Railways Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Wednesday 16th September 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I apologise to the Committee and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, I should first say that I am not buying any more cushions—I have bought enough cushions. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to a discussion yesterday about the functions of Great British Railways. I will write to him with the views that I conveyed in a speech yesterday and to other Members, and place a copy in the Library, so that we are all clear about what the Government believe to be the case. Thirdly, today the Government published a paper on the long-term rail strategy, which will be particularly beneficial for this Committee. It was published this morning.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I will interrupt the Minister, if I may. Of course, it is welcome that a paper has been published today, but I had no idea about this. In an hour or so, this Committee will be debating the long-term rail strategy, completely blind to this new paper. The Government’s timetable for approaching this, which I complained about strongly at Second Reading, is of trying to push through the legislation when Parliament is blind to so many of the policy documents. Many are due in the spring of next year, even after we have enacted the legislation. The Government should think about the extent to which they are abusing parliamentary process and Members of this House.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The publication today is designed to be helpful and I will refer to it in today’s discussion. Since it was only published today, my remarks will include those elements of it that otherwise might not have been available, had it not been published today.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on, I will add to my noble friend’s point—and this is also aimed at the Whip. The danger for the Minister is that if we debate the amendments on the long-term rail strategy, as we will today, and then we study the document published today and decide that there are matters that we wish to raise, all the Minister is going to discover is that further amendments will be put down. Then, we will have a rather repetitive debate about the long-term rail strategy, when we could have had a single debate about it. This will elongate the length of the Committee and we will end up sitting for longer, which is not enormously in our interest, if it is something that we could have dealt with earlier, and I am sure will not be welcome to the Whip. I put that on the record and we will hold that in our back pocket, if required.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

To which I respond to the noble Lord that I believe that the publication is helpful and that the remarks that I am going to make in respect of the debate on the group today—and indeed others—will help in any event and will replicate what noble Lords will find in the document from today.

Amendments 63A, 91A, 116A and 130 relate to innovation. I agree completely with the important role that technology and innovation can play in improving passenger experiences and railway operations. From digitalisation supporting simplifications in fares and ticketing to AI enabling more efficient and safer monitoring of the network, technological innovation will present new opportunities for GBR across all its functions. That is why the Bill already includes a function for GBR to carry out research and development and to support innovation in relation to railways in Clause 3(1)(f). That means that a core responsibility for GBR will be to support and promote innovation on the railways, including the potential development and adoption of new technologies across infrastructure and passenger services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Reay (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Willis, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their amendments. There are parts of the railway that are vulnerable to flooding, extreme weather and other climate risks. GBR clearly needs to understand those vulnerabilities and ensure that the network is resilient. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and my noble friend Lord Harper say, we need to take into consideration the administrative burdens and obligations that many of these amendments would likely engender.

There is also an important point to be made about electrification. We should recognise the contribution already made by open access operators. Lumo’s east coast fleet is entirely electric, while Hull Trains has invested in modern bi-mode trains that operate electrically wherever the infrastructure allows. Open access operators and private investment have become even more important given that, just last year, the Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander, said that any further electrification of the lines is “not affordable right now”. This demonstrates that private operators and private investment is the best way to achieve the Government’s environmental objectives.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who is not in his place at the moment, on Amendment 89A. I will write to noble Lords with the information I have about the likely future origin of steel for UK Railways.

On these amendments, I hope that all noble Lords will note that rail makes up only 1.4% of overall transport greenhouse gas emissions, and rail freight emits 76% less carbon per tonne than road transport; and there are even lower emissions using electric traction or low-carbon fuels. Rail is therefore already one of the cleanest ways to travel, which is something we should be proud of. Of course, there is always more to be done, and because of the duty in Clause 18 requiring GBR to act in the public interest, including by considering the environment, it will be subject to more requirements than Network Rail, the current infrastructure provider.

Amendment 93 touches on a critical issue for the railway. Noble Lords referred to the impacts of extreme weather on the network that we have all recently seen and experienced, particularly this summer. That is exactly why one of the five strategic objectives in the long-term rail strategy is environmental sustainability, which will include protecting transport links by focusing on climate adaptation. The long-term rail strategy discussion document published today refers to the critical importance of this issue and commits that the strategy will suggest prioritisation of climate resilience works based on the areas at greatest risk.

However, I agree about not waiting for the strategy to act. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, both said that more action is needed now. Indeed, Network Rail is already developing adaptation pathways that will, on a region-by-region basis, set out the organisation’s approach to responding to environmental challenges, focusing on the high-priority parts of the network. This has already led to meaningful improvements and, particularly in respect of the events of this summer, widely significant works to alleviate extreme temperatures and soil moisture deficit all over southern and eastern England. This will of course be continued by GBR once it is established.

On Amendments 111 and 130B, I am happy to reassure noble Lords that the environment and the protection of nature will form a vital part of decision-making on the railway, just as the amendments seek. All relevant environmental legislation and targets will apply to GBR in full and, as I said, GBR will be subject to existing environmental requirements at both the national and devolved level. As discussed with the noble Earl, I can confirm today that targets in existing legislation are referenced in the long-term rail strategy, to demonstrate the importance that the Government place on this. I hope that noble Lords will see this reference in the discussion document.

I turn to Amendment 330J. The Government are working to develop a long-term strategic approach to decarbonising and adapting our railways, and GBR will be vital in progressing this. That is why the long-term rail strategy also contains a strategic objective on environmental sustainability, which includes protecting transport links by focusing on climate adaptation and delivering rail decarbonisation. As I said, GBR has a duty under Clause 18 to act in the public interest. GBR will discharge this duty when it develops its business plan, where it must set out the activities that it will undertake to meet its duties and its long-term rail strategy, both of which clearly have environmental considerations.

On Amendment 78A, it might be helpful to confirm that, where subsidy control rules apply, that is to ensure proper management of public money and transparency. Subsidy control is not intended to—and will not—prevent the Government from spending money on their priorities. It would certainly not prevent the Government from spending money on the environment or on accessibility. When funding the railway, the Secretary of State will also be under duties to consider the environment and the interests and needs of disabled people, which will inform her funding decisions. In summary, GBR must consider the environment and environmental targets, which will be embedded in key strategic decisions on the railway.

Regarding Amendment 313, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, the Climate Change Act 2008 already requires the Government to prepare policies and proposals to meet the UK’s carbon budgets. The most recent plan was published in October last year. It includes policies to decarbonise transport, including the railway. It supports vital infrastructure improvements such as the further electrification of the network and rolling stock and recognises the importance of shifting passenger and freight journeys from more carbon-intensive transport modes to rail. As I outlined earlier, this can make a huge difference to carbon outputs.

The forthcoming rolling stock and infrastructure strategy will set out, for the first time in 30 years, an integrated plan to take this forward. Noble Lords referred to modern technology, including the use of battery technology and discontinuous electrification. They also referred to the recently announced train order for TransPennine, which includes trains that run on electric wires and have batteries where the wires are absent.

Given these existing provisions, it would be duplicative to impose an additional requirement on the Secretary of State to produce a plan to reduce the carbon footprint of the railway network. The Government are already working on this across departments so that we have a joined-up response to climate change.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

79: After Schedule 2, insert the following new Schedule—
“ScheduleDirect enforcement of consumer protection legislation by the ORRDigital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024
1 Part 3 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (enforcement of consumer protection law) is amended as follows.2 In section 150 (specified prohibition condition)—(a) in subsection (2)—(i) in the opening words, for “both” substitute “more”;(ii) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) the practice—(i) relates to railways or the provision of railway services, and(ii) is in breach of an enactment listed in Schedule 16B (to the extent specified).”;(b) after subsection (2A) insert—“(2B) In subsection (2)(c) “railway” and “railway services” have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the Railways Act 1993.”3 In section 179A(1) (meaning of “direct enforcement authority”), after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) in the case of a commercial practice that meets the specified prohibition condition because paragraph (c) of section 150(2) applies, the Office of Rail and Road.”4 In section 209 (powers to amend)—(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (f) insert—“(g) Schedule 16B so as to add, remove or vary an entry for an enactment.”; (b) in subsection (2), for “or (f)” substitute “, (f) or (g)”;(c) in the heading, for “and 16A” substitute “, 16A and 16B”.5 After Schedule 16A insert—“Schedule 16B Enactments directly enforceable by the Office of Rail and Road

Enactment	Extent
1. Acts of Parliament
Consumer Rights Act 2015	Chapter 4 of Part 1 Consumer Rights Act 2015 Part 2 Part 3 of Schedule 5
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024	Chapter 1 of Part 4
2. Secondary legislation and assimilated direct legislation
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations	All articles except article 26
Rail Passengers’ Rights and Obligations Regulations 2010	All regulations
Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012	All regulations
Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013	All regulations
3. Other subordinate legislation
Any other subordinate legislation (not otherwise listed in this Schedule) so far as made under an enactment so listed	The entirety of the legislation”

Consumer Rights Act 2015
6 In paragraph 8 of Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (investigatory powers etc), in the definition of “direct enforcement authority”, after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) the Office of Rail and Road.””Member’s explanatory statement
The Schedule would amend the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in order to provide the ORR with direct enforcement powers in specified circumstances relating to railways. It would build on provision in clause 5 of and Schedule 1 to the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 79, I will also speak to Amendment 293 tabled in my name. As many noble Lords are aware, consumer protections, such as ensuring transparency of fees, safeguard customer interests and drive economic growth by promoting trust and confidence. To bolster consumer protection, the Competition and Markets Authority was awarded direct consumer enforcement powers in 2024. This meant that the CMA could determine breaches of consumer law directly and take action to rectify them, rather than having to apply to the courts if it saw a problem.

The new Government’s general approach will be to award these same direct enforcement powers to sector regulators as well, which will be able to undertake the same enforcement activity as the CMA, but with additional sectoral expertise. The Government are beginning this process by awarding the Civil Aviation Authority these powers via the civil aviation Bill, and today I propose that this Bill does the same for the Office of Rail and Road.

A live example of consumer protection activity is currently under way. The CMA has launched an investigation into drip pricing, a practice where the total fee is not revealed until late into the purchase process, luring consumers into falsely believing a product to be cheaper than it is. With these amendments, in future the ORR could undertake this kind of investigation in relation to the rail industry, utilising sector expertise to seek swift redress for customers should a breach of consumer law be found.

This Bill seeks to put passengers at the heart of decision-making. Having the sector regulator able to take swift and decisive corrective action on breaches of consumer law is an important and sensible amendment that will boost customer confidence in railway travel. I therefore urge noble Lords to support these amendments. If the Committee is content, I will put them to a decision at the end of this group. If not, I can discuss them before Report and table them again then. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank Peers for the Planet, which alerted me to the fact that I had an amendment today, because I got missed off the distribution list from the Government Whips’ Office. I am afraid that I have not had the opportunity to explore other people’s amendments in this group and I hope that they will not think me rude in covering some of these points.

I am slightly disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has left, because I thought that he might like part of my speech. My amendment may make it seem like we are going back to the 1980s or the 1990s, and in some ways it does. There is a twofold approach to what I have tried to do. I was told that it was not in scope to remove functions from the ORR but that I could create a new one instead, so I have created the one that was originally created back in the 1990s. That is basically to go back to having a simpler body that looks after rail. Ideally, roads would be dealt with elsewhere, if at all.

Let us follow a bit of the logic here. Great British Railways will basically be taxpayer owned—government owned—and there is now no need whatever to have a non-ministerial department as a regulator. This will be run by the Government. I am more than happy to sit down with the Minister another time to go through how he could get some brownie points or gold stars with the First Secretary of State in helping to rewire the state, given the discussion that has been going on within the Government about how to get back more control. The control is not just about owning the railways; it is about how people are accountable. A non-ministerial department is accountable not to Ministers but to Parliament. That does not mean that there are no discussions and the like but, if the Government are going to own the railways, I think people would rather them to be in charge, to be accountable and to look into how they operate.

I appreciate that there is an element here about safety, and there are currently two functions of that. The Railway Accident Investigation Branch is not part of the ORR; it is a body that reports directly to the Secretary of State. The ORR has other functions to do with safety, which it took on in 2006 instead of the Health and Safety Executive. It is perfectly acceptable for there be a much closer relationship, in thinking about how safety is applied on government-owned railways, than through some other third-party body.

There is another example. The Health and Safety Executive is a NDPB, but the Defence Safety Authority is in the Ministry of Defence. It has a different way of having accountability: to avoid it going straight to the Secretary of State, it goes through a Permanent Secretary.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is back, and I hope that he might enjoy part of my speech on helping to rewire the state and have fewer of these non-ministerial departments. The reason why I am focusing on this is that, if the whole point is to have much more control of railways by Ministers, there is a sense of starting to strip away other unnecessary aspects of the state to make sure that that can get done efficiently and effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I come to Amendment 143, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, dealing with Clauses 67 and 68. These clauses set out how the ORR is to consider appeals; the Committee will discuss those arrangements in detail in a later group. The clauses already provide that the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about steps to be taken before an appeal can be brought, time limits, and governing the practice and procedure of appeals. It is therefore not clear what the purpose of guidance is in relation to the appeals procedure, but it should clearly not be used to seek to control how the ORR conducts appeals by means which are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, as would be the case for regulations made by statutory instrument. At this stage, the Committee should be told why and for what purpose such guidance may be issued by the Secretary of State in relation to the appeals procedures. Since there will be statutory regulation made which will be scrutinised, what is the guidance adding which is not subject to that scrutiny?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I first turn to government Amendments 79 and 293, in response to the noble Lords, Lord Grayling and Lord Moylan, who have just spoken about them. These amendments are just giving the ORR the same powers as the CMA now has in consumer law to enforce directly—for example, on drip-pricing and other issues which negatively affect consumers. It does not change the law. It just enables the ORR to directly enforce the law, as the CMA can.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

The Minister will remember the debates we had on civil aviation legislation and the powers provided to enter homes and office buildings and to read documents, and so forth. I do not understand why in the rail industry—which will be dominated by a single national body, answerable to the Secretary of State—we need exactly the same powers. I do not feel that this can be pushed through in Committee. I suggest that the Minister might keep this in abeyance until Report and provide a much more detailed letter to us all to explain this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. If he is concerned about Amendments 79 and 293, not only will I withdraw them but I will invite him to discuss them further on Report.

I turn to Amendments 134, 135, 137, 138 and 140 and the opposition to Clause 20 standing part. This Government recognise that there are many circumstances in which competition brings benefits to the users of railway services. Noble Lords have mentioned the supply chain, where competition drives innovation and efficiency, and the online retail market, where competition provides choice and drives up the quality of passenger experience. However, there are other railway functions where the promotion of competition in the new circumstances is not appropriate and will be counterproductive.

We have deliberately specified in Clause 20 when this competition duty should apply. I will set out our approach here. Competition should be focused on where it delivers the outcomes that we are seeking, as set out in the duties. In other words, competition is a tool that can be used to achieve better passenger outcomes, or more freight services, or economic benefits. When competition supports those aims then we agree that it should be promoted. For example, competition in retail online markets supports better outcomes for passengers because it gives them more choice. We know from the debates in your Lordships’ House that lots of disabled passengers are looking forward to the GBR app, which will allow them to book all tickets and passenger assistance in one place. Other disabled passengers, such as passengers with vision impairments, prefer a wider choice of apps so that they can select which ones integrate best with their support systems. This is a perfect example of the competition that the railway genuinely needs, which is why the ORR’s competition duty will apply when it writes the code of practice.

On access, in comparison, the best outcome for passengers is the service which most meets their needs. That often means a frequent, reliable service, with stops in the right places, and a regular, coherent pattern of services. Competition does not necessarily achieve that. In the past, competition has resulted in operators making timetable changes that seek to maximise their own revenue share, not designing an overall timetable that makes sense to passengers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased that there is so much agreement that we need a genuine long-term plan for the railway. Indeed, the counterpart of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, in the other place called it the strongest element of the Bill. I believe we share the same vision for the genuine change that a long-term rail strategy can provide for the industry and the country.

I am sorry that noble Lords have not received the consultation document—for that is what it is. It is not the strategy itself but a document about the strategy. To the extent to which noble Lords have not received it at all, I will make sure that they have a copy in a form that can be read, either this evening or tomorrow morning. I am sorry about the timing.

Amendment 90 is on heritage rail. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and other noble Lords here know that I am a strong supporter of these services, but the strategy is not the right place for consideration of heritage rail. The strategy is intended to be where the Secretary of State sets out the strategic objectives, priorities and challenges of the railway over the next 30 years. These are very much at the macro level, such as societal, technological and environmental trends over the coming decades. The strategy will help GBR make choices that have a fundamental impact on the British economy and society for future generations.

While I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the past informing the future, I hope he will agree that heritage services are more appropriately dealt with at the next level of operational detail down. Rather than being included in the strategy, heritage services are better considered as part of, for example, the access and use policy. That is where GBR can effectively safeguard the provision of those services and ensure that they have enough access to continue providing the benefits that they do. I hope the noble Lord is as pleased as I am to see that the draft access and use policy published last week included mention of heritage services, showing that they are considered at the heart of GBR’s access decision-making, alongside freight and other non-GBR passenger services.

I would want to avoid too hasty a consideration of heritage railway routes as part of the national network, where, at least at present, that poses significant challenges to some of their finances and existence. I will return to this subject in group seven, and Amendment 118, which will deal also with points that my noble friend Lord Berkeley raised.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on, perhaps I may raise one point and then the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will respond at the end. I follow the Minister’s argument about whether the strategy is the right place. The only thing I would be concerned about is whether achieving things in the strategy means GBR taking decisions that have not the intended consequence but the consequence that they impact heritage railways, without GBR having thought about that or taken it into account at that stage.

It may be that it is not right to include full consideration of heritage railways in the strategy document. What I would not want is to have it done at a level down, and then decisions be taken about the overall network that impact it. I will throw that one out there, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, can no doubt respond when he sums up at the end.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

I thank the noble Lord. I was looking at what I might say in group 7 about Amendment 118, which might well deal with that. Clearly, the access sought on the national network is access for specific trains at specific times, and therefore it is in the access and use arrangements that that is formalised. Of course, those services pay track access charges, so on the whole it is in GBR’s interest to want to run the services, providing that it is capable of finding the paths. We will come to that in Amendment 118.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Will a definition of what a heritage railway service is be included?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I will think about that, if I may. There are various phrases, such as “tourist”, “charter” and “heritage”—I was replicating the use by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, of “heritage” to embrace all three. That is probably the best way of doing that. Some of the heritage seems questionable, as it seems to have occurred during my recent life—but I am quite old now. We are talking about heritage including both charter and tourist trains; the noble Lord nods, so I feel confident about that.

I turn to Amendments 92, 95, 96A, 97A, 101, 98, 99 and 100. While I appreciate the intent of Amendment 92, it is not clear to me that the Bill needs to set out that the strategy will be 30 years’ long in legislation. We have stated a clear intent for the strategy to cover 30 years in multiple locations, including in the strategy’s factsheet, in the Bill’s explanatory notes, and at the Dispatch Box in the other place, and I confirm it again today. I also confirm that it will feature in the discussion document on the long-term rail strategy, which we have referred to. Although nothing in the Bill requires the Strategy to be 30 years’ long, I remind the noble Baroness that precedent plays a strong role in government.

On amendments 95, 101 and 96A, the Bill already requires the strategy to be published, and we have also committed to the Transport Select Committee to place copies in both Houses’ Libraries and to publish a Written Ministerial Statement alongside the strategy publication, so that the contents are immediately brought to the attention of the House. Our intention is that that should also apply to any changes in the strategy. I am confident that if the strategy were to fall short of its 30-year goal or if Members of your Lordships’ House took issue with its contents, there would be many, including the noble Baroness and noble Lords present in the Committee, ready and willing to hold the Government to account, including by requesting a debate, without needing to say that in legislation.

I do not agree with amendments 97A, 98, 99 and 100. One of the Government’s key ambitions is to grow passenger numbers and encourage modal shift. The passenger watchdog is valuable in recognising barriers to passenger growth, enabling the Secretary of State to prioritise tackling obstacles to it in the strategy. Wales is included as a statutory consultee because, as we discussed previously, the devolution position in Wales is different and the strategy will cover England and Wales in full. Mentioning Wales on the face of the Bill therefore demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the Welsh Government’s views are represented. Meanwhile, our memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Government already sets out that Scotland will be engaged on the strategy, to ensure that our respective strategies are aligned, but the Bill reflects the different devolution settlements in rail. I add that the Scottish Government have consented to this Bill as drafted. While I agree that mayors play an important role in local transport planning and economic development, it is not necessary to name every single one of them as consultees on the strategy. I assure noble Lords that engagement with mayors is planned as part of the strategy’s development, and that engagement will inform the final strategy. That is made clear in the document we published today.

On Amendment 98, the role of the ORR is that of a regulator and adviser. It is not for the ORR to set out priorities for the railway for 30 years; that is clearly for the Government of the day to do, and it is for the ORR to provide advice about how that vision is actioned. That is exactly what the ORR will do by providing advice on the funding and business planning processes for GBR, which will include advice on how GBR should go about achieving the wider priorities set out in the long-term strategy. The Government will engage with the ORR in the development of the strategy, as we do in the development of almost all railway publications, but this is regular business and does not require a statutory footing.

On Amendment 99, the strategy is about setting out a vision for rail, including the long-term outcomes that need to be delivered to support the Government’s broader social, economic and environmental policy ambitions—for example, growing housing or improving access to jobs. Rail operators can help to deliver that vision, and they will of course be involved. As a routine matter of business, the Government engage with freight and passenger operators regularly, and we have had multiple discussions on the development of the strategy already. This has allowed them to feed in without the requirement for them to be formally consulted. They will of course also be consulted on GBR’s business plan, which will explain how the rail industry will achieve the Secretary of State’s objectives. The access and use policy deals with consultation on access decisions and service frequency.

On Amendment 100 and consulting the British Transport Police, although I agree that safety and security are key for users of the railways and that the British Transport Police are critical to supporting this, the strategy will not set out operational decisions which will be more relevant to the transport police. The strategy will set out what the Secretary of State wants to achieve and GBR’s business planning will work out how to achieve her goals. That is when the engagement with the BTP will take place.

On Amendment 102, the existing duties in Clause 16 already ensure that ministerial strategies will be prioritised. GBR and the ORR will be expected to demonstrate how they have considered the strategies and how their activities align with the objectives set over time. As already mentioned, GBR’s business plan will work towards delivering the long-term rail strategy and the Scottish Minister’s strategy, and will set measurable KPI targets to help it achieve the overarching long-term goals. The Secretary of State will sign off the business plan only after the ORR has confirmed that the plans align with these strategies and GBR’s other duties.

I propose not to talk to Amendments 103 and 104 as I note that the noble Lord, Lansley, who is not in his place today, and I agreed last week not to repeat the debate. As I said then, I will reflect on the valuable points he has made.

On Amendments 105 and 128, I briefly address the Moreton-in-Marsh transport hub collaboration that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, raised. I am a great supporter of projects such as this which seamlessly link rail and bus services, taxis, pedestrians and cyclists to reduce road traffic and congestion and, while I cannot pre-empt the community infrastructure levy process, I encourage the town council and the Great Western Railway to continue their engagement with it. I look forward to hearing more about this in the future. I hope that will do him.

The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the importance of integrating rail passenger services with other public transport modes, which is why we published a strategy for integrated transport in April this year that set out our ambition to create a simpler, more connected and people-focused network across England.

In addition, I have also committed to the long-term rail strategy including objectives to improve the integration of railway passenger services with other modes of transport. The discussion document discusses the importance of meeting multimodal expectations and reducing end-to-end journey times and this will be a key long-term priority. We are absolutely committed to improving connectivity across the country. When noble Lords read the Secretary of State’s introduction, they will see commitment to integration set out there too.

The Bill also includes practical measures to make integrated transport a reality. Both GBR and the Secretary of State will be required to promote the interests of passengers and to act in the public interest, which would absolutely include working with the providers of other transport modes to improve connectivity. In addition, as we have already discussed, GBR will have regard to local transport plans, which will naturally lead to improvements in connectivity by encouraging collaboration with mayoral strategic authorities that have responsibility for wider local transport services.

The Bill also continues to enable the local devolution of railways, and the Government have published guidance to support this, creating more opportunities for integration of train and bus services. If the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is talking about the commitment in the 1993 Act, I am firmly convinced that the commitments to the mayoral combined authorities in this Bill and the other commitments that I have discussed equally meet that commitment.

I will just say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that he can have his own views about British Rail and integration but, in fact, it used to be quite good and it is the deregulation of buses outside London in 1985 that destroyed a lot of the integration over much of England. For example, railway tickets were interoperable with bus services, but that Act finished that one.

I turn to Amendment 101A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It was a pleasure to discuss all the issues that she spoke about today, and more, with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, when we met this week. Our overarching plan for the framework is that the Secretary of State sets objectives in the long-term rail strategy and GBR delivers them through an integrated plan. It is our strong view that accessibility should not be considered in isolation. Decisions about stations, rolling stock, passenger assistance, information and investment are most effective when planned together. Embedding accessibility within the long-term rail strategy rather than a separate document ensures that it informs every major decision GBR takes, rather than being treated as a stand-alone issue.