening of new schools. With that in mind, I beg to move.
House of Lords
Death of a Former Member: Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, on 7 July. There will be an opportunity for the House to pay tribute to Lord Mackay in due course. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble and learned Lord’s family and friends.
Military Conflicts: International Law
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellingham
To ask His Majesty’s Government when the Attorney General is next expected to meet his NATO counterparts to discuss the application of international law to current military conflicts; and whether the House will be informed of the outcome of those discussions.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and thank the Lord Speaker for pronouncing my name in the Northumberland way.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by reflecting upon the sad news that the Lord Speaker has just imparted to the House. Lord Mackay was a hugely respected figure across all parties. He was a giant in the law. I am sure we all join in sending our condolences to his family.
National security is the first duty of government, and we are committed to protecting Britain alongside upholding the international rule of law as part of a strong NATO alliance. I have met many NATO ministerial colleagues as part of my role, including the former US Attorney-General Pam Bondi, the acting US Attorney-General Todd Blanche, the Attorney-General of Canada Sean Fraser, the Minister of Justice in Spain Felix Bolaños and the Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister Kravik. I will continue to meet NATO counterparts, if requested, to strengthen our alliances and build on our shared values that have kept this country safe for more than 70 years.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that reply. I have the greatest respect for his legal prowess. He has reached the pinnacle of his profession, and I admire him enormously. Incidentally, I do not have a problem with his past involvement in cases against the Government and veterans, because barristers have to adhere to the cab-rank rule. He did exactly that, and I respect him for it. However—this is relevant to my substantive question—I do have a problem with some emails he sent to instructing solicitors, including one in which he said that human rights lawyers deserve more respect in society than serving soldiers. Does he understand why our veterans, who deserve our support and gratitude, were so insulted? I hope he keeps his job in government. If he does, will he make every effort to support our veterans, whether they be from Iraq, Afghanistan or Northern Ireland? What will he be doing to support them?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am not going to take up the time of your Lordships’ House trying to put in the correct context that which some newspapers put in the wrong context. There is a broader point that the noble Lord touched upon, which is the principle that underpins the independent Bar—of acting without fear or favour for your clients. The noble Lord is absolutely right. I did some cases against the British Armed Forces, but at the same time I did many for members of the British Armed Forces, including acting pro bono for members of the Armed Forces. What I can truly say in answer to the noble Lord’s question, and reflecting on two years as Attorney-General, is that one of the greatest privileges has been working day in, day out with our Armed Forces. The opportunity to see first-hand their extraordinary professionalism and immense bravery has been a true privilege.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Would not an unprovoked attack by the US on Greenland amount to the international crime of aggression, contrary to Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations? Will the Prime Minister remind the President of the United States at the NATO meeting in Ankara that he can never win by foul play?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
The Prime Minister has already made plain his views about US rhetoric in respect of Greenland, and he has also made plain this Government’s commitment to uphold international law at every turn.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, we are in the process of vetting the House on the future of military capability enabled by artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons systems, but human agency will remain the paramount factor in ensuring that these systems conform to the legal and moral constraints of warfare. Those constraints, both international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict, are themselves diverging. The pressures and burdens on individuals in the Armed Forces—the agents of the state—will become ever greater and so, therefore, will the need to protect them. Do the Government fully recognise this, and what are they doing about it?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. AI in the context of the use of armed force and protecting this country is an issue that we are taking enormously seriously. It presents huge opportunities for this nation but also threats. Dealing with many of those threats will require international co-operation. That is why this Government are so committed to working closely with allies to set out appropriate guidelines and, if necessary, conventions, to deal with the threats ahead.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, like noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, I want to take a moment to pay brief tribute to the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He was a great Conservative, a great lawyer, a great Lord Chancellor, and also a man of profound Christian faith, who lived out the words of scripture:
“He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God”.
Does the Attorney-General agree that international law cannot remain static when the nature of warfare is changing so rapidly? The law on self-defence and, in particular, what constitutes an imminent threat, was developed in a very different and earlier age. In the age we live in, of nuclear weapons, cyber attacks, autonomous systems and long-range precision strikes, what progress is being made with our NATO allies towards a common understanding of how those legal principles are to be applied in modern military conflict?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that international law has never stood still; it evolves to face the challenges of each era. We continue, both as lawyers and in government, working with our opposite numbers, to discuss the prescient issues of the day, including what amounts to an imminent threat. We continue to have those discussions at both a political and an official level, day in, day out.
Lord Robathan (Con)
How many NATO counterparts with whom the Minister has discussed this, particularly the Americans, have agreed with his summation of political problems?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I am so sorry—I might have missed the end of the noble Lord’s question, but if it is about the frequency with which we discuss with our NATO allies the important contemporary issues of the day as they present themselves on the battlefield, or potential battlefields, those are ongoing discussions with intensity and purpose. They are not, of course, limited simply to NATO. More generally, our discussions with allies across the globe focus on the issues of the day, working together for the common good.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Attorney-General for his recent engagement with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and myself on universal jurisdiction and genocide determination. In the light of the current events referred to in this Question, but specifically in Sudan, where horrendous crimes have been committed, can the Attorney-General say more about how we will be able to hold to account those who have committed the most grievous crimes, particularly against women?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I first pay tribute to the noble Lord and his unflagging commitment to the protection of human rights across the globe. As I anticipate it is for all of us in this House, Sudan is an issue of grave concern. The thousands upon thousands of lives that have already been lost in the most horrific circumstances cast a stain upon us all as an international community, and the fear of what might happen in the coming weeks and months is a very real one. It underlines the importance of international law frameworks, not least the notion of accountability, because unless there is accountability, the real risk is that there is impunity, and we cannot allow that to happen.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, why does the Attorney-General wish to break the US-UK treaty on Diego Garcia, when the ICJ has no ability to order us around on Commonwealth and defence matters, and we need to keep that base?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we need to keep that base. That is why, coming into government, we built upon the 11 rounds of negotiations the previous Conservative Government had commenced, because we take the view that what is of most importance is securing that vital base for the defence and national security interests of this country. Like the last Government, we took the view that this was best secured through agreement. It is not simply out of adherence to what is an advisory, non-binding opinion of the International Court of Justice. That is simply one piece in a jigsaw, the larger picture of which is all about the national security interests of this country.
Arts Education
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to their commitment in their response to the recommendations from the independent review of Arts Council England, published on 26 March, when they intend to establish the advisory group to help ensure strategic alignment across government-funded programmes to support arts education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, the Department for Education and DCMS are working in partnership to ensure strategic alignment across government-funded programmes, including the Arts Council, to support arts education and enrichment in schools and communities. Minister Gould at the Department for Education and Minister Murray at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are working closely, together with officials, on a cross-departmental basis to establish the advisory group to ensure all children everywhere can benefit from strong arts education and enrichment. We are positive we will make strong progress on this recommendation in the near future.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her positive reply and look forward to a speedy establishment. Does she agree with me that if it had been in place then one example—the serious omission by the curriculum review which has now informed the new national curriculum of not addressing screen arts qualifications in a society and economy that creates and consumes ever more with and through screens—would have been spotted? Given that absence and omission, what can DCMS do now to press addressing that issue with DfE before the group is established?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The curriculum and assessment review considered media literacy and preparing young people for life and work. The revised curriculum will strengthen media literacy through English and citizenship, enabling pupils to critically engage with content through different media channels. Schools can continue to offer GCSEs in media studies and film studies. DCMS supported its creative and cultural sectors, including the screen sectors, to contribute to the independent curriculum and assessment review’s call for evidence. We will continue to work closely with the Department for Education to support our sectors to respond to the consultation on the draft national curriculum.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Question. Is the Minister aware that the Department for Education is cutting the strategic priorities grant in higher education that supports media and journalism? It is also excluding them from new maintenance grants and the lifelong learning entitlement—all this while Skills England has just identified media and journalism as a key occupational shortage area. Would she agree that this is the type of strategic misalignment we do not want if we are to battle misinformation and support the Government’s impressive creative industries sector plan?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My strategic misalignment was to get answers that relate to music and arts education but not to journalism. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness on this issue.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, we need a full debate on the important Hodge review, but, out of the many recommendations, do the Government support the recommendation that the government indemnity scheme, which saves a lot of money, could nevertheless be made more effective to allow more items to be shown more widely across the country? I am referring here to normal loans, not the Bayeux Tapestry.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Like many noble Lords, I went through the British Museum’s queuing system to get my tickets for the tapestry; clearly, it is exceptional, including the indemnity scheme around it. The Government will be responding in detail to all the commitments within the Hodge review. I look forward to the noble Earl, now that he is back in his place, securing a debate on the Arts Council review led by my noble friend.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will indulge me if I associate all the Lords spiritual with the remarks that have been made about Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He was indeed a man of great Christian faith, generous heart and broad sympathies, and we all pay tribute to him. I may be the only Member of the House who played him once at water polo, and it was a delightful experience.
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Given the emphasis in the review on arts education, and given the significant contribution that arts and humanities make more broadly—spiritually, culturally and socially—there is growing evidence that leading AI companies are increasingly recruiting graduates in English, philosophy, history, theology and other humanities for work on ethics, model alignment, communications and public trust. Given the increasing threat that these subjects are under, they seem to be viewed as an easy target for cuts in higher education, with Exeter University being the latest example. Could the Minister outline what plans the Government have not only to safeguard arts and humanities education at all levels but to promote them as the significant asset they are?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As an arts graduate, I entirely associate myself with the comments made by the right reverend Prelate. We are clear that arts education is important. That is why it was at the heart of the independent curriculum and assessment review, encouraging creative arts education and opening access to art, design, dance, drama and music to every child anywhere. On the right reverend Prelate’s points regarding DfE policy, I will highlight his question to my noble friend Lady Smith. However, I am clear that, like DCMS, DfE is committed to a strong arts education at every stage throughout young people’s education.
Baroness Hodge of Barking (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her statement on the progress being made in setting up the group. Does she agree that there is a woeful underfunding of cultural and creative education in our schools? Schools cannot afford the buses to take children to museums, they cannot afford to pay for professional teachers and they cannot afford to buy the musical instruments. In undertaking our review, we lit on the role of trusts, foundations and philanthropy. If we are to make an urgent impact on what is available to children in schools, we need to bring in those trusts, foundations and philanthropists to help us to fund those facilities in schools. What discussions have Ministers had with trusts, foundations, and philanthropic institutions and individuals to ensure that they contribute to bringing a good creative education to our children urgently?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Philanthropy is a significant way that we can harness the power of giving. My noble friend may be aware that Minister Peacock in the other place, who is responsible for philanthropy, recently published a philanthropy strategy and plan for how we can get place-based strategy. We are aware that it is often a barrier for schools to access the arts and trips to museums. We want to explore every avenue we can to make sure children can get to museums. Indeed, the Southeastern Railway that goes to Hastings provided 1,066 tickets for schoolchildren from the Battle of Hastings countryside to access the exhibition.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, applications open in the autumn for the next round of the Arts Council’s national portfolio investment programme. I particularly welcome that it will be a five-year window, which was one of the recommendations from the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. There were many other important recommendations in her report. Will the Government work to make sure that as many as possible can be implemented before the decisions are made for that 2028 to 2033 funding window?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Arts Council has produced details of a new portfolio process, following guidance that we published in September, with decisions by July 2027 for funding commencing from April the following year. Some of this work has to be done in tandem. We are trying to work through the recommendations as quickly as possible, focusing on the most significant first. I appreciate that people and organisations want certainty. If there are any organisations that the noble Lord is aware of that have concerns, I ask him to please direct them my way.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report by Freedom in the Arts which has exposed a toxic culture of boycotts and hatred in the arts, especially against Jewish-themed performances and artists, including, for example, harassment of the wholly admirable Dame Maureen Lipman, who now needs security? What can the Government do to ensure that the reputation of British culture is restored and kept open for all legal performances?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Baroness highlights a topic that will be the subject of a debate later in the week in Grand Committee. I am happy to meet the noble Baroness to talk through the issues she raises. I encourage any noble Lord who wants to sign up to the Grand Committee debate on Thursday to do so by 5 pm today.
British Industry and Services: Public Procurement
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spellar
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their policy on prioritising British industry and services when carrying out public procurement.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, on 26 March, the Government announced procurement reforms to protect our national security, boost growth and build a fairer economy. We have now moved from policy direction to delivery. As of last month, government departments can make use of the national security exemption in the Procurement Act 2023, where relevant. We also introduced a public interest test for departments to formally assess whether their services can be delivered more effectively in-house and have requested all government departments to develop insourcing plans.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, but that memo is not getting through to government departments. Time and again, they are giving preference to firms and workforces from overseas rather than British industry and services. We talk a lot in this House about government as regulator, government as legislator and government as policymaker. Is it not time for the role of government as customer to come forward so that we can re-industrialise Britain, as has been made very clear by the incoming Prime Minister? Can she get through to her department and the Treasury that there is a new sheriff in town, and we want to see a rapid change of direction?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am awfully fond of my noble friend, and he will remember that, over 25 years ago, I helped to run his “Buy British” campaign for our trade union. This is something that he has campaigned on for a very long time. As the Chancellor said in March,
“it matters where things are made and who makes them”,
which is why we have changed all these rules. To reassure my noble friend, in the last 12 months we have launched the national security procurement exemption and brought in new rules for local government on lower-threshold procurement to encourage use of a model similar to that in Preston. Government departments now have targets for SME use, ensuring that £7.4 billion of government expenditure will be used with SMEs by 2028, and we have redefined the definition of social value. However, my noble friend is absolutely right: the Government spend £400 billion a year, and we need to make sure we spend it well.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, speaks on behalf of the whole House. The plea he makes is really: can the Government lead by example? Can the Minister explain why the current Secretary of State for Defence recently decided to acquire the precision strike missile, which is an American ballistic missile programme—a course of action which was rejected by previous Defence Secretaries, including John Healey?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness has huge experience in this—and as soon as we talk about defence, I have to declare myself as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. With regard to individual procurement decisions, she knows as well as me that I would not have been involved in the direct procurement, but I can ensure that the Defence Minister writes to her on it. However, let me be clear about what the defence investment plan means for British jobs. There will be an additional 60,000 British jobs because of the investment that this Government chose to make that the previous Government did not.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, it is reported today that Lockheed Martin is buying Ultra Maritime, a company which makes important underwater capabilities and should be of personal interest to the Minister. That company was formed when two long-standing, brilliant British defence companies were taken over by Advent, an American private equity company, so it has now completed its journey from being an outstanding British defence company to being part of a very large American prime. Can the Minister say how this fits in with the policy of the Government that she has just described, and what work the Government are doing to look at the acquisition and procurement process over the entire piece to ensure that we have sufficient resilience within it?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right: we need not just sovereign capabilities but sovereign skill capabilities so that we can build what we need, especially in the defence sector—he will not be surprised that I agree with him there. Defence is an area that we are working closely on. It is one of the pathfinder areas for the new procurement strategy that we have announced as part of the exemption from the Procurement Act 2023. A lot of this will have to be about what happens next. I was not aware of that specific case until the noble and gallant Lord raised it, but I will speak to my colleagues.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, what progress are the Government making in ensuring that procurement processes for key public services do not result in them being dependent upon digital services which could simply be terminated at the decision or whim of a foreign billionaire or Head of State, who may of course not feel inhibited by detailed contractual obligations? They may decide to switch off the service and then let the lawyers just slug it out.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I wonder who the noble Lord is talking about. He will be very aware that we have to operate within a contractual framework; we follow the rules and always will, but he raises an incredibly important point. The way in which we procure all contracts has to be considered in the round. That is why we are changing the social value test to make sure that other factors beyond pure cost are considered as part of any negotiations. But also, as the world changes, we are making sure that appropriate AI tools and others are used not only as part of the contracts but to deliver on the contracts too—they are used by government as well as by our contractors.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain how it can possibly be right that Transport for London has bought 500 electric buses from China, when Wrightbus in County Antrim produces wonderful electric buses that go all over the world? How is this supporting British business?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Department for Transport has recently published its 10-year pipeline for zero-emission buses, covering procurement through to 2035. That will give British manufacturers, including Wrightbus in Antrim, the long-term certainty they need to plan ahead and invest in their workforce, which is key for delivery. In addition, the UK bus manufacturing panel, which is cross-government, recently agreed on a number of mayoral commitments, including a minimum 10% social value rating in all future bus procurement tenders, bringing it in line with the social value policy applicable to central government departments. That should assist Wrightbus.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
If the Government’s policy is to prioritise British industry, can the Minister explain why one of the first projects being carried out by Great British Energy is to install, in 100 of our schools, solar panels that are either Chinese-made or include Chinese components, many of which are sourced from Xinjiang province and produced by Uyghur labour?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I welcome the noble Earl’s new commitment—maybe it is not new —to supply chains and to where components come from. Many of these contracts were signed by previous Governments. We have had many discussions, not least with the noble Earl, about the role of Uyghur labour, which is abhorrent and needs to be taken out of the supply chain. However, we need sovereign capability to replace it with. As I said, that includes sovereign skills capability and investment in manufacturing. People need certainty about contracts coming forward; that has to be delivered too.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, a central tenet of the UK’s national shipbuilding policy is that we have a drumbeat of orders through UK shipyards, recognising that 38p of every pound put in by the taxpayer comes back directly in tax and national insurance. Can my noble friend explain why the Department for Transport is considering offshoring the replacements for Trinity House vessels and the Home Office is considering placing orders in Holland for patrol vessels? Much of that work will not be done in Europe but will be subcontracted to the Far East. Have these departments somehow not got the memo from the Treasury?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that every memo sent by my department will be actively read by every other department. On shipbuilding, the noble Lord is absolutely right—when we were Members of the other place, I sat with the noble Lord through many debates on exactly this issue. On the immediate action that we are taking, we have created the pathfinder sector through the national security exemption in the Procurement Act. The MoD is one of those departments, and we have put a commercial lead in place specifically to look at shipbuilding. I would expect that sector lead to work across government departments to deliver in the way that my noble friend discussed.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, why is it that, while our SMEs’ share of local government spending has increased to 33%, their share of central government contracts remains flat at just 16%—nowhere near the three-year target. I realise this question may be something of a gift for the Prime Minister in waiting, but perhaps the Minister could comment ahead of the coronation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think the noble Lord was here for previous coronations. On SMEs, he is absolutely right. There are many elements of our manifesto that can be delivered only through SME engagement, whether that is on food supply chains —where we have committed to 50% locally-grown produce in public sector food and catering contracts—or more broadly. We are working with SMEs to deliver access. The noble Lord will be aware that, when you have a difference between prime and local contractors, there have to be many ways of accessing government contracts. It may be helpful for the noble Lord to be aware that, of the £400 billion being spent, the Government have set a target for SME use by government of some £7.4 billion, which should be delivered by 2028.
Drugging and Sexual Assault of Women
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hazarika
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the findings by the National Crime Agency, published on 2 July, regarding an international network of men who are drugging and sexually assaulting women; and what steps they intend to take as a result.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Sexual violence has a devastating impact on victims, and the accounts of drug-facilitated sexual offences are deeply concerning. However, the law is clear: this behaviour is criminal. The Government will relentlessly pursue perpetrators who target women, whether online or offline, and the Home Office is funding a new pilot of undercover police officers to target perpetrators using the internet to facilitate violence against women and girls.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his Answer. We were all appalled by the case of the mass rape committed against Gisèle Pelicot in France, but sadly, this is not an isolated case. The reports—and I pay tribute to the National Crime Agency—have revealed that there are vast online communities of men, including here in the United Kingdom, who are getting together online, encouraging each other to drug their female partners, either rape them themselves or have them gang-raped, and then circulate the footage online. These shocking crimes are being done to women in their own bedrooms, in their own homes, by their long-term partners or husbands who they trusted and thought would love, cherish and protect them, and all this behaviour is being organised and facilitated by unregulated online platforms. Can my noble friend tell us what has been done to force all tech companies and internet services, and regulators such as Ofcom, to proactively detect and stop this kind of heinous activity? Will he acknowledge that we are now in a global epidemic of violence against women and girls, and that much of it is technology-fuelled?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend is right. As I have said already, these actions are criminal in United Kingdom and there is a duty on tech platforms to take down criminal activity or face severe fines. I also say to my noble friend that the Government are supporting Project Medusa, a collaborative effort between the National Crime Agency and German, Brazilian, Canadian, French, Hungarian, Dutch, Spanish and United States agencies and Europol to ensure that we break these gangs at source, take them down and pursue them for their criminal activity.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, as has just been outlined by the noble Baroness, drug-facilitated sexual assault appears to be a global phenomenon which is flourishing in the dark parts of the internet. One website with this content, with millions of visitors, had more than 20,000 videos, with hundreds of thousands of views, of this so-called “sleep content”—that is, women who are drugged and sexually assaulted. So I am pleased to hear the Minister’s response. So far, the national response to DFSA, including monitoring, reporting, investigating and prosecuting, has been described as inadequate. So will the Minister give an assurance that addressing these horrifying crimes must be a priority to protect women’s fundamental rights, including challenging online platforms and apps hosting DFSA content which actively exploit regulatory loopholes?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness. As I say, these acts are criminal. Under the Online Safety Act, in-scope platforms should have systems in place to prevent users encountering illegal material and to swiftly remove it. The Online Safety Act gives Ofcom significant powers to fine companies up to 10% of their global revenue and to block services in the United Kingdom entirely. As I mentioned, the Home Office is funding undercover police officers to test those systems and, as I also mentioned, we are co-operating internationally to make sure that this is an international effort. I should also say to the noble Baroness that, over the past 18 months, prosecutions of sexual offences are up, convictions are up, charges are up and police reporting is up.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us when the Government will have a public awareness-raising campaign to help women recognise and spot the signs and encourage them to report this type of abuse?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point and I pay tribute to the bravery of the women who have come forward on this issue. It takes an awful lot to do so, particularly when sometimes they have not been aware of the fact that they have been subject to criminal activity. I assure all women in the United Kingdom that, if they now bring these matters forward, the police, the prosecuting authorities and the Home Office take these matters seriously and will pursue the perpetrators of these offences. They can do so in confidence and with the assurance that we will take these matters forward.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord share my concern that one of the main perpetrators in the Rochdale grooming gangs has been eligible for early release and is not immediately set for deportation? What message is that giving to those very real victims who suffered huge deprivation in the grooming gang scandal that this man is going to be able to walk free?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The individual concerned committed horrendous crimes. I give the noble Baroness an assurance, and I hope she can understand what I say, that the nature of the offending in this case means that we take this matter very seriously and we are exploring all options now to ensure that we can examine how we respond to that particular case.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is welcome that the National Crime Agency has investigated these appalling events, and I hope the perpetrators face the full force of the law. However, does the Minister accept that the NCA’s job of investigating and preventing organised sexual crime is going to be made significantly harder when the Government release thousands of rapists and child groomers from prison? Of course, the Government promised to build new prisons, but we are two years in with no sign of them yet.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are some times when my gob is smacked, and this is one of those occasions. The Conservative Government caused the backlog in prisoners and the failure of prisons being built, which has led to the backlog that we currently have in our prison system. I say to the noble Lord that we are ensuring that we put public safety at the heart of our reforms and that prisoners judged the most dangerous by the courts are excluded from early release. Offenders of the particular type he mentioned will not be early-released in that way; he should have known that when he asked that question.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, returning to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, about the National Crime Agency findings, I draw on a statement today from the CEO of Rape Crisis England & Wales, which notes that many women will be wondering whether they were affected and, quite rightly, directs them to Rape Crisis’s 24/7 support line, whether they fear the events may have been recent or years ago. This has the potential to significantly increase demand for that service and other relevant services. Are the Government prepared to put more resources in to support victims and those who fear they may have been victims?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have put an additional £13.9 million into the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls, and we want to ensure that measures are brought forward so people can respond and bring forward reporting on those issues. We have also put a range of other measures in place which I think are important, including domestic abuse protection orders. The noble Baroness makes an important point. Ultimately, I want individuals who have been victims of crime, or even think they have been victims of crime, to report them and to be taken seriously. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, every indicator at the moment in terms of prosecutions, convictions, reports and police action is up over the past 18 months.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I think the Minister, who I respect very much, may not be quite correct. One of his colleagues who is a Home Office Minister was interviewed on Sunday—I think it was by Laura Kuenssberg, or it was on GB News—and was asked directly whether rapists were going to be released early from prison. The Minister did not answer the question. He did not deny the fact. He just went into the normal verbal criticism of the last Tory Government. Perhaps the Minister could check out what he has said to this House today, because clearly, there appears to be a conflict between Ministers in the Home Office.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am speaking on behalf of the Home Office at this Dispatch Box and I say to the noble Baroness that the prisoners judged the most dangerous by the courts are excluded from being released early. That is the Home Office’s position.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the response he gave, particularly around one of the groomers from Rochdale, and I can tell him personally that I will support whatever action he takes to get evil men such as him out of this country, because they do not belong here. For me, there is a culture here in terms of certain types of men, from all backgrounds, who just do not value women any more, whether they are married to them or in a relationship. What work can we do from a youth point of view, because some of these influencers, people such as Tate, are having a huge influence on how our young people look towards and value women?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. It is very important that young men from early school age are supported to ensure that they respect female members of our society in every way, shape and form. I take great exception to those online influencers who drive an agenda that has misogyny at its heart. Again, I think that is a long-term issue. I welcome constructive engagements and suggestions on that, but it is a systemic problem that we need to address in order to allow women to have the freedom to live their lives free from misogyny and its consequences, which include the sexual offences that we have dealt with today.
Sporting Events Bill [HL]
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 7, Schedule 1, Clauses 8 to 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 13, Schedule 3, Clauses 14 to 16, Schedule 4, Clause 17, Schedule 5, Clause 18, Schedule 6, Clauses 19 to 30, Title.
Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [HL]
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 5, Schedule 2, Clauses 6 to 13, Title.
Historical Forced Adoption
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall repeat a Statement from the Prime Minister. I do not always repeat Statements; I just take questions. But given the nature of this Statement —in fact, it is an apology—it is appropriate to repeat it in full:
“This morning in Downing Street, I met some of the mothers and adult adoptees harmed by historical adoption practices in England. They are here with us in the Gallery today, and I had the chance to talk with them privately. They are the most remarkable women, and I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary courage with which they have shared their harrowing testimonies and fought for the truth time and again.
I have to confess that, as I said to those mothers this morning, I found it hard to read the testimonies and to hear their stories. I found it particularly hard as a dad, but how much harder it must have been for them to go through that, to set out their testimonies and to tell their stories over and over again. As they said to me this morning, this is something which is so intensely private having to be public. The courage and resilience they have shown, and others alongside them, is absolutely incredible, and I want to mark that.
What happened to them, and to tens of thousands of mothers, children and families, should never have happened. It is a stain on our history. Mothers—many young, vulnerable and without support—were coerced, bullied or misled into feeling they had no choice but to have their children taken from them. What a thing to do.
These were not isolated or accidental acts. They were practices embedded within systems across local authorities, across voluntary and faith-based institutions, and in health and social care services, including parts of what is now the NHS. They were all institutions that operated with power over people’s lives, yet they did so without compassion, without consent and without dignity or proper safeguards.
These practices were particularly prevalent between 1949 and 1976 but also extended beyond those years. In some cases, women, including those placed in mother and baby homes and other institutional settings, were cut off from their families, relationships, education and employment, and subjected to harsh and isolating conditions. Some experienced treatment that amounted to exploitation and abuse.
Many were made to feel ashamed—that came through very, very powerfully in the discussions I had this morning —silenced, and unworthy of care or dignity. Children grew up believing that they were unwanted. Young mothers were told that they were immoral and that their babies were better off without them. As they told me this morning, that lasts a lifetime and has a huge impact.
Ann Lloyd Keen, who is in the Gallery and is of course formerly of this House, described to the Education Committee how she was stitched without anaesthetic, and was told:
‘You will remember the pain … you’ve been a bad girl’.
Many of those harmed in this way feel a gut-wrenching sense of shame. Ann and others have said that that has stayed with them. She says that she still feels it today. I know that this apology will not be able to lift it completely—it will help a little, I hope, but it will not lift it completely.
I say this to Ann, to everyone with us in the Gallery, and to all those impacted and affected, wherever they are in the country—there are many thousands of them, including some who still, to this day, have not been able to speak about what happened to them. I hope this Statement and apology perhaps gives some of them the confidence to speak about what happened to them, because it will help in a small way. The shame is not yours. The shame is ours. I say that on behalf of the whole country and I say it to every single person impacted. We are deeply and profoundly sorry.
To the mothers who were told they were unfit, who were prevented from caring for the children they desperately wanted to help and to keep and who have carried this loss for decades. To those who were not given the information they needed to provide informed consent, who faced pressure or coercion and who experienced practices that were unethical.
To the sons and daughters, the children who are now adults, who through pressure and coercion within these systems were taken from their families and denied their identity, their history and sometimes their safety. To those who grew up believing they were unwanted, some of whom were even told directly that they were second-class.
To those who have carried a burden of loss, confusion and stigma, or who experienced neglect and abuse without the protection or oversight that should have been their right. To those who have experienced lifelong uncertainty, loss or questions about identity and belonging, or whose mental and physical health, relationships and sense of self across their lives has been affected.
To the fathers who were denied a voice, excluded from decisions, or separated from their children. To the siblings, grandparents, partners, extended families and future generations who have lived with the consequences of these practices. To those who experienced harm from these practices, even while being brought up in loving homes, by their adoptive parents.
To those who were adopted across borders or cultures, who lost connections to their heritage, and racial and personal identity. And to those from ethnic minority backgrounds who experienced racism or were treated differently within those systems, and who as a group were less likely to be adopted or to grow up in stable family homes.
I am struck by the words of Debbie Iromlou, who I met this morning. She says she was
‘raised with racist views towards her own biological family’.
How do you even begin to comprehend that? To each and every one of those affected, we say a deep and heartfelt sorry.
Let me be clear and unequivocal: those harms were compounded by the actions and failures of the state. Governments funded, enabled and relied on systems that were not consistently or effectively overseen. The state did not prevent harm from continuing. The state bears responsibility for the systems it funded and legitimised, which enabled those practices to occur. The state did not do enough to protect mothers, children and families from harm. And for that systemic failing, I am truly sorry.
Many of those affected have suffered a further injustice. They have had to fight for the basic human right to know their own story. As Sally Ells puts it:
‘We are treated as if the information about our own lives, does not belong to us’.
Debbie Iromlou was told her birth mother’s life would be in danger if she tried to search for her. Barriers were put in place at every twist and turn. Records have in some cases been lost, altered or not made fully accessible to those seeking answers, and the whole process is painfully slow—traumatic and dehumanising all over again.
We say we are sorry and we mean it, but sorry is not enough. This must also be the start of real change: working with those affected and their families to improve access to records, and to provide the care and support that people need. So today I can tell the House that we will fund the development of a national online resource, creating a single access point to locate records wherever they might be held across the country. We will consult on requiring existing records to be retained for 100 years, so that they remain available across the lifetime of those affected.
Today, the Education Secretary is writing to all local authorities, regional adoption agencies and voluntary adoption agencies, setting out the expectation that requests for records should be responded to swiftly and with compassion and consistency. We will expand access to fully funded intermediary services, with a particular focus on pre-1976 cases, where access to support is currently the most limited. We will establish national virtual peer-led support groups for mothers and adopted adults, to improve access to ongoing, trauma-informed support across the country.
We will work with NHS England to ensure that those affected are taken seriously when they seek help. That includes new support for clinicians to better understand the impact of forced adoption and respond appropriately in their care. NHS England will also explore how those who wish to do so can have their experience of forced adoption appropriately recorded in their health record.
Finally, to further recognise those affected and ensure that we learn the lessons of the past, we will commission a testimonials project to capture the stories of those with experience of historical forced adoption practices. Through all of this and more, we will continue to meet regularly with those with lived experience. We will be guided by them to get this support right and learn from our past to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again in this country.
Finally, this national apology reflects and builds on the approaches taken by Scotland and Wales, whose devolved Governments have also issued apologies for these practices, which we fully endorse. I welcome the process under way in Northern Ireland to establish a statutory public inquiry into mother and baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee for all they have done to shine a light on this injustice.
Most of all, I want to thank those who have campaigned for so long to have the truth recognised, including those who are no longer with us to hear the apology they fought for. It should never have happened, and they should not have had to fight so hard for this day to come. Today, finally, I say on behalf of the state and the nation as a whole: we see you, we hear you, and we are truly sorry. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I sincerely thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating this Statement and taking the time to read it out today, as the Prime Minister did in the House of Commons. We on these Benches associate ourselves fully and without reservation with the apology that the Statement contains.
The scale and pain of the harm are impossible to comprehend. Some 185,000 children were taken between 1949 and 1976—perhaps more; the Prime Minister fears that the records understate the number—from mothers who were coerced, bullied or misled into giving them up. Imagine the brutality of mothers being stitched without anaesthetic as a punishment and being told that they deserved it. Think of the nearly 200,000 children across our nation who grew up believing that they were unwanted. Some who have given evidence, such as Debbie Iromlou, were raised with racist attitudes towards their own family of origin. Grief has followed all of them through a lifetime of everyday cruelties. The Prime Minister spoke of mothers who still dread the simplest question: “Do you have children?”
The damage is irreparable. That there has been an apology at all is down to the mothers and the adopted children who have campaigned tirelessly over decades to raise awareness of the scandal. I pay tribute to their courage, particularly that of the founder of the Movement for an Adoption Apology, Veronica Smith. Sadly, she died before she could hear the words that she fought 16 years for. I also pay tribute to those who repeatedly had to give evidence and relive their trauma before the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee. Their testimony was among the most harrowing that this Parliament has ever heard.
The Prime Minister was candid that an apology is not enough, and I agree. The measures that he announced, however, are genuinely welcomed—the records platform, the consultation on retaining records for 100 years and the undertaking to help locate the graves of babies who died in the homes. It is so awful to say—and it is so little, so late. As the surviving mothers are now in their 70s, 80s and 90s, time is of the essence. We need to know that these steps will happen promptly.
The Lord Privy Seal will understand that I have some questions about these matters. On the records platform, the Prime Minister said in answer to questions that it would happen as quickly as possible. Can the Lord Privy Seal give the House a meaningful timeline? Data helps nobody who does not know that it exists. Some of those affected have never yet spoken, from shame, about what happened to them. Can the Lord Privy Seal help the House with how the Government will communicate that this information may be available to them? Many babies were sent to homes across our internal borders between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. How will information be tracked between the devolved nations and where many records sit at the moment—and how will they be communicated?
On support for victims, there is to be funding of £4 million over three years, which we welcome. But the need will be lifelong. The Education Committee recommended a dedicated mental health support pathway, while the package offers guidance for clinicians instead. Why was that recommendation adopted instead of the mental health support pathway? What will survivors be offered in its place? On redress, the Prime Minister told the other place that the Government are looking at redress schemes. These too we would welcome. Can the Lord Privy Seal expand on what is meant by that, what is being considered and when any appraisal will be published?
We are, yet again, shamed as a nation. Giving evidence to the Education Committee in March, Ann Lloyd Keen, already quoted by the Prime Minister, asked a question of her own:
“Do you know why we have to keep repeating our evidence?”
The Prime Minister, when answering questions on his Statement, identified the reason. He said:
“We got this wrong as a state. So often we circle the wagons and protect the decision makers and wrongdoers instead of asking ourselves the question, ‘Where is the injustice here, and how do we put it right?’ That has to change, because it has happened in this case and others”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/26; col. 1052.]
All those words are the Prime Minister’s, and I agree with them wholeheartedly.
The Prime Minister is right. This House knows only too well the scandals: infected blood, where the risks were known from the 1940s; the Post Office, which prosecuted 1,000 innocent people; the grooming gangs, where 16 years of recommendations were unactioned; and Nottingham, where a statutory duty of candour has bound every NHS trust since 2014, yet here we are again with the Ockenden review finding 10 days ago that 520 mothers and babies suffered potentially avoidable harm, 162 died and nearly half the trust’s senior directors simply refused to engage. It seems, as with this terrible scandal, that codes, duties and even laws are not enough to stop this institutional rot. Even with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I fear that deeper cultural change is needed.
I ask the Lord Privy Seal, in a collaborative and supportive spirit: what are the Government going to do to change the culture, attitudes and behaviours of our public sector employees so that they start by asking the Prime Minister’s question, “How do we put this right?”, instead of, “How do we protect the decision-makers or the wrongdoers?” Nothing that the state does now can ever right the profound wrongs done to these mothers, their children and their families. But we can and we must deliver the support that they still need. I look forward to Lord Privy Seal’s response.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. It was particularly moving to hear the examples of the parents and the mothers. It was a difficult thing to hear, particularly those young mums who were basically stitched back together again without any help or support—it is really moving. It is a dark period in our nation’s history that we have to acknowledge.
We on these Benches warmly welcome the Government’s apology. It is long overdue. For decades, thousands of mothers, children and families have lived with the pain of what happened. Women were made to feel ashamed simply because they had children outside of marriage. Many were put under enormous pressure, as we heard earlier, to give up the babies they loved and wanted to keep. At a time when they needed compassion and support the most, too many instead faced judgment, coercion and silence. The state actually helped create the conditions in which this happened, and it is right that this has finally now been recognised.
I also want to pay tribute to the mothers, adoptees and campaigners who never gave up and fought for years to have their voices heard and their experiences acknowledged. They have shown remarkable courage in speaking up about events that caused them lifelong grief and trauma. Sadly, some of them are no longer with us. However, they have long campaigned for this, and it is a reminder of how long justice can sometimes take, and that an apology matters. It is an important step, and it will mean a great deal for many people, but it cannot be the end of the story.
It must be followed by practical actions that help those still living with the consequences of those historical wrongs. We welcome the measures announced, including improvements to access to adoption records and better support from the NHS. Those are positive steps, and we hope they will make a real difference to people who have spent decades searching for answers and trying to reconnect with their families.
I have some questions for the Lord Privy Seal. First, on mental health support, many of the people affected have lived with the trauma for more than 50 years. Some have struggled with anxiety, depression and unresolved grief throughout their adult life. Others may now feel able to come forward only because the Government have finally acknowledged what happened to them. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what dedicated funding will be available for specialist trauma-informed mental health support? Just as importantly, how will the Government ensure that survivors can access that support wherever they live, rather than being left to rely upon overstretched local health services?
Secondly, on the adoption records, we know that many mothers and adoptees still face long delays and unnecessary barriers when trying to find information about their families. Records remain scattered across local authorities, charities and voluntary organisations, many of which are already under significant pressure. Can the Lord Privy Seal say a bit more about the Government’s ambitions for a properly funded, centralised digital system that will bring records together, making it easier and more consistent for families to access information and where possible reconnect?
Finally, the Joint Committee on Human Rights encouraged the Government to consider the approach taken by other countries, including Ireland and Australia, where financial redress has been introduced. We recognise that decisions on compensation are ultimately for the Government. However, can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that Ministers will continue to examine the experiences of those countries carefully and keep the question of financial redress under active consideration?
This was a deeply shameful chapter in our history. It affected not only mothers but children, fathers, grandfathers and whole families whose lives have changed for ever. Although we cannot undo the suffering that was caused, we can ensure that those affected are treated with the dignity, compassion and respect they should always have received. The Government’s apology is an important milestone; this should also be the beginning of a wider commitment to justice. Survivors deserve support, straightforward access to the truth about their own lives and confidence that the Government will continue to work with them in the years ahead. This is how we can begin to rebuild trust and ensure that this painful chapter is never forgotten and never repeated.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments and their welcoming of the Statement. The noble Lord is quite right: the apology is the start of a process. I think we all agree that everyone has waited too long for this.
Whenever I read about this or speak to women I know who have been affected, I always go back to that frightened young woman who finds that she is pregnant, and society and, often, her family are not willing to support her. Society as a whole was complicit in this, in the way that we, as a whole, treated women who were single, young, scared and did not know where to turn. The very organisations they thought could help them were the ones they suffered most at the hands of. We have just to hear these stories. I think we all felt quite emotional hearing some of those tales; just imagine living through them. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are right to pay tribute to those women and the adoptees for what they went through.
There are a number of issues to address. The noble Baroness talked about behavioural change in public sector employees. It was not just public sector employees; this was across society. I remember speaking to one lady who told me that her relationship with her mother never recovered because her mother allowed her—indeed, forced her—to go into a home. The repercussions have gone through family life through generations. There is nothing you can do or say that can change the hurt that has been done, but we can try to do something to make a difference.
The noble Lord is right to challenge us on records. Records are held in different formats by different organisations across the country. Bringing them together will be quite something to achieve. To get them in one place is crucial.
The noble Lord asked about compensation and redress. We are led by those who have been affected. There are three big things in this package of support. One is improving access to and safeguarding adoption records, getting them into one place so that they can be accessed. There is also expanding access to specialist services, including mental health services, but also to reconnection services to help those who want to trace their families, and improving access to NHS services. This is not about individual compensation. We are seeking to give the people the support they need. I do not think there is any money in the world that can address the hurt and problems that have been caused by this.
The noble Baroness asked what the support is. Some of it is in place already. FamilyConnect is already expanding the use of the national advice line, because there is no point having information available if it is not easy to access. We are funding intermediary services —in effect, we are funding family-finding services for historical adoption cases, because people need support and help to navigate their way around the information. The more we can get it into one place, the easier it will be to access. Also, through FamilyConnect, we will have a national peer and support group offer, for the support to be there.
On trauma services in the NHS, the noble Lord references a specific kind of trauma. We will get this through guidance in the NHS and specific tools to recognise the experience of those affected by historical forced adoptions, so that clinicians can better understand the impact, because it impacts different people in different ways. We need to give clinicians that information and set up a range of support that may be relevant. There needs to be consistency of care through GP services.
Something that has always been a problem for those who are forced adoptees is knowing the family medical history, because that will be so important. They may have a medical condition later in life, and knowing their family’s medical history beforehand is crucial. We are going to give the option of a marker and of putting that marker, as the person wishes, on their NHS record so that clinicians can take it into account.
All this has to be led by and have strong input from those who are directly affected. We can all stand here and say what we think is appropriate but, if you are part of the cohort, whether you are a mother or an adoptee, you will know how you have been affected and you need to lead on what is needed.
Another important part is testimonials, so that people who want to tell their story, either to be acknowledged personally or to do so privately, can be recorded. Look at the mood in this House: when I read out the Statement, we felt the temperature lower. Anyone who heard it in the House of Commons last week will have seen an unusual degree of support across the House, particularly when women gave their personal stories. To be able to do that and bring people together is important. The testimonials are an important way forward.
This is the start of a process to recognise the hurt, apologise for the state’s role in it and do whatever we can to try to bring all the measures I have spoken about into being as quickly as possible. There will be absolutely no delay. I do not think that was what the noble Baroness was hinting at. She will know from the tone of the Statement and the work that went on before it was brought forward that there is a determination across government to ensure that we do what we can now to address this and try to give some redress for the problems and wrongs of the past.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I know the whole House will appreciate these rules being adhered to, to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible get a suitable opportunity to ask questions to the Lord Privy Seal.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for the tone and manner in which she repeated the Prime Minister’s Statement in your Lordships’ House this afternoon. She will be aware that, in 2022, the Joint Committee on Human Rights described forced adoption as
“the violation of family life”.
I am glad that its recommendation that the state should recognise its culpability has been accepted. It has been a pleasure to interact with Helen Hayes, Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood, who is the admirable chair of the Education Committee in another place.
Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that our 2022 report called for more concrete action? It asked for much wider provision of counsellors to provide post-adoption support, help for families to access adoption records and find out important medical information, and improvements in the way in which intermediaries operate to support contact between family members when that is wanted. It also called for the Government to find ways to alert those mothers who wish to be told in the sad and painful situation where an adopted child has died. Actions are always more convincing than words when harm has been done. Will the Lord Privy Seal write to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to say how the Government are now addressing those challenges?
One of our other recommendations—following a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash—is the early implementation of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal can tell the House why that legislation continues to be stalled when we hope to see the so-called Hillsborough law on the statute book to stop the circling of the wagons, as the Prime Minister rightly put it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord and value the work and findings of the JCHR and Joint Committees. That, along with the Education Committee’s work, has informed the package that has come through. For me, the first step seems to be to have as much information as possible in a central place. The noble Lord will understand how challenging that is going to be. The determination and work going into that now to ensure that that can happen will address a lot of the points that he raised.
On the Hillsborough Bill, the only delays have been to get it right. The noble Lord will know from his experience and the people he has spoken to the complexities in this area. When I was a Northern Ireland Minister, a very long time ago now in the previous Labour Government, I initiated a report into the deaths of a number of children who died in hospital from a condition called hyponatraemia, where it was felt that full information was not given to the parents. A report followed from that. The reason why I am never entirely happy with public inquiries is that it took something like 17 years to produce the report—I was in your Lordships’ House before it was published. One of its first recommendations was a duty of candour. Part of that is not to say that people are not giving information; it is to protect those who want to come forward with information because they are doing the right thing and their duty. It is a complex area. The only delay is in trying to get it right and make sure we address the points that have to be addressed. Such a lot of that has to work properly. If it is ineffective, it serves no purpose. We want to get that right.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. The Statement referred to Northern Ireland. Today, the report from the independent panel was published, which will lead to the public inquiry. That panel found systemic failures by the state, which led to a series of serious human rights issues. What interaction will take place with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that these women and children who were forced into adoption will receive their proper human rights?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness references, this was a Statement that covers England only. There was an apology from the Scottish First Minister in March 2023, and the Welsh Deputy Minister for Social Services issued an apology back in April 2023. It has taken longer here. I am pleased that work is going on in Northern Ireland now; that is important and I reference that. It is for the Northern Ireland Executive to bring this forward. Clearly, families are not static; they move across the UK. It is important that all the devolved Administrations work together with central government to ensure a joined-up approach, particularly where records are concerned. I hope that this can be taken forward.
Lord Lansley (Con)
In 1997 and 1998, I served on the Health Select Committee, along with Ann Keen, under the chairmanship of David Hinchliffe, on the inquiry into child migration. That report led the way, not least in the sense that it promoted the responsibility of the state for what had happened. I thought that was helpfully reflected in what the Prime Minister’s Statement had to say. Gordon Brown made a formal apology in February 2010. In July 2010, as Secretary of State, I instituted the family restoration fund, which, in the subsequent two years, brought 300 former families together. Will the Lord Privy Seal ensure that, in the further work now to be done in supporting those who have been subject to forced adoption, the learnings from the family restoration fund, and indeed the Child Migrants Trust, are taken on board? There is significant substantial overlap between those who were forcibly migrated and those who were subject to forced adoption.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and will certainly take them back, as so much can be learned. He and I knew Ann Keen and David Hinchliffe. People started to speak out a long time ago and it is sad that this has taken so long, but we are here now. His comments are very helpful and I am happy to take them away.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I declare something of an interest here. Back in 2012, as a volunteer, I designed the Movement for an Adoption Apology website and its logo. That was when campaigners came to the Green Party asking for the apology that we have finally secured. It spoke to me particularly because I believe that, as a newborn baby in Australia in 1944, my father was affected by a similar kind of behaviour. That is a reflection of the fact that this is something that comes down through the generations. It has an impact beyond the mothers and babies directly affected, with familial impacts further down.
I thank the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister for this powerful, appropriate and rightful Statement and the tone in which it has been presented. My question specifically is the reference to consulting on
“requiring existing records to be retained for 100 years”.
We know that a lot of institutions and organisations may now rightly feel ashamed of their past behaviour. What sort of timeframe will there be for the consultation? Is there anything that the Government can do to make sure that records are not destroyed or thrown away in the meantime, so that they remain accessible until that process is put into effect?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not know whether the noble Baroness heard that part of the Statement, but the Education Secretary has written to local authorities and adoption agencies where we have information to say that they must keep the records, so that work is starting now. Times have changed, and we want organisations that have records to offer them up and bring them centrally to ensure that as much information as possible is available.
One hundred years seems the appropriate time, but the noble Baroness is right to reference the impact on families through generations. I am of an age where I can remember friends from school—not many—who had children. It was sometimes with the love and support of their families, and they kept their child and we saw them at school and at events. But there were others who went away and you did not hear anything about it—they just disappeared for a while. I am sure I am not the only one in this House who has those kinds of memories. Thinking back, we did not really understand then what happened. But, for them, all those years later, they will still be living that. So, the retention of records for 100 years is appropriate.
We do not want a particularly long consultation; we want to ensure we can get on with it as quickly as possible. I cannot give an exact timescale, but I can assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing here that anybody wants to see any delay on.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology last week and thank the Lord Privy Seal for reading it with such empathy and compassion. The House will be aware, I am sure, that last month, Archbishop Sarah issued an apology for the Church of England’s involvement in these practices, and specifically for the pain, trauma and stigma experienced—and still carried—by many people as a result. She said what the Prime Minister also said in his apology: “The shame is ours, not yours”. Today, I add my voice to the apology to all people who experienced loss or received poor care in homes affiliated to the Church of England, whether mothers or adoptees. We are deeply sorry.
The diocese of Winchester ran a maternity home alongside a small number of other shelters. Today, I pay significant tribute to those people for whom this was lived experience and who have shared and recorded their own painful and very moving stories with us with great courage and grace over many months. As a result, we are holding a service at St Bartholomew’s church this Saturday 11 July so that people can gather together to reflect, lament and be present for the unveiling of a plaque.
To anyone listening who is affected, please know that you can speak to your local vicar or contact your local diocese. They will, I trust, listen sensitively and offer pastoral support and, in some cases, may suggest you seek specialist services. Pastoral support matters, but in some instances, access to professional therapeutic services will be required. Could the Minister describe what financial support might be allocated to increase capacity among professional providers of such support?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the way that he and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury have issued their apologies as well. When we—rightly—say the shame is not theirs, it is ours, we ought to say how much pride we have in those women who have spoken out. This is not an easy thing to do, because many of them still feel the shame of all those years ago. Society has moved on, but we should recognise the pride we take in them, and they should feel pride in themselves for the way they have campaigned to get to this point.
A number of areas have had extra funding, including an improvement in the adoption and care services we have at present. We have made improvements in mental health provision as well and have increased mental health spending to a record £16.1 billion. The need is there for this, particularly in this area. I have already outlined some of the specialist services, particularly by working with the NHS, that will be available.
I hope that as more women come forward, the shame they felt in the past will start to recede for them. To carry that shame for so long must be so debilitating in everyday life. So, I hope that by moving forward, we can try to change the culture of how these women feel, because they have carried too much and too heavy a burden for far too long.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister for the tone and the detail in this Statement. However, the NHS was 68 on Sunday and many of the babies were born in NHS facilities. I was 19 when a baby was taken away from a young person at Princess Beatrice Hospital in London, against her will but with her mother’s support, because they felt completely unable to look after the child. I believe that child was adopted by a family who were desperate for a child. Many of the people who adopted these children were actually kind and loving, and many of the families that gave up children because no one knew how to support them were in great distress. I am convinced that what we did was wrong, and that there will be some people who will not be convinced that NHS mental health support is necessarily the best solution; for some people, NHS counselling may not be appropriate. Is it that the NHS will provide the service or will it ensure that the service is delivered—that is, possibly deliver some services through independent counselling services as well as the mainstream NHS?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
First, I am sure the noble Baroness just misspoke: the NHS was 78 on Sunday, not 68.
She references the parents who adopted children. I have to say that the focus today has to be on the adoptees and the mothers. It is not that some adoptive parents did not provide a loving home but that there was an idea that the mother could not be the best person. Judgments were made. I know that in my own family, going back a generation or so, there were cousins who were really uncles but they were brought up by the grandmother rather than the mother. That happened quite frequently and was not unusual. Many of us looking back at our family trees and trying to work out dates of birth find that they do not quite work out.
It is a bit early to say who should deliver particular services. That is where the clinicians come in, working with the NHS. I am not saying that everything has to be delivered through the NHS, because there may be other ways of doing so. What is important is that it is referenced on a patient’s record, because that is how a clinician will know how to find the best way to support the person affected.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I declare a painful personal interest. My mother was working as a volunteer for the Church of England Moral Welfare in the 1950s and I did not fully understand what it was about. I now look back at that inhibited and illiberal period in our society, and this is part of what was so inhibited. The Church of England in those days preached that sex was sinful, and there was a whole range of other issues.
Since then, we have become a far more liberal society, and the position of women in our society in particular has changed radically. I look at my daughter’s opportunities compared with those of my sisters and I am delighted. Does the Minister think that we now need to think about the broader social context of the sort of society we live in, now that our liberal society is under attack from misogynistic movements both in the United States and in Europe, certainly very strongly on social media, and that we all in different parties need to defend the principles of private life, toleration and the rights of women as well as of men from the attacks that are coming from reactionary forces on both sides of the Atlantic?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, but I must correct him: I do not think the Church ever preached that sex was sinful. It was only sinful if you did not have a wedding ring; I think it was quite happy about it once the wedding ceremony had taken place. However, the noble Lord is right that this was a societal and cultural issue. As I said, I think parents colluded in that because of the shame it brought on the family, and it is a shocking thing to say that that might have happened in your own family.
We are in different times. With the advances that have been made in society in our approach, with the great reforms in the 1960s to marriage, to divorce, to contraception and on a whole range of issues, we now think differently. However, the noble Lord is right that there is a movement among those who have a very misogynistic attitude towards women—just look at the Question we had today about the gang raping of women within relationships having been drugged by partners—and we have to be clear, to speak out and to act, taking action that is as strong as possible wherever it occurs. But that starts with language. In relation to some of the videos online where women are disrespected and it is seen as some kind of macho thing to disrespect women, I think all of us will want to speak out about that and speak out with one voice.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I add my voice to those of everybody else in thanking my noble friend for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement and for its sensitivity and compassion. I particularly support the actions that will be taken. But does my noble friend agree that the scandal was possible only because of the scale of stigma and discrimination against single mothers—“unmarried mothers”, as they were called? Does she agree that, although there has been progress, that stigma and discrimination against single mothers is still very much with us? Single mothers have reported in recent surveys that not only do they face financial pressures in raising children alone—look at stories in parts of the press or listen, I am afraid, even to some politicians and the way that they talk disrespectfully about single mothers, particularly working-class single mothers—but that prejudice is still with us. Is there more action that we could take to counter that prejudice once and for all?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that some people will find any excuse to demonise or act against or disrespect one group of people, and lone parents, particularly mothers, have often found themselves in that place. I remember talking to a lone parent who was a single mum of two young children because her husband had been killed, and she found the same kind of discrimination against her at times. There is the mother who has been left by the man who has left her with the children. There are lots of reasons why women are bringing up children on their own. I think all of us want the kind of society where we support each other and have respect for each other, and to discriminate against somebody on the basis of those kinds of issues, we would all agree, is totally wrong. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we should all take care with the language we use and how we discuss these issues, and we should think before we speak.
Railways Bill
Tuesday 7th July 2026
(5 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Railways Bill 2024-26 View all Railways Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June - large print - (10 Jun 2026)
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Scottish and Welsh legislative consent sought.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to present the Railways Bill for Second Reading today. Before turning to the substance of the Bill, I would like to acknowledge that today marks the 21st anniversary of the 2005 attacks on London's transport network. As a former commissioner of Transport for London, my thoughts are with those who were, and continue to be, affected by that day. I also pay tribute to the extraordinary courage and resilience of Londoners, including those in emergency services, transport staff and members of the public who responded in the face of events which were completely shocking.
This Bill has been a long time coming and it is my absolute privilege to speak to it today. I look forward to the debates to come on the detail but, for now, I will speak to the Bill in general terms. The need for reform of our railways is clear. Parliament, including noble Lords in this Chamber, regularly draws attention to service shortfalls, poor and inconsistent customer service and very substantial costs for the taxpayer—all realities that I and this Government accept and which stem from the fragmented system that has been in place for decades which leaves no one but the Secretary of State ultimately responsible. No one takes responsibility when things go wrong. Indeed, it was the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, who first commissioned the independent review by Keith Williams that would lead to the recommendation to create GBR—Great British Railways —after the timetable fiasco in 2018.
The issues are myriad. Passengers are consistently faced with a confusing ticketing system, where seeking the fairest price and a valid ticket are often a trial. The timetable, and performance against it, is also a source of disagreement and chaos, meaning that disruption and cancellations are far more frequent than they should be. Thanks to reforms that this Government have already made via the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, which your Lordships’ House passed in 2024, we are already beginning to see progress.
Nine passenger train operators are now in public hands and performance among public operators is outstripping those still in private hands. More operators are continuing to move into public ownership regularly. Once all these services are in house, the taxpayer will save up to £150 million a year in fees that would otherwise have been paid to private franchise owners. Passengers will also find more money in their pockets, due to the first rail fares freeze in 30 years. But these measures are not enough; much more work still needs to be done. There is only one solution to fix these problems—fix the railways, put the customer first and restore the industry to a place of national pride—and it is this Bill.
The Bill builds on and replaces the public ownership Act. That Act was a vital step that allowed us to bring passenger services into public ownership and proceed with some degree of integration. This Bill goes further and will give the Secretary of State the powers to create Great British Railways, one public body that will act as the directing mind for the railway. GBR will bring together 17 different organisations involved in the day-to-day running of the railway, harmonising track and train and seizing opportunities that would not be possible under the current system.
The Bill does far more than just establish GBR. One essential element is a powerful voice for passengers, in the form of the passenger watchdog. The watchdog will set consumer standards for the railways, investigate poor service and provide an independent ombudsman service to resolve disputes between passengers and operators, including GBR and its subsidiaries. It will have a specific duty to consider the interests of disabled passengers, and it will have tools to act where there are repeated issues affecting passenger experience. The watchdog will be a champion for passenger interests, ensuring that the reformed railways deliver on the promises to passengers that we make here today.
I would like to speak about accessibility, and I underline that it will be at the heart of what GBR is and does. I know that passengers with accessibility needs often find railway travel challenging, frustrating and distressing. I know that, all too frequently, facilities and assistance do not meet expectations, so accessibility will be part of GBR’s DNA. For the first time, an accessibility duty will apply directly to a body responsible for both the operation of passenger services and the management of railway infrastructure.
Information, fares and ticketing have in many ways become the face of the industry’s problems, with many different websites offering conflicting information and fares. The Bill enables GBR to simplify the customer offer. A new GBR ticketing app and website will make it easier to plan journeys, purchase tickets and access a range of support consistently in one place. GBR’s online retailer will charge no booking fees and will enable disabled passengers to book passenger assist in the same place as their ticket. This means that, in the future, passengers can better understand the fares system and be confident that what they are getting is correct and good value.
The railway has not had the ability to plan ahead for many years, leading to much less than optimal spend on railway enhancements and higher project costs. That is why the Bill also requires the Secretary of State to publish a long-term railway strategy. The strategy will be the first of its kind. It will give GBR clear direction on the Government’s priorities for the railway over the next 30 years. It will guide the long-term choices that GBR makes, ensuring that the railway is aligned with wider government goals, such as economic growth, jobs and homes, and the environment. The railway undoubtedly faces challenges, ranging from climate change to technological change, and from demographic shifts to financial sustainability. That is exactly what the long-term strategy will examine and consider. The Bill gives GBR and its stakeholders the tools to solve these challenges, placing them on the front foot from the very beginning, and obliges GBR to consult on and publish a business plan setting out how it will meet the strategy.
I turn to network access. The existing process of allowing access to the track—the valuable infrastructure owned by the nation—does not work. Currently, Network Rail designs the timetable but the Office of Rail and Road takes access decisions, and both organisations suffer from not having sight of the wider context of the network. Applications to run trains on the network are, in effect, considered on a first come, first served basis, rather than by reference to any long-term plan for how to make the best overall use of the network, and no one is considering which services are best for the public. That is bad for passengers, bad for freight users, bad for taxpayers and bad for the economy. A single directing mind is the only answer to this problem.
In future, GBR will be able to strategically plan access to the network and implement a reliable, achievable timetable to make best use of our limited capacity. This improved co-ordination will reduce delays and costs and improve reliability. It will stop nonsenses such as the ORR prohibiting the 0700 Manchester Piccadilly to Euston from carrying passengers, and me, as rail Minister, having to authorise the east coast main line timetable. Crucially, the ORR will hold GBR to account for taking fair and even-handed decisions on access, ensuring that it acts lawfully, fairly and reasonably. I am sure we will discuss this at length during the debates on the Bill.
On devolution, the Bill is not about centralising power; in fact, quite the opposite. It brings a whole host of benefits to the devolved nations and regional governments across the country. In Scotland and Wales, the Bill enables further collaboration with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, through Transport Scotland and Transport for Wales, and includes further potential for the integration of both operations and infrastructure, which could lead to improved services and co-ordination within and across our shared borders.
In England, the Bill empowers GBR to work locally in a more integrated and accountable way, and to address the place-making and economic and spatial development plans of strategic authority mayors. This means a statutory basis for structured partnerships with mayoral strategic authorities, and a duty for GBR to have regard to their local plans. The approach enables a full range of partnership options, ensuring that GBR can reach agreements that are suitable for the ambitions of mayors. This includes the ability for mayoral strategic authorities to directly fund GBR activity. There will be clear expectations for GBR to meaningfully engage with all local authorities, including those with and without mayors. In any case, GBR will be more locally focused, with its local business units directly involved with the areas they serve, and with local management engaged with local people and their elected representatives, meaning that the needs of the community are never ignored.
I highlight and underline the benefits the Bill will bring to rail freight, which is, and will remain, a commercial activity critical to improving economic growth and meeting our net-zero targets. GBR will have two statutory duties regarding freight. The first is to promote rail freight, and the second is to have regard to the statutory rail freight target set by the Secretary of State and any freight target set by Scottish Ministers. As the single strategic body, GBR will be well placed to fulfil our ambitions for freight, and it will have the levers to drive progress towards our targets. Before I close, I would like to say that I am looking forward to hearing the valedictory words of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, later. He has dedicated his life to public service, and I am pleased that the Bill’s Second Reading provides the opportunity to hear his remarks.
The Bill is a major step forward. While a detailed scrutiny of its contents—something I am looking forward to taking on—will undoubtedly be required, I know I have the support of the general public in sponsoring it. Public ownership of our railway continues to be popular, with over three-quarters of the public consistently supporting public ownership since this Government were elected. As I open the debate to the Floor, I will leave noble Lords with a final thought. The fragmented nature of the railway industry is plain to see and needs to change. That fragmentation began with the last major railway legislation in 1993, which resulted in over 100 companies being formed. This Bill establishes just one: a single directing mind that can get to grips with the mess, mismanagement and misery that so many rail users have experienced for years. Together, we can rebuild the railway so that the public can finally have a railway they can be proud of. I beg to move.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a member of the GWR stakeholder advisory board, ably and knowledgeably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I add my voice to the Minister’s remarks on the 21st anniversary of those terrible attacks on our transport system. I also reference the fact that this is the debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, will be making his valedictory speech. He and I have not overlapped for long in this Chamber and did not overlap in government, but I know that he brought to this House his experience as a distinguished public servant, and he will be missed.
When I became a Member of Parliament, I did not expect to spend so much time dealing with trains. I did so not just as shadow Secretary of State for Transport for a period, but also because a lot of my constituents were commuters and the train service mattered to them. But I had the advantage of dealing with those issues in an era of privatisation. I remember British Rail. I always used to say that British Rail was run for the interests of those who enjoyed playing trains, rather than the interests of passengers. Privatisation changed that because, for the companies, the service to passengers mattered. As a local Member of Parliament, I was able to work with the train operating companies—first, Thames Trains then GWR—to ensure that services were improved, timetables were changed and new trains were put on in the interests of local people. That ability is going to be wiped away by this Bill and by the creation of Great British Railways.
It is an issue I argued with Keith Williams when he was producing his report, and I recognise that on this side of the House, our hands are not entirely clean in relation to the concept of Great British Railways, albeit with differences from the Bill that this Government are introducing. But what is being created here is not something that puts the customer first; it is a centralised bureaucracy that will determine all the issues that matter to passengers—fares, train times, and the timetable. I say to the Minister that it is not putting the customer first; I fear that it is, in fact, putting the passenger last.
That relates to my second concern with the Bill, which is about accountability and interference. First, I worry that the Bill is removing yet further the powers of the Office of Rail and Road to hold the railways and Great British Railways to account. I remember when Tom Winsor was the Rail Regulator, and a rather determined Rail Regulator he was too, but after him, things got a little mushy. The teeth were drawn from the Office of Rail and Road, as it became, and I fear that the teeth are going to be further drawn in this Bill. That matters, particularly because of an aspect to which attention has been drawn by the Transport Select Committee in the other place, which fears micromanagement of the railways by the Secretary of State. The Bill gives considerable opportunities for the Secretary of State to interfere with Great British Railways and to make determinations which otherwise should be being made in the interests of passengers.
My third concern is this. Last week, the new Member of Parliament for Makerfield, who it is widely assumed will soon be our Prime Minister, made a speech in which he applauded and spoke up for the interests of place, of locality, of that sense of belonging to an area, of local identity. This Bill sweeps away the idea of local identity in our railways, because it centralises those decisions. It sweeps away the traditional historical names, regional concepts and structures from our railways. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say this, because I have said it to him on a number of occasions and obviously, I am concerned about this issue.
The symbolism of this is perhaps best seen in the fact that suddenly, all the trains are going to be repainted in the colours of the Union Jack, and the traditional liveries will go. Not only will that cost the taxpayer money, completely unnecessarily; it is as if somebody in the Department for Transport—maybe the Minister, maybe a civil servant, or perhaps a special adviser—has suggested, “Actually if we’re going to make a change, people need to see there’s a change, so let’s repaint all the trains”. People will know there is a change when their services are no longer as good as they should be. They will know there is a change when they can no longer raise their local voice, and their MP and others can no longer take that up and work with the companies to bring about a change and an improvement in their services.
So, what does this Bill do? Far from prioritising passengers, it prioritises government. Far from increasing accountability, it reduces it. Far from creating independence, it creates dependence. Far from localising, it centralises; and far from respecting local identity, it destroys it. In this Bill, the passenger interest is given less priority, the regulator’s ability to challenge is reduced, and the Government’s ability to interfere is increased. That bodes ill for the future of our railways.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
It will perhaps not surprise the last speaker that I find her remarks so far from the truth about what is really happening on our railway. Before and since the Bill was published, I have been approached by a number of lobbyists and companies seeking to inhibit Great British Railways organising a railway which works for the majority of users.
The aim is for a railway that operates express services to and from the capital; fast inter-regional services; local services planned together with regional mayors; better connections; an ambitious freight growth target; and some elbow room in the timetable to cater for the occasional aberrations, together with some engineering work.
All this can be achieved and still leave room for open-access operators which are able to pay a fair price for access, and that abstraction of revenue from other operators must be compensated for. Paths in any timetable, particularly on our congested network, are a scarce commodity, and running short trains on busy routes gives rise to opportunity costs, which means, for example, that running two short trains coupled together over the busiest sections may commend itself.
I hope the Minister will underline the fact that this does not give the regulator power to determine the basic structure of the railway, as that was what nearly caused the crisis in compiling the 2025 timetable, to which he has referred, and was resolved only by executive action, leaving many loose ends behind it. The regulator may hear claims of unfairness which are clearly demonstrated and recommend that these be corrected. It will be for Great British Railways to demonstrate that it has been fair, bearing in mind the pressure on a constrained network.
Great British Railways will have many other aims, and among these is to keep one major route open between important hubs so as to avoid, as far as possible, the need for bus substitution. People prefer to stay on a train on a diversionary route, provided that they are informed in advance of a longer journey. We want to see faster Anglo-Scottish journeys and internal journeys by air and freight reduced, in the interests of reducing congestion and improving air quality. If we add desirable features, such as a passenger growth target and incentives to use rail more, this will require faster, larger and more frequent trains and better freight facilities and depots.
All this can be achieved by the early 2040s, which, in railway terms, is where we should be aiming. We need vision to achieve this, not a lawyer-driven nightmare overseen by a legalistic regulator.
There is one issue on which I shall press the Minister to provide an answer. As I understand it, the future Great British Railways will have a five-yearly allocation of funds. This will be contained in a statement of funds available set by the rail regulator after considering the proposed expenditure submitted by Great British Railways. My question concerns the words which permit the Secretary of State to reduce the amount of money set aside for the railways.
Railways and their supply chain are a long-term industry that needs some certainty about future levels of investment. If the Secretary of State interferes with the process, he should refer the matter back to the regulator so that he may be advised how the industry will be affected, particularly the operation and maintenance of the railway and the likely effect on the agreed business plan.
I remind the House that the two major developments which have affected the railways in recent years concern HS2 and the intercity express programme. Neither of these were carried out by railway professionals but were dictated by government and have proved costly and have vastly outrun their timescales. Great British Railways needs to start with a clean sheet and be able to make its own decisions about how the money is spent.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I start by drawing the House’s attention to my registered interests. I am chair of the Accessible Transport Policy Commission and a board member of Active Travel England.
The Disability Discrimination Act was passed in 1995. It was the bare minimum of what it was possible to get through Parliament at the time. I sat on the National Disability Council, which oversaw the implementation of the DDA. That said that all trains would be step-free by 1 Jan 2020. In 2020 we were told it would be 100 years before I could get on the majority of trains in the UK without the permission or support of a member of staff. I need to live only another 94 years.
I look forward to working with the Minister, who has extensive knowledge in this space, but all Governments for the past 30 years have allowed derogations. Basically, they have kicked the can down the road, and a very simple question is: are we as a Parliament going to keep doing that?
We should acknowledge the transport gap for disabled people. Some 2.8 million people are locked out of the workforce because of inaccessible transport. Making it accessible could boost the economy by £176 billion. IMechE has said that investment of between £20 billion and £24 billion could generate another £10 billion to £34 billion in revenue. So this is just a political choice.
The disability tax—the extra time for planning, lifts not working, et cetera—for me is a personal cost of two to three hours every single week. The Transport Select Committee in its Access Denied report has highlighted many of the issues. Getting on and off a train in a timely manner is not exceptional; it should be the norm. I have had some great experiences and many that were not. I have been asked many times, “Tanni, what is it that you want?” Most people were expecting a technical answer, but it is simple: I just want the same miserable experience of commuting as everyone else. I do not have that; I aspire to that. At one mainline train station I am known as “the woman who tweets”.
However, I am optimistic, because there is a chance that this Government can make a change that will have a significant impact. Passenger and disability rights need to be strongly established through the Bill, and rights enforcement should be given greater weight than duties for cost-cutting and competition. This means that legal rights such as in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and data protection legislation should be the basis for all standards. The accessible travel charter needs a defined review point and legislative force behind it. We must ensure that the Equality Act 2010 duties are strictly adhered to by transport providers, requiring them to anticipate accessibility needs rather than waiting for formal complaints.
Change comes in different ways and collaboration works. I thank Tony Jennings, who led on the work to change the discriminatory scooter policy in Scotland. Mobility scooter users do not automatically have the same legal rights as wheelchair users on public transport. While wheelchair spaces are guaranteed by law under the Equality Act 2010, bus, train and tram operators can set their own specific policies for mobility scooters. Further enforcement of the wheelchair space—for example, not filling it with luggage—should not be left to disabled people to police.
I welcome the DfT’s consultation on micromobility—I have an attachment and it has revolutionised my travel—but recently a staff member, who did not know their own accessible transport policy, tried to stop me taking it on board. As a disabled person, you have to be an expert in all aspects of policy, procedure, ticketing and access. Multimode assistance failures cannot keep being passed between train companies as part of a blame game. No one would design a system the way that we have it. Years ago, my photo was sent to all members of staff at a particular train station; they were told to get me off the platform as soon as possible. That was great for me—it worked for a while—but that is simply not possible to do at scale.
Level boarding should be a priority. It should be mandatory that all procurement for passenger trains touching any Network Rail track is low floor. One company that did that—well done—did not design the inside of the carriage to be accessible. We were told, “Don’t worry, you will be in sight of the café bar”. In all my years of campaigning, being in sight of a café bar was not on my list. Being able to see it but not buy anything from it was not what we really wanted.
I try to book assistance, but it is exhausting to negotiate. I cannot remember the number of times I have to say, “Turn up and go is a legal right”. When assistance fails, the question is, “Did you book?” Well, if I am on a train, someone put me there; I did not magically teleport on to the carriage. Every time I book, I receive at least five emails per journey, with questionnaires about the process—but often I am asked about the actual journey only weeks or months later. When I book, I get an email telling me that the booking is unconfirmed and then another saying it has been confirmed. I then get various emails from the train company. However, I have had assistance confirmed with stations that are completely inaccessible. It is essential that we have up-to-date information on lift and toilet availability, or on where lifts that are turned off because stations are not staffed. Disabled people have been told to return to their home station before 6 pm because the lifts are turned off when no staff are there. Disabled people should not have a curfew. An example of a horrendous experience of lifts is at St Pancras station, which has seemingly been out of service for months. People have been told that the mitigation is to go to Farringdon, but last week all the lifts were out there too.
I will give a recent experience to illustrate the reality of my week. I was a “turn up and go” passenger at a station. The assistance desk could not check whether the wheelchair space was free. I was told to go to the ticket office, where usually they can check that, but they were not able to do so at the time. They could sell me a ticket, except the train was technically sold out, so they could sell me only an open ticket, which is much more expensive. The wheelchair space is not even on the ticketing system, so I could buy a ticket for a train on which I did not know whether there was space nor whether someone could help me on it. This system just has to change.
The complaint process is too hard. Train companies often try to bat people away and make them believe that it is a one-off. The only time some companies wake up is when you mention Vento. We should not have to raise compensation to get a complaint sorted. Some disabled people decide to sue, but it does change as much as it should. Some disabled people who sue successfully are often derided and mocked in the industry. But we should look at this in a different way: the industry should quite simply do its job and stop making it possible for the courts—not some random friends—to make judgments in favour of disabled people who are failed on the network.
I welcome the words from the Minister on the app, where we will be able to buy tickets and get assistance at the same time; that is another issue that has been kicked down the road for a little while. I have at least seven apps, and six of them show different prices for every single journey. Ticket vending machines need to be accessible. I can use most of them only if I put my hand in the air and turn my thumb upside down, because they are not designed for people who are sitting down. We also need better understanding of the ramps on the network. I have heard that there are 56 different ramp types on the network. I am not sure whether that is the right number, but the rail delivery universal ramp project seems to have stalled. We should have ramp-trained staff on every platform, or staff absolutely should do a walk-through of a train.
What do we really need? We need legislative deadlines for level boarding and step-free stations. We need an accessibility charter, which should be the floor, not the ceiling, of our aspirations. We need to promote and protect the rights and interests of disabled passengers. I go back to a simple question: will this Government be different from every other Government since 1995 and commit to accessible transport, or are they going to keep kicking the can down the road?
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, I am going to start with a personal anecdote, but it will not be either as moving or as consequential as the ones we have heard from her today. I pay tribute to her campaigning work on this issue; I am sure that sentiment is shared by other Members of the House.
On a Friday, when I get to Euston and am heading north, I yearn for the toilets to work, effective wifi and a quiet coach. By the time I get back to London on a Monday, as a commuter, I am looking at “Am I going to get a seat? Is it reliable? Is the price fair?” Of course, a top-class railway that is spending £22 billion annually—with more than half of that taxpayer subsidy—arguably can and should provide all these things and more, and I have not even mentioned the other neglected priorities of electrification, extreme weather resilience, modal shift, new services, safety, speed, fresh sandwiches and so on.
All these competing ambitions make a wider point in that they concern the choice of priorities, yet the essence of the claim in the Bill is that the delivery of future policy priorities can follow only from getting the basic underlying structure right. The Bill is a fresh start. It legislates for an outcome that the Conservatives recognised the case for but did not act on: the need to end the fragmentation and to bring track and train together. The noble Baroness, Lady May, graciously hinted at the value of bringing track and train together. I share her concern for passenger voice as a live issue and regional influence, but I am mindful that I am to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, who I anticipate having a slightly more ideological engagement about the merits of privatisation versus nationalisation; I promise to say a word on that later.
I think that the public’s first concern is simply a service that works. The Bill builds around an evidence case that fragmentation is holding our railways back. The Minister noted that we have 17 different bodies, so unifying track and train under a single organisation is designed to work for passengers, freight and the taxpayers. For the first time in a generation, we will have a single arm’s-length body that is unambiguously accountable for making the railways work. Of course, a new structure could potentially drive out the very large existing inefficiencies, and it is the prerequisite for dealing with the prevailing culture, which is one of blame, then negotiation and then compensation.
Despite those vital changes, the trade-offs between affordability and reliability, and between subsidy reduction and network upgrades, will remain, so I welcome that, when it comes to setting priorities, the Government have given us a flavour. They are about to publish a long-term rail strategy that will have five core objectives, two of which will deal with long-term economic growth and reducing regional inequality.
We need to reorientate our railways to our long-term ambitions for the nation. Two hundred years ago, railways were the new general-purpose technology of their day. Today’s general-purpose technology is AI, and quantum will follow. Again, we face as a country the creative destruction that is changing our economic geography in the same way as railways first shaped our economy, our geography, our leisure and our landscape.
Great British Railways should be tasked with supporting a faster-growing economy. This is a time of profound change. We need it to break down barriers of opportunity, reduce journey times, improve connectivity and stimulate regeneration and housebuilding next to stations.
Let me come beyond the rhetoric, to the relief of the other side, to the challenges that come with establishing a single organisation. Great British Railways, when it is fully established, will employ 100,000 people. It will be the country’s largest arm’s-length body. The stakes are high. On the plus side, public ownership avoids the siphoning off if dividends and profiteering. However, we must also mitigate the known risks. Monolithic organisations can be deaf to key interests, captured by other interests, slow to innovate and risk averse. These are not insuperable challenges. Many nations manage to have fast, reliable, successful railway systems, and so should the nation where it all began. The structural changes will need to be coupled with political and organisational leadership. To meet public expectations, we will need better regulation rather than more regulation. To encourage the self-sufficiency of the system and manage the burden on the taxpayer, the House of Commons Transport Select Committee suggested that we should be setting a passenger growth target to incentivise commercially minded improvements.
When it comes to nurturing innovation, the Minister will be aware of the ongoing anxieties, notably from the open access operators. They account for only 1% of services but they are responsible for 19% of the new train orders in recent years, so we need to make sure that they find their place. They have been successful in securing modal shift on the Edinburgh to London route and elsewhere.
In my few remaining minutes I come to the issue of devolution of decision-making, clear accountability and speed of decision-making. This touches on some of the anxieties that the noble Baroness, Lady May, raised about regional input. Britain’s devolution landscape is complex, highly varied and very fast evolving. Others have referenced the new Member for Makerfield. I welcome that the Bill provides for the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland and the combined mayoral authorities to have a statutory role in the rail network, but I would welcome reassurance on how this will work in practice. Can we expect to see any of the mechanisms for clear accountability, locally and nationally, during Committee? As a signal of intent of their commitment to working with the devolved Governments and mayoral authorities, will the Government look at developing shared evidence bases that will allow for the stronger business cases that will allow us to move over time to local commissioning? Finally, on ticketing, I will say only that it must be right to consolidate 55 million different ticket types that are allegedly available and make it easier for the passenger to find the most affordable fare.
In conclusion, I say that this Bill is a bold statement. That is important. It is not always that Members on this side can stand and say, “This is a bold statement about the way forward”. We as a Government have been accused of timidity. This is a bold statement to fix a problem that has frustrated passengers, railway staff and the railway industry for too long. It begins a process of evolution from today’s semi-privatised rail network to a nationalised railway, but the essence is to bring track and train together and end 30 years of experimentation, unlocking growth and delivering efficiency in the network. I commend the Bill and look forward to Committee.
Lord Redwood (Con)
I agree with the Minister’s three main aims for railway improvement. He is right that punctuality is insufficient. Last year, under 85% of trains arrived within three minutes of timetable and over 4% of services were cancelled altogether. He is right that we need to improve the quality of the passenger experience. That will require innovation, new services geared to people’s lives and their travel demands, and delivering them a travel offer at an affordable price, an acceptable fare. The railway is too detached and is running far too many nearly empty trains around to fill a timetable. This is interspersed with, at popular times, too few popular trains, with 169,000 people standing in very cramped and unsafe conditions on a typical day. A lot of work needs to go into getting into the modern world and understanding travel patterns.
Above all, the Minister is right that there needs to be a revolution in value for money. We are paying far too much as taxpayers, in some cases far too much as fare payers, and in other cases travelling on heavily subsidised fares, in relation to the amount of work that the railway is able to do. Last year, taxpayers had to put in £21.6 billion to this railway system, and fare payers were persuaded to put in only £11.5 billion. So limited was the offer that was made available on this vast network that taxpayers were paying twice as much as fare payers—general taxpayers twice as much as the more limited number of people who were actually using the railway.
So we do need a revolution. I share some of my noble friend Lady May’s scepticism about whether the right revolution can come from nationalisation itself. The Government need to describe more accurately to the public the nature of the railway that they took responsibility for some two years ago. I am the first to confess that the Governments I supported did not get it all right and that there were many failings that needed to be corrected. But the Minister should be honest with the public and remind them that all the track, all the signals, all the structures and all the stations were taken into public ownership by a previous Labour Government in 2002. He should also point out that many of the problems, delays and interruptions of service have, in recent years, been created by failings in the nationalised part of the system, as well as some of them, as he will rightly point out, being created by the train operating companies which the predecessor Government were gradually getting rid of—and it is also his policy to complete that task.
However, this great, controlling mind they are going to find—I trust that this lady or gentleman exists—is going to need a lot of vision and drive to get value out of this extraordinary network. All these thousands of miles of track that go into the very hearts of our cities and towns are not being used properly and nearly enough. They are far too empty. If you see a bird’s eye view from a camera, or a plane with a camera, of our country at morning peak—there still is a bit of a morning peak on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, although Covid has made a bit of a difference on Monday and Friday—you see inadequate roads, increasingly reduced in scale and size by Liberal Democrat councils, with huge traffic jams and queues, making it very difficult for people to drive to work or to the shops or do what they want to do. You see largely empty, fabulous, straight trackways into the centres of our cities, with trains spaced out at two-mile intervals, or whatever it is, because the signalling is pretty primitive and for safety reasons they are very worried about running more trains on the same track, even though they are all going in the same direction on that bit of track. You would have thought that, with modern digital signalling, if we are going to get it, you could actually run more trains safely on that track to take more of the strain of travel.
The travel opportunity for the railway is enormous because its market share has sunk so far. If you look at trips in the last year, you see that only 2% of people’s trips were by train and 59% of their trips were by car, and then there was walking and cycling and so forth. Even if you take miles, where the railway does rather better because people tend to go on trains for rather longer journeys, people are still travelling seven times as much in a car as they are on a train. This is the business opportunity. So my suggestion to the Minister is that this piece of legislation needs some quite big tweaks in order to make it more likely that a controlling mind can come up with a way of selling all that empty rail and track space to enough people and organisations that can run trains to service the true travel needs of the public.
The first thing this controlling mind is going to need is access to private capital. If nationalisation means no more private capital then the railway is going to be even shorter of capital than it has been to date. I urge the Minister to allow for private capital, which must mean allowing challenger companies to offer services and facilities on the properties or the tracks to bring in the innovation and extra capital capacity that will be needed. Given that we are going to need a lot of innovation, a vital part of that package is open access. Once the Minister has completed his great train set under nationalised control, he must allow others to say, “I can do it better”, “I can do it differently”, or “I can make proper use of this track which the nationalised industry is not using properly”, in order to bring in the innovation and extra service quality that we will need.
I hope that a nationalised industry will want to take more pride in the railway than Network Rail has taken to date. When I go on a rail journey, I am often absolutely horrified when I look out of the window and see the rusty old rolling stock in the siding just wasting away, the old sleepers piled up as if nobody owns them, the brambles and the weeds growing out of the parallel track that is not used very much, and the uncared-for look of the whole place, with peeling paint on the stations and rusting iron on some of the very old stations. It is a mess, with graffiti over everything. I say innovate, allow contestability, bring in new services and clean the place up. Let us be proud of it, then the public might want to use it.
Baroness Leaman (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this Bill. I start by acknowledging his deep knowledge of our railways. Few in either House are better placed to steward legislation of this kind. I hope that expertise will make him receptive to the constructive scrutiny that these Benches intend to offer.
It is an honour to speak in the same debate as the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead. I am sure she will not remember but, nearly 20 years ago, after speaking at an event to encourage more women to stand for elected office, she discovered that her train home from Temple Meads had been cancelled, so I had the pleasure of giving her a lift to Bristol Parkway that evening. She was kind and generous enough not to remark on the pile of leaflets on the back seat of my car, which let us just say were not entirely complimentary about the Conservative Party.
This Bill will be judged not by the structures it creates but by the difference it makes to passengers. For most people, railway reform is not about the machinery of government; it is about whether the train arrives when it should, whether disruption is explained clearly, and whether, when the service fails, passengers are treated fairly and swiftly, without having to fight for what they are owed. That should be our starting point.
Great British Railways is being created because fragmented accountability has failed passengers. If it is to command public confidence, GBR must do more than bring track and train together; it must rebalance the relationship between the railway and the passenger. Nowhere is that imbalance clearer than in Delay Repay. In principle, the scheme is sound—passengers delayed by 15 minutes or more are, in most cases, entitled to money back—but in practice, too many never receive it. The latest joint research from Transport Focus and the Department for Transport found that nearly 45% of passengers with an eligible delay actually claimed what they were owed—a figure that has fallen since 2023. Of those who did not claim, nearly half either did not know that they could or wrongly believed that they were not eligible. That is a remarkable failure.
The problem is not the absence of a right; it is that the right is hidden behind process. A passenger must know that they are eligible for Delay Repay and know which operator to claim from; find the correct form; find their reference number, their ticket type, the time they should have departed and arrived, and how late they were; and then upload images of their ticket, along with their bank details. Even if they manage all that, the passenger must submit it within a certain time limit. If they do not, the money simply stays with the railway.
If Sainsbury’s fails to deliver my milk, it automatically reimburses me. If a concert I have booked is cancelled, I receive an automatic refund. If I switch energy providers and the process falters, I am automatically compensated. Why must it require such a Herculean effort to get a partial refund from London Northwestern when the 7.47 am from Leighton Buzzard is delayed for the third time in a week?
This is not a passenger failing; it is a system failing. Compensation that depends on knowledge, persistence and administrative skill is not good enough for a modern railway. The creation of GBR gives us the chance to fix this. GBR will know when a train was late, which services were cancelled and which journeys were affected. Increasingly, through digital ticketing and online accounts, it should also know which passengers bought tickets for these services. The burden should no longer sit with the passenger; it should sit with the railway. Where GBR has the data to identify an eligible delay, compensation should be automatic—not advertised more clearly, not placed behind a better form, but automatic. If a passenger books online, the refund should go straight back on to their card or into their account. Where automatic payment is genuinely not possible, they should receive a proactive notification with a simple route to claim. The test should be this: if the railway knows it has failed, it should not wait for the passenger to complain.
There are of course practical questions. Paper tickets will still exist and not every journey will sit in a digital account. We must not design a system that excludes those who are less digitally confident. But these are reasons to design automatic compensation properly, not reasons to avoid it. GBR should provide one clear, universal and accessible compensation scheme, with one standard and trusted process, and a single route for claims, with the complexity of the industry resolved behind the scenes rather than left to the passenger to navigate.
This is not merely about money. The sums involved are often modest, but the principle matters enormously. When a passenger has had a bad journey, the compensation process is the railway’s opportunity to restore trust. If that process is slow or obscure, it compounds the original failure. It tells the passenger that not only were they delayed but now they must chase the railway for what they are owed. This is exactly the culture that this Bill should end.
Delay Repay should become one of the clearest tests of whether GBR is truly passenger-first. It is concrete, measurable, visible and goes directly to the question of accountability. I therefore ask the Minister to address four points. First, will the Government commit to automatic compensation as the clear direction of travel for GBR? Secondly, will the passenger watchdog have the power to monitor not just whether Delay Repay exists but whether passengers receive what they are owed? Thirdly, will GBR be required to publish regular data on eligible delays, claims made, compensation paid and rejected, and the proportion paid automatically? Finally, will the Government consider placing a duty on GBR to make the compensation process simple, proactive and passenger-centred from the outset? If we do not measure this properly, we will not fix it. The public should be able to see whether the new system pays passengers fairly or whether millions of eligible claims are still going unclaimed.
The railway asks a great deal of its passengers. They are asked to tolerate disruption, engineering works, cancellation, overcrowding and rising costs. When things go wrong, the least they should expect is to be treated with respect. Great British Railways has the potential to end the buck-passing and fragmentation that have made the current system so frustrating, but that potential will be realised only if passenger rights become real in practice. I hope this Bill will be strengthened to make automatic, simple, transparent compensation a central duty of the new railway. If GBR knows a passenger has been delayed, GBR should pay. That is fair, modern and the kind of railway that passengers deserve.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who made some very apposite points about passenger rights. I declare an interest as a member of the UK and Ireland leadership team of AtkinsRéalis and as an adviser to Hutchison Ports.
For me, this is somewhat of an endpoint, since, as the Minister rightly said, I started the process back in 2018 through the Williams review, which was intended to address the issue we will all touch upon tonight. I never believed that separating track and train was the right thing to do. It was right, in my view, to move away from a state-run monolith, and it distresses me enormously that we have ended up going back to a state-run monolith, but it was absolutely not right in the end to fragment the railways as much as happened.
The reality is that, in the two decades post privatisation, the railway turned around. Under British Rail, it declined: lines were closed and passenger numbers fell. Under the privatised railway, passenger numbers grew, the number of trains expanded and we ended up carrying more passengers on the railway network today than travelled in Victorian times, when the railway was twice as big as it is now. Therein lies the problem. I do not believe that this Bill, and the route that the Government are taking, will get to the position that they want to get to. We all want to get to a position where the railway works well, delivers for passengers and delivers for freight. The problem is that this is not just about who owns it.
When the Williams review was set up, he and I sat and talked about different options. We agreed that there are basically four ways to run the railway. You continue with franchising, you go back to British Rail, you have the model that John Major advocated, which I believe was the right one—regional integrated companies that control both track and train—or you take the model that ought to be quite close to the Minister’s heart: the TfL model, whereby you have a guiding mind but it operates concessions for the different parts of its operation.
Funnily enough, that model is in use elsewhere in the country, in Manchester, by the immediate past mayor and his Bee Network. This was established by Conservatives; the powers were provided by Conservatives and he took rather a long time to take them up. He now talks lovingly about the state-owned, state-run bus network in Manchester. Actually, it is not: it is basically a TfL-style concession whereby the private sector operates the buses.
This is not what this Bill does. It will be quite interesting to see what happens, for the Minister—although perhaps less for him. With the changes that lie ahead of us in a few days’ time, I very much hope that the Minister will retain his position. He commands respect from all sides of this House, even if we may not totally agree on all matters in the Bill. It will be interesting to see whether this Bill survives in its current form the change of Prime Minister that lies ahead, because it is absolutely not consistent with the model that was followed in Manchester.
However, the real problem on our railway is not just who owns and runs it. It is about capacity. The reality is that today’s railway is not fit for the level of demand on it. As a country, we closed too many lines in the 1960s. Too many routes are congested. You cannot easily get 19 or 20 trains through Wimbledon at peak times. You could not easily get the number of services needed into Manchester Piccadilly, which is why, in the end, some degree of capacity enhancement is needed there. The Government should be focusing on how to break down the capacity constraints.
With all due respect to the Minister for his previous role as chair of Network Rail, I have to say that Network Rail has not done us well in that respect. We need to put extra capacity into the network. It needs to be done in the most cost-effective way. It needs to be done with a bit of vision: for example, with digital signalling, which increases capacity, not simply by replacing the stuff that is there already.
Network Rail costs are far higher than they should be. Let us take the case of East West Rail, which I tried to get out of the Network Rail system; I admit to having failed. It has cost much too much. That was because it was done to standards set by Network Rail beyond those that are realistically needed today. It is an existing railway line. You can even operate, albeit at slow speeds, what was there before. Was it really necessary to ship millions and millions of tonnes of earth to make the embankments broader?
There needs to be a challenge to the engineering standards, not to create an unsafe railway but to ask: is everything that Network Rail does, whether in process, planning or engineering terms, absolutely necessary and consistent with our need to generate additional capacity?
That is the state-run bit of the railway. There is no evidence as yet that a state-run railway delivers a quantum better performance. Indeed, as I am sure the Minister himself knows, when it comes to South Western Railway, 14 months into the public sector, its performance has gone down. Why is that the case? Surely the opposite should be the case. As we go through this Bill process, the Minister will have a job to explain to us why a return to British Rail—it has a “Great” on the front of it, but it is basically a return to British Rail—is going to deliver the passenger improvements that we need.
I will also touch briefly on the issue of devolution. The model in the Bill is absolutely inconsistent. It is certainly inconsistent with the arrival of a new Prime Minister who believes in devolution. How can it, for example, be appropriate to have a system in London that is fine, the TfL-style concession system, but you cannot have it in Birmingham—even though it is perfectly possible, given the size of the West Midlands area, to have dedicated services such as the London Overground in Birmingham? I really do not understand the logic. If the Government believe in devolution, they should do it, and if they do not believe in devolution, they should not do it—but they should not create an odd hybrid.
I want to say something to the Minister about the system of consultation. Do not believe that always works, because in 2018, when we had all the issues with the timetable, the Northern franchise was equally the responsibility of Transport for the North and the Department for Transport. But, I have to say, Northern leaders hurled all the abuse at me and the Department for Transport and took no responsibility themselves for their own accountability and the performance of that franchise. Frankly, it was a disaster in every respect, but do not believe that consultation powers under the umbrella of devolution are actually going to be transformative in any way, because they are not. The Government are going to be blamed anyway if something goes wrong.
I also say to the Minister that I am looking for bold plans to expand the capacity of the network. I very much regret what has happened with HS2 sucking up all the budgets for control period 6 that I hoped could make a difference. I openly say that I personally believe that HS2 should have been scrapped in 2019 when it was clear that the costs were out of control, and that money should have been spent on capacity enhancement. I give the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, credit for that: he was right on that point. But we are where we are now. We have to focus on capacity enhancements. People and passengers have every right to expect better, but they should not believe that simply changing from private control to state control is what is going to make the difference. We have a rail network that is simply not big enough for the demand on it today, and until that is fixed—in a whole series of ways across the whole country, rather than simply with big projects—it will not make the difference that passengers deserve.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the opportunity to say a few valedictory words before I retire as an active Peer, and I am honoured to follow some very penetrating speeches from all sides of the House.
The date I have chosen to retire from active service in the House is 6 September. I chose it because it is the 60th anniversary of my joining the Civil Service as an assistant principal in the Board of Trade, at a salary of £900 a year.
I spent a lot of my early years in this House. I was private secretary to two Peers, and I spent much of the Swinging Sixties in the official Box. It has been a great pleasure to have been a Member as well, for the last 23 years, and a great privilege. My Cross-Bench colleagues are an impressive group, rich in talent, and I thank them warmly for their comradeship, particularly of course my former colleagues from the Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service.
I have also much enjoyed seeing my former ministerial bosses sitting quietly glittering on their Benches on both sides of the House. I occasionally see a complete Bench of people who I have worked for, and I call it a “full house”. I feel lucky in the Ministers I have served and I thank them most warmly. I can see several here today.
The world of government, over the 60 years that I have been a member of the Civil Service and of this House, has changed profoundly. That is not a complaint. The world keeps changing and Governments have to keep up with it. The Civil Service that I left in 2002 was not the Civil Service that I joined in 1966, and it is not the Civil Service that is now in operation in government. However, that change, although profound and important, does not change the world in which we work; under the surface of government, there are always the same issues that successive Ministers have in their short time in office to tackle.
The railways are a good example of that. Successive Governments have been debating the position of the railways in our economy and how to run them successfully for many decades—since the 19th century, I suspect, although I cannot swear to that, but certainly since the Beeching report. I recall that, in 1988, the Secretary of State for Transport, the late noble Lord, Cecil Parkinson, wrote to the Prime Minister proposing that the Government should privatise the railways. I was working in the Cabinet Office and I was asked to give her advice. I suggested that she should have an awayday at Chequers with all the interested parties to go over the options and to discuss what was the right way forward, as she had already done with electricity privatisation. She had a small meeting and we went through the options with her. She listened carefully, and at the end she shook her head and said, “No, privatisation of the railways is a bridge too far—it’s a privatisation too far”. Those remark, coming from an unexpected source, echo through my mind when I listen to the comments that we have had today.
Two or three years later, I was in the Treasury and we had an instruction from No. 10 asking us to put forward proposals for privatisation. There was a great debate. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, contributed; I think he wanted to go back to regional railways, but that may be wrong. Some wanted a privatised monopoly. I was moved on before this concluded, but the argument came in favour of separating track and train, although I do not hear many people arguing for that now. The point I am making is that the issues we are discussing today are ones that have been with us for a long time, and the penetrating arguments that we have heard mean that we do not yet have the answer.
The issue that I want to spend a couple of minutes on is the difficulty and the burden that Ministers in high office carry. The change we have seen in the last 60 years is nothing compared with the change and the turmoil that will face Ministers in the next decade or two. Not only do we have war in Europe and war in the Middle East but we have the end of NATO as we knew it as the alliance is weakening. We also have the problems of climate change and the challenge of technology, which is changing the workplace very fast. Ministers’ jobs are almost impossible. I think the learning curve for a Minister in ministerial office is at least a year and sometimes more than that, while for a Prime Minister, if I may say so, I think it is two to three years. It is hard from outside to understand what the pressures and the range of issues are and the permanence of the problems that you have to deal with and try to solve.
The role of the Civil Service is crucial in supporting successive Governments. It provides corporate memory, experience and advice, as well as the ability to deliver results once decisions are taken. I want to say for the record that I believe the model we have is the best model we could find. The Northcote-Trevelyan reforms have stood the test of time and been a success. There is always a tension with patronage. Even at the time when the reforms were introduced, people wanted the ability to bring in their political friends, their allies or their stooges. Disraeli invented the post of First Civil Service Commissioner for a friend of his who needed a job, and that says it all. So it has always been tense, and there have been many changes in the way that we operate, and rightly so, but the basic model has proved itself over and over and must be safeguarded.
What is the model? It is selection on merit through fair and open competition: a Civil Service which is politically impartial but committed to giving the best service it can to the Government of the day with integrity and objectivity and honesty. It is a winning formula. I am very proud of the Civil Service we have and proud to have been its head. It has an outstanding new leader in the new Cabinet Secretary, Antonia Romeo, and I support her decision to conduct a review of performance and organisation to fit it for the future. I wish the Civil Service every success in going from strength to strength under her leadership in accordance with its best traditions of continuity and change.
I wish the House of Lords all success as its own reforms move forward. I thank the doorkeepers, the staff of the House of Lords and the police, because they keep the show on the road while we talk. Thank you very much.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege, though one tinged with sadness, to follow the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, who has just reminded us of the great, gentle wisdom and huge experience that he has brought to your Lordships’ House and which we are set to lose in September when he retires.
Our association, our friendship, goes back not just over the seven years that we have overlapped in your Lordships’ House but nearly a quarter of a century, for it was in 2002 that he came to Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where I was an undergraduate, as our 27th master, and a hugely popular one at that. Emma prides itself on being the friendliest college in Cambridge; it became friendlier still when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was our master. Within weeks of arriving, he seemed to know everybody by first name, a feat that he repeated over the 10 years of his stewardship of the college. He did that at the same time as we managed to top the Tompkins Table, the league table for the best degree results, in five of the 10 years that he was master—not, I should say, helped by my own meagre 2:1.
Behind his genuine, friendly exterior is, as we have just heard again, a forensic mind and a wealth of experience. My noble friends Lady Berridge and Lady Blackwood of North Oxford are among those in this House who know what it is like to stand at the Dispatch Box and worry about a probing question coming from their former master. My noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne is among those who look at a man who was Permanent Secretary in not one but two departments when he was in the Cabinet. Noble Lords from across the House, I am sure, feel the same about the man that they sat around the Cabinet table with during his time as Cabinet Secretary.
The noble Lord’s advice, as today, is always offered with great kindness, great tact and in a constructive spirit. If we fail to heed it, then the fault is ours. One particularly precocious undergraduate seeking a career in politics was sternly advised not to do it straight after graduation—noble Lords may think perhaps I should have listened a bit more carefully.
But even after that advice was disregarded, the noble Lord was very generous and has always been very supportive. He was master in the time when noble Lords could choose to receive Hansard in hard copy. I do not know if he remembers, but he very kindly offered a few volumes of it to go on the bookshelves in my rooms that probably should have been full of history books and lecture notes. I took him up on the offer. I turned up at the Master’s Lodge to find some 60 or 70 volumes, each the size of a telephone directory, waiting for me. I had to borrow a shopping trolley to bring them back to my room. My advice to any noble Lords who are helping him move out of his office here is to be very careful what they get into.
We shall miss him greatly, but I hope that he will not be a stranger here, as he is not to his former college. We look forward to breaking bread with him at the Long Table, just as at high table. After a lifetime of political service, we wish him and Caro and the family a long, well-deserved and happy retirement.
I turn to the Bill at hand and do so in my capacity as the chairman of the Heritage Railway Association. It is an unremunerated position, so it does not need declaring, but, as the Minister knows, it is a richly rewarding one, because he was my immediate predecessor —he had to give it up to become our Rail Minister. In that capacity and in his time at Network Rail, he did a huge amount to make sure that the celebrations last year for the 200th anniversary of the railways were so richly marked. And, of course, this year we celebrate the 75th anniversary of heritage railways with the celebrations at Talyllyn in Wales, the first of the preserved railways.
Across the United Kingdom, our heritage railways welcome more than 13 million visitors each year and generate upward of £600 million for our economy. They do so against great challenges. We have made great strides, not least with the Government’s support and the long-running campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to make it easier for young volunteers to help out on our heritage railways—that was clarified in the Employment Rights Act last year—but there are many challenges still.
The Government’s support this year through the Great British Summer Savings scheme, alas, does not help most heritage railways. As transport is zero-rated for VAT, they are unable to pass on any savings, because they do not get any from the scheme the Government have announced. If they are holding a static event, they often do so with an external provider and if that provider, often a large multinational, sells the ticket, it is the provider that accrues the benefits in VAT. I know that the Heritage Railway Association has written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on these matters but has not yet had an answer. I hope that the Minister can encourage his colleagues at the Treasury to do so on these detailed points.
I want to touch on three areas in looking at the Bill with a heritage lens. The first, I hope, is the easiest to deal with. It is in Clause 32, on the potential powers over rail assets. The wording at Clause 32(4) describes an “additional railway asset” as
“any network, station or light maintenance depot”.
I am not certain, nor are many in the heritage sector, whether that also covers assets which are not part of the main line. If the Minister is able to clarify that, whether today at Second Reading or in later stages of the Bill, it would be a helpful reassurance.
The second area concerns mainline access. Most heritage railways operate on preserved stretches of line, but a large number do so also on the mainline network, including Vintage Trains, LSL and West Coast Railways. The Minister will know of the “Polar Express”, the “Jacobite” and many more. He will be aware of the potential implications for those such as the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, the North Norfolk Railway and the Swanage Railway. The granting of licences is covered in the Bill, but the onus is now placed on the Secretary of State rather than on the Office of Rail and Road. A number of mainline steam operators therefore worry that this removes the certainty that they have enjoyed regarding access for heritage operations.
In particular, they look at Clause 59, which means that GBR will be in the intolerable position of having to decide on the allocation of capacity while being a major operator itself. The architecture of the Bill sets up a tension that is different from the situation we have under the 1993 Act. There are no checks and balances written in. In the later stages of the Bill, Parliament should look at how it might give guidance on how these priorities should be applied. I hope, whether within the Bill or in the discussions we have, that we will be able to talk about the importance of leisure travel and heritage operations to our visitor economy and to inspiring the rail employees of the future and that we will be able to give some certainty to those who run those operations.
The third issue was touched on in another place at Second Reading by Liz Saville Roberts MP, who chairs the All-Party Group on Heritage Rail. It is the possibility of a heritage rail safety and standards board. The Minister will know that many examples of the progress we have made in driving up standards and safety on the railways have, sadly, followed tragic incidents. In June 2018, in the wake of the Croydon tram accident at Sandilands, the consequent Rail Accident Investigation Branch report led to a recommendation that there should be a safety and standards board dedicated to heritage rail. There is a Light Rail Safety and Standards Board, which was set up after that accident and is publicly funded. There is a Rail Safety and Standards Board for the national network, established following the public inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove disaster, which is also publicly funded. I hope to explore through the Bill whether we can make some progress on safety and standards for the heritage sector itself. The Heritage Railway Association at the moment fills that gap on a voluntary basis through the provision of volunteer-run safety and standards boards and consultation across the sector, but that is a burdensome and slow process for volunteers to run. The Bill, I hope, presents an opportunity to build on the work that they do to establish a professional and publicly funded safety and standards board for the heritage rail sector, and to follow up a recommendation that has been outstanding since 2018. I look forward to discussing all this and more with the Minister over the course of the Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, on his valedictory speech and wish him a very happy and long retirement.
This Bill has had a long gestation period but, if anything, that has made such legislation—or at least parts of it—all the more necessary. As far as Plaid Cymru is concerned, the Bill is very much a parson’s egg. There are parts we welcome, such as those elements which consolidate aspects of the service into public ownership. It is my party’s view that what is an essential public service, and in many cases a monopoly public service, should be in public ownership. There are also parts of the Bill about which we have reservations, such as the failure to involve the Government of Wales in decision-making on key rail issues. This was highlighted by Plaid Cymru MP Ann Davies in the Commons on 9 December. As she said, Wales does not seek a token consultation which delivers nothing, and that is very often what we have had. Wales wants and needs control over rail services in Wales; this was demanded also by Labour Senedd members on a number of occasions.
Then there is the strong feeling in Wales, and not just in Plaid Cymru, that the Bill misses an opportunity to put right a long-running sore about the totally cynical manner in which railway services in Wales are funded. The financial settlement between the Treasury and Wales, based on the Barnett formula, which has been tweaked a couple of times, is based on providing Wales with a tranche of cash to counterbalance railway expenditure on rail services meant for England. That is usually about 6% of the sum total, which in itself is a reasonable sum.
However, if projects are deemed to serve rail users in both Wales and England, that funding formula does not apply. So that gives an easy escape hatch for the Treasury to avoid providing rail funding for Wales; it just designates railway investment in England as being there to serve Wales. This is quite outrageous and was a factor in the recent election result in Wales, I have no doubt. It means that projects such as the Oxford to Cambridge rail upgrade are seen as ones which exist to serve Wales, so we get no Barnett consequential. Nor do we get a Barnett consequential for Northern Powerhouse Rail or for the huge HS2 project linking London and Birmingham. If Wales got its Barnett entitlement, we would be getting £6 billion more for railway investment in Wales.
Last year, Labour Senedd members pressed on this injustice with Prime Minister Starmer, but they were ignored. They, like Welsh Labour MPs, have zero clout with the present UK Labour Government. That is why, in part, they were swept out of office in May’s elections, and why they will lose most of their Commons seats in Wales in the next election.
It is little short of a tragedy that Labour has fiddled the Barnett formula to deny Wales the railway funding which it needs. At this stage, I just ask the Minister: will he ask the new Labour Government when they come into office—a Government who may have a strategy for fairer regional policy—to look again at this issue and so enable Wales to develop its railways in a manner which answers its social and economic needs? Wales’s population settlement pattern is ideal for railway services: 80% of the population live in linear communities along the coastlines or on the valley floors, where people are within reasonable walking distance of railway lines.
I readily acknowledge that rail services in Wales have improved since devolution in 1999. When I entered the Assembly, as it then was, there was only one through train between Cardiff and Holyhead each day. It was appallingly overcrowded, with filthy green carriages—the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, is nodding; she will well remember this—screeching brakes, broken toilets and totally uncomfortable seats. Transport for Wales has not only provided far better rolling stock and schedules to serve Wales but has also reopened services that had been abandoned, such as the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff link and the Conwy Valley line. Further, the Cardiff-valleys metro is moving ahead, although we need a north Wales coast, Deeside and Wrexham metro, which could also act as an upgrade on a cross-border basis.
Safety considerations are another important aspect that I shall seek to raise in Committee, where I shall table amendments if I have the opportunity. This stems out of the tragic fatal accident in mid-Wales in October 2024. The issue I wish to pursue involves what is known as “dynamic passing”. I shall seek assurances that that was not a factor in the tragic accident to which I referred. I ask the Minister to get briefed on that issue between now and Committee. Plaid Cymru will not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, which has been backed by the elected House, but I appeal to the Minister to consider the issues that I have raised, particularly regarding Wales.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his outstanding valedictory speech. Not for the first time in this Chamber, I am left humbled by his 60 years of service, and I am privileged to have listened to his wisdom and humour in his last speech. We will miss the noble Lord.
I am also humbled, as I am not an expert in the railways—I am afraid I did not even have a train set—and I was not expecting to speak in this debate, but what has brought me here is not the physical railways but the retail ticketing of our travel. Before I get to that, I should say that I am also not a huge fan of creating a single, large state-owned monopoly, and that I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of my noble friends Lady May of Maidenhead, Lord Redwood and Lord Grayling. However, I do not know much about that topic; I would like to focus on what I do know about, which is retail ticketing.
Retail ticketing might seem small and insignificant if you like playing trains, but, as passengers, our ticketing services are our first contact with our train journey, and, sadly, because of Delay Repay, they are often our last contact. Retail ticketing matters to us as passengers. It shapes our confidence in our railway network and therefore drives or harms demand. It is an area where private sector competition has delivered substantial improvements for passengers over the last decade.
I have considerable experience of the value of competition in retail services, and of the dangers of a vertically integrated monopolist using its control of the end-to-end value chain to stifle competition at the retail end—that was called British Telecom and Openreach. I declare an interest in that I spent eight years battling them when I ran TalkTalk. We have also seen this in other travel markets, such as when Google launched its “flights” tab and, at one stroke, attempted to remove all competition in flight retail ticketing. None of this was good for consumers.
So, whatever your views on the value of state monopoly management of the physical network of the railways, I hope we can all agree that retail booking services do not need to be provided by a state monopoly. However, I am afraid there is a real risk that, as currently drafted, that is exactly what the Bill will do—not intentionally, but by mistake. We have one of the most dynamic retail rail markets in the world. Private sector investment in user-friendly apps, journey planners and real-time information over the past decade has been outstanding. This Government have recognised the significant value of the role that independent retailers play, because they help to innovate and drive-up standards for passengers.
In the other place, the Government relied heavily on a promised code of conduct to ensure that Great British Railways would not abuse its vertically integrated monopoly in ticketing. My experience in telecoms and digital markets is that a principle-based code of conduct or code of practice, without a clear enforcement regime and ex ante powers, will not deliver a competitive market. I am not alone in this—the CMA is very clear that this is a real risk. In April 2025, the CMA set out in writing its concerns that, as currently set out, the Bill could undermine incentives for third-party retailers to invest and compete. It said:
“the role envisaged for GBR as a ticket retailer gives rise to the risk (either actual or perceived) that GBR will self-preference its own retail operation, or otherwise have advantages over TPRs that are not based on merit (for example better access to relevant information). … It is therefore important to give the right signals from the outset that TPRs will be competing on a level playing field with GBR”.
I am afraid that the Bill does not give that reassurance from the outset.
International comparisons are very clear that integrated state monopolies will abuse this vertically integrated power. In both Germany and Spain, where there is no separation, the same basic approach to that proposed in this legislation has required competition authorities to intervene. Deutsche Bahn breached competition law because of restrictive marketing and pricing practices, and the Spanish monopolist had to agree specific behaviour changes with the European Commission because of competition concerns. By contrast, in France —I may get this all wrong, because I am not a rail person—SNCF Connect is a separate business. The ticketing business is completely separate, as it should be, to ensure that the vertically integrated monopolies cannot abuse their power.
Will the Minister confirm that all retailers will compete on equivalent economic terms and that GBR’s own retailer will not benefit from cross-subsidy? Without structural separation between GBR’s online retailer and the wider organisation, self-preferencing will be very difficult to detect, let alone remedy. Will the Minister confirm that GBR’s online retailer will be required to maintain separate governance and accounting arrangements so that the regulator has the transparency it needs to monitor and enforce compliance with its code of conduct?
Finally, will the ORR have ex ante powers under the code, rather than merely the ability to investigate after harm has already occurred—by which time the Government will have ensured that there is no investment from the private sector into this sector at all?
I know these are very detailed issues, and they might seem unimportant if you are more interested in the big physical infrastructure of the rail network, but ticketing experience to passengers really matters. Creating an unwieldy public sector monopolist in a service sector where competition is thriving would be a very big mistake.
Lord Dixon of Jericho (LD)
My Lords, I wish to join in the appreciation for the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. As a former civil servant, I want to say how much his observations rang true for me. As a new Member of this House, I want to say how much I hope to have learned from him in the short time that we have overlapped together.
I will speak on a similar issue to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, although, as someone who spent a considerable period of time working for Citizens Advice, I will take a slightly different approach on the experience people have of things as they appear to consumers.
The Bill is welcome because, while, at their best, train journeys are a source of great pleasure, at their worst, they are a source of huge frustration. I spent last week writing parts of this speech on the floor of a carriage with inadequate air conditioning, trying to make myself as small as possible on a train that was scheduled to last 52 minutes and was half an hour late. Too many people have that experience as a rule rather than as the exception. However, I trust in the wide and deep experience of this House to solve those issues, so I do not propose to go into them. Instead, I want to focus on a small part of the Bill, on which I hope I can be both somewhat knowledgeable and constructive.
Within the last few months, it has become straightforward for anyone with access to a coding agent and a good idea to produce software that makes that idea happen with a minimum of effort and expertise and certainly much quicker than ever was the case before. Although I am not a trained software engineer, I have produced 10 applications in the last year that now work to do things. This should be a golden age for technology entrepreneurs in our country, and one choice we make here on this Bill will decide whether we have a flourishing ecosystem of world-class firms that provide a world-class experience for passengers or end up on the receiving end of technology that has fundamentally been owned and developed elsewhere.
The Bill currently proposes that Great British Railways should own its own ticketing system and provide the data and systems that third parties can use to offer competing products. I sincerely hope that Great British Railways produces a world-class, completely brilliant app—I am supportive of that and hope it works well —but we should not put all our eggs in that basket. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there are deep concerns about that from the industry and the Competition and Markets Authority. We should be wary of creating deliberately a public sector body that has both the power and the commercial incentive to stifle competition.
Having said that, I am sympathetic to the view that one particular company in the UK has a dominant market share. That is a problem, but limiting access to data and opaquely subsidising a public sector competitor will, in practice, result in bad experiences for customers, with less choice, especially for those with more complex needs, and no meaningful integration with other transport modes or the things that people want to do in their lives. The right solution is to make sure that Great British Railways has the right incentives to open up data, APIs and platforms, so that new and existing companies can compete on a level playing field, and, importantly, provide the best possible experience for customers.
We should want more British technology success stories. We should want them to start here, stay here, employ 1,000 people, more than half of whom are skilled engineers, and export products and services to many other countries. That is why the Bill needs to make it easier, not harder, for new start-ups to compete with Trainline, or to do things that Trainline would never consider.
In that, the current data architecture is a real problem. Fares, routing and availability data exists, but only in formats that reward companies that have spent millions of pounds interpreting the data and making it usable. The accreditation fees for the ticket issuing system, which is what you need to access to get the data about what is happening on our railways and what the fares are, start at £950 a day. It takes 12 months for a new provider to be accredited. You have to get bonds that are scaled to your turnover, estimated to be £400,000 for a new entrant to the market, meaning that you take on substantial financial risk and focus capital on meeting regulation, rather than on finding improving market fit, if you try to start up in this area. To make that real, a new start-up would need to sell the equivalent of 600,000 off-peak tickets from Oxford, which is where Jericho is, to London just to cover the initial regulatory costs in that market. That is a huge barrier to entry and, frankly, no small start-up is going to risk that.
We will end up with only Trainline and others—other apps are available—and the Great British Railways app, and that is before we consider the many features that would benefit passengers that are currently indefensibly locked within individual companies and not available to competitors, such as automatic delay repay, advanced passenger information, crowding information, passenger assistance, accessibility and electronic cycle booking.
To give just one example of this, on the rail data to marketplace, Avanti’s fleet accessibility data is an Excel file, LNER’s is a spreadsheet that is mislabelled as a CSV, Greater Anglia’s is a PDF, and there are, amazingly, separate differently formatted Excel files from all other operators. No two companies provide the data in a standard format, which is why no app can reliably tell a wheelchair user about their whole journey. This is not something that has to happen. Trainline has a competitive moat partly because the data is so hard to work with. The Government have made the regulatory barriers to entry too high. It is just too hard to scale and start companies in this market, let alone if you are a third sector or voluntary organisation that wants to make a good thing for a particular set of users.
I do not think this is a question of ministerial will or good faith—lots of people have tried to solve this over the years. It is a question of the economic incentives in the system. I am deeply concerned that Great British Railways has no meaningful incentive to make the data open, to be well-structured or to encourage competition. It probably has the reverse incentive. The House rightly has concerns about the threats posed by AI, but we have to ensure that we structure the fundamentals of our public services in ways that British firms and the public can use to realise the benefits of AI. Fundamentally, that means a modern and forward-looking approach to data.
I hope the Minister can confirm in his winding-up speech that the Bill will prevent unfair self-preferencing by Great British Railways in the relatively niche issue of ticketing and make sure that it is properly incentivised, and not just required, to increase the scope, consistency and openness of data and APIs in this area. That is how we will make ticketing, at least, a world-class experience for passengers. I look forward to working with him and experts across the House on this narrow, niche but in my view crucial issue.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. He was the Permanent Secretary of the Home Office when I was the Minister of State there for four years. He was an excellent civil servant, diligently and neutrally delivering our policies. He was also kind and helpful to me personally. I have always remembered that and will not forget it. I can tell the House that, under his leadership, and under my noble friend Lord Howard and I, the Home Office was fit for purpose then. I wish him well in the future.
Before younger Members of your Lordships’ House wax lyrical about the brilliant opportunities of a new British Rail, or older Members look at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, let me tell the House what the Government-owned British Rail was really like. I travelled on British Rail trains 60 to 70 times a year, from Penrith to Euston, from 1983 when I was elected, and they were the absolute pits. Never mind the jokes about British Rail sandwiches—which were true—they were symptomatic of a nationalised state-run monopoly: “This is the food. It may be rubbish, but so what? You’ve not got any choice”. The trains were clapped out and the organisation was corrupt—not financially corrupt, except that the communist train drivers’ unions got whatever they wanted, but politically corrupt. I recall many occasions when the train made additional stops because the Minister’s office phoned the department and the train made an unscheduled stop to pick up or drop off a Minister on the west coast main line. That was merely doing what they did in the Soviet Union, and it was done in this country until privatisation.
Privatisation was absolutely brilliant. We got Virgin on the west coast and GNER on the east. GNER revolutionised east coast main line services by elevating customer services, introducing premium on-board catering, refurbishing carriages, rolling out wifi and operating some of the fastest scheduled passenger trains in Britain. Virgin was an absolute godsend on the west coast main line. It got rid of the Government’s slum trains. Virgin completely transformed the line by introducing the Pendolinos and the Super Voyager trains. It expanded train lengths, improved stations and provided a wide range of quality food, and it grew passenger numbers from 8 million to over 42 million annually.
They were brilliant operators, but Virgin lost its franchise and GNER gave its up. Why? Basically, the Government got too greedy and demanded too much money from the companies. The common myth is that the shareholders of privatised train companies were making too much money, but it was the Government’s greed that brought them down. They demanded that GNER pay £1.3 billion for its franchise and achieve 10% growth—ludicrous demands from civil servants who had never run anything. They sacked Virgin because Virgin refused to accept long-term pension liabilities for railway workers. There are 350,000 retired railway workers on index-linked defined pension benefits. Who in their right mind would want to accept that liability? Avanti did, and provides a cheapskate service to cover the cost.
There was one big mistake made with privatisation and that was making the maintenance of the railway lines into a different company, rather than tying it to the train operators. Of course, the last Labour Government wound up Railtrack for bad financial management and said that the costs were out of control, with a massive £3.5 billion debt. Now that the costs for the rather slow-running HS2 are £30 billion, £40 billion, £50 billion or £60 billion—out of control—can we look forward to that company being put into administration also?
I have some questions for the Minister. Rather than throw more money at the rail unions, who have now got the Government over a barrel, will he actually invest in schemes to get level access on to our trains? I get it all the time in France, Germany and Switzerland, on many trains. In this country, the step up from the platform to the train is only about 12 inches—apart from Eurostar, where it is about three feet high, for some unknown reason. Will he look at three options? One is lowering the track bed, where it is possible to do so; the second, where the track bed cannot be lowered, as in Euston or St Pancras, is to look at raising platform heights; and the third is to do the research and buy two-tier trains, which they have on the continent. These trains are not any higher than ours overall but they have low-level access between the bogies. I am not demanding that at every station, but there are hundreds where lowering the track bed is possible at little cost.
I have used cripple assistance for about 15 years now. I pay tribute to the fantastic team at Penrith, who have never failed to get me on and off the trains, and the buggy drivers at Euston. Before anyone seeks a safe space from the use of my terminology, let me make it clear that I do not consider myself disabled, just a wee bit crippled. I hope that clarifies matters for everyone.
However, I ask the Minister to please make it simple if we phone in to get cripple assistance. Virgin had a dedicated number, but Avanti has one number for everything. After two and a half minutes of messages about the rail ombudsman, about strikes, about not travelling in hot weather or cold weather and why we should not be phoning in the first place, you have to press button 1, then button 3 and then button 1 again until you get through. Can the new British Rail have a simple online form and a direct phone line to book for assistance? I pick up my noble friend Lady May’s point. How much has it cost so far to repaint or redecorate the nationalised trains with the new British Rail logo? Why is it necessary to do it before the existing paintwork or decals are worn out or past it?
Let us look at other money that may be wasted. We have a demand from the London Underground tube drivers, surely the most overpaid and underworked people in London, that they and their partners get a 75% discount on all the new British Rail trains. That is another 8,000 people to add to the 350,000 railway pensioners and their partners, who also get the 75% discount. The 66,000 staff and partners working for the current train operating companies get free travel on their own lines and 75% discount on other lines. Not to be outdone, Network Rail has given all its 40,000 staff and partners the 75% discount also.
Of course, when all the train operating companies are nationalised, all 120,000 train staff and their partners will get either the 75% discount or, more likely, free travel anywhere in the UK at any time. We are heading to a situation where well over 1 million people connected to the railways will be getting free or 75% discounted travel to anywhere in the UK for the rest of their lives. Will the Minister confirm whether this perk will be extended to HQ staff for the new British Rail or to any DfT civil servants?
The current train operating companies supply food from businesses along the line, some better than others. I suspect we are heading to a government-approved, homogenised, healthy menu for all—no salt, no sugar, no calories, no flavour and no taste. That is a small point.
I conclude with my greatest concern of all: that there will be a drive to cut train running times. Well, I can save 30 minutes on the London to Glasgow run, if we do not stop at the smaller stations along the route, such as Wigan, Warrington, Lancaster, Oxenholme or Penrith, but just at Euston, Preston, Carlisle and Glasgow. That is not fanciful. We have already had some trains not stopping there in the last few years, and civil servants will force the new British Rail to extend it to more trains. They have done it with the privatised companies, and they will have a free hand with the nationalised ones to do even more of it.
I conclude that I have no great optimism that we will enter a brave new world of better rail travel in the UK once we have the dead and incompetent hand of the Government running it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I can remember British Rail, but I do not think any of us want to go back to British Rail, we want to go to something altogether better. We need the railways to succeed. We can see that when people feel that they have a reliable, punctual and enjoyable railway available to them, they will use it. Look at the rail passenger journeys on the Elizabeth line, which is seeing something like a million passengers a day. Where we create a railway that people can rely on and use, we can succeed. We need that to happen.
On our Benches, on this side of the House, we have already arrived in these fascinating speeches at something of a consensus view, which is that we ought to have recreated the vertically integrated regional companies, but we did not. John Major may have been in favour of it, but he was Prime Minister when that was not what was put into the Railways Act 1993. It should have happened. If I remember correctly, before the 1992 manifesto, we were arguing for exactly that and the manifesto more or less reflected that, but it did not happen.
That did not mean that privatisation did not succeed. My noble friend Lord Grayling was absolutely right. Passenger numbers doubled. Investment in infrastructure went up by three or four times. Train miles increased by 30%. So there was a dramatic increase, but what was that essentially about? It is what my noble friend Lord Redwood was saying: privatisation led to substantial investment of private capital. The first question we must examine during the passage of this legislation is: where is that capital going to come from in future? Are we going to be able to sustain the investment that we need in the railway network for the future? The Bill does not tell us that. It tells us the processes, but not the outcome.
I had my days as a civil servant, and I express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. We will miss him here, but I am looking forward to seeing him in Cambridge. I hope that we will continue to have that pleasure. As a civil servant, I sat in a meeting where the investment programme of one potentially successful nationalised industry was rejected in order to provide an investment into a failing nationalised industry which had a political reason for investment.
Let us not kid ourselves. If this becomes a state-controlled industry, it will become subject to state control of investment, and that may mean state rationing of investment. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, who introduced the Bill in an admirably concise but also very helpful way, will remember that when we examined the public ownership Bill, he very skilfully enabled the Government to reverse out of franchising into public ownership when the remaining franchises ended, but he did not tell us what the long-term structure was going to be. This Bill is about the long-term structure, who the single directing mind will be and how that single directing mind will be subject to checks, balances and challenges.
In my view, privatisation can work successfully in the long run only where it is subject to competition. In my experience, monopoly always offers short-term benefits, sometimes provides short-term benefits, but always leads to a lack of long-term investment, long-term innovation and long-term consumer benefit. So if, as my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead was stressing, quite rightly, we are going to get the consumer benefits, the innovation and the investment, we have to bring the private sector on board as well.
Some of the challenges to which I will devote my attention are, for example, in creating the regulatory structure that enables this to happen. First, the rail strategy at the moment is simply what the Secretary of State chooses it to be. There is no parliamentary scrutiny. There is not even any requirement for consultation, not even with the Office of Rail and Road, before the strategy is published. I think we are going to have to look very critically at this and look at the analogy of national policy statements, which in the energy sector, for example, are subject to examination in Parliament and to scrutiny, if not to a parliamentary veto.
Secondly, there is the rail freight target. There is a target: it is that it increase. The level of rail freight in this country has increased in the last decade but, lamentably, by only 1% per year, on average. If we are to reach the target of a 75% increase by 2050, it requires a 2.5% annual compound rate of rail freight growth. Perhaps that target should be set as not less than a 2% increase per annum; otherwise, how will the Government or, indeed, Great British Railways, be held to account?
Thirdly, on the Office of Rail and Road, I will not repeat what we heard from my noble friends Lady May and Lady Harding of Winscombe. My noble friend Lady Harding is right about ticketing. We need to press hard on that, but the issue of avoiding self-preferencing is not confined to ticketing. The Office of Rail and Road may have continued concurrent jurisdiction with the CMA in relation to the CMA’s own powers, but the Bill expressly removes the promotion of competition duty from the Office of Rail and Road in relation to such important things as access, infrastructure, timetabling and charging schemes. If we are going to avoid self-preferencing, we need to ensure that the competition duty is brought back on those as well.
Clearly, the open-access operators will not have confidence that they will be able to exploit the opportunities for private investment and private competition unless and until the Office of Rail and Road has those powers. The additional power it should have is that the appeal to the ORR should not be limited to judicial review grounds. There must be elements of those decisions made by GBR which should be appealed on their merits to the Office of Rail and Road. It will not surprise the Minister that I plan to test him on some of those competition-related issues—we have happily worked on that before.
My final point is on devolution. This carries forward the opportunity for services not to be designated and therefore to be available for the metro and passenger transport executives to be able to provide themselves. However, the relationship with local government in this Bill seems to be inadequate so far. Clause 85, for example, limits the relationship with local government to mayoral combined and strategic authorities, and clearly there are many more local authorities than those which are mayoral strategic authorities.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, even if I think that processes have been somewhat neglected in the privatisation of recent years, often to the detriment of passengers. I want to echo the thanks that have been made to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, as he leaves this House. His distinguished experience has been of great value to the House over the years and I wish him well.
I thank the Minister and his officials for a meeting with disabled Peers prior to this Second Reading. For those of us who were involved in the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act, the paving bill for this one, which was in your Lordships’ house 18 months ago, this is a welcome day. Along with other noble Lords, my focus is to ensure that the strong promises from the Minister and the Labour Government to improve rail services for disabled passengers and others who need assistance become a reality. The Minister knows that we will hold him and his Government to account to ensure that the improvements that I know he wants actually happen. We need to ensure that the warm words spoken here turn into reality for every disabled person’s journey.
Clause 3 is vital to ensure that Great British Railways runs passenger services effectively for all passengers. For passengers who require assistance, whether with infrastructure or practical arrangements, far too often the service is not good, creating barriers for those who just want to get on a train to go from A to B.
I will start with infrastructure. In 2024, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, DPTAC, commissioned a survey with Omio which found that UK stations were the worst in Europe, having alarming accessibility inadequacies. A couple of years earlier, in 2021, the Department for Transport commissioned AtkinsRéalis to assess every station in the UK for accessibility. I note that it had completed over 1,000 by 2022, but I cannot find an overall publication of the findings, nor any further report on stations now fully accessible after improvements have been made. Can the Minister say whether such a report on the overall condition has been published and whether there will be updating as stations are improved?
It is not just older stations. In 2023, Thanet Parkway opened in Kent for the first time. The website Every Last Station quoted LordOrk, a disability campaigner, who said:
“Regrettably, NR have again cut costs by treating PRM”—
passengers with reduced mobility—
“compliance as a target rather than a minimum standard. Disappointingly disabled people have been treated as an afterthought at this new station and will suffer the consequences. For example, it is outrageous a new station has no accessible or changing places toilets, no EV chargers in the blue badge bays, platforms are narrow so wheelchair users and scooter users have reduced turning circles for boarding and their legal right to TUAG”,
or turn up and go,
“has been eroded at this unstaffed station”.
This Government have started to improve matters. I see it at my local station, Watford Junction, with BSL-interpreted videos alongside some key station announcements, for example, but these are now urgent everywhere and must be part of any new station. Can the Minister say that this Bill will ensure that, from now on, no new station will be built without lifts, level boarding and fully accessible features for those with mobility, visual and hearing impairments? I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about solutions for level boarding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, referred to the assistance app and I echo every single one of her points. I say the assistance app, but the reality is that a number of operating companies still run their own apps which do not always have access to book, say, wheelchair spaces on another line. That is my experience on a regular journey I do leaving Watford Junction on the west coast line to travel to York via King’s Cross. I have to use the LNER app or phone number, because, if I do not, no wheelchair space will be reserved for me on that leg of the journey. It was good to hear the Minister talk about just one app that will cover buying tickets and assistance. That was promised years ago but never appeared.
Can I check that passengers with a range of disabilities will be involved in the development of that app? Booking a wheelchair space on an app is useless unless the train staff ensure that the space is free of large suitcases. It is not too bad when you get on at King’s Cross, because wheelchairs are usually first on, but, at a station further up the line, assistance staff with the ramp often have to leave swiftly, leaving a wheelchair passenger to have to shout down the carriage to ask for cases to be moved. It is funny how deaf people get when that happens.
I turn now to a key element of support for all passengers, but essential for those with reduced mobility, and that is staff on a train and at the station. I will now do anything I can to avoid travelling on Southeastern trains because there are no staff, and most stations do not have staff either. This means that your journey time is in the lap of the gods. The journey time from Charing Cross to Lewisham could easily be doubled because there is nobody at Lewisham to provide help with a ramp. I have to get off at Hither Green and wait for staff at Hither Green to be free to take me on to the next convenient train for Lewisham. It is even longer in reverse, when you have to phone to ask Lewisham to find someone to get on a train from Hither Green to come and collect you.
Staff are needed on stations to help with ramps and to guide passengers who may not know how to get off the platform safely. They are needed, just as train staff are, for protecting and guiding all passengers, whether because of an emergency, as in the recent crash near Bedford, or, as I have seen, a crime with a dangerous weapon. I have also witnessed the enormous bravery of staff jumping down off the platform to rescue a passenger who jumped off a platform in great distress. That staff member did not think of his safety, only of the passenger. This bravery is extraordinary, but those stations and trains without staff can put passengers at risk.
I echo the frustration of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, with failed lifts. For six months at my local station, trains had to be brought into a different platform whenever there was a wheelchair on board because two lifts were out. That affected the elderly too, but they were not in a position to ask for a train to be rerouted. What was the problem? It was exactly the same as the current lift problem in the House of Lords: the lift companies do not keep spare parts at the factory in Italy and they have to be made each time. I find it extraordinary that Network Rail, which holds the contract for all station lifts, cannot insist on a better service. Under the old system, passengers had no voice on this. Will this change under GBR? I can tell you that six months without a platform lift affects everyone’s journey and morale.
Finally, a while ago, when my train from Edinburgh came into King’s Cross two hours late after midnight on a Sunday, the train staff dashed off to hand out taxi vouchers at the exit gates to all passengers, not realising that no assistance staff were left on duty. I and another wheelchair user realised, when everything went quiet, what had happened: we could not get off. The assistance phone line at the station was not answered, nor was the station general number. What would noble Lords do in this situation? It clearly was not a 999 matter; the 111 line was not staffed that late and the other passenger was getting very anxious. Was it scary? It certainly was not much fun—but not unusual for wheelchair passengers when they get left on trains.
So I tweeted. The disabled community is always helpful with suggestions, but one person went even further. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, saw my tweet and passed it on to the chief executive at LNER at about 1 am—of course, she had his number. It was helpful that he knew how to find someone to come to our rescue. However, if the noble Baroness had not been so well connected, I think my fellow traveller and I would have greeted the early shift of cleaners—thank you, Lady Grey-Thompson. To the Minister, I say: the aspirations of GBR should mean that this sort of problem of abandoning disabled passengers is a thing of the past. That would be a good yardstick of accessibility.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just told a very moving story, and I think everyone who listened to that will agree that that state of affairs is simply not acceptable.
I join others in paying tribute to the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. He was an excellent Permanent Secretary at the Department of the Environment in the 1990s, when I was Minister of Housing and Planning. He was a source of wise advice, and he kept me out of serious trouble for three or four years.
Speaking in this debate is a bit like attending one’s own funeral, because the Bill basically undoes the reforms I oversaw as Secretary of State between 1995 and 1997. It is worth reminding the House what those reforms achieved. As my noble friend Lord Lansley said, passenger numbers doubled; services improved by one-third; an operating deficit under British Rail was turned into an operating surplus; investment in rolling stock, electrification, signalling, and station modernisation improved, as the dead hand of the Treasury was removed from the capital programme; passenger safety improved; industrial relations improved; branch lines were reopened; and passenger fares were capped at RPI minus 1%, a reformed abandoned by the then incoming Labour Government, who kept everything else the same for about four years. It is worth making the point that many of those improvements and reforms, post privatisation, were driven by former employees of British Rail, who welcomed the challenges and freedoms that came with the policy.
However, we are where we are. The Government have a mandate for what is in the Bill, which is basically to bring the system under one ownership. On that, I was struck by what the Minister said in response to a recent Oral Question:
“Virtually the whole of the world, in countries that run railways, is incredulous that this country managed to separate the infrastructure from the operations for more than 30 years”.—[Official Report, 20/4/26; col. 503.]
That simply is not the case. Most European Union members have legally separated their rail infrastructure management from their train operations, as mandated by a European Union directive. In fact, we can do what is in the Bill only because of Brexit—something I am not sure the Minister mentioned. The countries that have done what he finds incredible include Sweden, which did it before we did, as well as France—where SNCF has two separate subsidiaries to promote competition—Spain, Italy, Denmark and Finland.
That brings me to the related argument that underpins the Government’s policy. According to the White Paper, A Railway Fit for Britain’s Future:
“This is a necessary first step towards ending fragmentation … That is why we will establish Great British Railways … a single ‘directing mind’”.
However, that is not the model used by successful companies throughout the world. What the Minister calls “fragmentation”, they call specialisation: the ability to secure the component goods and services needed from a variety of sources, ensuring innovation, competition and resilience. BAE Systems and AstraZeneca in this country—and Apple abroad—do not do everything themselves; they outsource, commission and buy in the marketplace. They have been successful because of what the Minister calls “fragmentation”.
The Minister may say that this does not apply to transport because it is different—but it is not. The safest and cheapest form of transport in this country is by air, but you could not find an industry that is more fragmented. The airlines do not own the aircraft; they do not own the terminals; they do not run the national air traffic system; and they do not do the security or the baggage handling. Some airlines do not even employ pilots; they hire qualified self-employed pilots. I challenge the assertion that an industry that is fragmented or specialised is less efficient than an integrated one. Nor incidentally does aviation have a single “directing mind”, which has Orwellian overtones.
My concern is that the three main benefits that came with privatisation will be lost under these reforms. Investment in rail was taken almost entirely off the public sector balance sheet in 1995; it created a market of train operators to replace a public monopoly, and the business model forced the industry to look outwards towards its customers not inwards to the sponsoring department.
On the first, I had the pleasure of negotiating the transport budget with the Treasury both before the railways were privatised and after. Before privatisation, I would go to Star Chamber and they would say, “George, we’re really pleased to see you. We’ve just had the Health Secretary, who wants more doctors and nurses; we’ve had the Education Secretary, who wants more teachers; and we’ve had the Secretary of State for Defence, who wants more soldiers. Priority is the language of politics, and politics is the language of priorities. We’re very sorry, George, you can’t have your new train set for Christmas”. After privatisation, that dialogue simply did not take place; the market responded to the business case that was made.
There is also a risk that the Office for National Statistics will put the rolling stock companies on to the Government’s balance sheet—as it did with housing associations—because of the degree of control over the investment that the Government propose. That would play havoc with their borrowing requirement.
The second advantage was to bring in other successful transport operators: people who ran buses, airlines, shipping or train services overseas. Their skills were applied to running the railway here and to breaking the British Rail monopoly. The Government are not even adopting the concessions—the management contracts with the private sector—that were so successful with the bus companies in London and Manchester, as my noble friend Lord Lansley said.
At a meeting with the Minister last week—he has been very generous with his time—he said that the franchise or concession model was not adopted for GBR because the train operators were not interested in the deal. That is strange, because those train operators are the very same companies that run the bus operators that have successfully run exactly those contract arrangements in Manchester and London. Perhaps they overplayed their hand. We are now back to a monopoly, with the risk of a national strike by train drivers, which was avoided by franchising or concessions.
The third innovation was the incentive to grow the market, to look outwards towards the customer. Under privatisation, once a company had won the franchise, the only way that it could increase turnover and profit was by winning more customers. However, when I was Transport Secretary before privatisation, it made little difference to British Rail whether it had more or fewer customers; it just meant that it got more or less subsidy from the Secretary of State. I was its real customer and not the passenger.
For me, the jury is out as to whether what is proposed will give the industry the secure, efficient and customer-focused future that it really needs.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his valedictory speech. It was great fun. I do not think that we have ever met, but there is plenty of time before September, so perhaps we can get that in our diaries.
I do not say this often, but I welcome the Bill. The Green Party has long argued that our railways should be run as a public service and not for private profit. After decades of failed fragmentation, spiralling costs and confusing accountability, bringing the railway back under public leadership is important and overdue. The Bill is, therefore, a step in the right direction.
If we are creating Great British Railways, we must create a railway that is genuinely great: one that is affordable, accessible, integrated and capable of helping us meet the defining challenge of our age, which is the climate and nature crisis. At present, the Bill does not achieve that. It lacks ambition. For example, Great British Railways will have numerous duties, so why does the Bill not contain a clear duty to increase passenger numbers?
I welcome the target for shifting freight from lorries on to trains, but why is there no equivalent ambition to encourage more people out of their cars and on to trains? To do that, we must make train travel cheap and easy. For millions of people, the biggest barrier to travelling by rail is not whether a train exists but whether they can afford the ticket. Affordable fares are perhaps the single most effective tool available to increase passenger numbers, tackle inequality and reduce car dependence. Yet the Bill contains no explicit duty to promote affordable fares, and changes to the licensing arrangements of Great British Railways could see fares rising as there is less focus on public duties.
There seems to be even less ambition to create one system that covers the whole journey someone might take. As the Minister knows well, this works in Greater London, where TfL runs the London Overground under the mayor’s control. Manchester is moving that way, but what about democratic control over integrated transport for the rest of the cities and regions? People do not think in terms of operators or transport modes; they simply want one journey. Whether someone is connecting from a local bus, a tram, a cycle route or a ferry, the system should feel seamless. Integration should be one of the central purposes of Great British Railways, creating a public transport network where different modes work together rather than competing with one another. I hope that the Government will clarify how the railway will become genuinely integrated with other forms of public transport.
Rail is already one of the lowest-carbon forms of transport. We should be supporting every passenger to choose rail over driving or domestic flying. If we are to meet our legally binding climate targets, modal shift cannot simply be left in policy papers; it should be a statutory objective of the organisation that is responsible for running the railway. Staggeringly, environmental responsibilities appear only fleetingly in the Bill. There is little recognition that our railway must become climate resilient as extreme weather becomes more frequent or that it should contribute to restoring nature alongside the lines it manages. Some 10% of all train services were cancelled or severely delayed in the most recent heatwave in Britain. Last week, I spent six hours getting home instead of three, and I felt lucky to get home at all.
Great British Railways should have a clear public mission that recognises its contribution not only to transport but to our economy, our environment and our wider society. Passengers deserve the reassurance that a publicly owned railway will be judged not simply on financial performance but on whether it provides affordable access to work, education, leisure and family life. Profitable routes should be able to support socially essential services in rural and underserved communities, where success is measured not only in ticket revenue but in reducing isolation, supporting local economies and giving people a genuine alternative to cars. High ticket prices mean empty seats.
Equally important is protecting the workforce that keeps our railways running. I welcome the reassurances that the Government have given regarding the future of the Railways Pension Scheme, providing valuable certainty for thousands of rail workers. The future of Great British Railways will depend as much on the people who run it as it will on the infrastructure they manage.
Of course, the Bill misses one of the biggest opportunities of all: setting Britain on the path towards a fully electrified railway. Britain has spent decades pursuing a stop-start approach to electrifying its rail network. Only 39% or thereabouts of our railway is electrified, which is is well behind many comparable countries. We know what needs to happen. The Climate Change Committee has made it clear that substantially more of the network will need to be electrified if we are to decarbonise rail and meet our climate obligations. Yet the Bill is silent on this.
Finally, I hope that the Government will look carefully at how passengers themselves are represented. A publicly owned railway that fails to listen to the public will have missed the point entirely. Public ownership should not simply change who owns the railway; it should change for whom the railway works. Passengers, disabled people, local communities, rail workers, devolved Governments and regional authorities should all have meaningful opportunities to shape services, investment priorities and future strategies. Improving accessibility will be a huge benefit for our ageing population.
We also need more clarity on how mayoral, local and combined authorities will be able to control investment plans and services. The Green Party has long argued that rail should be viewed not simply as a transport system but as essential national infrastructure for delivering economic opportunity, social justice and climate action. Public ownership is not the destination; it is the foundation. The Bill moves us away from the disastrous experiment of fragmented privatisation—for that, it deserves support —but we should not settle for a railway that merely functions better than before. We should build one that actively reduces carbon emissions, restores nature, connects communities, integrates public transport, makes travel affordable and expands opportunity across every part of the country. Those ambitions really must be written into the Bill itself.
I welcome the Bill’s Second Reading and hope that, during its passage through this House, we can strengthen it so that Great British Railways truly lives up to its name as a railway that is run in the public interest, serving people, communities and the planet for generations to come.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I agree with a huge amount of what she said, and I welcome her support for the Bill.
As he is still in the Chamber, I want to pay my own tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, whom I first had the pleasure of meeting around 40 years ago when he was a senior civil servant and I was a desperate lobbyist for a particular interest that was affected by his department, the Home Office. He will be missed; that was a wonderful valedictory speech.
I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill for the way in which he introduced this debate. I endorse the compliments paid to him from the Benches opposite. He is an extraordinarily successful and popular Transport Minister in your Lordships’ House, and I hope that it will not blight his career if I say that I hope he will remain where he is when Mr Burnham forms his new Government in a couple of weeks’ time.
I have a number of railway interests to declare. The noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, referred to one of them: I chair the Great Western Rail advisory board. The noble Baroness is a most diligent and valued member of that board and I am delighted that she is on it. I am also the president of the Cotswold Line Promotion Group and the Heritage Railway Association. That was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; I am sure that we will come to the issue of heritage railways, which he raised, in Committee. All of these organisations, along with numerous others that have written to me, have interests in the Bill, and we will consider issues that relate to them in Committee.
For me, the most important issue facing the railways is ensuring that they can rise to the challenge of constantly growing public demand from passengers and the freight industry in a cost-effective and well-managed way. An essential ingredient in this renaissance will be ensuring that Great British Railways is the industry’s directing mind, firmly in charge of the railway. Otherwise, capacity will not be enhanced and performance will not improve. It must have the power to decide how the network is best used, as is defined in Clause 50, and doing that is likely to produce more capacity than we have now.
The other great issue is that a long-term rail plan from the Secretary of State will give GBR the opportunity and the obligation to form a business plan to carry out the enhancements that will improve the network the most, as well as the right money to keep the network running reliably. Neither of these documents exists now and they have not for over 30 years. That is why the network is less than optimal and why the need for a future list of enhancements with business cases is so important. If we have this list, we can solicit third-party contributions through Section 106 and other agreements. We all know how landowners and developers benefit from railway improvements but are seldom asked to pay anything towards them.
I will take the Cotswold line between Oxford and Worcester as an example. The case for enhancing this route is overwhelming, but it has not made the cut as far as the Department for Transport is concerned over the last 15 years. Even though the line’s popularity has grown year by year and trains are regularly overcrowded, the service’s reliability is undermined by two stretches of single-line working. Developers have great plans for housebuilding, particularly at the western end of the line, including a new town on the edge of Worcester. They have the strongest possible incentive to contribute. It is an easy win, yet for some reason it seems to be very hard to persuade the department of the case.
I have no doubt that the principles behind the Bill are right and the only effective approach to simplifying and reducing the huge cost of our railways, which is required by the complex structure that was set up when BR was privatised. I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on the merits of the privatisation that he introduced, for reasons that I have explained to him. However, there are no credible alternatives being advanced to take the railways into their next stage of development other than those proposed in this Bill.
In 2023, I co-authored a book on railway power and politics, Signals Passed at Danger. Our conclusions on privatisation were that the policy was “a leap in the dark, a radical experiment where neither the Government nor the British Railways Board could predict the outcome”. This time around, we know the results of the privatisation experiment. That is why the principles of this Bill have widespread support from the public and throughout the industry. It would be wrong not to recognise that some good results were achieved over the last 25 years. I am happy to recognise them: notably, new trains, reopened lines, more services and a dramatic improvement in safety standards. However, the costs have been high, involving levels of financial support that British Rail in its day could only dream about. Too much has been spent on lawyers, consultants and administration to meet the plethora of new regulations. This Bill offers the chance of radically simplifying the structures and reducing unnecessary regulation and costs. Much of the debate has been about passenger services. On these, I encourage my noble friend the Minister to build on the brand strength and loyalties built by the TOCs.
Turning finally to rail freight, the Bill gives us the opportunity to see that it takes a much larger share of the nation’s transport needs than is currently the case. Here, I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has just said. The political view was always that “freight does not vote”. It is true that the financial targets set for BR on freight back in the 1980s and 1990s meant that much of the infrastructure had to be abandoned as it failed to meet the Government’s stringent financial criteria, despite the strong environmental advantages over heavy lorry traffic.
Some of this has been regained by rail, and efficiency has improved so much that more traffic has been won by the freight companies, particularly intermodal traffic. More can be done. With active government support for rail freight terminals, electrification and full-length freight loops, the growth can be even greater. The great underused asset is the Channel Tunnel. It is shocking that less rail freight currently passes through the Channel Tunnel than was carried by the train ferries before the tunnel opened. GBR will be able to help the development of international freight with gauge clearance work to carry the largest containers and provide wider access to the rail network. The inclusion of a requirement to set a rail freight growth strategy is welcome and a complete change from the framework of the 1970s, where rail freight was seen as a lost cause and not worthy of support.
There is much in this Bill to welcome. There are bits in it which we want to improve in Committee, but overwhelmingly I give it my support.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, passengers should be the focal point of this Bill. Their needs and experiences should guide the developments and improvements to be implemented. The needs of passengers are clear: the ability to access stations, platforms and trains; lifts that work; comfortable conditions in which to travel; a regard for personal safety; and trains that arrive and depart on time. National Rail and the operating companies try to meet those needs, with varying degrees of success.
For example, mobility assistance at Euston, run by National Rail and the train operating companies, helps at least 1,600 people a week to board their trains. The service is run efficiently by a dedicated team who are helpful, professional and, above all, respectful and kind. This is reflected in the performance of staff at the various stations along the route. However, the Office of Rail and Road’s research report published this month shows that 10% of those who had booked a service had not been met at all. For those who have been abandoned on their trains late at night, the experience must be terrifying. The suspicion is that the system of notifying the arrival station of the passenger’s arrival time has broken down. Can the Minister foresee any way in which this system could be improved under GBR? I add here how pleased I was with the Minister’s emphasis on accessibility in his opening speech.
The Avanti West Coast service between London Euston and north Wales has seen much improvement since the days of Covid and the strikes. Its trains are newer, air conditioned and clean. The train managers keep passengers informed and are there to help if needed. I hope that there will be no further discussions about “managerless” trains on GBR. Their presence provides a sense of security, especially to female passengers. Many users of the west coast service hanker after the days of Virgin Rail and its two-hourly direct trains from Holyhead to Euston. Is it possible that this valuable service will be restored?
The most common cause of delays to journeys appears to be the perennial “signalling problems”. It is perhaps a cover-all excuse, but it points to a very real problem. Another of the Office of Rail and Road’s reports tells us that pockets of signalling systems from the 19th century remain active and that roughly half of the UK’s rail network relies on signalling infrastructure that is more than 30 years old: an age at which the infrastructure could be deemed to be obsolete. Running a modern-day Great British Railways on a signalling system which is 50% obsolete seems designed to fail, so what plans does the Minister have to upgrade the signalling system, and over what timescale?
As noble Lords will be aware, in Wales, responsibility for rail infrastructure is a reserved matter, with only responsibility for the rolling stock being devolved to the Welsh Government, which is responsible for the Wales & Borders passenger services that Transport for Wales operates as TfW Rail. It is a strange semi-devolution that is all the more bizarre when compared with Scotland, where the whole railway system is devolved.
There has been a history of underinvestment in Welsh rolling stock, with the Welsh Government having to take funding from other devolved areas to make up the shortfall. The boneshaker of a train that I travelled on from Chester to Llandudno Junction last Thursday was testament to this underinvestment. On the same day, services on the branch lines between Wrexham General and Chester and between Llandudno Junction and Blaenau Ffestiniog were reduced or cancelled as there were “more trains than usual needing repairs”—all symptoms of a system under stress. This Bill’s introduction of a long-term £14 billion investment plan for Wales is very welcome, particularly the approval of seven new railway stations, mainly in South Wales, to ease commuter pressure on the M4 corridor, and major infrastructure upgrades, including future plans to electrify the north Wales coast line.
The problem is that, beyond the £445 million committed to by this Bill, funding for future plans is not guaranteed. The rest of the programme is not legally mandated by this Bill and will remain entirely dependent on allocations in future UK Treasury spending reviews. The remaining £13.5 billion-plus is therefore currently unfunded.
We have been here before. Welsh railways have seen promises and disappointments over recent years. The Tories’ promise of the electrification of the north Wales line and the electrification of the Cardiff to Swansea line came to nothing, while the Tories’ cynical designation of HS2 as an England and Wales project, and this Labour Government’s equally cynical collusion with this and the subsequent outrageously cynical designation of the Oxford to Cambridge line as an England and Wales project have added insult to injury. This latter designation alone robbed Wales of some £360 million of consequential funding through the Barnett formula.
The investment plan is, in fact, the work of Transport for Wales. Its long-term master plan, Today, Tomorrow, Together, has been endorsed by the UK Government, which begs the question: if the plan has been created in Wales by Transport for Wales, why can it not be delivered in Wales by Welsh Ministers? The investment plan is underpinned by a memorandum of understanding between the UK and Welsh Governments and, of course, it maintains the current devolution settlement—instead of, as many people would wish, transferring full network ownership and funding powers to the Welsh Government. The MoU was signed by a Welsh Labour Transport Minister in the dying days of the last Welsh Labour Government, so, given Plaid Cymru’s commitment to the devolution of the rail network to Wales, what discussion has the Minister had with the new Administration about changes to the MoU?
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness who resides on the other side of the Welsh border from me. I still live very close to it, in the constituency that I had the pleasure to represent for nearly 20 years. I mention that because I share the Minister’s sentiments about the work of those who helped all those affected by the terrorist attack on 7/7. It is particularly memorable for me, because it took place relatively shortly after the 2005 general election, when I first joined the House of Commons. It was my first experience of how, as a parliamentarian, you end up dealing with the impact of a terrorist incident. I remember it very clearly, and the impact on the transport system. I remember—it was a very small price to pay—walking all the way from here to Paddington and seeing the enormous numbers of people whose lives had been disrupted that day, sometimes permanently, by that terrorist attack. So I am pleased by what the Minister said.
I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Grayling said about the Minister’s capabilities in this particular area. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, added a cross-party aspect to that, because I was fearing that, if only a Conservative colleague had said nice things about the Minister, we might perhaps have been doing him a disservice. But I can add my support to what the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, said, and also note that it was supported from the other side of the House, which I hope means that, when there is a change of Prime Minister in a couple of weeks’ time, we will see the Minister still sitting in his place. I had the great pleasure to work with him very closely when I was Secretary of State and he was the chair of Network Rail, and in the capacity of the work that he did in chairing the Euston Partnership. We worked very well together and I have great respect for his knowledge and capabilities, particularly in the rail arena.
I was listening very carefully to what my noble friend Lady May said about the importance of putting passengers first—or rather customers first. It is important to remember that the rail network is not just about passengers, it also about freight customers, and both are equally important. That is where I have some broad welcome for GBR, but I have some concerns about the way the Government are going about doing it. I support bringing the operation of track and train together; we have already heard the arguments about why a regional model of keeping those together might well have been a better solution.
Of course, the Minister will know that this Bill is not necessary—I had this debate in the department—to bring track and train together. Something that has been very good, which started under us and has continued under the present Government, is joint appointments of individuals running the train operating companies and the network rail operations in that region to get rid of the buck passing and the shifting accountabilities, and having a single individual who is responsible for infrastructure and the train operations. That has actually been very successful. So, to the extent that the Bill is delivering bringing track and train together, I welcome it.
I do not support the removal of private sector operators—I know that is in another Bill. The Government will rue the day that they nationalised or continue to nationalise the passenger operating companies. We have heard that there are other models. The franchising system perhaps had reached an end and certainly had enormous damage caused to it by the pandemic. But there are other ways of doing it; several Members have talked about, for example, the way it happens in London. It is just worth recognising the enormous success of privatisation; I am not going to do it at length, because my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham did it admirably. I just want to focus on one aspect of it that is the clearest exposition of the passengers’ response to privatisation, which is the more than doubling of the number of rail journeys from privatisation to the peak before the pandemic.
I mention the pandemic again because it had a massive impact on the rail network. It drove away, literally overnight, 80% of passenger rail journeys. It caused us to spend £30,000 million of taxpayers’ money on just keeping the rail network going, which I note is a responsibility that we bear on the Conservative Benches. We did not get anything for that in terms of productivity improvements or reform of how the system was run. Even now, we still have not quite recovered the passenger volumes that we had before the pandemic. That is important, because it means that the system requires more subsidy.
I heard a number of Members talk about profits being extracted. The real problem post pandemic is that there have not been any profits. Before the pandemic, the passenger operating companies overall made profits and returned money to the Treasury for the benefit of the taxpayer. Post pandemic, overall, the passenger operating companies lost money and have been subsidised every year by the taxpayer. That is not sustainable, given that most people in the country either never use or very rarely use trains. For the vast majority of people outside London, the most common method of getting to and from work and doing your daily business is to get in your car—and if you do not use the car and you use public transport, you do not use a train, you use a bus. Buses are a much more popular form of public transport than trains and it is important to remember that.
I do not have time to go on at length now about the three areas I want to focus on in Committee. One is about the retail operations. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, set that out extremely well, so I will not repeat what she said. When I was Secretary of State, officials were very keen on GBR having its own online retail operations—it was an official thing, not a Minister thing. I directed that to be removed. I thought it was a terrible idea. I thought the idea that the state could be nimble enough to run a fantastic digital operation when we already had some very good ones run by third-party retailers was completely pointless. I see that, upon the change of government, officials have snuck it back in again. I say to Ministers that they should challenge that. I do not think it will add anything. One area I will come back to is trying to reinsert competition in this area. I was very pleased to hear the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho; I hope that means, if we can craft some sensible amendments along those lines, that they will get support on these Benches, on his Benches and, I hope, from enough Cross-Benchers to encourage the Government to change their mind.
The other areas I want to look at are rail freight, to make sure we have a system where fair decisions are made about allocations, and open access.
My final point is on the tests that are important to judge the Bill. Does it drive up the volume of passengers? Does it reduce the cost to the taxpayer? Does it, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, make sure that we can get private capital involved? If it all relies on investment from the taxpayer, it will be a failure. Will it deliver a better rail system for all rail customers, both passengers and freight? Those are the tests that we should use to judge the Bill and we look forward to doing so in its next stages in this House.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
It is instructive to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harper, with his detailed knowledge of the subject, but I have rather more enthusiasm than he does for the Bill. I think this magnificent Bill is what the country has been waiting for. It is one of the key measures from this Government to restore public services to decent standards and sensible structures. The benefits of this comprehensive and simplified system have been well set out by my noble friends and some other speakers, so I will focus briefly on only four aspects.
I am particularly reassured by the Bill’s contribution to reaching net-zero carbon and its general impact on the economy, especially with regard to freight transport. Can my noble friend the Minister say a bit more about the impact that the very welcome targets for rail freight will have on the economy and what the plans for further electrification are? I hope he agrees with me that a rolling programme for electrification would be the cheapest way to achieve the maximum contribution to net zero.
The role of the Passengers’ Council is also very constructive. One of the defects of the pioneering British Rail of earlier times was the lack of a strong route to accountability, and I see this as a strength of the new structure. Much will depend on who is on the council. I can see that disability representation is guaranteed on the actual board of GBR, but can my noble friend say what categories will play a guaranteed part on the council? I make a plea in my own interest for somebody who understands the difficulty that old people have in minding the gap between the train and the platform—ever more perilous. I trust the council’s reports will be published.
Another issue with British Rail, and indeed with all the earlier quasi-monopoly nationalisations, was incentives for efficiency. Oversight of the strategy should encompass this, but how will it be built into the process?
Finally, my last professional involvement with railways, very many years ago, concerned the position of railway employees. The risks that many of them took were covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, as were risks to the public from their activity. All employees’ rights still apply, of course, but I think it may be the transport inspectorate which sits within the Office of Rail and Road that enforces them now. What are the liaison arrangements with the Health and Safety Executive under the new regime? How would any prosecutions or enforcement work?
This Bill will steer our railways to the future we need for this essential part of our national life and I am delighted to commend it.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I associate myself with the chorus of praise for my noble friend Lord Wilson of Dinton. It was fascinating to hear his memories and his opinions.
I am one of the rank of non-experts here. I am a train user—a frequent user of London Overground and the very wonderful Elizabeth line. One of my favourite activities is watching the world go by from a train, particularly if I am lucky enough to get a seat with a table. I have travelled some of the loveliest routes in the UK: Exeter to Newton Abbot; Shrewsbury to Barmouth; Gloucester to Paddington via Stroud; and Oxford to Great Malvern—I commend the work of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on that one. I have even done the sleeper from Glasgow to London.
Whereas the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, sees dystopia out of his window, I am back in the world of PG Wodehouse, Evelyn Waugh, and Flanders and Swann. Flying is a chore; a train journey, when it works, can be a pleasure. But I am old enough to remember British Rail ending unloving and unloved. This is why I welcome the Bill, because it is so important. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fix public transport infrastructure in this country.
The Bill has a lot of talk, in the duties, about railway infrastructure, but it lacks detail. Will new or reopened branch lines be planned to get people on the railways earlier in the journey? If we learned one thing from Beeching, it is that people who get in a car stay in a car. These need to be truly linked with buses. One of the recommendations of the House of Lords special committee on social mobility, which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I sat on, highlighted the need for joined-up transport in rural areas. There is little point running buses to stations if they are not linked to train times.
There has been very little talk about resilience. Last week, I was travelling on a train, and it was late. Other trains were late or cancelled, apparently because the rails are now much longer, so they expanded more. This was below 30 degrees centigrade. European rails are subject to much higher temperatures, and to contrasts, with cooler nights. How do they cope? Let us not even talk about snow.
Is there going to be a level playing field for non-GBR activities? The Minister talked about trying to grow rail freight but, for example, to quote Logistics UK:
“Clause 63 requires GBR to reserve capacity for its own services. As such, without amendment to that and other areas of the Bill to strengthen governance, accountability and regulatory balance, there is a risk that freight will be deprioritised in capacity allocation, planning, charging and investment decisions”.
I believe this is also a worry for other passenger rail companies.
What will happen to apps such as Trainline, when the aim is that GBR’s ticketing website will combine the existing 14 rail operator websites and apps into one? The noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned this. According to Trainline:
“This creates an unprecedented structural conflict of interest and risks GBR favouring its own retail channels over competitors”.
The Bill talks about upgrading stations but does not mention property. What will happen to Platform4, the merger of London & Continental Railways and Network Rail’s property business? I quote its website:
“Over the next decade, Platform4 plans to unlock surplus railway land for up to 40,000 new homes and around 10 million sq ft of commercial space, including mixed use neighbourhoods with homes, green spaces, shops and hotels in locations such as Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and Cambridge”.
What is to happen to railway arches? At best, railway arches are an excellent community asset. Near to me there are arches containing a butcher, a carpet warehouse, a prop manufacturer, sheet metal fabricators and numerous panel beaters and car repair shops. The Lords and Commons cricket team nets weekly in two railway arches in Wandsworth—at this point I shout out for New Era Training which has improved my batting enormously, so I am now merely rubbish. The arches by me in Hackney are being redeveloped, so their occupants are being forced out by sharply rising rents. There must be a supersaturation of microbreweries and coffee shops. There is a real danger that the arches then lie empty.
What about complex developments such as Hampton Court station, which I coincidentally went through on Sunday? The station is held up by scaffolding. Linked to it is a site that has been derelict for more than 40 years, mired in planning issues, recently described by Andrew Roberts of the Hampton Court Rescue Campaign as a national disgrace. At the very least, it is a national embarrassment with all the tourists getting off to go to Hampton Court Palace.
Possibly the biggest opportunity for GBR is in the skills sector, and this does not seem to be mentioned in the impact report or the Bill. There is such an opportunity here for GBR. At the moment, the British Army is the biggest employer provider of apprenticeships in Britain. GBR should make beating that record its target. Will the Minister say whether GBR is talking to the DfT, the DWP and Skills England to provide all-levels apprenticeships, including the badly needed levels 2 to 4 across the board?
With the formation of Great British Railways, we have the opportunity to provide a longed-for, efficient national transport network, boost employment, apprenticeships and social mobility and grow the economy in a true renaissance of the nation’s public transport system. Let us not waste it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and hear his comments about, in particular, training on the railways, which, incidentally, has been, I think, modernised dramatically by HS2. But that is a separate issue.
I shall say a few words today questioning the point of this Bill. That may seem a bit dramatic, but I have been working on the railways for nearly 50 years, since I was building the Channel Tunnel, and I have noticed that the railway has effectively been controlled by the Government for at least 20 years, as many noble Lords have said, on timetabling, charges, ticketing, investment in the track and the rolling stock for many trains. They may have said that it is in the private sector, but in fact it is controlled behind the scenes in many instances, so I wonder whether we should be talking about ownership or control. We have control at the moment, and listening to many noble Lords speaking this evening, it occurred to me that most of the changes that they quite rightly recommend could be done without primary legislation.
I spent several decades, if not more, working in the rail freight industry, in the European industry more lately and in ALLRAIL, which is an association of companies across Europe which believe in open access and competition in passenger services. I suppose I can claim some small input into the European Commission bringing liberalisation to the continent after it was seen by me in those days, and I still think it is, as an important element here. We were telling our friends on the continent, “Why don't you follow the Brits?”. Now it is the other way round, but we will see how that goes.
I do not know why the Government are trying to go the opposite way. In my book, in many instances, they are trying to stifle competition. Many noble Lords have talked about competition. It is an important issue, so I have questions for the Minister, and many more, I expect. Is GBR going to save money by bringing efficiencies beyond what we have at the moment, all effectively government controlled? Many noble Lords have said what is wrong with the railway, but it is already government controlled.
Will GBR bring an increase in passenger numbers and freight volumes? I know the Minister says it will, but where is the evidence? On many routes, open access operators have delivered significant passenger growth. It does not happen on all lines, where the operators have tried, failed and stopped because there was not enough revenue. I got the impression that part of the content of the Bill is to prevent open access passenger and freight operators and make life as difficult as possible.
The Bill appears to me to be an attempt by the Government to implement what is, frankly, a dogma of nationalisation without looking at the alternatives. There are many alternatives, such as open access with a proper regulator. We have a good regulator at the moment, but he is going to have his hands tied behind his back if we are not careful in the Bill. He is not able to regulate access to the tracks, because he cannot decide who gets the next access to the tracks or whether it is passenger or freight because that is done by GBR, which is also going to be the operator of the trains. It seems to me that, if we are not careful—obviously, we need to dig into this a bit more in later stages of this Bill—the extent of the monopoly being created by GBR should probably be referred to the CMA. But I suspect that is not for today.
There is also a lot of criticism about Network Rail—or not, since many of the comments made by noble Lords refer to Network Rail rather than any of the train operators. Will the Minister say what evidence there is that Network Rail’s performance will improve? Last week’s report by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on Network Rail’s performance on the Northern Powerhouse Rail project is hardly reassuring. Northern Powerhouse Rail is a much smaller version of HS2, which we have talked about ad nauseam. It is a very important project, and my noble friend the Minister has spoken about it in your Lordships’ House on many occasions. The PAC is
“not confident the Department for Transport … has learned all the lessons from past failures”
in its management of other rail projects. It carries on to say that there are clear risks that the full programme and its benefits cannot be delivered within the £45 billion funding cap. HS2 was a disaster, and we are all hoping that Northern Powerhouse Rail will be done properly, but the PAC’s conclusions are worrying.
Another couple of issues are the charging and compensation scheme in the Bill, which seems to suggest that operators, and therefore passengers, are not compensated for delays outside their control, which might be weather or whatever. They are compensated at the moment. Is that a good thing to change? We can debate that.
So we have a lot of work to do to talk about the future of the competition issues and the Rail Regulator. The concluding aim must be that GBR should act fairly and non-discriminatorily. Network access should remain impartial and independently challengeable—and I mean independently. Capacity should not be reserved indefinitely for unspecified future GBR services. Charging should be neutral and predictable. Existing rights should be protected. Public money should be subject to genuine value-for-money tests. We have a lot to debate, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to convince your Lordships’ House that the Bill is necessary and that most of the issues raised by noble Lords cannot be addressed without legislation.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, before turning to the substance of the Bill, I wish to begin by paying tribute to those who lost their lives on 7/7 21 years ago. Our thoughts and prayers are still with those families that were affected—and similarly with those who lost their lives or were injured in the more recent train accident on the East Midlands Railway line near Bedford. It is a line that I regularly use to come here every week and go home. In particular I pay tribute to the emergency services and the railway staff who responded in a very professional manner. An incident such as the recent Bedford train crash is a solemn reminder that safety must always remain the first duty of our railway. I declare an interest in that my eldest son works for one of the railway companies in the north of England.
This Bill presents an opportunity to reshape Britain’s railways for a new generation. It is therefore right that we approach it not through the lens of ideology but through the experience of millions of passengers who rely on the railways every day. Much of the political debate surrounding this legislation will inevitably focus on the question of ownership and structure. Others will argue over the merits of nationalisation versus privatisation. From these Benches, we take a different view. We are not interested in fighting yesterday’s arguments. The real test is whether the railway delivers a service that is affordable, reliable, accessible and worthy of public confidence.
Passengers must be at the heart of Great British Railways. That is why we will seek to strengthen this Bill by ensuring that Great British Railways has not only a freight growth target but a statutory passenger growth target. This will be necessary if we are to hit our climate change targets as well as ensuring that people have choice in terms of how they get about. If freight deserves clear objectives, and it does, surely passengers deserve the same ambition.
Success should be measured not simply by trains running but by more people choosing rail because it is the most attractive option. That matters nowhere more than in the north of England. For far too long, passengers across Yorkshire—and particularly those travelling to and from Sheffield, where I am from—have endured unreliable services, overcrowding, ageing rolling stock and delays that have become too familiar. The pace of trains that many noble Lords might remember from decades ago is sometimes still a reality in the north. People are just amazed that these things are sometimes still ongoing.
Too often, journeys that should be straightforward become an exercise in frustration. Some of my colleagues on the Front Bench will probably be smiling at the moment, knowing that I have often missed Oral Questions because either the train has never left Sheffield station or, if it has left Sheffield station, it has on occasion stopped at Chesterfield, or Derby, or Leicester, where we have had to get off.
Often, those trains are also severely overcrowded. In the upbringing I had from both my parents, we were told simply, “If people need those seats, you need to get up”—and we had to sit on the floor. That is the experience that some of us have had. Members of the public will be shocked to learn that that is the reality. It does not matter what class of ticket you buy. Sometimes it has been first class and you have still not had a seat. So there is clearly work to be done here.
We might compare that with the rail systems of many our European neighbours. These are punctual, frequent, integrated and regarded not as a luxury but as a basic expectation. Even within our own country, passengers in London—I am mindful now of my colleague and noble friend Lady Pidgeon—benefit from far greater frequency, investment and connectivity, at levels that many communities in Yorkshire can only dream of. A truly national railway must not entrench those inequalities; it must help eliminate them. If we are serious about encouraging people out of their cars and on to trains, we must also address the passenger experience.
We believe that this Bill should include a comprehensive passenger charter setting out clear and enforceable rights for those who use our railways. Passengers deserve certainty about standards of service, compensation, accessibility and information when things go wrong. Affordability is equally important. Britain’s fares system has become bewilderingly complex. Too many passengers still find themselves asking whether they have bought the right ticket or whether a cheaper option existed. Simplicity builds confidence.
We will therefore advocate for greater innovation in ticketing, giving passengers clearer and more flexible choice alongside the introduction of a national “rail miles” scheme that rewards loyalty and encourages more people to choose rail for both work and leisure.
Innovation, however, must not be confined to Great British Railways itself. I welcome the Bill’s recognition that independent ticket retailers should continue to operate in a fair and open market. That commitment must now be translated into reality. Independent retailers have driven innovation that has benefited passengers through better journey planning, smarter ticketing and increased competition.
Organisations representing ticket retailers, transport technology companies and online travel businesses have all argued that Great British Railways must adopt an open-by-default approach to data and ensuring genuine competition across ticket retailing. That means a genuinely level playing field. GBR should not be the regulator, the operator and the competitor simultaneously.
Independent retailers must enjoy fair access to data, transparent commercial arrangements and equal opportunities to innovate. The Office of Rail and Road’s code of practice must provide meaningful safeguards to ensure that passengers continue to benefit from choice, innovation and value for money, rather than drifting towards a state monopoly in ticket retailing.
There are, however, wider concerns about this Bill. We are troubled by the concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. There is a real danger that Ministers become judge, jury and executioner of significant parts of the railway system. Operational decisions should not be subject to day-to-day political intervention. Railways require long-term planning, professional expertise and operational independence. We will therefore scrutinise carefully the responsibilities of Great British Railways, the Office of Rail and Road and the Passenger Council, to ensure that there is clarity rather than duplication.
Likewise, we remain concerned about the extensive reliance on secondary legislation throughout the Bill. Parliament should not be asked to sign a blank cheque on matters of considerable significance that deserve full parliamentary scrutiny, through primary legislation wherever possible.
This Bill has the potential to lay the foundations for a railway fit for the 21st century, but that will happen only if passengers—not institutions, not ideology and not Whitehall—remain at its centre. If we can create a railway that is reliable, affordable, innovative, accountable and genuinely passenger-focused, Great British Railways can become not simply a new organisation but a catalyst for restoring confidence in one of our nation’s greatest public services. I look forward to working constructively across the House to ensure that this legislation fulfils that ambition.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading debate. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as an adviser variously to the Crown Estate and to Simmons & Simmons LLP.
Like other noble Lords, my thoughts are with all those who were affected on 7/7. I remember that day so clearly. It was less than 24 hours after we had won the right to stage the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. In that 24-hour period we saw the best of humanity in the bid, we saw the worst of humanity in those terrorist atrocities, and, instantaneously, we saw the best of humanity in all the first responders and members of the public, who ran towards danger to help all those affected on the transport network and beyond.
I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he introduced this Second Reading debate. I would introduce a slight note of discord into our Second Reading proceedings, in that I hope the Minister does not keep his job when the new Prime Minister comes in, because his experience, expertise and enthusiasm for transport need to be recognised. I hope he can come back to your Lordships’ House as Secretary of State for Transport—I know he shares that political ambition.
I was delighted to listen to the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. I had the good fortune to work with him many years ago when he was doing excellent work on inclusion and accessibility as Cabinet Secretary. It was an honour and a pleasure to work with him, though, having heard some of the other contributions in this debate this afternoon, I feel somewhat slighted that at no point did he ever try to shove into my hand a bound copy of Hansard—again demonstrating his wisdom, in that he obviously understood it would have been of absolutely no use to me whatever.
We are in the midst of a transport legislation movie. We have had the civil aviation Bill, we are now on the Railways Bill, and later down the track we have a roads Bill. It really is “Planes, Trains and Automobiles”. In my Second Reading contribution, I would like to consider that we are also in the midst of an AI revolution. Rail was the white heat technology of its time, and there are lessons we can learn from the revolution in rail, for both rail and the Bill, and for our approach to artificial intelligence.
Be in no doubt that rail was extraordinary. Steam literally changed time. What did we learn about safety and security? Brunel’s brilliant bells and whistles system is, in reality, still an extraordinarily effective way to do signalling. As for how we need to communicate the benefits and possibilities of rail, at the time when rail emerged it was often thought that you would get mortally injured and probably not reach the end of your journey on these horror machines from hell. What did Brunel do? He did not build stations but built cathedrals to the railway, at London Paddington and Bristol Temple Meads. What an extraordinary demonstration of the innovation of technology from both Brunel and the extraordinary Daniel Gooch.
That innovation needs to be brought right up to date with our approach to the railways and to artificial intelligence. What we saw with rail is that, when you have such innovation and you connect it through communicating it to the public, a glamour emerges. Look at how we were nostalgic about the railway so early in its operation. The Railway Children was published in 1905, and later we had Auden’s “Night Mail”, “crossing the Border”, and Philip Larkin coming down late one term from Cambridge in a button-studded leather carriage, witnessing all of those wonderful “Whitsun Weddings”.
Why do we have this glamour around rail and its technology and innovation? Because it is a human-connecting, social experience. It does not just connect us geographically; it connects us socially. That is what Richard Branson fundamentally understood when he took over the franchise, which I had the great pleasure to discuss with him many years ago. He understood that he could not control the track, the signals or the stations, but, for everything he could control and for the staff he trained, he understood that it was about service and the passenger experience.
I suggest that the golden thread to run through the Bill should be passenger experience and how we deliver, from the first touchpoint of considering buying a ticket, that end-to-end service. If you get passenger experience right, you will get accessibility right, because accessibility is just delivering excellence in passenger experience and service. As we have already heard, not least from my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we are some way off that, which cannot continue. How accessible and inclusive a service is—in this case, the railways—is as good a measure as any of success.
The growth agenda of this Government is critical. Rail can deliver on that. That is also tied to access. The Government have a desire to get more disabled people into work, but it is quite right for a disabled person to ask how they are to get a job when they cannot even get on to a train. How enabling and empowering rail could be. The Bill needs to speak far more to that.
I move beyond passengers, to freight. What has happened to all of the work around digital rail? Where are all the principles from that project? The ambition then was for a 40% increase in freight through digitising the signals. That would be transformational for rail and for our economy. There is so much work being done with autonomous vehicles at the moment, to have a truck that can lead a convoy of 20, 30, 40 or 50 trucks. That sounds very much to me like a train. We need to get freight back on to the rails. It is more effective, more efficient and more able to drive economic activity.
Finally, I ask the Minister about an anomaly. He quite correctly suggests that we have track and train connected, which makes sense from an integration perspective. But what happens in a situation, particularly in London, where we have shared track use between London Underground and rail? It is often the case that, in such instances, things fall between the cracks. Who is responsible when a signal goes down? Does it get fixed in hours or, as is often the case, days? That cannot be acceptable. What does the Bill do to deliver on that currently anomalous situation?
Rail matters, thus the Bill matters extraordinarily. Rail enables us to get about and to get on. Will the Bill succeed? As any prophet has to say to any sceptic, time will tell. There is plenty for us to discuss in Committee across all of these issues. At this stage, perhaps it can be seen as probably the greatest real-time experiment in “railpolitik”.
Lord Doyle (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, who made a typically thoughtful contribution to the debate. I fully associate myself with his remarks on the anniversary of 7/7, which was a time when I was working in government and certainly will never forget.
I also associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, on the recent rail crash near Bedford. Like him, I use that line regularly to travel home. Our thoughts are with all of those who are affected by it and our thanks go out to the emergency services who responded so heroically.
It is a source of real pleasure to be able to speak in this debate on the Railways Bill, which delivers a crucial manifesto commitment for the Government. There can be no doubt that taking back control of our railways and ending one of the most disastrous Conservative privatisations of the 1980s and 1990s was one of our most popular policies at the last election —I would argue for good reason. We know that that privatisation was flawed from day one because of the split between track and train. The Bill will bring the management of those back together to improve performance, with Great British Railways managing day-to-day operations and taking long-term decisions in the public interest. This means that we will have a more reliable and accessible railway, with better value journeys.
On that word “accessible”, I want to mention the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Any of us who follow her on Twitter will know the stories she regularly tells of just how much the railways are failing at the moment and how much we need the Bill to succeed. That is one example of how the structure of the railways at the moment is a mess, with passengers at the mercy of a myriad organisations. From buying a ticket to finding out who is responsible for a delay, there is a Kafkaesque process of opaque rules and shifting blame. That is the reality of the current fractured system.
Let us take the example of Network Rail and the train operating companies employing hundreds of full-time staff simply to establish who should cover the costs of delays. Given the pessimism we have seen about the Bill from some of those on the Benches opposite, I will stress some of the reasons why these changes are so welcome. Great British Railways will create a single organisation to operate, maintain and improve our railways, to ensure smarter decision-making around interchanges and reliability, and to align incentives ensuring that action is taken against the common causes of delay, providing access and accountability to passengers and taxpayers alike.
Taking back control of our railways under Great British Railways will have the potential to deliver the improvements that customers and taxpayers rightly expect to see. That will need hard work and hard thinking and, yes, hard choices. Great British Railways is a great opportunity but it is incumbent on all the industry stakeholders to grab it. Costs across the railway are too high, rightly infuriating taxpayers and farepayers, who see their bucks deliver far too little bang, as the cost of building a mile of rail in Britain is the highest in the world. Let us be frank, industrial relations are not where they need to be. All sides must embrace the new era of Great British Railways if we are to have the truly new start that our railways need.
Fortunately, this is all in the capable hands, as we have heard, of my noble friend the Minister, who I have no doubt will resolve these issues. Having paid him that compliment, I want to use this debate to ask a few questions about a project that is close to my heart and which is crucial to delivering the Government’s growth ambitions, and one that I hope will benefit from the new strategic co-ordination through Great British Railways: East West Rail. The line will transport people from Oxford to Cambridge as the core of that growth corridor as we replace the much-missed Varsity line.
First, can my noble friend the Minister give an update on the Oxford to Milton Keynes section, where construction has finished but operating contracts are apparently still being negotiated? What is his latest estimate of when we will see services running? Secondly, on the Bedford to Cambridge section, this is a wonderful and much-needed opportunity to reopen a line that was closed back in the 1960s, but I hope my noble friend will not mind me again pushing on delivery timetables and plans, given the centrality of this project to so much of Bedfordshire’s ambitions.
It is welcome that the Government have pledged £1.3 billion towards transport infrastructure for the new Universal United Kingdom resort, especially the much-needed station at Wixams. Of course, that station is supposed to be not just a simple addition to the current north-south line but an east-west junction. Given that the development consent order for East West Rail will not be submitted until 2027, what is my noble friend’s level of confidence that both lines will be operating at Wixams when the Universal UK resort opens in 2031?
There is a second government ambition for which East West Rail is crucial: the new town at Tempsford. The feasibility studies for that new town have focused on the great potential of Tempsford as the junction point between the London to Edinburgh east coast main line and East West Rail, so the early development of the station is crucial, not just as a station but as the anchor project for the development of Tempsford new town, which the Government have said they want to be under way by the time of the next general election. Can my noble friend the Minister express confidence that that timeline will be sufficient to deliver these two crucial projects?
I touch briefly on the issue of open-access train operators, which has been mentioned by a number of speakers. We have seen the success of open-access operators such as Grand Central and Lumo within the current railways landscape. Can my noble friend the Minister reassure us that the new set-up will ensure that there is a fair basis for open-access operators to come into the system and that they will be able to provide a form of competition and choice for customers in the new service? I ask this as someone who likes taking railway journeys for fun: can my noble friend reassure us what the capacity will be for heritage operators within the new system, that those will not get squeezed out and that there will still be a chance for us to have those routes that benefit tourism and travel around the country?
The railways have long suffered from misaligned incentives—thanks to this Labour Government, no more. Passengers will benefit, waste will be cut, fares will be lower, the new Great British Railways app will simplify booking, and the passenger watchdog will give travellers recourse. This can truly be a new golden age for our railways and our country.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, we all say to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his valedictory speech: thank you for lifting our spirits. We will miss you. It is good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, and all 26 noble Lords who have spoken. Some of them have stolen my words so it is no good me repeating them.
In my contribution to the Second Reading of this very important Bill, I begin by recalling an event at York station on 23 April 2017. It involved four generations of trains on the same track—the east coast main line—at the same time, travelling in the same direction, celebrating the past, the future and the present. A total of five trains took part in the historic Four Trains event. The occasion was also a celebration of the east coast main line, where four of the trains travelled side by side.
The four trains featured in the line-up included the “Flying Scotsman”, the iconic steam locomotive; the Virgin Trains East Coast Class 43 HST—that is, high speed train; the InterCity 125, nicknamed the 125 because of its top operational speed of 125 mph; and the InterCity 225 Class 91, designed for a maximum speed of 140 mph but, due to British railway signalling regulations, its operational top speed is restricted to 125 mph in regular service. Still, during testing it achieved a record speed of 162 mph—what a pity. Then there was the Hitachi Azuma Class 800, which had yet to come into service but was to do so in 12 months. Its operating speed is 125 mph. On sections equipped with in-cab European train control systems signalling, it is capable of reaching 140 mph.
Having arrived early, we saw the Class 55 Deltic D9002 “King’s Own Yorkshire Light Infantry” being used to haul the “Flying Scotsman” into position before all four trains were lined up alongside each other. I suggest that that historic event should remind us, as we consider this Bill, to celebrate the past, present and future of our railways. To move forward demands that we know where we are coming from but not to be enslaved by the past. There should not just be grumbles; there must be some elements of celebration of the amazing engineering that created trains in this country.
The passengers, customers and workers held a clear and firm view that the best period for the east coast main line was when it was under GNER, Great North Eastern Railway, between 1996 and 2007. The leadership and management of its chief executive, Christopher Garnett, brother of the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was head and shoulders above that of anyone before or since. As with all enterprises, if we have the right leader at the top, all is possible, and that is not linked to ownership. As the noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, ably reminded us, success will not be purely the structures we have created by this Bill but the results in terms of the satisfaction of passengers and customers. As a Yorkshire farmer said to me, “I plant grass for my dairy cattle, and I only know that the grass is good when I see the smile on the face of a cow”. May we in what we are doing create a similar reality.
I wholeheartedly endorse Clause 3 in Chapter 1 of Part 1, which sets out the seven functions of Great British Railways. I declare an interest as a regular user of trains in London and on the east coast main line, even when on one occasion the train I was on was delayed by 666 minutes. Yes, they could do better. All our trains could do better. That is what this Bill is about.
May this Bill do what Christopher Garnett did. I know that British passengers and customers have the capacity to put up with what is intolerable. Let us improve the Bill to become a clarion call to our trains, saying, “Enough is enough. We want you to be the change we want to see”, but this will depend largely on finding leaders whose actions will inspire others to dream more, to learn more, to do more and to become more—nudging everyone towards that horizon of hope.
Will the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that this Bill will give him the tools he needs to bring about the change he knows in his heart must happen? I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, “You have what it takes. Please do it.” Politicians may not want to go all the way to where they should go, but they can pave the way to do it and be like the English football team. I want to say, “Come on, Lord Hendy!”
It is a delight to speak in this debate, and I wish it great success. There is no holding back, because this is a critical time for us to be the greatest people who run trains, unlike those who have just followed us.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, I must confess I had mixed feelings when I saw that I had been drawn 30th out of 31 contributors to the debate this afternoon, but, in fact, it has been a huge pleasure. It has been an excellent and very well-informed debate, and it is a privilege to take part. I was particularly taken with the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. I thank the noble Lord for his service. I can tell, even as a relatively new Member, that he will be missed by the House.
It has also been a privilege to take part in a debate which has included contributions from a number of former Secretaries of State for Transport. They made the case for privatisation very well, using hard numbers: increased numbers of passengers, increased projects, improving reliability on the railways, and savings made, whereas, the proponents of this Bill, I fear, are relying largely on nostalgia. The reputation of British Rail, back as it was in the 1970s, appears to have undergone something of a renaissance in recent years. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Blencathra managed to puncture that particular balloon and remind us all of exactly what it was like.
I had the privilege to work for the Royal Mail in the 1980s and the early 1990s. We had a lot of dealings with British Rail. I would come into the office—I was private secretary to the director of operations here in London—and I would be faced every morning with a tray full of telexes; noble Lords will recall telexes, I am sure. Every one of them was about some form of delay or disruption to the mail overnight, and a very large proportion of those was due to failings on the part of our partner, British Rail. I would have to assemble those into a file and present them to the rather sceptical director when he came in later during the day. I can remember well how incandescent he was when I had to tell him that British Rail had forgotten to put fuel in a train and it had ground to a halt just outside Birmingham with its load.
I remember a particular day with some pride when we launched the mail train which ran from Euston station to Carlisle. We had a train full of bigwigs—directors from British Rail, directors from the Post Office; we had my noble friend Lord Jopling, who was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the time, and Lord Clinton-Davis, who was his Labour opposite number. We set off from Euston with our hearts high, looking forward to reaching Carlisle. Unfortunately, something fell off the train at Nuneaton, and we ground to a halt and sat in a field for an hour, with nobody telling us what the reason for that was. Nobody on the train knew, least of all, of course, the senior British Rail operators who were panicking somewhat about the experience. It was a constant source of controversy and difficulty for us, because we knew, as a nationalised organisation, that if we wanted to please the Government, we would put all our letters on to the trains. If we wanted to help the environment, because we cared about that even in those days, we would put all our mail on to the trains. But if we wanted the letters to get there the next day, we would put them in a van and drive them ourselves, because that was the only way that we could guarantee the quality of service that people required from us.
I particularly enjoyed the early contribution from my noble friend Lady May. She raised the issue of devolution and the contradictions that that will raise. The Minister, having run Transport for London, will be only too aware, I am sure, of the contradictions and the challenges this puts in place for London and for other major cities around the country. When he was running Transport for London, he would have wanted the trains to stop at every single stop going into London, provide a metro service and pick up the maximum number of people possible, but when he becomes the one controlling mind that he presented to us, running the trains on behalf of the country, no doubt he will want them to run express services and stop in as few places as possible to keep to the timetable and connect the cities. That is before the contradictions and the challenges raised by increasing the amount of freight on the rails as well. Perhaps the Minister can explain to us how the concept of one controlling mind will meet what is known as the Makerfield test.
My noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Young of Cookham raised the issue of investment. Again, this is a serious problem. Public money is paid by taxpayers by and large because they expect it to be spent on schools and hospitals, and those things will have the priority. This is why the old British Rail was always so badly underfunded. When we look forward to the situation facing us now in the UK, we are in a world where we need to boost our defence spending and there are all sorts of other demands on the budget. Great British Railways is going to be very fortunate if it gets much money out of a government settlement with all those other high priorities competing.
Furthermore, there is an issue of London versus the regions. I know that when I was deputy mayor for London, we could always make a good case for investing in London’s railways because, if nothing else, if you put the money into London, you know you are going to get it back eventually—there will be a return on that investment. That is how we got the Elizabeth line, although I am sure the Minister remembers that it was quite tough to get. It will be even harder to get investment in projects outside London, which will not cost in so easily because they will not meet Treasury rules.
From my point of view, I would perhaps give some advice to the Minister. Transport professionals should rely a bit less on putting in massive projects—big toys for boys, if you like—and look at breaking that money up and spending it on smaller projects, which may not get the headlines but which can be completed much more quickly. That will have a demonstrable effect in improving the reliability of the rail services.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
Thank you. He was heard in silence, almost.
We often hear in such debates—we have not heard it too much today—about how much better the rail services are in other countries. I just want to let the House know that that is not just a debate or an opinion which is voiced by people in the UK. I remember that quite a few years ago, and the Minister will recall this as well, we brought in a man called Bob Kiley from New York to run Transport for London. I was in a hotel in the West End talking to some New Yorkers at the bar, and I said to them, “We’ve got Mr Kiley coming over to run our services”. They said to me, “Well, he’s made a much better job of your Tube than he ever did with our rail services in New York”. I said, “The only problem is that he’s actually not arrived yet”. So it is a truth that, when we travel, we see the best of people’s rail services; when we live there, we do not quite get the sort of service that we would expect. If the Bill is to be successful, I hope that that situation will be corrected.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to be the last Back-Bench speaker. We all know that at least it is almost over.
I am totally in favour of the Bill. It will create a much better situation and a much better structure than the one we have at the moment. There is a wonderful myth going through this debate that privatisation was a great success. It was not quite said in so many words but somehow, by involving the private sector, things changed massively and those were wonderful days. Of course, what they really were was an opportunity for financial manoeuvring. Privatisation, essentially, was a financial and operational failure.
If we go back to when it started, there was a company called Railtrack looking after the track. It started operating in April 1994 and initially had very good results. It borrowed money and the Government gave it various guarantees. It was sort of a proper company, in its legal structure, but it eventually fell apart in 2002. Out of it, we created another company called Network Rail in 2002. I do not think anybody actually got to the bottom of what sort of company that was. It clearly was not a proper plc and we lost sight of worrying about that, for some reason. But we were still in the European Union at that point and part of an organisation which I believe was called Eurostat.
On 1 November 2014, Eurostat said, “That’s a nationalised industry. All the money is guaranteed by government; all the subsidies come from government; all the rules and what it is supposed to do come from government. It’s a nationalised industry”. So we nationalised it and that was fascinating, because it was one of the biggest nationalisations ever. It cost the country £34 billion to transfer the guaranteed debt that Network Rail had at that point to the Treasury, and barely anybody noticed it. That is the sort of money the privatised railway consumed.
On the train operating companies—all those so-called wonderful companies—let us not lose sight of the fact that many of them failed. The state of play in May 2024 was that four of them were being operated by the Government through an organisation called the operator of last resort. I believe that one of the things this Bill will produce is much more clarity over money.
That may not be a happy experience, but I believe we will be in a much better place, because the best brains in the so-called privatised railways compete against each other to win the point on who is to blame or how to get the best paths—the debates on the timetable used to go on for 18 months or so. We will have a situation where the top people in Great British Railways will all be trying to achieve the same thing, and the top teams will share those objectives. I know, because I have done it: I spent 17 years in the railway business. You can have a publicly owned railway, and you can manage it. Obviously, you have to break it up into manageable chunks, but you can transmit a common objective throughout the organisation, and we did. Not only will the teams see the value of working together but workers will see the value of working together. My prediction is that everybody, particularly passengers, including disabled passengers—I am very sensitive to the case that has been made for a better handling of disabled passengers—will get a better deal, as well as the taxpayer.
I have two concerns. One is the level of consultation and involvement. If you go through the whole document from cover to cover, you will discover 34 clauses where the Secretary of State has decisive authority, 11 clauses where the Office of Rail and Road has decisive authority, and 10 where Great British Railways has decisive authority. There are six clauses where the Office of Rail and Road has consultative rights, and two where GBR has them. There are four clauses where GBR is expected to originate action, and at least one where ORR is similarly expected to do so. The whole consultation process is incredibly complex. It is possibly necessary, and perhaps inevitable, for it to be that complex, because of the multiple stakeholders, but it will create friction and noise. The most important set of skills that will be necessary in this new organisation will be for managing that diversity of consultation, and some of the best people in Great British Railways will be needed to manage those various relationships. Consultation is not a bad thing, but it needs to be very carefully managed.
Another problem with this organisation, which I put to the House, is that the money will become very clear. Operating railways is expensive. The only way for a railway to pay for itself is through very high volumes, and high volumes will work. Everything else, virtually everywhere in the world, has to be subsidised. We need to have a debate about what the railway does for us as a society, and we need to look at the real value it produces. We need to get away from the best speech and getting the best chunk of money out of the Treasury and get back to a consensus on the criteria that we need to measure that debate. With that hard financial reality on the one hand, and a unified organisation that can see the whole operation, with an absolute commitment in the top team to the passenger and to society, I believe this will be a success.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, for his valedictory speech and thoughtful words, and I wish him well in his retirement.
The focus from these Benches is on how we improve train services for passengers and freight. How do we ensure the passenger is at the centre of Great British Railways, and that it operates in a transparent and fair manner?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley: we need the railway to succeed. If we are to see more people using the railway to travel around our country, it needs to become a more attractive offer. That means reliable services, more carriages where needed, comfortable seats, easy storage for luggage and bikes, on-board catering for longer-distance journeys—I have raised this many times with the Minister—good-value fares that are easy to understand, and high speed wifi. We need the railway to be an attractive experience that rivals using the car, which, as we have heard, remains the go-to mode of transport for many people outside our cities. Having heard many noble Lords’ experiences today, I think the account from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, of a 666-minute delay feels like the record.
Stations also need to feel safe: they need to be well-lit and staffed where possible. The accessibility of train stations and surrounding areas needs to be improved for those who are mobility impaired. It was very good to hear, in his opening words, the Minister’s commitment to this space. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, highlighted the impact of this on the economy, as well as on passengers.
A modern railway is going to need significant planning and investment, and a 30-year strategy at its core with measurable KPIs to assess progress. There is no point bringing the track and trains together if there is uncertainty over budgets to run the railway each day, budgets for investing in rolling stock and infrastructure and, dare I say it, even budgets to grow the railway or make improvements that allow greater access for freight and passenger trains, as highlighted by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. We will be tabling amendments in Committee about funding for the railway. Ahead of that, I ask the Minister whether the rolling stock strategy will be published by September, so that noble Lords can see how it sits alongside this legislation and can provide certainty for the industry.
One glaring omission from the Bill is a passenger growth duty. Rail reform is not just about stabilising the system. We strongly support calls for passenger growth targets equivalent to the duty for freight in the Bill and believe that embedding growth for passengers would send a strong message that this is about expanding and growing the railway, rather than managing decline. As my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley mentioned, we want to see “rail miles” introduced on the railway, because a key part of a passenger-centred railway is the need to offer incentives for passengers to try the railway and a loyalty scheme for regular passengers. We believe that Great British Railways needs to look at how to get more people using the railway, rather than cutting trains to reduce costs. There are good initiatives in other European countries, such as the Netherlands. I hope that this is an area that the Minister will be sympathetic towards as we move to Committee.
My noble friend Lord Dixon highlighted the importance of a level playing field for apps and others who sell train tickets, and the wider opportunities in this area to improve services for passengers. We have seen such progress in recent years, centred around the consumer; we must not go backwards. Likewise, my noble friend Lady Leaman rightly described the importance of a quality passenger experience, issues around delay-repay and the need for automated refunds. My noble friend Lady Brinton talked passionately about the importance of GBR becoming a truly accessible railway in every sense and, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, described the daily realities for disabled passengers.
The noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, talked about the rail giving access to work for disabled people. I recently met a young accessibility campaigner from Manchester, Nathaniel Yates. Nathaniel has been campaigning for accessible stations across Manchester. He has been championing the concerns of many young people who attend specialist colleges and are prevented from using the railway, despite stations being nearby. This can be due to a lack of staffing or limited step-free access, and there was a mixed experience of using passenger assistance. Some felt that the accessibility challenges led to them using different rail stations or different, often more costly, modes of transport. We need to see an improvement in accessibility. We will return to this important topic in Committee, to ensure that our railway is fit for everyone.
Passenger safety is also critical. The latest passenger survey, published by Transport Focus last month, showed that personal safety and security on the train and at stations is an increasing priority for passengers. Some 12,000 rail passengers took part in the research and ranked various aspects of travelling by train. Safety concerns came second and third, behind only trains running on time and not being cancelled. For some, personal safety and security on trains topped their “what matters” list, including, in particular, women, disabled people and passengers from black and minority ethnic communities. Passengers say that they feel that increased staff visibility, including ticket checking and challenging low-level anti-social behaviour and the use of CCTV “in the moment” would really help. Great British Railways must ensure that stations are well lit and have CCTV and look at staffing levels across the network.
Turning to other parts of the Bill, concerns remain over the scope of the clauses and the unintended consequences as drafted. We heard support for the growth of freight from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Whitaker. For example, in the world of freight, ports and freight terminals often own and operate rail infrastructure that connects directly to the wider rail network but has been funded and developed privately. For the private sector to continue to invest in this rail-linked infrastructure, the language in the Bill has to be precise, and not allow for GBR to potentially intervene in private rail infrastructure and create legal uncertainty.
London St Pancras Highspeed also has concerns with the language in the Bill, which could unintentionally create uncertainty for specialist infrastructure that sits outside the new GBR access and charging framework. We will seek clarity in Committee. As the Government create this new organisation, it is important that it has the right culture from the start: open, transparent and accessible through all its business and to its core. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House of this at this stage.
We on these Benches have some concerns over the shift in power between the Secretary of State, the Office of Rail and Road and the Passengers’ Council. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, also raised concerns about the Office of Rail and Road and its reduced role. We are concerned that the Secretary of State is, in effect, judge and jury in some areas. We also want to see that the Passengers’ Council has the teeth it needs to do its job well and we want to see decisions published and evidence that has supported any decisions, as well as real engagement with passengers and representative bodies.
My noble friend Lady Humphreys and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, highlighted the needs for Wales, with the semi-devolution there, and across the House we heard a number of different concerns—from the noble Baronesses, Lady May of Maidenhead and Lady Alexander, the noble Lords, Lord Grayling and Lord Lansley, and others—on the issue of devolution. My maiden speech in this House focused on rail devolution. The Minister said on Report of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill on 6 November 2024 in responding to my amendment on rail devolution:
“I can reaffirm to your Lordships’ House that the railways Bill will include a statutory role for devolved Governments and mayoral combined authorities. They will be involved in governing, managing, planning and developing the railways”.—[Official Report, 6/11/24; col. 1543.]
Yet, the Bill as currently drafted, in the view of a number of mayoral authorities, does not provide the statutory powers that mayoral strategic authorities require; rather, they are consultative. It is permissive rather than mandatory. GBR “may” enter into arrangements with local government bodies or it may not. It is consultation-based rather than commissioning-based. It does not provide a clear route for devolving rail funding. As this Government are moving towards establishing more mayoral strategic authorities, it is clear that we need statutory powers designed in from the start rather than bolted on afterwards.
Transport for London and the Mayor of London are concerned that the Bill as drafted would give GBR extensive control over network access for both GBR and non-GBR operators without sufficient safeguarding for devolved or open-access services, as others noble Lords have mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, also flagged issues with the heritage railway sector, which is relevant here too. This could allow GBR to prioritise longer-distance services over metro-style services such as the Elizabeth line, potentially resulting in fewer passenger journeys in and around London, reduced service frequencies, and constraints on future growth. I flag to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who talked about the Elizabeth line, that two-thirds of the investment in the Elizabeth line came from London businesses and development and borrowing from TfL, not national government. That is how you build a successful railway line.
I hope the Minister will reconsider the wording in the Bill around devolution, given his assurance to me previously in this House. We on these Benches want to see Great British Railways succeed and deliver improved train services for passengers and expanded freight, removing lorries from our roads. We look forward to working with the Minister to help improve the Bill and secure the transformation that passengers need and deserve.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I start by associating myself with the remarks made by noble Lords, particularly the Minister, concerning the doleful anniversary we are marking today of the attacks on London’s transport 21 years ago. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his valedictory speech and his service to your Lordships’ House over so many years as well as his broader public service. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this wide-ranging debate. I do not propose in this winding-up speech to respond to each of them individually, but it is worth saying that I was very touched, as I think all of us were, by the remarks made by our noble colleagues who have been affected by the very poor service that the railways often give to those who are in wheelchairs or disabled in other ways.
I thank the Minister for the way he introduced the Bill. Personally, I would be delighted—I am sure your Lordships’ House will understand my position—if Mr Burnham were to replace the Minister on the Front Bench in speaking for transport, but I entirely understand why that is not a widespread opinion across the House.
I will start with a point of agreement. The existing model of privatisation, despite having been profoundly successful and transformative over 20 or 30 years, is not fit for purpose currently, because it depended on very high volumes of passengers. During the pandemic, those volumes collapsed, and they have not recovered since. In current or indeed foreseeable circumstances, it is not possible to maintain the financial model on which privatisation was based. I will grant that point to the Minister from the outset, as I did when we discussed the previous railways Bill that he introduced. Under the existing privatisation scheme, the transfer of fares risk to train operating companies that are not able to bear it in a crisis was a flaw. Although it appeared to work for a very long time, that was, as I said, because the railways were doing very well in terms of passenger demand, but it is not capable of being sustained now.
A degree of reform is needed, and it is worth congratulating the previous Government and my noble friend Lord Grayling on recognising a need for reform and setting it in hand. So we had the Williams review, which recommended maintaining private sector involvement but having the operations conducted on what is often referred to as a concession basis. That is the basis used for the Docklands Light Railway, the Elizabeth line, the London Overground, and buses in London and Greater Manchester. On a concession basis, the fares risk is retained by the franchiser; otherwise, it operates in a very similar manner to what we have at the moment. Nobody recommended going back to British Rail, but that is what this Bill gives us.
At the heart of the Government’s argument is the claim that managing the track and train together is more efficient than any alternative. However, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham—I was not aware of his speech in advance—simply tore that argument to pieces, with complete forensic acuity, in explaining that what is regarded as fragmentation by the Minister is a specialisation that works in so many other areas of our lives. It is a completely ideological position—an unevidenced ideological bet—that the Government are taking on a particular model that has been tried in the past and failed, but they believe that this time somehow it will work again. The Minister needs to explain why the European Union has moved in the opposite direction. He needs to explain why train services are getting better with private competition on the European continent, not getting worse. He needs to tell us what would happen to this Bill if we rejoined the European Union. It would not simply be the detail that would need to change; the whole structure would collapse.
Let me move to the detail. The first question that comes up is devolution. These are the words of Andy Burnham in giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place:
“We want the right to specify timetables … Rather than a right to request, the onus should be the other way around; there should be the right to refuse”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 20/1/26; col. 78.]
He also said:
“From our point of view, we would want … joint decision making”.—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 20/1/26; col. 86.]
Do the Government still adhere to the principles in this Bill on devolution, given that that is what the incoming Prime Minister said just a little while ago?
And he is not alone. The Mayor of London—hardly a person I would expect to be quoting favourably—has said something very similar. He said that, as drafted, the Bill would give GBR extensive control over network access for both GBR and non-GBR operators; the difference between the Mayor of London and the Mayor of Greater Manchester, of course, is that the Mayor of London actually runs passenger rail services. He went on to say that there is no sufficient safeguard for devolved or open access services. So it is not simply a right-wing fantasy that express services might be given priority over local services. I ask the Minister plainly: will the Government now concede that Clause 5 must become a genuine right to devolution, or is the Minister going to come back to the Dispatch Box within months explaining why the Government have changed their position?
On the ORR, in effect, the Bill discards years of economic regulatory expertise that the ORR has built up on track access and charging decisions, handing that role instead to GBR for it to be judge and jury in its own operations. Where the ORR can still act under the Bill, its powers are illusory. It may quash a decision, but that appears to me no more than asking GBR to reconsider, with substitution of the ORR’s own judgment reserved for cases of legal error—a very high threshold and a very difficult bar to meet.
That brings us to understanding the policies that underlie the Bill. Five of the documents that are most central to how the Bill will work in practice have all, we are told, been pushed back to spring 2027. The rumour is that we are not going to have Committee on the Bill until October at the earliest—but even that is not good enough. It will not be spring 2027. We still will not have the documents we need. The ORR’s consultation on its own appeals function—the very process that freight and open access operators will depend on to challenge GBR—is not due until spring 2027. The retail code of practice, which was brought up by my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho, among others, is not due to be published until spring 2027. GBR’s own access and use policy—the document that is meant to stop it favouring its own services over freight and other users—will not appear until spring 2027. The long-term rail strategy will also not be out until spring 2027. So I ask the Minister: how are we meant to give the Bill serious and detailed scrutiny when so many of the documents are still missing?
Let us turn to freight in that case. I am happy to accept the Minister’s personal commitment to the role of rail freight and to increasing it, but there is a clear risk that freight will be deprioritised within Great British Railways—particularly given the network capacity constraints and GBR’s control of both infrastructure and passenger services.
We come to open access. The passenger-focused, innovative railway that the Government promise from GBR already exists. Lumo and Hull Trains scored 90% and 94% respectively for overall satisfaction in Transport Focus’s most recent survey, outperforming most of the contracted network, and they have delivered it through competitive fares and genuine value for money, not through a single national monopoly. Yet this is the sector now being asked to withhold investment in the railways because a Bill built around GBR’s vertical integration signals precisely the animosity towards open access enterprise that these operators have warned against throughout its passage. Of course, access charges can be set as high as GBR decides. It is a matter for GBR; there is no cap. Has the Minister costed the cost to the country of the loss of private investment from open access that this uncertainty is already producing?
That brings us to the passenger. Passenger numbers have gone up since privatisation, as journeys have roughly doubled over that time. The Government’s answer to any problems that passengers have is a new passenger watchdog expanded out of Transport Focus. It is going to cost a large amount of money to run, but what does the passenger get for this expense? It gets a watchdog with no enforcement powers of its own, because enforcement stays with the ORR on referral at the ORR’s discretion. What precisely is the watchdog for if it cannot make GBR do anything?
Turning to industrial relations, even the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, admitted that this is an area that needs proper attention. This Bill is a gift to the trades unions —one almost detects their hand in the drafting of it. The Government have removed in other legislation the 40% support threshold for strike ballots in important public services, including transport. They have scrapped the 50% turnout threshold as well, handing trades unions considerably greater latitude to shut down passenger services at will. But still there is no requirement that pay rises be linked to productivity. Indeed, the RMT’s own Network Rail settlement, which the union openly celebrated, secured a 3.8% RPI-linked rise with explicitly no efficiency or productivity conditions attached. The RMT has said that it now expects similar deals from the train operating companies. I have asked the Government twice at the Dispatch Box whether pay awards under GBR will be linked to productivity and twice received no answer. Will the Minister respond today? There is a further question that the Government cannot dodge indefinitely. The RMT has threatened national strikes, capable of shutting down the network entirely. Will GBR bring about the standardisation of terms and conditions as the sole employer? If it is going to do so, on what terms, at what cost and in exchange for what productivity benefits?
I come to the GBR website and app, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho. This is a solution in search of a problem. We already have a range of innovative retailers, and passengers are perfectly well served by them. Competition has built Britain a world-class rail retail sector, with passengers the primary beneficiaries. I have asked the Minister several times now in Written Questions how much the Government are spending on the GBR website and app but have not been told. Can the Minister answer today?
GBR will compete in a retail market that it also controls, having simultaneously taken over the industry management functions that are currently held by the Rail Delivery Group, including licensing retailers and managing access to data—that is an unprecedented structural conflict of interest, with GBR’s own retailer embedded in its operational business. There is no requirement for independent governance or accounting separation, and no safeguard against public funding cross-subsidising it against competition. When the Minister was Commissioner of Transport for London, under the wise guidance of Boris Johnson, all the TfL journey and fares data became open free to app developers. That was of great benefit to passengers, and we see the apps on our phones. Is he willing to make all of GBR’s fares and journey data, without restriction, open to app developers? Is that something that he might be willing to consider?
I conclude as I started, by trying to find a point of agreement. I concede that there are certain aspects of the railway where a single controlling mind is beneficial—for example, the timetabling or, potentially, the management, improvement and expansion of the infrastructure. However, there is no logic in the single controlling mind also being the largest operator of passenger services. It is that decision to make the single controlling mind also the largest but not the sole operator of passenger services that sets up all the contradictions and conflicts in this Bill which will keep us so busy in Committee.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this thorough and thoughtful debate. I would like to start by paying tribute to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. His distinguished record of service in this place and the Civil Service is a beacon of dedication and commitment to public good. He has brought to our proceedings a deep experience in the heart of government and his contributions are always thoughtful, measured and influential. As always, he is well informed about the railways. Gladstone made provision for the nationalisation of railways in the 1844 Railway Regulation Act. It was not pursued, but it was an early indication that running the railway as one system might be a good idea. I know that the House will join me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, for everything he has done and wishing him all the best for the future after he retires in September.
Turning to the debate at hand, we have heard that everyone across the House can agree that the railways require reform. The current system is clearly no longer working for passengers, operators or taxpayers. Services have been unreliable, customers have been unhappy and the system has provided poor value for money. We have begun taking services into public ownership, but that was never a long-term solution. The Railways Bill is the answer to the issues that have plagued our railways for far too long, providing new leadership, accountability and long-term thinking to the sector and better meeting the needs and expectations of those who rely on it. The Bill continues the great work of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, enabling us to finally reform the wider railway and provide a better service to taxpayers.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have expressed support, with one exception, in my doing this job in the future. I am sure everything they have said will have no effect whatever on the new Prime Minister. I also will not tell my wife. The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Guisborough, referred to me as the “guiding mind”. I just say to him that the one thing that the Bill is designed to produce is to stop Ministers being the guiding mind of the railway. The purpose of the Bill is to have a body of people that can run the railway and who are professional and committed to it.
This has been a varied debate. I am going to do my best to cover as many as possible of the topics that were raised. As ever, it is subject to my handwriting and the vagaries of my notes, and I may write to noble Lords in some cases.
I want to start with access reform because the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said that the infrastructure was not used efficiently. He is right, actually. He talked about digital signalling, as did the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, and they are both right. One of the issues that we have had is that we have not had a long-term plan for the railway. We have not had a long-term strategy in which to decide where to put those investments and where the capacity that they would give would be best utilised. That is one of the reasons for the provisions in the Bill.
On open access, which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Moylan, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and others, the truth is that open access has been severely constrained recently. Most of the applications that have been made to the ORR have been declined simply because the view of the ORR is that there is insufficient capacity on the main lines in Britain to accept more trains. I would contend that one of the reasons for that is that, without a whole system look at the use of the infrastructure, we will never create more paths.
Interestingly, that whole system view of the infrastructure on the east coast main line, which took place several years ago but was not implemented—it could not be implemented because there was nobody to authorise it until I did—did create more capacity. The chances are that, if GBR looks at the job that the Bill will give it, to correctly look at capacity across the railway, I think it is far more likely that there will be capacity on the main lines and that therefore open access will in fact have more chance in the future than it has had in the recent past.
On freight, I thank all those who have said that the freight target is welcome. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, it will drive the Government’s net-zero policies. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, was looking for clarity that there was no intention to interfere in private sector infrastructure. I am happy to give her that clarity: there is no intention to interfere in that. The private sector has invested in rail connections to warehouses and so forth, so I am happy to give that assurance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Leaman, referred to fares and in particular to Delay Repay. There is great inconsistency in the way that that is done currently. I welcome her support for some consistency, as we will talk about elsewhere in the Bill, because that is one of the things that is simply lacking in all the retail arrangements of the railway. It is one of the reasons to move forward with the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, talked about ticket retailing, as did the noble Lords, Lord Dixon of Jericho, Lord Harper and Lord Moylan. We have asked the Office of Rail and Road to provide an industry code of practice, which will also have a clear enforcement regime. We remain in discussion with independent ticket retailers, including the one dominant player, and there will be separation of decision-making between GBR’s retail and other functions.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is right: I am keen on open data. It is important that GBR will share open data. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon of Jericho, said, open data is vital. I am very sympathetic to the development of alternative websites, but it is equally important that we rationalise the 14 that we already have, which either are in or will come into public ownership. If noble Lords listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, they will have heard about the inconsistency in approaches to ticketing, particularly for people who need help and are disabled. That is one of the things that we propose to remedy.
That subject of accessibility, as I said when I introduced the Bill, is a major issue. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson, Lady Brinton and Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Holmes of Richmond, all remarked on the need to make this better and to do more. I completely agree. It is really important. Again, the fragmentation of the railway has led to great inconsistency. It is one of the things that badly needs to be sorted out. We had several debates during the passage of the public ownership Act and I am sure we will have some more this time. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, that getting the passenger experience right will also get accessibility right. I know that we will come back to that subject; it is one on which the Government place great importance.
As for a passenger target, the implication that there is somehow no incentive to do that if it is not written in the Bill is wrong. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, all raised this. There will be a great incentive to grow passengers for GBR, as well as to reduce costs, because GBR will need growth and will need to treat passengers properly in order to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of running the railway. I think there are sufficient incentives in here, but I am sure that we will discuss them further.
Several noble Lords referred to the possibility of the Secretary of State micromanaging the railways. The first thing to say is that that is already the case. The present circumstances leave civil servants, reporting to me and the Secretary of State, deciding how long trains are, where they stop and what the timetable looks like at every station in Britain. You cannot get more micromanagement than that. The intention of the Bill is to turn that round; we do not want the Secretary of State to be deciding those sorts of things, we do not want the Rail Minister to decide them, and we do not want civil servants to decide them. We need a body that will take an overall view of the value of the provision of passenger services and freight on the railway and derive the best timetables with the best train service to achieve it. I am very clear that one of the intentions of this Bill is to stop that.
The Secretary of State will, of course, have significant powers, as one would expect, bearing in mind the amount of public money that goes into the railways, but these powers exist in other places in government. They are not commonly used. The Oil and Gas Authority has received only one ministerial direction in its 10-year history. That contrasts with the situation for several years now where the Secretary of State or the Rail Minister has been invited to approve detailed business plans every year, which more or less go down to the trains stopping at every station. That is something that we need to stop.
There are clearly different views about the powers of the regulator, the Office of Rail and Road. The noble Baroness, Lady May, deprecated the apparent reduction in its powers, as did other noble Lords. I always listen very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who has long experience in this. He has said to me, both outwith the discussions today and in the course of this debate, that the regulator should not be in charge; of course there is a role for regulation, but the regulator should not be in charge of the railway. The sad history of the fragmentation of decision-making on the timetable is good evidence that having the regulator deciding how the system is used is not the best way of doing it.
I turn to a long-term railway strategy, which we have not had for 30 years. My noble friend Lady Alexander of Cleveden is right that a long-term railway strategy makes it possible for GBR to drive economic growth in regional and local communities.
The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, raised the question of enhancements. I agree with him about the challenges to standards. I do not think the fragmentation of the railway between operations and infrastructure led to any significant challenge on standards—it was certainly difficult to achieve it in a railway infrastructure organisation. There is more likelihood of this challenge in the future where operators will be challenging the cost of running and enhancing the railway, and there is also far more chance of the right schemes being authorised because a long-term plan will set out the best things to do with the best returns on the railway, the best capacity increases, in a way that we have not seen for a very long time. We can discuss the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—
Lord Grayling (Con)
I hate to disagree with the Minister, but he will know that the programme of enhancement set aside for CP6 was carefully discussed with him and the executive of Network Rail and represented a significant plan to do precisely the things that the industry said would make the most difference. The tragedy is that it did not happen, and even now under this Government, it is still not happening.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Recollections are a great thing. I recollect that not one of the of schemes that I was invited to by the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, had a business case attached to it. It was a list of schemes that was just a list of schemes. I think that we can do a lot better than that. A long-term railway strategy that invites the railway to list and make business cases for the right schemes is entirely right.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester made the most important point, which is that if you do not have a list of schemes prioritised by business case, you have no chance of getting private sector contributions to railway enhancements which create growth and wealth. That is an important point and something that a long-term railway strategy and the resulting GBR business plan will deal with.
On private sector involvement, the first thing to say is that this Government are not fundamentally opposed to it at all. At the end of this process, when this Bill becomes an Act, 60% of the expenditure by GBR, once established, will be spent in the private sector.
On the balance sheet implications raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I say that the Railways Bill will not impact the way that the rolling stock leases will be classified by the ONS. I have previously discussed with him the confidence of the rolling stock leasing companies that this will not be the case. The story that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, told about how Network Rail crept back into the public sector in 2014 is absolutely right. It did go back on the balance sheet. No fuss was made about it at all. It turned out to be—all the time—a nationalised industry.
The experience of the franchises in recent times is interesting. A number of noble Lords said that concessions could have been adopted. Of course, the last Government had the chance to do that. They already had four private sector operations in their control, but they did not choose to do anything with any of them; that is an interesting feature. One noble Lord—I am afraid I omitted to note the name—said that, in fact, the private sector operators before the last election were not enamoured at all of that model and, therefore, they were not very keen on it. The truth of it is that the railway had stagnated, and this Bill is the way of retrieving the situation.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, Platform4, which is a successful amalgamation of the Network Rail property function and London and Continental Railways, will undoubtedly continue. The railway has an important role in developing land on and around stations, and the rest of the railway land. It is very important that the railway plays its part in the economic development of the places that it serves.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the question of funding certainty. Of course, the Bill continues the infrastructure funding in five-year periods, and it is shown through the provisions of the Bill to continue. The Bill also gives the opportunity to Ministers in due course to give longer funding periods for the operations, but I think that most Ministers would want to see GBR making a success of its job to do so.
As to passenger safety, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, rightly draws the attention of noble Lords to the importance of passenger safety. GBR will have to face this subject directly; I think it will be more equipped to do so than the current railways. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the safety of women and girls is crucial. This is true in relation to personal safety but also, frankly, for encouraging more travel by half the population.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, referred to staff safety. I am happy to confirm to her that the Office of Rail and Road will continue its function of managing safety on the railway and, indeed, prosecuting where that is the appropriate thing to do.
A number of noble Lords raised questions about the passenger watchdog and I know we will have a lot of discussion about this. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, raised the question of a passenger charter and the importance of passengers, which is of course right. I am sure that we will have some discussion about how much power the passenger watchdog should have. I disagree, as I generally do, sadly, with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I think that enforcement of what the passenger watchdog wants to do in relation to the Office of Rail and Road is quite sufficient, and I do not see any problem in doing it.
On devolution issues, which the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, raised first, the limitations of some of this are the limitations of railway geography as opposed to political boundaries. As the still current Mayor of Greater Manchester has discovered, very few train services within mayoral boundaries are wholly within the boundary. The other point is that they run on lines which are part of a national network. That does not at all mean that devolution cannot be done with success, and it does not at all mean that mayors cannot have the passenger services they want. Look at the growth of the Overground network in London. In some cases, those services go outside the London boundary, as several noble Lords will recall from their history in London government.
The way that we achieve that is through intelligent discussion about the balance between the network and its local influence and the network and its national influence. The provisions in the Bill are currently quite sufficient and will allow for a discussion between mayors who have an aspiration for economic development in their part of the country and on the connections that their cities and towns need to have with other parts of the country. The Bill is drafted in precisely the way it is for that reason. My current belief is that the Bill allows that to happen and gives sufficient powers for them to influence how the railway is structured.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised several points about Wales. He will know, of course, that the Barnett formula and how it is applied are matters for His Majesty’s Treasury and the Chancellor. I am sure that the new First Minister of Wales will be asking any new Prime Minister shortly about not only that but fiscal devolution in general. All I can say is that the £445 million that this Government have provided for rail enhancements in Wales is far in excess of that of any previous Government. It includes the north Wales coast and Wrexham, and it is a very good start to the Transport for Wales investment plan, which the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, referred to. I am sure it will continue like that. I have already met the new Transport Minister for Wales and I am sure we will have some powerful discussions.
As to the design of GBR, I hope noble Lords will know that the Government’s firm intention is to devolve GBR to a route and regional basis. It is quite clear that it should not be some grand, centralised and distant organisation. There will have to be functions that are centralised—the access and use policies are one such example—but, in general, this Government want the railway run by people who are identifiable to elected politicians and the local communities they serve. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is right that it is about leadership—not mine, but the leadership of people who can be appointed to run both operations and infrastructure and produce a better service.
One thing that was lost in the previous 30 years is that franchisees changed quite regularly and so did their managements. Local communities and elected Members could never quite get used to who was in charge because it changed quite regularly. That is not right. I have told the people we are appointing now to integrated business units that they should behave as though they are there for the rest of their careers and that they should get on with it.
I am told my time is up, so there is a limit to what I can answer, other than—
Lord Grayling (Con)
It is a procedural point. There has been a discussion about whether the Bill is going to be committed to the Moses Room or to the Chamber, and there is no Motion before us tonight. Could the Minister reassure us that the discussion now is with a view to having Committee stage in the Chamber?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am sorry I gave way because I cannot answer that question—it is not for me to answer.
A large number of noble Lords talked about the history of the railway, whether good or bad—I meant to say more about this, and I am sorry I did not. It is part of British society and we need to run it properly. I will talk separately to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, about heritage railways. The railway has a glorious past and it could be better in future. The Bill is designed to make it better. It puts forward the tools with which we can shape the railway of the future, and I encourage all noble Lords to support it.